Troy D. Sadler

Moral and Ethical Dimensions of Socioscientific Decision-Making as Integral Components of Scientific

An is made that socioscientific decision-making occupies a seminal place in scientific literacy and attention to morality and ethics must be included in the curriculum.

Science educators have appropri- of socioscientific issues. This paper reform did not coin the phrase; in fact, it ated many meanings for the phrase reviews how the Science-Technol- has appeared in the literature for almost “scientific literacy” (Champagne & ogy-Society movement has addressed fifty years. Paul Hurd is credited with Lovitts, 1989). This paper advances socioscientific decision-making and first publishing the phrase in 1958, an argument that in order to main- outlines an alternative approach that but the notion that underlies scientific tain the usefulness of such a mal- more explicitly focuses on the moral literacy for all citizens can be traced leable phrase, its users must explicitly and ethical implications of socio- back to at least the beginning of the address the context of its use. Based scientific issues. century (Laugksch, 2000). Despite on the vision of (or maybe because of) the fact that articulated in standards documents Scientific Literacy Ambiguity scientific literacy has been a part of from the United States (American In the current era of standards and the landscape of science education Association for the Advancement of reform, the phrase “scientific literacy” for a considerable length of time, its Science, 1990); (National has garnered a great deal of attention meaning remains mired in debate. Council, 1996) and abroad (Council from the science education community. In today’s educational environ- of Ministers of Education Canada Despite the reform movement’s ment, “scientific literacy” has become Pan-Canadian Science Project, 1997; emphasis on scientific literacy, the the descriptor of science education’s Millar & Osborne, 1998; Queensland architects of modern science education ultimate aims. In many ways, it has School Curriculum Council, 2001), become the criterion for assessing this paper advances a conception of curriculum and pedagogy; new ap- scientific literacy which involves proaches are evaluated by the extent the negotiation of socioscientific to which they promote scientific issues. In other words, becoming In the current era of literacy. Consequently, researchers scientifically literate requires, at least standards and reform, and practitioners have a tendency to in part, the ability to make informed conceptualize the construct in man- decisions regarding socioscientific is- the phrase “scientific ners that support their own goals for sues. Central to socioscientific issues literacy” has garnered education. In other words, educators are moral and ethical implications; a great deal of attention substantiate their research and teach- therefore, the promotion of scientific ing agendas by linking them to the literacy requires curricular attention from the science promotion of science literacy, which to the moral and ethical implications education community. is frequently defined by their agendas

SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 39 concept with building “scientific habits scientific literacy as a multifaceted of mind” which involves processes, construct including the following Despite (or maybe epistemic considerations, and attitudes elements: (Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). being familiar with the natural because of) the fact Responding to this apparent world and respecting its unity; incongruity, some authors claim that scientific literacy being aware of some of the that scientific literacy is an ill- has been a part of important ways in which math- defined concept of little practical ematics, , and the the landscape of utility (Champagne & Lovitts, depend upon one an- 1989; Laugksch, 2000). The fact science education for other; understanding some of that educators appropriate multiple the key concepts and principles a considerable length meanings to the phrase supports the of science; having a capacity of time, its meaning contention that scientific literacy is for scientific ways of thinking; an ill-defined concept; however, this remains mired in knowing that science, mathemat- non-specificity does not necessarily ics, and technology are human debate. condemn the concept. Scientific enterprises, and knowing what literacy can still be useful in describing that implies about their strengths (Champagne & Lovitts, 1989; De- the aims of science education so long and limitations; and being able Boer, 2000; Laugksch, 2000). This as appropriate qualifiers and support to use scientific knowledge and tautology leaves the field with many are supplied. When appealing to ways of thinking for personal and distinct perceptions of what scien- scientific literacy, authors need to social purposes. (AAAS, 1990, tific literacy entails. Most science explicitly address their ideas regarding pp. xvii-xviii) educators would agree that promoting the concept and provide a rationale scientific literacy is a (if not the) for their given perspectives. In the The National Science Education primary goal of science education, tradition of Standards define a scientifically liter- but no such consensus exists regard- (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), providing ate person as someone who is able to ing the meaning of scientific