Advertisement

Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education: EcoJustice Ethics Through Socioscientific Issues (SSI)

  • Michael P. Mueller
  • Dana L. Zeidler
Chapter
Part of the Cultural Studies of Science Education book series (CSSE, volume 3)

Abstract

Socioscientific issues (SSI) provide situations where science teachers and students analyze complex issues associated with ethical, political, and social dilemmas, such as whether animals should be kept in zoos or whether plants should be genetically modified. While engaging in socioscientific issues, students become informed about scientific conditions and develop epistemological styles for dealing with scientific research and the consequences thereof. During a time of increasing awareness around cultural diversity, biodiversity, and ecological degradations, epistemic development is paramount for helping students evaluate how they frame their relationships with others including nonhuman species and physical environments. In this regard, social justice movements have been too limited and exclusive, with a higher priority for humankind. Social justice, as currently conceptualized in the science education literature, is seldom extended to nonhuman animals, plants, and the land. Social justice is often associated with disparities between the haves and have-nots, which is historically contrived with middle-class values, norms, and conventions. It is inherently limited to what is considered right for humans without considering how decisions convened around social justice will impact nonhumans.

Keywords

Science Education Science Teacher Transgenic Fish Transgenic Zebrafish Socioscientific Issue 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atkin, J. M., & Black, P. (2003). Inside science education reform: A history of curricular and policy change. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bowers, C. A. (2001). Educating for eco-justice and community. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowers, C. A. (2006). Revitalizing the Commons: Cultural and educational sites of resistance and affirmation. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  5. Bratspies, R. M. (2005). Glowing in the dark: How America’s first transgenic animal escaped regulation. Minnesota J.L. Science and Technology, 6, 457–498.Google Scholar
  6. International Panel on Climate Change (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contributions of working group I to the third assessment report of the International Panel on Climate Change. UK/New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cortemeglia, C., & Beitinger, T. L. (2005). Temperature tolerances of wild-type and red transgenic zebra danios. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 134, 1431–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Melo-Martin, I., & Intemann, K. K. (2007). Can ethical reasoning contribute to better epistemology? A case study in research on racial disparities. European Journal of Epidemiology, 22(4), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dewey, J. (1916/1966). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Dewey, J. (1935). The teacher and his world. The Social Frontier, 1(4), 7.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York/London: Collier Macmillan Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Dr. Seuss (1960). One fish two fish red fish blue fish. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. FDA statement regarding glofish. (2003, December 9). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm161437.htm
  14. FDA’s response to public comments. (2009, June 25). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/ucm113612.htm
  15. Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gong, Z., Wan, H., Tay, T. L., Wang, H., Chen, M., & Yan, T. (2003). Development of transgenic fish for ornamental and bioreactor by strong expression of fluorescent protein in the skeletal muscle. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 308, 58–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gong, Z., He, J., Ju, B., Lam, T. J., Xu, Y., & Yan, T. (2006). Chimeric gene constructs for generation of fluorescent transgenic ornamental fish. United States Patent, 7(135), 613.Google Scholar
  18. Green, T. F. (1988). Voices: The educational formation of conscience. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kapuscinski, A. R. (2005). Current scientific understanding of the environmental biosafety of transgenic fish and shellfish. Science and Technical Review, 24, 309–322.Google Scholar
  20. Martusewicz, R. A. (2005). Eros in the commons: Educating for eco-ethical conscientiousness in a poetics of place. Ethics, Place & Environment, 8, 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mueller, M. P. (2008). Ecojustice as ecological literacy is more than being “green!”. Educational Studies, 44, 155–166.Google Scholar
  22. Mueller, M. P. (2009). Educational reflections on the “ecological crisis”: Ecojustice, environmentalism and sustainability. Science & Education, 18, 1031–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mueller, M. P., & Bentley, M. L. (2009). Environmental and science education in developing nations: A Ghanaian approach to renewing and revitalizing the local community and ecosystems. Journal of Environmental Education, 40, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mueller, M.P., & Tippins, D.J. (2010). Citizen science, ecojustice, and science education: Rethinking an education from nowhere. In B.J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (pp. 00–00). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Mueller, M. P. (personal observation, 2009, June 15) noted that employees at pet stores in Atlanta, Georgia, address how glofish sales have rapidly increased for teachers and parents without much conversation around the implicit implications of GMOs for society.Google Scholar
  26. Muir, W. M., & Howard, R. D. (1999). Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 13853–13856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: Socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 112–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sadler, T. D., Barab, S. A., & Scott, B. (2007). What do students gain by engaging in socioscientific inquiry? Research in Science Education, 37, 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scientists Working Group on Biosafety. (1998). Manual for assessing the ecological and human health effects of genetically engineered organisms. Edmonds: The Edmonds Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy: The plunder of knowledge and nature. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
  33. Singer, P. (2000). Writings on an ethical life. New York: Ecco Press.Google Scholar
  34. Snekser, J. L., McRobert, S. P., Murphy, C. E., & Clotfelter, E. D. (2006). Aggregation behaviour in wildtype and transgenic zebrafish. Ethology, 112, 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stokstad, E. (2002). Engineered fish: Friend or foe of the environment? Science, 297, 1797–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). Regulation of genetically modified animals containing heritable recombinant DNA constructs (CVM GFI #187). Rockville, MD: Center for Veterinarian Medicine.Google Scholar
  37. van Eijck, M., & Roth, W.-M. (2007). Keeping the local local: Recalibrating the status of science and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in education. Science Education, 91, 926–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker, K. A., & Zeidler, D. L. (2007). Promoting discourse about socioscientific issues through scaffolded inquiry. International Journal of Science Education, 29, 1387–1410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. White, R. M., Sessa, A., Burke, C., Bowman, T., LeBlanc, J., Ceol, C., et al. (2007). Transparent adult zebrafish as a tool for in vivo transplantation analysis. Cell Stem Cell, 2, 183–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson, E. O. (2002). The future of life. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  41. Yorktown Technologies. (2008). GloFish® fluorescent fish ethical principles. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.glofish.com/ethics.asp
  42. Yorktown Technologies. (2009a). It’s cold outside: Exploring the effects of temperature on GloFish® activity. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.glofish.com/classroom.asp
  43. Yorktown Technologies. (2009b). Biotech animals: Science, benefits, risk & public sentiment. Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.glofish.com/classroom.asp
  44. Zeidler, D. L. (1984). Moral issues and social policy in science education: Closing the literacy gap. Science Education, 68, 411–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). The Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. Pilar Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). The Netherlands: Springer Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S. & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael P. Mueller
    • 1
  • Dana L. Zeidler
    • 2
  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.University of South FloridaTempaUSA

Personalised recommendations