1

Students’ Images of Science and the Influence of Science Studies Classes: beneficial or detrimental?

An teaching experience with Biology Majors

Marília Coutinho & Hélade Scutti Santos

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association, University of Leeds, England, September 13-15, 2001

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss the inclusion of Science Studies courses in science education and we report a teaching experience from 1993 in which undergraduate biology students were exposed to historical contents, sociological concepts and theories about science, in a curricular HPS course. We argue that their response strongly suggests that SS courses have an important role in college science education and in the intellectual background of scientists in general. This role is related to the sociological analysis of what is known as the "scientific method" and of the social workings of scientific specialist groups. Exploring how social factors at play in the past as well as today shape

“legitimate” science helps students perceive their own education as part of the social construction of science. We argue so by analyzing students’ representations of science and scientist and studying the transformations in their discourse along the HPS class, comparing them to their (biology) professors’ representations. We believe this perspective leads to a more affirmative and realistic attitude towards students’ future scientific career. Finally we argue that such an experience is beneficial to science students and to science itself, favoring the development of a greater awareness as to the workings of science and, therefore, a more conscious management of scientists’ own careers as well as the more obvious “responsible citizenship”. 2

Introduction

The relative importance of Science Studies (SS)1 in science courses2 or even for scientists themselves in their professional activity is an object of great controversy. When questioned about the subject, most scientists, teachers and professors are ready to grant a special role for SS in curricula, but what exactly it might be important or useful for is not clear. The introduction of History and

Philosophy of Science (HPS) have recently become a major issue in science teaching, specially from the late 1980’s on, when international projects were designed and national organizations in USA, UK and other European countries developed incentives for its discussion (M.R. Matthews 1990, A. Rampal

1992 and E.W. Jenkins 1994).

Claims by specialist or concerned people show that the matter is far from consensus. There are those who argue for a constructivist approach to the history of science where its role is related to the process of conceptual change in students. Such an interpretation draws direct analogy between the psychogenesis of concepts and historical development ("progress") in science in a rather teleological perspective as to science (M.S. Jensen & F.N. Finley 1995). Others favor different approaches in which socio-cultural contexts are more emphasized. This results in different relations between science studies and personal cognitive processes in science teaching. One example is the work of F. Bevilacqua & E.

Gionnetto (1995) that explores the possibilities involved in the introduction of hermeneutics in history of science approaches in the teaching of science. Nevertheless, it is still aimed at improving the learning of the contents of scientific subjects, providing what they call a bridge between students

“lifeworld” and “scienceworld”. Another argument in favor of the introduction of HPS in science education is related to making the contents of science more significant to students while presenting them as a human activity (H. Nielsen & P.V. Thomsen 1990). Still others regard the role of science as related to conscious citizenship and a critical perspective towards science in society (H. Nielsen 1993).

Some of these arguments and rationales have been summarized by M. Krasylchik (1990) and E.W.

Jenkins (1994). But when it comes to specifying the role of the history of science (or science studies) in higher education, the scope of the discussion is straightened. Some people claim history of science should be used to teach college students about the nature of science. Others favor a more normative reasoning and justify the inclusion of history and philosophy of science as a means of teaching the

"scientific method". Actually, when we pose the question of the importance of science studies in 3 college courses we have crossed the frontier of the strictly pedagogical discussion: it concerns the relationship between science studies and science itself.

If previous utilitarian controversies over the relation between science studies and teaching were intricate, the relation between science studies and science is an even less trivial question.

History of science was formed within a positivistic framework in the beginnings of twentieth century and was then seen as a way of assessing the inexorable progression of science towards "truth".

Its task would be explicitly to look for and study historical evidence for evolution and continuity in the scientific enterprise, one characterized by objectivity, rationality and value-exemption (L. Pyeson 1989,

T. Kuhn 1977). Defined thus, history of science's role in science is quite obvious: to evidence conceptual evolution and progress, to help to understand contemporary features as a product of progress and to support and give weight to positivistic ideological claims on science. And as such, it is altogether pedagogical - as Kuhn identifies - as well as propagandistic. Its inclusion in science courses curricula would hardly need further justification. But justifications are not lacking despite its obviousness: Matthews describes E. Mach’s defense of the “genetic method” as one that would give students the model of good scientific thinking which might be emulated (M.R. Matthews 1990, p. 322).

But history of science suffered great transformations since then. From a "limited, if not amateur" activity, as N. Reingold pictures it, hardly recognizable as a field of the human sciences, it has increasingly followed current advances in history, philosophy and the social sciences and approached its patterns and ideals. Whether the outcome of fertilization by the history of philosophy

(Kuhn 1977) or of history's recent affinity with the social sciences (Reingold 1981), or even of a sum of many factors, history of science has emerged from a factual report to a thoroughly analytical activity and, as such, marked by fierce controversies and diverging perspectives. But, most important, critical non-normative interpretations emphasizing incommensurability of theoretical constructs, ruptures and discontinuities as well as social conditionality in science have become stronger.

Reactions from members of the scientific community towards such recent developments and dissension among practitioners of history of science have been reported (Reingold 1981, M.A.B.

Whitaker 1984) and hostilities between contenders is frightfully evident. Scientists' opinions of history of science as dominated by science-hostile attitudes and charges of it representing work with no 4 scientific content have been reported. On the other hand, historians of science's opinions of scientists as alienated and irresponsible, as well as utilitarian towards history of science have also been recorded.

As we see it, this is an expected outcome of the changes occurred in history of science along its professionalization. In general, the professionalization of intellectual fields is accompanied by an awareness about the meaning of its activities as significant per se and the development of an esoteric discourse aimed at other professionals of the field. As a consequence, history of science had no obvious role for scientists anymore. Around the early seventies, a much more controversial approach to science gained prominence. This approach was sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), probably the leading perspective in science studies, or rather leading “attitude”, since one can hardly argue that SSK represents a perspective. SSK assumes science is socially constructed in a non-trivial, deep way, from its most esoteric theoretical cores up to every aspect of its workings (A. Pickering 1992, p.1-8). They depict science as a set of incommensurable disciplinary cultures that perform fact production as consensus building. Such “negotiations” would be persuasive procedures carried out according to specific cultural codes, which highlight unavoidable relativistic contents. The expectations that history of science would remain a discipline whose role was to support and prevalent ideas about scientific progress and method were frustrated.

Why, then, should SS be included in science college courses? Who would benefit from its inclusion? In this paper, we report a teaching experience and experiment in which two groups of undergraduate biology students were exposed to a set of contents and activities related to different sociological and philosophical concepts of science. We argue that their response strongly suggests that history of science and science studies have a place in college courses and in the intellectual background of scientists in general. This role is related to the analysis of what is known as the "scientific method" and of the social workings of scientific specialist groups. Exploring how social factors at play in the past as well as today shape “legitimate” science helps students perceive their own education as part of the social construction of science. We argue so by analyzing students’ representations of science and scientists and studying the transformations in their discourse along the HPS class, comparing them to their (biology) professors’ representations.. We show that the progress from an original identification

(or rather unawareness) to a subsequent “estrangement” (critical attitude) is a result of the course’s reflexive experience. Finally we argue that such an experience is beneficial to science students and to science itself. It promotes a greater awareness concerning the workings of science and, therefore, a 5 more conscious management of scientists own careers as well as the more obvious “responsible citizenship”, claimed to be the desired consequence of STS courses.

The class, the students and the understanding of the institution

Science studies as a whole still lingers in a very incipient institutional stage in Brazil. Some groups have succeeded in introducing science studies teaching in important higher education institutions, but mostly not under the name of any of the component disciplines ("history of science",

"philosophy of science"...). Most of these are constituted by physics courses and very few other science schools have included such disciplines in their curricula. The experience we report here refers to one very peculiar course offered to biology students at the University of São Paulo. Contextual details are important in this situation. The University of São Paulo is the greatest and most prestiged higher education institution in this country, more or less structured after the American research university model3. In this University, the biology program is conducted by the Institute of Biosciences (IB). As in all the undergraduate programs, most of the courses are required classes and can be either offered by any of the five departments of the home Institute or by some other department, whenever the contents are more related to a specialty of a department outside the home institute. This is the case of geology classes, physics, mathematics and also history and philosophy of science, which are also required and offered by the department of History. The department of History belongs to another Institute, the

FFLCH (Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences). For a long time, students had been protesting against the required HPS course, writing letters to commission presidents at the IB and demanding the withdrawal of history and philosophy of science from the curriculum as a required class.

Having been a former student of the IB and engaged in a sociology Ph.D. program at the time, one of us (M. Coutinho) addressed the department of history teachers in charge of the HPS course and asked to take part in the teaching team in 1993. The request was accepted, and her program proposal for the class was also partly accepted. She was then able to implement a good part of the program she had elaborated. The “curriculum reform” at the IB was being concluded precisely during that semester. It seemed quite evident that the course would disappear from the new curriculum, once the IB teachers who actually ruled the reform were also for the removal. Nevertheless, the students changed their mind along the semester: they decided the class should be maintained and they demanded that from the 6 commissions involved in program planning. Teachers from the IB strongly resisted students’ proposals.

As the HPS course was being carried out, the political discussion involving the course itself was rising to a climax, which actually peaked the following semester. By then, some former students gathered in a group to deepen discussions started during the course and also to analyze the experience itself, since there were surveys on students profile, course evaluation and students expectations from the beginning to the end of the course. This work is evidently strongly shaped by those discussions and the second author (H.S. Santos) is one of the students from that group.

There were evidently many different interests involved in the experience itself: there were the interests of the IB teachers, who were convinced by previous years students that the course should be removed from the curriculum. It became clear, too, that the HPS course was a heritage from decades earlier when it was introduced with the positivistic attitude we described above, as a means of improving the comprehension of the “scientific method”. Most of the IB teachers couldn’t really see such a fundamental role for it now and, hence, were not eager to support its maintenance as aa required class. Moreover, there were teachers actually interested in substituting the removed department of history course by one of their own, dealing with philosophy issues in biology and offered at the IB.

There were also the interests of the department of history teachers in charge of the class, who wanted to get rid of the reproachful atmosphere established against them. “The class is useful, the teachers can’t handle it” is a harsh statement very clearly stated by the students at the time, written down in different forms in letters addressed to authorities at both units involved (IB and FFLCH). And at the center of it all were the students, whose interests were evidently much less coherent then the other (professional) parties involved but who had, momentarily, the relative power to determine the outcomes of the game.

We had two groups of students: the night course students (NT) and the “full” (whole day) course students (IN4). A questionnaire was applied in the first day of class (see appendix) asking general questions (age, year they got into college, etc.), about their career plans, the subjects they liked best, what they defined science as, what they thought was required to be a scientist and what they expected from the history and philosophy of science class. 88,3% of those registered in the IN group and 72,4% of those registered in the NT group answered the questionnaire5. Both groups were fairly homogeneous, with most of the students aging from 20 to 22 and having enrolled in 1990. They also had a very definite commitment to research: many of them were enrolled in a curricular research activity (“introduction to research”6, 47.2% of IN and 23.8% of NT) and, when asked to rank their 7 priorities (from 1 to 5) among “research, in graduate program”, “research, in corporation”, “teaching elementary and High school students”, “scientific consultancy” and “other”, 75.5% of IN students and

47.6% of NT had “research, in graduate program” as their first choice. Those who had planned to go to graduate school were asked whether they: a. had already chosen the area and the advisor and were currently working with that person; b. had already chosen the area and the advisor, but weren’t working with that person; c. had already chosen the area, but not the institution nor the advisor; d. hadn’t decided which area or theme to chose. Although more than 50% marked “c” and “d”, 32.1% of IN students and 19% of NT students answered they had already chosen theme and advisor and were actually working with that person, mostly at the University of São Paulo itself (and a good part at the

IB, too). They were mostly attracted by molecular approaches (most of them were engaged in research in the Physiology, Biology or Biochemistry departments and claimed to like best “molecular biology” classes as answers to specific questions about their preferences). Therefore, their career plans were directed to research - in opposition to teaching - and that represented a future that linked them even closer to the institution they were at. Science was, thus, very central to their life. What they thought about science was put forward through a set of attributes they associated to the condition of being a scientist and through a straightforward definition of science. We constructed a table (Table 1) with the attributes of scientist found in their answers and we recovered a series of key concepts underlying their definitions of science (box 1). Our key concepts are categories of statements whose meaning seem to organize the discourse7. We list them and exemplify their sources in box 1.

Table 1 IN students Num. order NT students Num. order cit. cit. perseverance / devotion / 19 1 devotion / perseverance / 9 1 persistence / determination persistence / determination Curiosity 16 2 curiosity 5 2 critical attitude 13 3 unprejudiced perspective / 4 3 receptivity towards new ideas Patience 11 4 Creativity 4 3 Creativity 10 5 critical attitude 4 3 open mindedness / receptivity 9 6 Creativity 3 4 towards new ideas being reasonable 7 7 Disposition 3 4 Knowledge 7 7 Sagacity 2 5 Interest 7 7 patience 2 5 willingness / motivation / 6 8 discipline 2 5 enthusiasm logical reasoning / investigative 5 9 knowledge / erudition 2 5 mind 8 to love what one does 5 9 being reasonable 2 5 Observation 5 9 sensibility / perception 2 5 Organization 5 9 Observation 2 5 Methodology 4 10 choosing significant/relevant 1 6 problems/subjects integrated perspective/ 4 10 Intuition 1 6 interdisciplinarity ethics / uprightness 3 11 Competence 1 6 Impartiality 3 11 good reasoning 1 6 Objectivity 3 11 to love what one does 1 6 Attention 2 12 Objectivity 1 6 Seriousness 2 12 integrated perspective/ 1 6 interdisciplinarity Professionalism 2 12 to be able to bear frustration 1 6 Eclecticism 2 12 Meticulosity 1 6 Intelligence 2 12 Intelligence 1 6 Sagacity 2 12 Organization 1 6 caution / care 2 12 Purposefulness 1 6 to keep oneself updated / well 2 12 self-confidence 1 6 informed Discipline 1 13 to have responsibility 1 6 awareness of one’s social role 1 13 to study a lot 1 6 assimilation (of new 1 13 exclusive dedication 1 6 knowledge?) Tact 1 13 to keep updated / well informed 1 6 to be reasonable 1 13 to be judicious 1 13 Intuition 1 13 to be a teamworker 1 13 Courage 1 13 Faith 1 13 prestige for fund raising 1 13 Concentration 1 13 ability to solve problems 1 13 Versatility 1 13 ability to acknowledge mistakes 1 13 Persuasion 1 13 Purposefulness 1 13 social perspective 1 13 enthusiasm for learning 1 13 Participation 1 13 efficiency / competence 1 13 to be dynamic 1 13 to take initiative 1 13 Clarity 1 13 Memory 1 13 to be adventurous 1 13

Box 1

IN:

Knowledge is (found) in nature/in reality. Facts are deposited in nature. 9

 Acquisition of previously hidden knowledge.  (science is) the study of phenomena of nature...  ...trying to find the answers to the many “secrets” of the world  It is the method through which the fundamental laws that govern nature are extracted(...).  To do science is to show the obvious.

Science is knowledge  Science could be defined as knowledge...  ...group of knowledge bodies that can have cultural or practical use...  it is the whole set of knowledge bodies

Science is an activity that generates knowledge.  ...science could be defined as knowledge or everything that generates knowledge.  ...the study of the phenomena of nature...  ...the pursue of knowledge under a method...

Science is a method.  ...it is a way of better understanding the world...  ...it is one of the methods of acquiring knowledge...  All and any way, either philosophical or empirical, that leads to knowledge.  ...it is the way through which knowledge is attained, a methodical, experimental way.  It is the method by which the fundamental laws of nature are extracted (...).

Science changes.  (the scientist) must not be conservative in his ideas, since science is always changing.  Dynamic knowledge, subject to continuous transformations...

Science undergoes cumulative progress.  (from question 14) ...obtain information about how biological knowledge was obtained, through time, and the difficulties met by scientists.  I think science represents an accumulation of knowledge.  Science is the whole set of knowledge bodies man has produced and gathered about everything he is and that surrounds him.  Science is the whole stock of knowledge humanity has acquired (...)