literacy such a description shifts the assessment “use appropriate scientific processes itself. The multiple definitions of sci- of applicability from the investigators and principles in making personal entific literacy tend to focus on three or authors to the audience. Because decisions” and “engage intelligently main areas: processes, knowledge, scientific literacy can mean different in public discourse and debate about and attitudes (Jenkins, 1990). Attempts things to different people, authors must matters of scientific and technological to operationalize scientific literacy qualify their use of the phrase so that concern” (NRC, 1996, p. 13). Both typically appeal to at least one of their readers can choose to accept or of these conceptualizations charac- these areas, and the usually reject the stated position. terize scientific literacy as an active proceed along the following objective; they provide benchmarks lines: “The scientifically literate Operationalizing for using scientific knowledge and person accurately applies appropriate Scientific Literacy processes. A logical question to ask science concepts, principles, laws, The standards documents provided in response to this analysis is use of and theories in interacting with his by the American Association for the knowledge and processes towards universe” (Rubba & Andersen, 1978, Advancement of Science (AAAS; what end? In answering this ques- p. 450). This particular example high- 1990; 1993) and the National Research tion, it is important to remember the lights the knowledge dimension, but Council (NRC; 1996) as well as documents’ intended foci. We need equally viable statements are made perceived needs of current elementary look no further than the title of one, regarding the processes of science and secondary science students, Science for All Americans (AAAS, as well as attitudes towards science. provide the framework from which 1990), and the opening sentence of the Additionally, some delineations of scientific literacy will be framed for other, “scientific literacy has become a scientific literacy combine multiple this report. Science for All Americans, necessity for everyone” (NRC, 1996, goals as in the case of equating the a seminal reform document, defines p. 1). Scientific literacy is not a goal

40 SCIENCE EDUCATOR restricted to the academically elite modified foods. Because the class of they emerge in the context of real or those who show the promise of scientific issues that requires public life (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; Kolstø, becoming tomorrow’s scientists, doc- input (as opposed to other scientific 2001). 2) Socially and politically active tors, and engineers; scientific literacy issues most frequently addressed by participants in a society dependent on is for every student. If this is the case, professional scientists) necessarily science and technology must also then scientific literacy cannot involve involves societal factors, these issues have an understanding of the nature of the level of technical sophistica- have been termed socioscientific science (NOS). NOS components such tion required by particle physicists, issues (Kolstø, 2001; Zeidler, Walker, as the efficacy of data and its analysis, molecular biologists, and chemical Ackett, & Simmons, 2002). Therefore, the evolutionary and revolutionary engineers. Most students will not at least one component of scientific nature of scientific epistemology, and become professional scientists and literacy must be the ability to negotiate the social embeddedness of scientific engineers and, therefore, will not need socioscientific issues and produce progress contribute to the status of to master the specifics of the de Broglie informed decisions. scientific claims. In order to apply hypothesis, posttranslational protein scientific knowledge, particularly regulation, or any number of other sci- to cases of social import, decision- ence discipline-specific information. Most science educators makers need an understanding of In fact, most professional scientists the nature of scientific knowledge probably do not even understand intra- would agree that (Kolstø, 2001; Sadler, Chambers, discipline complexities beyond their promoting scientific & Zeidler, in press; Zeidler et al., own specialties (Pool, 1991); it seems literacy is a (if not the) 2002). 3) Finally, individuals making outlandish to expect student scientific socioscientific decisions must have an literacy to eclipse that of practicing primary goal of science appreciation for the moral and ethical scientists. education, but no dimensions associated with these What then do all students actually issues. Despite the objectivity that need to be able to do in order to such consensus exists positivist science attempts to portray, achieve scientific literacy? They need regarding the meaning socioscientific issues involve moral to be able to use scientific processes of scientific literacy and ethical dilemmas that lack an and habits of mind to solve problems objective “Truth.” Decision-makers faced in everyday life and to confront itself. cannot compartmentalize science and issues that involve science and make ethics and still deliver an informed informed decisions (Driver, Newton, decision; ethics and morality are & Osborne, 2000; Kolstø, 2001; Socioscientific inseparable from science in the context Patronis, Potari, & Spiliotopoulou, Decision-Making of socioscientific issues. Therefore, 1999). Science pervades nearly all Socioscientific decision-making if scientific literacy incorporates aspects of modern society and in order requires, at minimum, three interrelated socioscientific issues, programs to ensure the proper functioning of aptitudes. 