Advertisement

Capitalists’ Profitable Virtual Worlds: Roles for Science and Science Education

  • J. Lawrence Bencze
  • Lyn Carter
Chapter

Abstract

The wellbeing of many individuals, societies and environments is either dire or under serious threat due to decisions involving fields of science and technology. Arguably, the most significant of these are linked to increasing global climate change—but, many of us are concerned, for example, with health problems (e.g. diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and cancer) associated with manufactured foods and beverages, death and destruction due to military invasions and conflicts and invasion of privacy through electronic technologies controlled by governments and corporations. From an actor network perspective, culpability for such problems is complex, diffuse and uncertain. However, many suggestthat much fault lies with our current neoliberal capitalist system—which is now highly globalized and strategic, and to a great extent, uses fields of technoscience to semiotically convince a relatively small fraction of the world’s population to repeatedly consume and discard goods and services and associated idealized conceptions while much of the rest of the world labours on their behalf and suffers a range of personal, social and environmental problems. Such a vast and powerful system controlled largely by and mainly benefiting an elite cohort of financiers and corporations at the expense of much of the world needs dramatic reform leading to great improvements in social justice and environmental sustainability. Although it appears to be a mechanism for (re)producing problematic capitalist systems, a site of such possible reform may be science education—given its potential influences, as a nearly ubiquitous social programme—on public consciousness surrounding a key capitalist instrument, that is, fields of technoscience. Although the inertial nature of science education resists many reforms, concepts and principles outlined in this chapter may contribute to positive change.

Keywords

Hyperreality Neoliberalism Technoscience Consumerism Science education Socioscientific issues 