Science is an individual activity.  (from question 14) I hope to obtain knowledge on how scientists had their first ideas and how they arrived at results.  (from question 14) I am interested in knowing how scientists from the past trailed their ways, what strategies they had and what difficulties they met.  Science is the activity in which everything of personal curiosity is investigated...  Organized reasonableness.  Creative activity.

Science is a social activity (little mentioned)  (science is a knowledge) which is embedded in a certain reality, transforming and being transformed by it.  Basic study of natural events with divulgation of results and procedures to the scientific community.

Science is a profession (little mentioned)  (from question 14) I believe the course might allow me to understand and better comprehend the profession I have chosen.

Science implicates technology.  Research and experiments that aim at technological improvement, bettering of life (...). 10

NT:

Science is knowledge.  Study and knowledge.  ...knowledge acquired by man through study.  ...a set of knowledge bodies gathered under a denomination.

Science is the activity that generates knowledge.  To create, to discover new concepts through observation and experience.

Science implies technology. The goal of science is technology.  A form of study where one tries to understand and change aspects of the chosen subject and apply them to daily life and social development.  The study of a certain area or subject that can bring benefits to society as a whole.

Science is an individual activity.  It is the “art” of asking the right questions and the capacity and sensibility to understand the answers.  ... it is the art of understanding, analyzing, observing, collecting, managing, ...

Science is a profession.  Science is a field of work as any other.

Science moves closer to truth.  ... it is one of the ways of pursuing truth.

Science is socially shared knowledge.  ...it is public knowledge.

Science is explanation.  Man’s art of justifying through coherent and concrete means the many manifestations of nature.

Science is method.  ...the systematizing study of a certain subject...

The goal of science are discoveries.  Science is the set of investigations that cause discoveries.

Phrases in bold letters are key concepts and statements in italic are quotations from students’ answers that relate to that concept.

If we consider just those attributes quoted more than 8 times by IN students and more than 4 times by NT students, we should say that these groups’ “good scientist” is a hard worker: arduous tasks, perhaps repetitive (requiring “perseverance” and “patience”), are more relevant than the creative genius for their accomplishments. Creativity ranks much lower - fourth and fifth, respectively. He is also someone with a great individual role in scientific innovation, since his receptivity towards new ideas, his curiosity and his creativity make up a much remembered block of features. Social conditionality appears in a block of features very little quoted individually. Taken together, however, 11 they might have represented a possible cognitive foundation for the transformations that followed: to be

“professional”, “tactic”, “ethical” or to be able to work in teams. Features very frequently associated to a dominant public image of science are not important in these groups, such as “erudition”,

“objectivity”, “logical reasoning”, etc. Key concept analysis shows that both groups held an image of science as an activity of individual cognition and cumulative development. It is equaled to a procedure that permits “facts” to emerge from nature. It is the basic unconscious inductivist/objectivist conception generally shared by scientists. This ispredictable considering these students were well under scientific socialization provided by their participation in research. Historicity and social conditionality are hardly hinted at or completely ignored. Nevertheless, the key concept list suggests a weak sensibility towards the social construction of science (“science is a profession” or “socially shared knowledge”).

The experimental part of the program proposed to these students consisted of a sequence of thematic blocks in the history of biology, each providing material for a set investigative activities : in the first day of class, it was suggested they should investigate their teachers as scientists. The class was divided in a number of groups, each of which would be responsible for investigating a different department of the IB. After a brief discussion, they were stimulated to elaborate a number of questions about their teachers’ beliefs and they made a common list all the class would employ in interviewing their subjects. The lists they arrived at are reproduced in boxes 2 and 3.

Box 2

Questions elaborated and used by IN groups:

1. Why did you choose the scientific career?

2. What do you think about science?

3. What is the goal of your research?

4. Research or teaching?

5. What is biology?

6. What do you think attracts people to your research line?

7. How do you see future perspectives in this area? Which are the problems faced in a research area?

8. What is important in a scientific career? Which are the paths to success?

9. How does science evolve? 12

10. Are there external factors influencing your career?

11. What is your role in society?

12. What do you think a scientist ought to be more of: a specialist or a generalist?

13. Please rank the specialties of the Institute of Biosciences in order of prestige.

14. How would you define a good scientist? What attributes are required for being a good scientist?

15. Do you believe in intuition in science?

16. Is there a relation between religion and science? Justify.

17. Do you think you can reach the truth through science? Does it exist?

Box 3

Questions elaborated and used by the NT groups:

1. What is your definition of science?

2. In the current situation of the country, how can you make this definition come true?

3. What is the difference between your current view of science from the one you had as an undergraduate student?

4. What is a good professional in biology?

5. What characterizes biology? What about the biologist?

6. Are you satisfied with your choice?

7. In your opinion, what brings prestige to a researcher? What brings prestige to the institution?

8. What are the implications of this prestige?

9. Construct a hierarchical scale of the disciplines at the Institute of Biosciences.

10. Why are some disciplines more prestiged than others?

11. Your work is also a product. Who consumes it?

12. What is the difference of making it in a public institution or in a private institution?

13. How do you judge the relationship between science and society in the public and the private circuit?

14. Basic research X applied research. 13

15. Research X teaching.

16. Where does politics fit in research? How can this penetration be directing the development of

biology?

17. What are the situation and performance of the Institute of Biosciences today, in your opinion?

The questionnaire became a sort of checking list of the ideas introduced in the first day: 1. that science might not evolve in the smooth and unproblematic manner generally assumed and 2. that their teachers’ social actions could have something to do with their production of knowledge

Besides that, students were asked, as a first class activity, to research definitions for “life” and for “biology” wherever they could find them. In the next class, we discussed those definitions and they arrived at the disturbing conclusion that their “discipline” lacked something they felt other disciplines had. They felt unsure about the discipline’s domain, objects and theories. As a reaction, they expressed their wish to interfere with this situation searching for some sort of unifying perspective - be it methodological, thematic, theoretical, whatever. This discussion was used to introduce the ideas of historicity and demarcation for specialties: after they had arrived at a list of properties for “life” that included “organization”, “function”, “process” and “structure”, the proposition that these concepts could only emerge in the XIXth century was introduced. The emergence of biology as a discipline and the troubled process of demarcation involved in its establishment were discussed8. The resulting conclusion was that we should proceed along the course “archaeologically” digging out the historical layers underlying current thought patterns. Even more important, this was a self-reflective experience.

The course developed along a series of themes: first came the origins of biological knowledge

(M1), followed by the history of molecular biology (M2) and finally the history of ecology and evolution (M3). In the evaluation questionnaire applied by one of us in the last day of class, they were asked whether they found that the following issues were approached (“A) central (“C”) or not mentioned (“N”) in each of the modules: the attributes of modern science, the constitution of scientific disciplines, scientific controversies, the structure and functioning of scientific communities, the concept of life, perspectives about the nature of science, scientific change, epistemological features of biological knowledge, interdisciplinarity. Unfortunately, the discrepancy between what was meant to be there and what the students felt was there was great. For example: when judging if the attributes of 14 modern science were or not approached in the first module (the origins of biological knowledge), 16 students from IN found it was approached against 16 that thought it wasn’t. In fact, it should be the central issue in this module. Another example is their judgment over the concept of life: IN students seemed to consider it was approached and central in M1, they couldn’t make up their mind whether it was or not approached in M2 (11 x 13) and they thought it had been approached in M3, but they were not sure if it was central or not (15 x 13). In fact, it was absolutely central in M1, with a whole class dedicated to it. Resulsts suggest that the association of issues with the professors that discussed them competed with their connection with the “case studies”. Their inability to decide where issues were being central or not addressed might also reflect a hesitation to identify precisely where they emerge, resulting in a feeling that they were always being addressed or that they are all connected (in which they are right).