1) In order to negotiate and that promote scientific literacy must such a society within the context of make decisions about socioscientific explicitly attend to moral and ethical democracy, its citizens must be capable issues, individuals must possess components (Bingle & Gaskell, 1994; of considering and resolving scientific requisite knowledge about the science Kolstø, 2001; Zeidler, 1984; Zeidler et issues. In support of this contention, underlying the issues or the skills al., 2002). The inability to successfully consider the science-related issues of needed to acquire that knowledge. This utilize any of these three aptitudes crucial import as evidenced by their cannot be viewed as a prescribed list will significantly hamper one’s prominence in political campaigns, of facts because the issues themselves ability to make judgments regarding media reports, and personal decisions. are constantly evolving and no static socioscientific issues and by extension A small sample of these issues includes body of knowledge can fully prepare will limit scientific literacy. cloning, stem cell research, alternative a decision-maker. The ability to find Of the three aptitudes described, fuels, global warming, , information and process new data is scientific knowledge acquisition, nuclear , and genetically essential for handling new issues as NOS understanding, and awareness

SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 41 of moral and ethical issues, the final “good” or “bad,” but they offered is the most contentious suggestion for little elaboration. Following the inclusion in science curricula. Arguing Decision-makers intervention, over half of the students for science students to learn science talked about “good,” “better,” and content is not a difficult case to make. cannot compartmental- “right” decisions and justified the Understanding information from ize science and use of these terms in a moral context. the domain of science is intuitively ethics and still deliver Transcript excerpts provided in the synonymous with science education. article revealed that students actively Likewise, the call for embedding NOS an informed decision; contrasted the notion of rights in science curricula is not particularly ethics and morality are vs. societal laws, made utilitarian revolutionary. While debate exists over calculations of effects, and applied what exactly constitutes NOS and how inseparable from principles of justice. Pedretti (1999) these themes should be taught, ample science in the context of also suggested that most students support has been levied in favor of socioscientific issues. adopted one of two environmental making NOS a significant component ethical perspectives: homocentrism of modern science education (Abd- or biocentrism. Sadler and Zeidler El-Khalick, Bell, & Lederman, 1998; personal experiences, affect, and (2004) chronicled the tendency McComas, Clough, & Almazroa, moral reasoning. Fleming (1986a; for college students to construe 2000). In contrast, strategies for 1986b) also investigated influences genetic engineering issues as moral dealing with ethical dilemmas are on socioscientific decision-making. problems. These authors concluded typically not associated with the canon He interviewed adolescents as they that the participants employed the of elementary or secondary school considered nuclear power and genetic following morality frameworks as science. However, research in the area engineering. Fleming concluded they considered negotiated gene of socioscientific decision-making that most students (70%) employed therapy and cloning dilemmas: con- has produced mounting evidence that moral reasoning in the resolution of sequentialism, deontology, moral morality and ethics are central to the the issues posed. The propensity for affect and moral intuitionism. In a processes in which individuals engage individuals to rely on moral factors for follow-up study using similar kinds when considering and resolving these socioscientific decision-making was of genetic engineering prompts, Sadler issues. also confirmed in Bell and Lederman’s (2003) substantiated the influence of (2003) work with college professors. both moral emotions and intuitions as Moral and Ethical Aspects Each of the 18 participants responded seminal components of socioscientific of Socioscientific Issues to four socioscientific issues (fetal decision-making. This section will review studies, tissue implantation; the relationship Philosophers, ethicists, and in science education, which between diet, exercise, and cancer; science educators have argued that provide evidence that morality and global warming; and the link between socioscientific issues naturally involve ethics contribute significantly to cigarette smoking and cancer). Eighty- the moral domain (Andre, 2002; Carse, socioscientific decision-making. five percent of the responses involved 1996; Zeidler et al., 2002), but whether Zeidler and Schafer (1984) analyzed moral, ethical, or value considerations. actual decision-makers rely on moral college student ideas regarding an Global warming was the only issue principles and/or emotions in the environmental dilemma. Trends in which some