References

  1. Acosta-Alzuru, C., and E. P. Lester Roushanzamir. 2003. Everything we do is a celebration of you!: Pleasant company constructs American girlhood. The Communication Review 6 (1): 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aikenhead, G. S., and O. J. Jegede. 1999. Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 36 (3): 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allchin, D. 2003. Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education 87 (3): 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allchin, D. 2004. Pseudohistory and pseudoscience. Science & Education 13 (3): 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Angell, M. 2004. The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  6. Bakan, J. 2004. The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. Toronto: Viking.Google Scholar
  7. Barber, B. R. 2007. Consumed: How markets corrupt children, infantilize adults, and swallow citizens whole. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  8. Barnes, R. L., S. K. Hammond, and S. A. Glantz. 2006. The tobacco industry’s role in the 16 cities study of secondhand tobacco smoke: Do the data support the stated conclusions? Environmental Health Perspectives 114 (12): 1890–1897.Google Scholar
  9. Baudrillard, J. 1996. The violence of the image. http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-the-violence-of-the-image.html. Accessed 24 Dec 2014.
  10. Baudrillard, J. 1998. The consumer society. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Bell, R. L. 2006. Perusing Pandora’s box: Exploring the what, when, and how of nature of science instruction. In Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education, eds. L. B. Flick and N. G. Lederman, 427–446. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Bencze, J. L., and S. Alsop. 2009. A critical and creative inquiry into school science inquiry. In The world of science education: North America, eds. W.-M. Roth and K. Tobin, 27–47. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  13. Bencze, L., and L. Carter. 2011. Globalizing students acting for the common good. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 (6): 648–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bodenheimer, T. 2000. Uneasy alliance: Clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. The New England Journal of Medicine 342 (20): 1539–1545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bybee, R. W. 1991. Planet earth in crisis: How should science educators respond? The American Biology Teacher 53 (3): 146–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carter, L. 2005. Globalisation and science education: Rethinking science education reforms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 42 (5): 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carter, L. 2008. Globalisation and science education: The implications for science in the new economy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45 (5): 617–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Claxton, G. 1991. Educating the inquiring mind: The challenge for school science. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  19. Cox, N. B., and J. M. Proffitt. 2012. The housewives’ guide to better living: Promoting consumption on Bravo’s The Real Housewives. Communication, Culture & Critique 5 (2): 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Deng, F., D. -T. Chen, C. C. Tsai, and C. S. Chai. 2011. Students’ views of the nature of science: A critical review of research. Science Education 95 (6): 961–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dzisah, J. 2007. Institutional transformations in the regime of knowledge production: The university as a catalyst for the science-based knowledge economy. Asian Journal of Social Science 35 (1): 126–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29 (2): 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fensham, P. J., and P. L. Gardner. 1994. Technology education and science education: A new relationship? In Innovations in science and technology education, ed. D. Layton, vol. V, 159–170. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  24. Freire, P. 1997. Pedagogy of the oppressed (New Revised 20th-Anniversay ed.). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  25. Fuller, S. 2002. Social epistemology. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gabbard, D. A. 2000. Introduction. In Knowledge and power in the global economy: Politics and the rhetoric of school reform, ed. D.A. Gabbard, xiii–xxiii. Mahwah: Lawrence-Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Gibbons, M., C. Limognes, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Giroux, H. A., and S. S. Giroux. 2006. Challenging neoliberalism’s new world order: The promise of critical pedagogy. Cultural Studies â Critical Methodologies 6 (1): 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenberg, D. 2003. Conference deplores corporate influence on academic science. The Lancet 362:302–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey, D. 2010. The enigma of capital, and the crises of capitalism. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hileman, B. 1998. Industry’s privacy rights: Is science shortchanged? Chemical & Engineering News 76:36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodson, D. 2008. Towards scientific literacy: A teachers’ guide to the history, philosophy and sociology of science. Rotterdam: Sense.Google Scholar
  33. Hodson, D. 2011. Looking to the future: Building a curriculum for social activism. Rotterdam: Sense.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holliday, W. G. 2006. A balanced approach to science inquiry teaching. In Scientific inquiry and nature of science: Implications for teaching, learning, and teacher education, eds. L. B. Flick and N. G. Lederman, 201–215. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Klein, N. 2000. No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Toronto: Vintage.Google Scholar
  36. Kleinman, D. L. 2003. Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  37. Krimsky, S. 2003. Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  38. Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Layton, D. 1993. Technology’s challenge to science education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Leonard, A. 2010. The story of stuff: How our obsession with stuff is trashing the planet, our communities, and our health—and a vision for change. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lewis, T. 1995. From manual training to technology education: The continuing struggle to establish a school subject in the USA. Journal of Curriculum Studies 27 (6): 621–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lock, R. 1990. Open-ended, problem-solving investigations—what do we mean and how can we use them? School Science Review 71 (256): 63–72.Google Scholar
  44. Loving, C. C. 1991. The scientific theory profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28 (9): 823–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Luke, T. W. 1997. The Arizona-Sonora desert museum: Imagineering southwestern environments as hyperreality. Organization & Environment 10 (2): 148–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lynas, M. 2008. Six degrees: Our future on a hotter planet (Updated edition). London: Harper.Google Scholar
  47. McLaren, P. 2000. Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of the revolution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  48. McMurtry, J. 1999. The cancer stage of capitalism. London: Pluto.Google Scholar
  49. McQuaig, L., and N. Brooks. 2010. The trouble with billionaires. Toronto: Viking.Google Scholar
  50. Mirowski, P., and R. Van Horn. 2005. The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science 35 (4): 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norris, T. 2011. Consuming schools: Commercialism and the end of politics. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  52. NRC (National Research Council). 1996. National science education standards. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  53. Plato. c375 BC. Republic, trans. Desmond Lee, 1955. New York: Penguin, 1987.Google Scholar
  54. Pozzer, L. L., and W. -M. Roth. 2003. Prevalence, function, and structure of photographs in high school biology textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40 (10): 1089–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reich, R. B. 2007. Supercapitalism: The transformation of business, democracy, and everyday life. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  56. Roth, W. -M. 2001. Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38 (7): 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schlosser, E. 2001. Fast food nation: The dark side of the All-American Meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  58. Schwartz, R. S., N. G. Lederman, and B. A. Crawford. 2004. Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education 88 (4): 610–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sismondo, S. 2008. Science and technology studies and an engaged program. In The handbook of science and technology studies, eds. E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, and J. Wajcman. 3rd ed., 13–31. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Usher, R. 2010. Consuming learning. In Critical pedagogies of consumption: Living and learning in the shadow of the “Shopocalypse”, eds. J. A. Sandlin and P. McLaren, 36–46. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Vasil, A. 2007. Ecoholic: Your guide to the most environmentally friendly information, products and services in Canada. Toronto: Vintage.Google Scholar
  62. Vilches, A., and D. Gil-Pérez. 2013. Creating a sustainable future: Some philosophical and educational considerations for chemistry teaching. Science & Education 22 (7): 1857–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Warde, A. 1994. Consumption, identity-formation and uncertainty. Sociology 28 (4): 877–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weber, K. (editor) 2009. Food Inc.: How industrial food is making us sicker, fatter, and poorer—and what you can do about it. A participant media guide. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  65. Weinstein, J. N. 2007. Threats to scientific advancement in clinical practice. SPINE 32 (11 S): S58–S62.Google Scholar
  66. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ziman, J. 2000. Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ontario Institute for Studies in EducationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationAustralian Catholic UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations