Abstract
This chapter focuses on how science is embedded in various economic, social and cultural contexts. The chapter emphasizes that context is important in understanding both why a given scientific question is important at a given time and place, as well as how that context affected the content of the particular theory. The chapter turns to the “social construction” of science, that is, the process by which scientists (biologists in his case) construct a view of nature using models, metaphors and analogies, along with certain philosophical perspectives derived from their cultural circumstances. This view of science is contrasted to the older “treasure hunt” view, which sees the natural world and its relationships (laws or concepts) already existing, only to be “discovered” by the scientist. The chapter then moves on to consider four case studies dealing with the question of social responsibility of scientists and the use of their work: “eugenics,” the use of genetics to try and improve the social and mental qualities of the human population in the early twentieth century; the use of herbicides, developed initially for agricultural purposes, to defoliate forests in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war; issues revolving around the use of human embryonic stem cells for biomedical research; and the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including their impact on agriculture and farming practices. The ethical issues in the use of humans as subjects in research is illustrated by the history of the long-term Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment in the United States (1930–1970). The final two sections of the chapter focus on the relationship between science and religion, including teaching some form of “creationism” or Intelligent Design in public schools alongside Darwinian evolution. Here, the chapter emphasizes the very different philosophical bases on which religious explanations of events in the natural world are built (philosophical idealism), compared to those in the sciences (philosophical materialism).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
The official definition according to the Congena Protocol on Biosafety, an international agency that regulates trade in GMOs.
- 2.
The safety of genetically-engineered foods was partly put to rest in the mid-1970s when a group of molecular biologists, convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences at Asilomar State Beach in California, met to discuss regulations on recombinant DNA research (as we have seen, an early step in attaching together DNA from one organism with that of another). The conference drew up a series of measures to ensure the safety of recombinant research, especially since the public became highly concerned by the use of bacteria and viruses as vectors and the possibility these could get loose into the general environment. The conference also affirmed the need for molecular biologists carrying out recombinant DNA work be as open and transparent to the general public as possible.
- 3.
The first higher animal, the Oncomouse, was patented by Harvard University in 1988 for work carried out by Philip Leder and his associates. The OncoMouse is a genetically modified mouse that carries oncogenes (Onco, Greek for tumor) and their control elements that, when activated, significantly increases the mouse’s susceptibility to cancer. The Oncomouse has become a widely-used model organism for cancer research. The DuPont company later obtained the patent, which it held until its expiration in 2005.
- 4.
UNFAO, State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Background Document for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, Leipzig, Germany, June 1996: pp. 17–23. These figures are cited in Andrew Kimbrell (ed), Fatal Harvest: The Tragedy of Industrial Agriculture (Washington, D.C., Island Press, 2001: p. 50).
- 5.
Populations of infectious organisms include mutant forms which possess immunity to antibiotics and, when exposed, are therefore selected for survival over the non-mutant forms. Pharmaceutical research laboratories are therefore constantly having to produce new variations and/or combinations of antibiotics to which the new forms may not be immune. Ironically, even the most ardent Creationist (doubtless including even congressman DeLay!), when ill, will not hesitate to take advantage of antibiotics developed in response to resistant forms of infectious organisms that developed this resistance by the very processes—mutation and natural selection—which direct evolution!.
Further Reading
Much has been written on all the areas of science and its social interactions as touched upon in this chapter. A few items for further exploration are listed here by chapter sub-headings.
The Social Construction of Science
Dear, P. (1995). Cultural history of science: An overview with reflections. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20, 150–170. (A thorough discussion of what it means to try and interpret science in its cultural and social context).
Jones, R. (1989). The historiography of science: Retrospect and future challenge. In M. Shortland & A. Warwick (Eds.), Teaching the history of science (pp. 80–99). Oxford: Blackwell. (This is a good review of various methods of interpreting science over the past half century, from the “traditional approach” to social constructionism).
Young, R. (1985). Malthus and the evolutionists: The common context of biological and social theory. In R. Young (Ed.), Darwin’s metaphor: Nature’s place in Victorian culture (pp. 23–55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (A classic essay showing the influence of Victorian social and economic metaphors on Darwin’s thinking).
The Social Responsibility of Science
Allen, G. E. (1999). Genetics, eugenics and the medicalization of social behavior: Lessons from the past. Endeavour, 23, 10–19. (A discussion of the development of eugenics and its political consequences with special reference to the relationship between the movement in the United States and that in Germany after the rise of power of the National Socialists).