participants failed to negotiation of socioscientific issues is emerged from the group discussions cite morals, ethics, or values. Pedretti an empirical question. Taken together, indicating that the participants (1999) conducted an intervention study the studies just reviewed present incorporated morality in their decision- with a combined class of fifth and sixth compelling evidence to support the making. Several student groups grade students as they studied a unit contention that decision-makers do, concentrated on whether the actions related to mining. In pre-intervention in fact, employ morality and ethics proposed justified the end results. Other interviews, 22% of the students as they work to resolve socioscientific students displayed decision-making alluded to moral considerations such issues. The result is consistent across a patterns whereby they integrated as assessing whether the options were variety of age levels spanning middle

42 SCIENCE EDUCATOR school (Pedretti, 1999), high school classified as such. Approaches under attention directed towards the morality (Fleming, 1986a), college (Sadler & the STS heading may be as discrepant and ethics associated with these Zeidler, in press; Zeidler & Schafer, as a discrete course devoted to a decisions. Support for this contention 1984), and adult professionals (Bell particular topic, a methodological can be found in analyses of literature & Lederman, 2003). In addition, these style of instruction in a specific pertaining to the STS movement as studies confirm the significance of science discipline, and an ancillary morality in a variety of socioscientific text box discussing the relationship decision-making contexts including between science and technology in a environmental issues (Pedretti, 1999; socially pertinent issue in the midst of Zeidler & Schafer, 1984), genetic a science textbook (Pedretti & Hodson, The materials used engineering (Fleming, 1986a; Sadler 1995). Despite the vast range of the in the preparation & Zeidler, 2004), nuclear power STS movement and its admirable of teachers typically (Fleming, 1986a), and health issues intentions, the movement has fallen (Bell & Lederman, 2003). It should be short of developing the socioscientific do not address the noted that these findings do not suggest decision-making aspects of scientific morality and ethics of that decision-making of individuals are literacy. In the previous section, three socioscientific decision- naturally moral in a normative sense. aptitudes were presented as requisite They confirm that decisions naturally components for socioscientific making. involve moral considerations from a decision-making: content knowledge meta-ethical perspective. The section or acquisition, NOS understanding, well as examples from content-based which follows will explore the extent and appreciation for the moral and textbooks and secondary science to which science curricula has/has not ethical components. The STS approach methods books. reflected this conclusion. attempts to address knowledge In a recently published anthology of acquisition and to a lesser extent, NOS STS research, Miller (2000) provides STS: Intent and Limitations understanding, but explicit attention a description of what it means to be The most significant and sustained to moral and ethical components of scientifically literate from an STS curricular movement with ties to socioscientific issues is not present in perspective. He suggests that scientific socioscientific issues is the science, most (if any) STS curricula. literacy is an understanding of basic technology, and society (STS) Positive reports on the efficacy science vocabulary and an appreciation movement. This educational approach of STS approaches populate the for the nature of scientific inquiry. has attempted to bring scientific issues research literature landscape in with social influences and ramifications science education for outcomes such Individuals who demonstrate into elementary and secondary as conceptual understanding of content a high level of understanding on classrooms. It was initiated as a material (Aikenhead, 1994; Tsai, both dimensions are the most means to accomplish goals of science 2000; Yager & Tamir, 1993), interest capable of acquiring and com- education reform and is consistent in learning about science (Aikenhead, prehending information about with the promotion of scientific 1994; Solbes & Vilches, 1997; Yager a science or literacy as a chief goal in science & Tamir, 1993), and appreciation for controversy, and these individu- education (Solomon & Aikenhead, the interconnections between science, als will be referred to as being 1994; Yager, 1996). STS education (Aikenhead, “well informed” or “scientifi- involves learning experiences in which 1994; Rye & Rubba, 2000; Solbes cally literate.” (p. 29) students explore the relationships & Vilches, 1997). However, the From this perspective, the mastery between science, technology, and literature is devoid of any reports of science vocabulary and methods society by focusing on real-life issues verifying improved decision-making equips an individual to make responsible that involve these domains. Beyond with respect to the ethical implications decisions about socioscientific issues. this broad description, the particulars of socioscientific issues as a result Distinct in its absence is any reference of STS education vary significantly of STS education. This missing, but to the ethical dimensions inherent among the curricula and instruction important link stems from a lack of to “science or technology policy

SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 43 controversies.” Another author from approaches either as stand-alone STS movement, in general, has fallen the same volume echoes these chapters or subsections related to short of highlighting the moral and sentiments in levying criticism against instructional options, but they do little ethical dimensions of socioscientific science textbook treatment of STS more than draw connections between issues, which necessarily restricts issues. DeBettencourt (2000) cites the related domains and suggest the curricula’s ability to foster problems with explanations, term increased student interest in this class socioscientific decision-making. confusion, and inadequate data among of issues (for examples see Chiappetta In discussing the rhetoric that other concerns, but she never refers to & Koballa, 2002; Trowbridge, Bybee, characterizes the implementation of the dearth of information regarding & Powell, 2000). STS curriculum versus the results of the ethical implications of the issues This report is not meant to condemn its application, Pedretti and Hodson in question. the STS movement because as (1995) capture the movement’s A critic could argue that the absence stated previously, the movement has shortcomings. of moral and ethical dimensions of produced positive outcomes in some We want to enable students STS issues in research literature could areas; nor is this report attempting a to move from the capacity to just result from a bias in publication; thorough review of all STS curricula or talk knowledgably about envi- perhaps researchers are just not research because such an undertaking ronmental and health issues and interested in on the subject, would fill volumes. Its intent is not other matters with a scientific but it actually is present in curricula. even to suggest that no STS instruction and technological dimension, Unfortunately, this does not seem to has ever accomplished the promotion toward engagement in personal be the case. Many commonly used of the socioscientific decision-making action for effecting change—a secondary science textbooks do aspects of scientific literacy. However, much more radical view of STS contain STS components, but they it does aim to support the claim that the education than is commonly the typically provide nothing more than case. (p. 464) widely interspersed boxes of text, disarticulated from other material, that Adopting a more radical view of highlights the interconnectedness of STS so that students are empowered science, technology, and society (for to engage in personal action is examples see (Campbell, Mitchell, To move forward synonymous with the socioscientific & Reece, 1997; Johnson, 1998; in this area, science decision-making aspects of scientific LeMay, Beall, Bobblee, & Brower, supervisors, literacy advanced earlier in this paper. 1996; Martini, 1998; McLaughlin, In order to move students beyond 1999; Miller & Levine, 1998a; Sager, department heads, the capacity to talk about issues and Ramsey, Phillips, & Watenpaugh, teachers, curriculum identify the interconnectivity between 1998; Spaulding & Namowitz, 1997; designers, and the science and society, as the more Tocci & Viehland, 1996). It is true radical view suggests, the science that science textbooks are not the individuals who education community needs to address most important factor in determining support them including the real-life ramifications of these classroom instruction; teachers should university level science issues including the moral and ethical occupy that role, but there is little dimensions. evidence to suggest that teachers are educators need to given the tools to go beyond STS facilitate the inclusion Implications approaches offered in texts. The This paper has attempted to lay materials used in the preparation of of socioscientific issues out a rationale for 1) offering the teachers typically do not address the in science classrooms promotion of scientific literacy as a morality and ethics of socioscientific with explicit attention fundamental goal of science education, decision-making. Current, popular 2) including socioscientific issues as secondary science education methods paid to their ethical a significant component of scientific textbooks tend to discuss STS implications. literacy, and 3) asserting that moral

44 SCIENCE EDUCATOR and ethical considerations are central genetically altered (Charles, 2001; to socioscientific decision-making. Nottingham, 1998; Pence, 2002). This In addition it reviewed the science, Because morality and issue could naturally be positioned technology, and society movement within a course. The issue in order to gain perspective on ethics are natural could serve as a vehicle for introducing how socioscientific issues have aspects of the process concepts related to heritability as well been treated in science curricula. of negotiating as the specifics of molecular genetic Although STS approaches have processes. Instruction might also successfully raised awareness of the socioscientific issues, focus on the mutual interactions of importance socioscientific issues, they must be included science and society. But the learning they generally have not advanced in any educational experiences should not be concluded the ethical dimensions of these by visiting