Table 2

SS issues Module and “case study” or situation Consistency with students perception the attributes of modern science M1 - development of modern science and - changes in the XIXth century the constitution of scientific M1 (central) -birth of biology; also M3, the + disciplines birth of ecology scientific controversies M3 - controversies over the nature of + evolution in early XXth century: discontinuous X continuous change; community ecology and population ecology the structure and functioning of M2 - early molecular biology groups - scientific communities the concept of life M1 - brainstorm discussion on definitions - perspectives about the nature of M2 - reduction or substitution in the birth of + science molecular biology scientific change M2 - the birth of molecular biology - science and society/ science and M3 - ecology and environmental movement - politics epistemological features of M1 - function, organization and process and + biological knowledge the conditions of possibility for concepts on life; M3 - evolution (historicity and development) interdisciplinarity M3 - ecology and XXth century biology +

The professor talks 15

Professors were careful in their answers. Most of them were aware of what was going on in the curriculum discussion. In spite of that, they were willing to collaborate and answered the students’ questions. The answers were in most cases tape recorded and transcribed.

We analyzed professors’ answers in reference to students response to the first day questionnaire: the questions “How would you define a good scientist? What are attributes are required for being a good scientist?” (IN) and “What is a good professional in biology?” (NT) produced very similar answers. The attributes cited by subjects were counted and a list was produced according to frequency of citation (table 3). Also, contents of the questions requiring a definition for science, but also answers to other questions were analyzed in terms of general representations of science and their key concepts (box 4).

Table 3 ATTRIBUTES OF SCIENTIST Frequency(f) and order(o) of citation in each category Profes Profes Stude Studen sors (f) sors nts (f) ts (o) (o) persistence / determination / perseverance / devotion 32 1 28 1 ethics / honesty / character 23 2 3 10 to love what one does 14 3 6 7 critical attitude 10 4 17 3 competence / capacity (+ efficiency, in “students”) 10 4 2 11- Patience 7 5 13 4 erudition or knowledge 7 5 9 5 Humbleness 7 5 - - calling / aptitude / gift / talent 7 5 - - to study a lot / autodidactism 7 5 1 12 observation 6 6 7 6 curiosity 6 6 19 2 creativity 6 6 17 3 exemption / impartiality / to be impersonal 6 6 3 10 seriousness 5 7 2 11 objectivity / precision 5 7 4 9 willingness / motivation / disposition (+enthusiasm, in “students”) 4 8 9 5 formulation of good questions or hypothesis 3 9 - - global or integrated perspective (+ interdisciplinarity, in “students”) 3 9 5 8 logic and rationality 3 9 - - sagacity 3 9 4 9 to leave disciples 3 9 - - to take initiative 3 9 1 12 to keep updated (+ well informed, in “students”) 3 9 3 10 responsibility 2 10 1 12 to be didactic 2 10 - - judicious choice of significant problems (to chose significant/useful 2 10 1 12 problems/subjects, in “students”) to be disinterested in prestige or money 2 10 - - awareness of one’s social role (science and the scientist’s role) 2 10 2 11 (social perspective, in “students”) application of the scientific method (or methodology, in “students”) 2 10 4 9 16 to adopt to a good model or theory 2 10 - - ability to integrate 2 10 - - leadership 2 10 - - decision and purposefulness 2 10 2 11 intelligence 2 10 3 10 to be reasonable 2 10 7 6 self-confidence 1 11 1 12 teamwork (to be apt for teamwork, in “students”) 1 11 1 12 diversification (of interests, themes, etc.) 1 11 - - coherence 1 11 - - consciousness 1 11 - - to be unprejudiced and open towards new ideas 1 11 13 4 inspiration or intuition 1 11 2 11 clarity 1 11 1 12 ability to solve problems 1 11 1 12 to be competitive 1 11 - - eagerness / ambition 1 11 - - investigative mind (+ logical reasoning, in “students”) 1 11 6 7 to be judicious 1 11 1 12 care (+ caution, in “students”) 1 11 2 11 to love challenges 1 11 - - interest - 7 6 organization - 6 7 to be reasonable - 3 10 discipline - 3 10 attention - 2 11 professionalism - 2 11 eclecticism - 2 11 purposefulness - 2 11 sensibility/ perception - 2 11 assimilation (of new ideas?) - 1 12 tact - 1 12 courage - 1 12 faith - 1 12 prestige for fund raising - 1 12 concentration - 1 12 versatility - 1 12 ability to acknowledge mistakes - 1 12 persuasion - 1 12 enthusiasm for learning - 1 12 participation - 1 12 to be dynamic - 1 12 memory - 1 12 to be adventurous - 1 12 exclusive dedication - 1 12 meticulosity - 1 12 to be able to bear frustration - 1 12

Box 4

List of key concepts 17

1. Science is knowledge  It is the human activity aimed at understanding the world surrounding us. This activity employs a methodology called “scientific method” (NT, p.7/i-1)  Science is public knowledge, it works with facts that can be verified by anyone having the necessary technical resources (NT, p.11/i-1)  Science is knowledge, organization and theorization of facts (NT, p.15/i-1)

2. Knowledge/science is worthy for itself (NT, P.7/i-3)  I had a more romantic view before, pure and uncommitted, it was just knowledge for knowledge. Then came the restrictions: difficulty in fund raising and in finding something not trivial to work on under the pressure of funding agencies (NT, p.7/i-3)

3. Science is research  (question: why did you choose the scientific career?) I ended up going for a career in the university because I wanted to dedicate my efforts to research (IN, p.5/i-1).

4. Science is method  Science is a method to solve problems. It is a way of solving questions not yet solved. It is a tool. You use science as a method of solving it, there is a logic underlying science and this logic will lead you to solve a general or specific question the best possible way (IN, p.5/i-2).  Science is a method of seeing what surrounds us, to try to rationally understand how the universe we live in is organized (IN, p.6/i-2).

5. Science evolves through cumulative progress.  (question: how does science evolve?) Little by little (IN, p.10/i-9)  (question: how does science evolve?) Through the transmission of obtained knowledge (IN, p.10/i- 9)  (question: how does science evolve?) Among other factors, science evolves as a consequence of information provided by data accumulated along time (...) (IN, p.37/i-9)

6. The condition for being a scientist is the sharing of method (NT, p.7/i-4)  He who practices this activity applying the scientific method to significant problems, thus enriching knowledge (NT, p.7/i-4)

7. Biology is wide ranged and profound because it encompasses a great variety of organisms as to their biological complexity (NT, p.7/i-4)  Biology is too wide ranged and vast an area. The biologist is the individual that tries to understand processes from unicellular organisms up to the most complex ones, he who tries to understand life in a more profound way (NT, p.7/i-4)

8. The most important activity for the scientist is discovery (NT, p.7/i-7)  Prestige for the researcher is to contribute with discoveries that can enlarge knowledge (NT, p.7/i-7)

9. The judgment of scientific contributions is not influenced by tradition (NT, p.7/i-7)  The prestige of the institution derives from the body of researchers, the quality of the group gives quality to the institution. Tradition doesn’t count, what counts is the current position (NT, p.7/i-7).

10. Scientific activity is democratic and freedom is essential in its development.  (question: how does science evolve?) Little by little, sometimes backing away three steps to go forth again only one step. Naturally, it depends upon the efforts of the whole world community and, specially, upon the free flow of ideas and information, which is frequently a fantasy (IN, p.10/i-9).

11. Competition is negative (NT, p.7/i-8)  It implicates becoming visible, being requested by students and asked to take part in non scientific activities, taking bureaucratic positions in the institution or participating in editorial boards of specialized journals. There might be problems due to competition (NT, p.7/i-8).  It leads to the distortion and loss of the notion according to which science is a cooperative enterprise, engendering competition (NT, p.11/i-8) 18

12. Institutional power is a consequence of the competence of its holder.  It implicates becoming visible, being requested by students and asked to take part in non scientific activities, taking bureaucratic positions in the institution or participating in editorial boards of specialized journals. There might be problems due to competition (NT, p.7/i-8).