Benedek, T. G., & Erlen, J. (1999). The scientific environment of the Tuskegee study of syphilis, 1920–1960. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 43(1), 1–23. (A more sympathetic discussion of the Tuskegee study, trying to argue that in the context of its day, the study was neither racist nor unconcerned with the health of its participants).
Galston, A. (1971). Education of a scientific innocent. Natural History, 80, 16–22. (Arthur Galston details his unwitting involvement in developing herbicides that wreaked havoc on the ecosystems of Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war).
Jones, J. H. (1981). Bad blood. The Tuskegee syphilis experiment. New York: Free Press. (A detailed, well-written popular account of the Tuskegee experiment).
Lombardo, P. A., & Dorr, G. M. (2006). Eugenics, medical education, and the Public Health Service: Another perspective on the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 80(2), 2006): 291–316. (Provides a detailed discussion of the three major organizers of the Tuskegee experiment in the early 1930s, and their direct involvement with the then-current eugenics movement).
Paul, D. (1995). Controlling human heredity. Atlantic Highland, New Jersey: Humanities Press. (A very readable book that provides a good overview of the whole eugenics movement and its social consequences).
The Ethics of Stem Cell Research
Baker, J. 2013. Shall we laugh or shall we cry? The abortion issue: Scientific information, religious nonsense, political mayhem. Amazon, ISBN-13: 978-1479243587. (A broader exploration of the issues surrounding right-to-life issues, including abortion, women’s rights and reproductive policies in general).
Maienschein, J. (2003). Whose view of life? Embryos, cloning and stem cells. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Contains a thorough historical review of embryological approaches to understanding the development of human life, and attempts to determine when life begins, especially from both the biological and theological point of view, ranging from Aristotle to the present day).
Genetically Modified Organisms
Carter, C., Moschini, G.-C., & Sheldon, I. (Eds.). (2011). Genetically modified food and global welfare. Vol. 10 of Frontiers of Economics and Globalization Series. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing. (An edited volume with a wide-ranging collection of articles on both health and safety of GMOs).
External Link: “Everything You Wanted to Know about GM Organisms”: http://www.new scientist.com/channel/life/gm-food. A compendium provided by the magazine New Scientist.
Finochario, M. A. (2009). That Galileo was imprisoned and tortured for advocating copernicanism. In Numbvers, R. L. (Ed.), Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion (Chapter 8: pp. 68–78). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (An up-to-date assessment and debunking of the traditional portrayal of Galeilo’s trial and its aftermath. The same volume also contains reassessments of many other “mths” about science and religion).
Jon Entine, “GMOs, Yes!” (pp. 15–32), and Robert Millstein, “GMOs? Not So Fast.” (pp. 33-46). These articles are simply and clearly written and together provide a good forum for discussion. They could easily be used as the basis for debate in classrooms and elsewhere. Can be found on-line at commonreader.wustl.edu.
Kingsbury, N. (2009). Hybrid: The history and science of plant breeding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Although this book covers the history of plant breeding over a much longer period of time than the advent of GMOs, it also places recent developments in biotechnology in a useful historical perspective).
Millstein, Roberta. (2016). GMOs? Not so fast. The Common Reader: A Journal of the Essay, 1(1), 33–46. (A brief simple summary of some of the issues, and answers, raised by opponents of GMOs to their widespread distribution).
Losey, John E., Linda S. Rayor and Maureen E. Carter (1999). Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399 (20 May), 214.
Scientific Creationism and the Relations between Science and Religion.
Nelkin, D. (1982). The creation controversy. New York: W. W. Norton. (This is a brief but useful summary of the creationist debate especially with respect to the Arkansas law of 1981).
Numbers, R. L. (1992). The creationists: The evolution of scientific creationism. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Provides a valuable historical context for the development of various Creationist movements in the United States over the past 150 years. The author places the modern Creationist movement in a long line of evangelical tradition that has taken refuge in Biblical literalism).
Two articles, published back-to-back in The common reader: A journal of the essay, Vol. 1 (No. 1, 2016) succinctly summarize the opposing views.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Allen, G.E., Baker, J.J.W. (2017). The Social Context of Science: The Interaction of Science and Society. In: Scientific Process and Social Issues in Biology Education. Springer Texts in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44380-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44380-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-44378-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-44380-5
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)