only these content and NOS issues. To move forward in this area, program aimed at goals. If the true aim of this instruction science supervisors, department promoting responsible is to help students build decision- heads, teachers, curriculum designers, making skills, teachers have a duty and the individuals who support decision-making. to broaden the discussion. Moral and them including university level ethical dimensions are central to the science educators need to facilitate goal that teachers can achieve by debate surrounding GMF, and learning the inclusion of socioscientific fostering a tolerant community in their experiences that do not address these issues in science classrooms with classrooms where students are able to dimensions present students with a explicit attention paid to their ethical voice dissenting opinions and explore partial view of reality and fetter their implications. This recommendation their belief systems. In addition, ability to make informed decisions. should not be interpreted as a proposal students need to feel that their science Ethical ramifications associated with requiring science teachers to become experiences can encompass more than producing, marketing, and consuming ethicists. It is, however, suggesting that traditional images of objective data. genetically modified foods as well promoting the ability to make informed Incorporating curricular activities as the policies which regulate these decisions regarding scientific issues such as role-plays and debates is one practices are as important to decision- that students will inevitably confront approach to achieving these goals making as genetics concepts. To focus in their everyday lives should be (Simonneaux, 2001), and a variety of attention on the morality and ethics central to their experiences in science examples already exist (Brown & Dias, inherent to GMF issues, teachers classrooms. Because morality and 2003; Cannon, Chun, & Kitchens, could encourage student to grapple ethics are natural aspects of the 2000; McLaughlin & Glasson, 2003; with some of the following questions. process of negotiating socioscientific Racich, 2002; Sadler & Zeidler, in Should organisms be unnaturally issues, they must be included in press; Sadler & Zeidler, 2003; Webster, altered by gene replacements or any educational program aimed at 2002). Writing assignments designed additions? Will genetically modified promoting responsible decision- to encourage student exploration crops impact natural populations of making. of their own thinking regarding organisms? Can individuals and/or This conclusion still leaves the role controversial socioscientific issues as corporations patent genes? Do farmers of the teacher as an open question. well as the perspectives held by others have the right to raise crops of their While a background in ethics or provide other additional activities. choice? Can genetically modified moral might be helpful As an example of what this approach foods reduce worldwide hunger? for teachers who wish to adopt the might look like, consider the issue of Do consumers have a right to know proposed approach, it is not necessary. genetically modified foods (GMF). if products have been genetically What is necessary is the creation of International scientific, business, altered? Should manufacturers be classroom environments in which agricultural, and political communities forced to divulge information that the expression of ideas, including are currently embroiled in debate over will adversely affect their business? those associated with personal value the status and accepted uses of animal Confronting students with these open- systems, is encouraged. This is a and plant crops which have been ended problems provides them with an

SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 45 initiation into the moral complexity chance. (Colby, Ehrlich, Beau- Bingle, W. H., & Gaskell, P. J. (1994). of GMF. Teachers may choose to mont, & Stephens, 2003) Scientific literacy for decisionmaking delve further by challenging students and the social construction of scientific By substituting a few phrases, this to explore the responses of various knowledge. Science Education, 78, statement reflects the central argument perspectives to these ethical quandaries 185-201. of this paper. Ethics and morality are Brown, T., & Dias, M. (2003). Demonstra- and encouraging students to use these unavoidable in the contemplation of tions to save the world. Science Scope, experiences to help build their own socioscientific issues and it is better 26(7), 20-24. positions and rationales. In taking to pay explicit attention to these Campbell, N. A., Mitchell, L. G., & Reece, this type of approach, teachers need aspects than to leave a major facet J. B. (1997). Biology: Concepts and not provide students with prescribed of socioscientific decision-making connections (2nd ed.). Menlo Park, CA: solutions to any of the ethical questions Benjamin/Cummings Publishing. to chance. Rather than overlooking just listed and therefore, do not Cannon, S. L., Chun, S., & Kitchens, P. or actively ignoring the ethical require expertise in ethics and moral J. (2000). Why not consider dialogue implications of socioscientific issues, philosophy. Rather, teachers need to instead of debate? In T. R. Koballa, & educators have a responsibility to help students recognize the moral and D. J. Tippins (Eds.), Cases in middle address them. If the promotion of and