13. Only pure science produces knowledge.  I consider my work as a product in the sense that it is pure science, because it contributes to knowledge (NT, p.9/i-11)

14. “External” influences deform/ lead to deviation of the scientific practice/development.  As for me, I think each department must have its important studies but, according to the external trends, they are: molecular biology and ecology. The influence of “marketing” is of utter importance, however, it distorts the chief meaning of it (NT, p.9/i-9).  It is the one who understands the problem he studies within the scientific context, he mustn’t let himself be influenced by fashion or by the chance to improve his curriculum (NT, p.11/i-4)

15. hierarchies of importance (subject, discipline and institutional hierarchies) are established in science from external influences.  As for me, I think each department must have its important studies but, according to the external trends, they are: molecular biology and ecology. The influence of “marketing” is of utter importance, however, it distorts the chief meaning of it (NT, p.9/i-9).  Prestige is related to the external trends. Subjects of importance to the community become prominent (NT, p.9/i-10).  Following the “marketing” rank: molecular biology, ecology and neurobiology (NT, p.11/i-9)  Because of the influence of the media (NT, p.11/i-9)  (question: rank the specialties of the IB in order of prestige) There are more sensational things like molecular genetics or molecular biology which are very fashionable (IN, p.13/i-13)  (question: rank the specialties of the IB in order of prestige) It depends on the moment. Currently, environmental science, ecology, has been a highly sought subject as well as molecular biology (...). What is up for the moment is a socio-political-economic question (IN, p.13/i-13)  (question: rank the specialties of the IB in order of prestige) Prestige comes from work done, it doesn’t matter the area. Otherwise, it is fashion, like molecular biology or ecology.

16. Science is separated/independent from politics. Politics is external to science and a bad influence to its development.  Politics is a game of power that tries to distribute funds to many areas. It is a negative trend because backward areas with a lot of power in fund distribution can turn it all to themselves. The “big bosses” infiltrated into organizations can refrain its development.

17. The pursue of prestige distorts scientific practice/development.  It is the one who understands the problem he studies within the scientific context, he mustn’t let himself be influenced by fashion or by the chance to improve his curriculum (NT, p.11/i-4)  Prestige has to be the institution’s, not attached to the researcher. The researcher mustn’t pursue prestige, this is degrading and might lead to the ruin of the institution (NT, p.11/ i-7)  It leads to distortion and the loss of the notion that science is a cooperative enterprise, engendering competition (NT, p.11/i-8)

18. Basic research is more important than applied research.  Basic research is fundamental, applied research is a consequence of that (NT, p.17/i-14)  Science is one of humanity’s greatest accomplishments and, thus, must be detached from its application, which might have inserted moral attributes that could stray science away from its purest conception (IN, p. 86/ i-2).

19. Research is more important than teaching.  They are extremely important. Research enlarges students minds. The researcher-teacher has a better view of science than the teacher alone (NT, p.17/i-15) 19

 Teaching is good to the researcher, in the sense that it renovates his ideas and sometimes (teaching) meets a great receptivity among students. In this case, the student benefits the teacher (IN, p.6/i-4).

Propositions in large, bold letters are inferred key concepts. Statements after bullets are quotations from professors’ answers. The information between brackets is the source: all the papers given by students were deposited at the library under two volumes (TRABALHOS DE CONCLUSÃO DE CURSO - História e Filosofia da Ciência (noturno) and TRABALHOS DE CONCLUSÃO DE CURSO - História e Filosofia da Ciência (integral). Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de São Paulo, 1993. Mimeo (deposited at the library of the Institute of Biosciences - USP). Quotations are cited according to page and “item”(1-4, for example).

There is a close match between first class students’ attribute list for scientists and their professors’ list. Three coincidences in citation are outstanding: “persistence”, “critical attitude” and

“patience”. The weak and diffuse sensibility to the social/professional dimension of science identified in the students’ answers is a little more conspicuous in the teachers list, as with the citation of ethical concerns and the ability to leave disciples. Nevertheless, no image of science as socially conditioned or contextualized was detectanble. Professors were either unaware or unwilling to discuss social and political issues in science with their interviewers-students. Instead, they depicted the scientist as a person whose performance depends on strictly individual and immanent characteristics. The main features for science are: 1. cumulative progress; 2. inductivism; 3. realism; 4. independence of the

“world of ideas”.

Inductivism is evident in spontaneous statements. For example: when asked about the motivations for choosing a scientific career, one professor said he chose it because he was interested in the pursuit of knowledge. He also declared that “science is a method of seeing what surrounds us”.

Knowledge and facts are always “out there” and they must be pursued. They must be persistently collected and organized so that scientific propositions might emerge from them. In this context, nothing is made. Just like facts (and truth itself), questions, the problems of science, are all external things that just “exist”. They are out there, waiting to be recognized and solved, with the method offered by science (or that makes up science). What grants efficiency to this method is precisely its inaccessibility to the inaccurate human hands: there is a logic behind science, something immanent to this form of thought. Science is, thus, a superior and different form of thinking, given its peculiar relation with truth. In this context, science is evidently identified with research, more specifically with the individual efforts and to the act of discovery that stands in every researcher’s horizon.This definition is 20 concentrated in “pure” research - opposing it to its “applied” varieties which stray away from such scientific ideal.

It is also easy to understand that these statements should appear in a contradictory form considering the context: professors reporting their opinions, attitudes and experiences to the students they teach, in the physical space where they do it. Besides that, some of the questions could be interpreted as intimidating, as if students were interested in some sort of “hidden truth”. Therefore, subjects always answered that research and teaching were equally important, but qualified them differently in other questions, thus exposing the camouflaged hierarchy. One example Is the prevalent idea that teaching is a complementary activity - desirable, but unmistakably subordinate to “real science” (research).

Results suggested some of the possible reasons why professors saw themselves as detached from the social environment, whose influences would be essentially negative. The relations with this social surrounding were strongly associated with grant writing and the “bad” politics involved in it.

Since funding agencies have a logic and a bureaucracy of their own, professors’ discourse showed resentment and a suspicion of the influence of fashion in granting funds. This was seen as the “bad”,

“irrational” side of science’s relations with society.

To the disappointment of students, professors never really talked about the scientific career.

Questions about career always produced answers about the qualities of the ideal scientist. The “hows” and “whos” were absent.

Professors’ answers match mertonian norms with absolute precision: universalism, communism, disinterestedness e organized skepticism (K. Merton 1942). Together, they imply that science is immune to prejudiced or socially biased criteria in the acceptance of its products; that judgment is totally dissociated from the author’s origins; and that the only reward expected by the scientist is recognition. (box 5):

Box 5

NORMS

1. Non-committedness - science must be pursued and its contributions judged independent of anything external to science’s own intellectual context.

6. The belonging condition of the category of scientist is the sharing of method. 21

10. Scientific activity is democratic and freedom is essential in its development. 13. Only pure science produces knowledge. 18. Basic research is more important than applied research.

2. organized skepticism (Merton) / absolute exemption - all contributions must be judged in purely intellectual terms, with reference to an intellectual context presumably immune to human manipulation. As a consequence, scientific recognition cannot be influence by institutional or otherwise social factors (institutional tradition or researchers prestige).

6. The belonging condition of the category of scientist is the sharing of method.

3. Disinterestedness (Merton) - it implies that science must be pursued with no interest in prestige, power, financial gains or any other form of social reward. A consequence of that is that competition is something to be rejected, as a symptom of distorted practice and breaking of the rules.

11. Competition is negative. 16. Science is separated/independent from politics. Politics is external to science and a bad influence to its development. 17. The pursue of prestige distorts scientific practice/development.

Such shared prescriptions certainly have an important cohesive role. They are, therefore, associated to the identity of the member of a scientific community.

Students analyse professors’ talk

The students who analyzed professors’ interviews four months after the beginning of classes were changed: they had become critical towards the very statements they had entered in their own early questionnaires. Many of them had become partly estranged to their previous perceptions and attempted to provide explanations for the professors’ claims. They identified norms - constructed and shared by the group - where before they only saw natural features of the scientific behavior. In box 6 we present a scheme of perspectives adopted by students in their interpretations. A critical attitude could be identified in most of their papers.

Box 6

RECOGNITION OF INSTITUTIONAL HISTORICAL VARIABLES  The analysis of questionnaires applied at the Dept. of Biology of the IB-USP has permitted us to recognize some basic traits which are probably related to the context in which the department was founded (NT, p.21).  Through the interview with the eldest teacher we have observed that the career choice is intimately related to its time, reflecting more the opportunities at play than any other factor (IN, p.17/i-1). 22

 As already mentioned in the introduction, teachers answers are difficult to analyze and to accomplish that (the analysis) we have made use of historical information on the Dept. of Biology (...). The dept. was integrated with other scientific institutions at that time (as it still is) and, consequently, it was the first department at the IB to attain a really professional standard. This standard has been achieved due to the great number of publications and availability of grants for expensive research, thus keeping the dept. of biology at the top of the institute’s hierarchy. Such a recognition of the dept. of biology has probably acted upon (and it still does) the way of thinking of the people who work there. It is a department where few tools are lacking, leading to the “non questioning” of related facts, there included historical facts(IN, p.69).

