| |
September/October 2001
From bioengineered food to global warming,
science is rife with dispute, debate, and ambiguitywhich provides great
opportunities for teaching and learning
By Pamela J. Hines
We generally think of science as a practice of calm
and studied observation, a method of discovery that valorizes facts in the
search for clear, unambiguous answers. We also treat controversy as somehow
antithetical to the work of science. After all, controversy involves debate,
personalities, and ambiguities, all of which seem to have no business in a
genuine scientific discussion.
Yet controversy is an important part of scientific practice.
Furthermore, as the recent debate over stem cell research shows, controversy is
part of the process by which society understands and comes to grips with
scientific progress. For the classroom science teacher, controversy can also be
a means of engaging students imaginations and bringing the subject to
life.
Science controversies come in many flavors and affect scientific
progress in different ways. Research controversies push the process of
scientific investigation forward by highlighting the absence of information on
a particular point. One such controversy in neuroscience has to do with whether
certain structures in the brain develop before visual activity or as a result
of visual activity. By raising awareness of the question, the debate has
sparked further research that, ultimately, could improve our understanding of
the connection between brain development and learning.
Decisional controversies arise because some sort of action (or perhaps
inaction, a decision in itself) needs to be taken on the basis of incomplete
information. Global warming is just such an issue. The observational approach
of traditional science cannot yet reliably predict the impact of human behavior
on our climate. Scientific study may or may not eventually resolve the issue,
but we still have to decide now whether to alter, say, the rate of fossil-fuel
consumption. So the global warming controversy has prompted an active public
discussion on our place in the environment.
In other cases, moral and ethical questions surround scientific issues,
as in the controversy over the management of genetic information. For example,
in Iceland, widespread genetic screening and the unique history of the island
combine to produce a database of genomic information that will be very useful
for learning more about human development, physiology, and disease. The
database is most certainly of scientific value to researchers, but because it
contains such individual information, its use may ultimately be a matter best
decided on an ethical or moral basis.
In the project Science Controversies: On-Line Partnerships in Education
(SCOPE), we have been exploring the dynamics of controversy in the context of
science teaching and learning in K-12 classrooms and as a component of research
science. The projecta collaboration by researchers at the University of
California, Berkeley, the University of Washington, and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, with funding from the National
Science Foundation combines websites focused on particular science
controversies with in-school projects to engage students in science learning
and the use of computers. The website
(scope.educ.washington.edu/) is open to all. Workshops and other
project guidance are available for teachers.
Students are encouraged to take a position on a given issue, and then
to investigate the pros and cons of their position through guided activities
and web research. Portions of the website are also designed for the
participation of research scientists, and students thus have the opportunity to
see controversy unfold as scientists discuss their research. Students develop
relevant, fact-based knowledge, and they exercise the skills of considering
opposing views, researching to support an opinion, debating, and writing.
Classroom activities may close with an actual debate.
SCOPE topics have included methods to combat malaria, causes of
declining amphibian populations, and genetically modified foods. SCOPE classes
blend multiple aspects of science, as well as ethics, intellectual property,
government and trade policies, economics, and so forth. In considering
genetically modified foods, for example, several questions arise: How can
peaches be made more resistant to freezing damage? How does the presence of
large multinational agrobusiness corporations affect the dynamics of innovation
in this industry? What stands between development of golden rice
and the release of that strain to subsistence farmers? Is a tomato expressing
an animal transgene still acceptable to a vegetarian? This list illustrates how
controversy in science also provides many opportunities for interdisciplinary
studies.
Just as controversy sparks interest among the general public, this
dynamic aspect of science can surprise many students and encourage a deeper,
more compelling engagement with scientific topics. Even those students who
dont have an overriding interest in science may be familiar (through the
media) with science controversies and want to learn more about them from school
year to school year.
Also, a realistic presentation of how controversy plays out in science
provides students with a clearer understanding of what a career in science
might entail. Some controversies in science may be subtle and not grab
headlines, but they are there nonetheless. Recognizing the dynamic nature of
the field, students will realize, through the study of contemporary
controversiesas opposed to those from the past that are already
resolvedthat scientists rarely have the benefit of simple answers and
20/20 hindsight. Each student who engages with todays issues will likely
experience firsthand the foggy unknown that is part of the practicing
scientists life the struggle to extract conclusions from incomplete
or conflicting statements.
In doing so, students themselves can become more knowledgeable
participants in public debates about science-related issues. Indeed, such
discussions may already be going on in their own homes. Because elements of
science are increasingly pervasive in our society, and increasingly relevant to
all, the investigation of controversy in science challenges us and students to
gain a better understanding of how the world really works.
Pamela J. Hines is a senior editor of Science magazine,
published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a
co-principal investigator of SCOPE.
|
|