RECOGNITION OF SOCIOLOGICAL VARIABLES  Another point that must be stressed is that, although the interviews were carried out in a single department, the interviewed researchers belonged to different groups, with different histories as to their formation, and could be either an established group or one under formation. We have thus interviewed professors from the areas of phycology, plant biotechnology, plant physiology and plant anatomy. The reason for the blurry picture of the department as depicted by the researchers might be there. Other heterogeneity factors were professors’ age and title . (IN, p. 176).

RECOGNITION OF PROFESSIONAL FEATURES OF THE GROUP AS CONDITIONING DISCOURSE  The first and possibly most relevant feature is its professionalism, which implicates a much more realist and objective view of science (NT, p.21).

RECOGNITION OF A PRESTIGE HIERARCHY OF THE ACADEMIC PRACTICES  Another outstanding trait is the high regard towards basic research. In general, it is seen as an unavoidable passage to applied research. However, it works as a two edged sword: in one side, it brings more prestige and more chances for publication and in the other, it is drawing the scientific community away from society (NT, p.21).

RECOGNITION OF NORMATIVE ELEMENTS  The amount and quality of published works seem to be the indicators of a good researcher’s productivity and seriousness, which is in fact to be expected from an extremely professionalized group (NT, p.23).

RECOGNITION OF THE SOCIAL DIMENSION OF THE SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE  Social and political factors emerge too as a source of problems, together with bureaucracy, lack of technological and infra-structure resources and excessive productivity pressure from the university (IN, p.41/”discussão”).

RECOGNITION OF STYLE FEATURES OF THE GROUP  Although systematically pointing the lack of funds and support from governmental agencies, professors don’t seem to be considerably affected since they are, apparently, satisfied (IN, p. 65).  The answers to question 8 (about what is important in the scientific career and which are the roads to success) once again have shown individuality overcoming general concepts, in short, concepts such as interaction among researchers, scientific meetings and publications were not cited. Personal devotion to work and determination were considered essential to the career (IN, p.65).

ANALYSIS OF PRESTIGE HIERARCHY  Among interviewed professors of the Botany dept. there was, curiously, reluctance or even categorical refusals in establishing a hierarchy scale as to IB specialties, although they admitted there was actually a hierarchy in the following question (...). At the same time, they were unanimous in asserting that prestige derives from the researcher’s performance such as: publication, strong research lines, good quality teaching. The combined analysis of questions 7 and 10 leads to a paradox, since if prestige is conferred 23

to the researcher as a consequence or his own performance and to disciplines as a consequence of “fashion” (as answered in question 10), an deadlock is established (NT, p.45).  To all interviewed professors, both are important and there is no precedence of one or the other, research and teaching cannot be disconnected. We know this discourse is not true since research is at the top of the hierarchy, scientists believe only research is a productive activity, teaching would be a simple transmission and not a construction (IN, p.17/i-4).  The discourse produced by the community of the dept. of biology defends pure research but the importance of its direct application in social benefits is discussed. In our opinion, this discourse is just lip service and does not express the real thinking of that community. It is the same case of the discourse in which research and teaching have the same weight, since we know that research is more relevant (IN, p.70).  Resistance in ranking the departments of the IB in order of prestige was almost homogeneous. Such a difficulty derives from the difficulty in admitting that science is related to political, social, philosophical, and other factors and it is not, as previously thought, a spontaneous thing depending solely in its own research direction (IN, p.134).

RECOGNITION OF GROUP STRATEGIES IN THEORETICAL ASSERTIONS  The emphasis in the method, up to the point of equaling science and method, was clear. This is a consequence of the interviewed professors’ “popperian” view (...). They claim such ideas so as to affirm, or to convince themselves and others as to the scientificity of their practice (IN, p.17/i-2).

INFORMED CRITICISM  An important point, derived from question 4, has to do with scientific controversies; it is our interest to discuss as much as possible why these controversies are not brought to students (IN, p.22/i-5).  We have observed that generally, many teachers express a discourse they heard would be better, not reporting what really happens at the department. The teaching issue is an example. It is claimed to be of same importance as research; however, we clearly know the great majority emphasizes research. It seems to us that professors spit wrapped up ideological packages, masking what really goes through their heads (IN, p. 29/i-7).

The interests of the students

An evaluation questionnaire was applied to both groups of students. 60% of IN and 62% of

NT answered (36 and 18 students, respectively). The results have shown that students were not satisfied with the lack of integration between professors, which impaired clarity, the exploration depth of each topic and the assembling of the program itself. Nevertheless, they pointed out that in spite of this, they thought an HPS/SS course was important. They were asked to rank the course from 1 to 5, ranging from indispensable (1) to unnecessary (5). The distribution of their answers can be seen in the fig 1 24

Fig. 1

Fig 1: Students’ 35 judgment on the necessity 30 of an HPS 25 course in their curriculum. 20 IN students

Each of the 15 NT students five categories at the abscissa 10 represents a 5 degree from indispensable 0 (1) to 1 2 3 4 5 unnecessary (5). Numbers at the ordinate represents percentage of students choosing each category.

The IN students had always been more critical towards the course. The results showed that they were divided in two opinion groups: those who thought the course was indispensable and the other who thought it was unnecessary. The NT students were more evenly distributed among categories. Students thought the course needed extensive re-elaboration. However, not only they expressed their opinion about the necessity of such a program, but they actually organized to support the maintenance of it as a required course. They never concealed they criticism towards the department of history professors and even demanded their substitution, but they stated that the semester’s experience revealed potentialities they were not aware of. Such potentialities become more clear when we observe the answer to a question about the future of the course. They were asked to rank contents according to their importance for a future history and philosophy of science course. They were given

17 choices plus a blank “others” where they could suggest a different topic and they were asked to rank only the ones they thought were needed, leaving out the unnecessary out. The result can be seen in table 4.

Table 4

IN NT order subject(s) Order subject(s) 1 scientific controversies 1 scientific controversies 2 the structure and functioning of 2 characteristics of modern science/ scientific communities the formation of scientific disciplines/ knowledge and 25

culture/ history of science and science teaching 3 characteristics of modern science 3 the structure and functioning of scientific communities 4 science and society/science and 4 the concept of life/ scientific politics change/ biographies of great scientists 5 history of science and science 5 teaching

All the students cited more than one subject, in order of priority. Each citation was compiled according to its order of priority. The frequencies of citation of each topic in the four first places of the rank sequence were summed. Choices were: a. characteristics of modern science; b. the formation of scientific disciplines; c. scientific controversies; d. the structure and functioning of scientific communities; e. the concept of life; f. perspectives on the nature of science; g. scientific change; h. science and society/science and politics; i. epistemological features of biological knowledge; j. logic; l. ethics and science; m. science and technology; n. knowledge and culture; o. history of science and science teaching; p. biographies of great scientists; q. the species concept; r. the study of philosophical models about science; s. others.

Groups were similar in their choices. . The single most quoted item as priority for both groups was, surprisingly, “history of science and science teaching”. We have no explanation for that, since this topic has never been mentioned along the course.

Concluding remarks

Many studies about the images of science and scientists were done in the past, specially by researchers concerned with high school and elementary education. Early examples of this sort of survey are the works by M. Mead & R. Métraux (1962) and by D.C. Beardslee & D.D. O’Dowd (1962) about the images of the scientist among high-school and college students, respectively. Grossly, there are not many differences among these groups, both showing a remarkable lack of familiarity with science and its practitioners. They hold an ambiguous, somewhat negative image of the scientist: he is someone highly intelligent, devoted to his work and to that alone, with little concern for any other aspect of life.

Students were not inclined either to become scientists or to marry a scientist, in the case of girls.

Although praised for the benefits of their activities to mankind, scientists were held under suspicion as to their actual social responsibility. This is the representation held people with very indirect relations with science, therefore, quite unfamiliar with its reality. It is the layman view (as Mead & Métraux point out, probably the parents view), expressing the attitudes, information and opinions of those most alien to science. It is also the substance of public opinion in 1962. More recent works on closer (to 26 science) social actors exhibit a few differences: R. Ruggieri, C. Tarsitani & M. Vicentini (1993) reported their findings about science teachers images of science in Latin countries. They compared groups from different countries (Italy X Latin American countries) but the resultant list of attributes for science is quite similar for both groups, with a greater emphasis in “coherent”, “demonstrable”,

“objective”, “systematic” and “rational”. They reported that Italians seemed to believe that science grows in linear progress towards a perfect reflex of reality and inexorable approximation to truth. Latin

Americans seem to be a little less realists but are, nevertheless, strongly rationalist. S. Lakin & J.

Wellington (1994) report having found that constructs commonly associated to the scientific method have negative relationship to culture, emotion and subjective observation in their research on the thinking of science teachers (all science B.Sc.’s in either physics or chemistry, p. 185). And in a study on pre-service elementary teachers’ conception of science, S.K. Abell and D.C. Smith found that their subjects had “realist and positivist views” of the scientific enterprise with little concern for the social or creative aspects of it. They classified subjects’ response on the nature of science by category. Most representative categories were those in which science is associated to “discovery” and “knowledge” (p.

478). All these studies focus on science (high school or elementary) teachers who are, actually, former college science students. They are closer to our own subjects (research committed biology students and full-time faculty staff in a research university) and their representations express this closeness.

“Realist”, “positivistic” and “objectivist” views identified in all these studies were also present in the first day students survey and in teachers’ answers. One last survey on the images of science & scientists deserves mention. A. Rampal (1992) reports having observed that the typical image of the scientist held by scientists themselves or by the public at large conforms with the ethos of science described by

Merton. She calls for a closer attention to this “over idealized” image of scientists by SS programs, especially in third world countries. It seems that familiarity with scientific practice might be able to attenuate attitudes such as suspiciousness or an over optimistic realism, a certain over confidence in the power of science to attain real truth. It also neutralizes an excessive confidence in the actual effectiveness of science in promoting large scale immediate transformations in social life. But no matter the degree of familiarity, the disregard for social factors and the universal norms of science are invariable. What our SS course experience with biology students has shown is that these representations might be altered and, given the great consistency of original images with those held by 27 similar groups all over the world, it seems reasonable to suppose the transformation was a consequence of the experience itself.

We suggest that the transformations observed in students’ representations of science were related to the reflexive activity of interviewing their professors. Students were discussing and criticizing the hierarchical relations between production (research) and reproduction (teaching) of scientific knowledge while experiencing the hierarchy itself and producing an analysis (the paper) about that hierarchical relation. Professional choices - crucial ones for that matter (most of the students would graduate that same year or the year following that) - were being made while professional choices

(Darwin’s, Pasteur’s, Delbruck’s, Watson’s, their professors’ and their own) were being studied. The subjects of these choices were also identifying the norms that rule scientific behavior and attitude while absorbing them for future and present use. That is what made them glimpse, even if for just a brief moment, through the otherwise impenetrable opaqueness of the manufacture of science. That is what can make case studies make sense, and in making sense, help them see the scientific enterprise as a more manageable, less inevitable/natural one. The “greater awareness” about the workings of techno- science and the conscious attitude towards power games involved in their own choices are in fact self awareness and self consciousness provided by SS theoretical instruments.

Assuming the image transformations from a more “natural” to a more “manufactured” conception of science can take place as a result of an SS course, should they be considered beneficial?

STS course supporters in general do so believing these courses can be beneficial in promoting responsible citizenship and, therefore, more conscious decision-making. C.S. Bradford et al (1995) compared the views on Science, Technology and Society held by college students who undertook a general education STS course with those of students enrolled in a general education physics course.

They concluded that the STS course promoted a more realistic view of science, although it also seems to have developed some misunderstandings. These results were assessed by a standard test that measured the degree of awareness as to relations of science and technology to society. But maybe

“misunderstandings” are necessary side effects of the “exoteric” perspective a general education STS course is bound to bear: it is quite different to see science - a necessarily esoteric, professional- specialist driven, self-referenced activity9 - from the outside than from the practitioner perspective.

That is the specificity of our experience and probably the advantage of SS courses offered to advanced science students. We think the misunderstandings might not be the same. However, neither are the 28 benefits. There was at the time, among students and sympathizers a general feeling that the enterprise had been rewarding. The benefits felt are related in general to developing a greater awareness about the social and historical nature of science.

Such a temporary transparency as to the social workings of science for students was provided by turning SS’ interpretative instruments upon themselves, their professors, their institution and their science. In an SS course such as the one we designed (and partly accomplished), students find themselves in a situation where they are part of the object of their own inquiry and learning. Certainly a disturbing, although fertile position10..

Therefore, the potential benefits are all related to a “weak” form of reflexivity as well as a

“weak” form of relativism, all of which are responsible for the resulting “benign transparency” of the workings of science. Potential benefits are an optimization of students’ career strategies, appraisal of the relations of science with society, and social responsibility as future science and policy-makers.

How far can these “weak reflexive” and “weak relativist” perspectives be stretched, asked us a colleague philosopher who thought it should be taken “that far”. His opinion certainly strengthens the point of view according to which science studies should be considered a dangerous subject, capable of straying away from science our best young brains. We don’t and we think both defenders of a radical deconstructionist perspective and advocates of the X-ratedness of SS far overestimate the power a simple semester course has over such mighty forces as those that determine a career path. The course works this way: if professors are able to persuade students that there is a common ground of interests to work on, then the program is on its way to succeed. Within the limits established in that common ground, a multitude of proposals and concepts can be explored. Commitment is the basis of success.

The possible commitment with students enrolled in a scientific career involves not damaging their belief in the validity of scientific knowledge and its objective nature. Break it and you lose the students

- it’s as simple as that.

Hence students shouldn't be expected nor stimulated to disbelieve in science as an objective enterprise or in its progress. They should rather be expected to qualify objectivity and progress. We believe our role as professors of science students is to develop awareness, to help them succeed in understanding their own process and, finally, to help them be what they have chosen to: scientists. 29

Finally, we would like to finish the account of the story by telling what happened as a consequence of the students’ movements. In the semester following the HPS course, students organized and argued with IB commissions, with the head of the department of history and with the director of the FFLCH that the HPS course had a lot to offer to their education, and such potentialities would have been revealed to them during the 1993 experience. In spite of the hostile atmosphere, they succeeded in part: the class was maintained. Nevertheless, the teachers were not substituted and the experimental program was never absorbed.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the history department professors in charge of the HPS course at the time, S. Motoyama and M.A.M. Dantes for allowing the experience to be developed and for their support then and after. We hope the response to such a receptive attitude wasn’t just trouble and embarrassment. We would also like to thank all the students of the 1993 HPS course, who were really significant in developing these ideas. Finally, we would like to thank Dr. M.I. Sawaya, from the IB, who has been determinant in putting things together and making them work and who, unfortunately, is not here to follow the outcomes of her doings anymore.

References

Abell, S.K. & Smith, D.C.: 1994, ‘What is science?: preservice elementary teachers’ conceptions of the

nature of science’, International Journal of Science Education, 16, 475-487.

Ashmore, M.: 1989, The Reflexive Thesis; Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, The

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Beardslee, D.C. and O’Dowd, D.D.: 1962, ‘The College-Student Image of the Scientist’, In: B. Barber

& W. Hirsh (eds.), The Sociology of Science, New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, 247-258.

Bevilacqua, F. & Giannetto, E.: 1995, ‘Hermeneutics and Science Education: the Role of History of

Science’, Science and Education 4, 115-126.

Bourdieu, P.: 1987, A Economia das Trocas Simbólicas, Perspectiva, São Paulo, (Coleção Debates). 30

Bradford, C.S. et al.: 1995, ‘Views about Science-Technology-Society Interactions Held by College

Students in General Education Physics and STS Courses’, Science Education, 79, 355-373.

Caron, J. A.: 1988, ‘ "Biology" in the Life Sciences: a Historiographical contribution’, History of

Science, 26, 223-268.

Coleman, W.: 1977, Biology in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Coutinho, M. & Santos, H.S.: 1995, ‘Uma experiência de ensino em história e filosofia das ciências

para curso de biologia; implicações relativas à apropriação de sistemas normativos e conceituais na

prática científica’, http://www.usp.br/nupes/blm.html.

Cremaschi, S.: 1987. ‘Remarks on Scientific Metaphors’. In: CONGRESSO “TEMI E PROSPECTIVE

DELLA LOGICA E DELLA FILOSOFIA DELLA SCIENZA COMPEMPORANEA”. 1987.

Cesena. Atti del Congresso “Temi e prospettive della logica e della filosofia della scienza

contemporanea”. 2.v. Bologna: CLUEB. 1988.

Foucault, M.: 1987, As Palavras e as Coisas, Martins Fontes, Rio de Janeiro.

Fleck, L.: 1986, La génesis y el desarrollo de un hecho científico, Alianza Editorial, Madrid.

Gibbons, M. et al.: 1994: The new production of knowledge; The dynamics of science and research in

contemporary societies, Sage, London.

Jenkins, E.W.: 1994, ‘HPS and school science education: remediation or reconstruction’, International

Journal of Science Education, 16, 613-623.

Jensen, M.S. & Finley, F.N.: 1995, ‘Teaching Evolution Using Historical Arguments in a Conceptual

Change Strategy’, Science Education, 79, 147-166.

Krasilchik, M.:199O, ‘The scientists: an experiment in science teaching’, International Journal of

Science Education, 12, 282-287.

Kuhn, T.S.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

-- 1977, The Essential Tension. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.

Lakin, S. & Wellington, J.: 1994, ‘Who will teach the ‘nature of science’?: teacher’s views of science

and their implications for science education’, International Journal of Science Education, 16, 175-

190.

Lakoff, G ; Johnson, M.: 1980, Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 31

Latour, B.: 1987, Science in Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Merton, R.K.: 1942, ‘The Normative Structure of Science’, in R.K. Merton (ed.): 1973, The Sociology

of Science; Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 267-

278.

Matthews, M.R.: 1990, ‘Introduction’, International Journal of Science Education, 12, 227-229.

--: 1990, ‘Ernst Mach and contemporary science education reforms’, International Journal of Science

Education, 12, 317-325.

Mead, M. & Métraux, R.: 1962, ‘The Image of the Scientist among High-School Students: A Pilot

Study’, In: B. Barber & W. Hirsh (eds.), The Sociology of Science, New York, The Free Press of

Glencoe, 230-246.

Nielsen, H.: 1993, ‘The Endless Spiral; Teaching History of Technology in Context’, Science and

Education 2, 169-181.

Nielsen, H. & Thomsen V.: 1990, ‘History and philosophy of science in physics education’,

International Journal of Science Education,12, 308-316.

Pickering, A.: 1992, ‘From science as knowledge to science as practice’, in A. Pickering (ed.), Science

as Practice and Culture, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1-26.

Pyeson, L.: 1989, ‘What is the good of history of science?’ History of Science 27, 353-389.

Rampal, A.: 1992, ‘Images of Science and Scientists: a Study of School Teachers’ Views. 1.

Characteristics of Scientists’, Science Education, 76, 415-436.

Reingold, N.: 1981, ‘Science, scientists, and historians of science’, History of Science 19, 274-283.

Ruggieri, R., Tarsitani, C. & Vicentini, M.: 1993, ‘The images of science of teachers in Latin

countries’, International Journal of Science Education, 15, 383-393.

Schwartzman, S.: 1991, A Space for Science: The Development of the Scientific Community in Brazil,

University Park: Pennsylvania University Press.

Smocovitis, V.B. 1992Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology.

Journal of the history of biology. 25, no. 1: 1-66 32

Trabalhos de Conclusão de Curso: 1993, Curso de História e Filosofia da Ciência (noturno). Faculdade

de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de São Paulo, 1993. Mimeo (deposited at

the library of the Institute of Biosciences - USP).

Trabalhos de Conclusão de Curso: 1993, Curso de História e Filosofia da Ciência (integral). Faculdade

de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas da Universidade de São Paulo, 1993. Mimeo (deposited at

the library of the Institute of Biosciences - USP).

Whitaker, M.A.B.: 1984, ‘Science, scientists and history of science’, History of Science 22, 421-424.

Woolgar, S. (ed.): 1991, Knowledge and Reflexivity, London, Sage Publications.

Apendix

Questionnaire 1. Age: 2. Year of enrollment: 3. Are you currently doing “ introduction to research”: ( ) yes ( ) no 4. If you are, in which department and subject: 5. Are you currently engaged in any research activity (other than “initiation to research”): ( ) yes ( ) no 6. If you are, in which department and subject: 7. Are you currently enrolled in any pedagogy course? ( ) yes ( ) no 8. Which are the courses that most attracted you up to now: 9. When you graduate, which of the following do you intend to engage in (if you mark more than one alternative, number them according to priority): a.( ) to research, in a graduate program b.( ) to research, in a corporation c.( ) to teaching high school and elementary students d.( ) to scientific consultancy (environmental or other) e.( ) some other activity (name it): 10. Justify you option(s) in few words: 11. If you intend to go to graduate school: a.( ) you have already chosen the area and advisor and you are already working with that person b.( ) you have already chosen the area and the advisor, but you are not yet working on that project c.( ) you have already chosen the area, but not the advisor nor the institution d.( ) you have not made up your mind as to area or subject 12. Define science in few words: 13. In your opinion, which are the most important characteristics a scientist must have? 14. What are your expectations towards this course (as to content, as to the potential contribution it might offer to your education, etc.): 1Notes:

Science Studies is the general term to refer to the scholarly work that highlights science or techno-science under a

philosophical, historical, sociological or anthropological perspective. It will be referred to hereafter as SS.

2 The role of SS in science courses is a general issue, whatever the specific meaning of science course is. Since a

specific teaching experience is introduced here, it is important to explain that in Brazil, students choose their track

before acceptance into a higher education institution. The apply to specific fields and if and when they are accepted,

they become “biology” students or “engineering” students, belonging to different institutes, programs and

departments at the university.

3 For details on Brazilian higher education system and on the history of its science and technology, see S.

Schwartzman, A Space for Science: The Development of the Scientific Community in Brazil (University Park:

Pennsylvania University Press, 1991).

4 IN stands for “integral”, which is how the full time course is called

5 There were 60 students in IN and 29 students in NT.

6 “Introduction to research” comprises part of the credits required for a B. Sc. in biology and generally consists of

small research projects under the supervision of a professor.

7 The idea of key concept is partially related to S. Cremaschi’s interpretation of model relations and metaphor in

science, and to G. Lakoff’s and M. Johnson’s view of the metaphoric character of conceptual systems. See Cremaschi

1987 and Lakoff & Johnson 1980.

8 . Ideas according to which concepts can only emerge in certain historical/discursive contexts (as in M. Foucault, As

Palavras e as Coisas, Rio de Janeiro, Martins Fontes, 1987), embedded in a definite institutional/political setting (as in

J.A. Caron, 1988, ‘"Biology" in the Life Sciences: a Historiographical contribution’, Hist. Sci. 26: 223-268; and W.

Coleman, 1977, Biology in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge University Press) or that Biology could only have

been unified with the Evolutionary Synthesis (as in V.B. Smocovitis Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis

and Evolutionary Biology Journal of the history of biology. 25, no. 1, (Spring 1992): 1-66 were introduced and

elicited great excitement among students.

9 Since early times, sociologists of science consider it an activity necessarily accomplished by socially structureds

groups of specialists. See L. Fleck (La génesis y el desarrollo de un hecho científico, Alianza Editorial, Madrid,

1986), through the breakthrough work of T. Kuhn about scientific revolutions (The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970) up to recent SSK generations. P. Bourdieu, A

Economia das Trocas Simbólicas, Perspectiva, São Paulo, 1987. More recent contributions have been asserting the increased importance relations involving a variety of other social agents might have in determining the features of

science, thus pointing to socially more distributed dynamics in the construction of science (see for example B. Latour,

Science in Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1987, or M. Gibbons et al. The new

production of knowledge, Sage, London, 1994).

10 On reflexivity, see M. Ashmore, The Reflexive Thesis, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1989, and S.

Woolgar, S. (ed.), Knowledge and Reflexivity, Sage, London, 1991.