secondary science education: The ethical dimensions of socioscientific scientific literacy is an important aim of promise and dilemmas . Upper Saddle issues and encourage students to reflect science education, and socioscientific River, NJ: Merrill. critically on their own ideas as well as decision-making occupies a seminal Carse, A. L. (1996). Facing up to moral those of their classmates and potential place in scientific literacy, then perils: The virtues of care in bioethics. stakeholders. attention to morality and ethics must In S. Gordon, P. Benner, & N. Noddings Critics might argue that genetically (Eds.), Caregiving: in knowl- be included in science curricula. modified foods represent one of many edge, practice, ethics, and politics (pp. socioscientific issues and may not be References 83-110). Philadelphia: University of representative of others in terms of Pennsylvania Press. its ethical dimensions. While it is true Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Champagne, A. B., & Lovitts, B. E. (1989). Lederman, N. G. (1998). The nature Scientific literacy: A concept in search that individual issues may vary in the of science and instructional practice: of definition. In A. B. Champagne, B. extent to which ethics and morality Making the unnatural natural. Science E. Lovitts, & B. J. Callinger (Eds.), impact decision-making, it seems Education, 82, 417-436. This year in school science. Scientific likely that most possess at least some Aikenhead, G. (1994). Consequences literacy (pp. 1-14). Washington: Ameri- ethical dimensions. This trend will to learning science through STS: A can Association for the Advancement only increase as molecular genetics research perspective. In J. Solomon, & of Science. and other biotechnologies flourish, G. Aikenhead (Eds.), STS education: Charles, D. (2001). Lords of the harvest: alternative fuel searches continue, and International perspectives on reform Biotech, big money, and the future environmental concerns increase. (pp. 169-186). New York: Teachers of food. Cambridge, MA: Perseus College Press. Publishing. Conclusion American Association for the Advance- Chiappetta, E. L., & Koballa, T. R. (2002). ment of Science. (1990). Science for Science instruction in the middle and The following excerpt is taken from all Americans. New York: Oxford secondary schools (5th ed.). Upper the preface of a recently published University Press . Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice book on moral education: Andre, J. (2002). Bioethics as practice. Hall. [The authors] believe that Chapel Hill: University of North Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Beaumont, E., & moral and civic messages are Carolina Press. Stephens, J. (2003). Educating citizens: Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Preparing America’s undergraduates unavoidable in higher educa- Understandings of the nature of sci- for lives of moral and civic responsibil- tion and that it is better to pay ence and decision making on science ity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. explicit attention to the content of and technology based issues. Science these messages and how they are Education, 87, 352-377. conveyed than to leave students’ moral and civic socialization to

46 SCIENCE EDUCATOR Council of Ministers of Education Canada Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Pedretti, E., & Hodson, D. (1995). From Pan-Canadian Science Project. (1997). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, rhetoric to action: Implementing STS Common framework of science learn- CA: Sage Publications. education through action research. ing outcomes: K-12. Retrieved June Martini, F. H. (1998). Fundamentals of Journal of Research in Science Teach- 2, 2003, from . dler River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pence, G. E. (2002). Designer food: deBettencourt, K. B. (2000). Science, McComas, W. F., Clough, M. P., & Almaz- Mutant harvest or breadbasket of technology, and the environment: roa, H. (2000). The role and character the world. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Scientiific literacy for the future. In of the nature of science in science edu- Littlefield Publishers. D. D. Kumar, & D. E. Chubin (Eds.), cation. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The Pool, R. (1991). Science literacy: The Science, technology, and society: A nature of science in science education: enemy is us. Science, 251, 266-267. sourcebook on research and practice Rationales and strategies (pp. 41-52). Queensland School Curriculum Council. (pp. 141-166). New York: Kluwer Netherlands: Kluwer. (2001). Studies of society and environ- Academic Press. McLaughlin, C. W. (1999). Physical sci- ment. Retrieved June 2, 2003, from DeBoer, G. E. (2000). Scientific literacy: ence. New York: Glencoe. . contemporary meanings and its rela- Connecting biotechnology and society. Racich, M. (2002). 230 million tons of tionship to science education reform. The Science Teacher, 70(4), 48-52. trash. Science Scope, 25(7), 34-35. Journal of Research in Science Teach- Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (Eds.). (1998). Rubba, P. A., & Andersen, H. O. (1978). ing, 37, 582-601. Beyond 2000: Science education for Development of an instrument to Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. the future. London: King’s College assess secondary school students’ un- (2000). Establishing the norms of sci- School of Education. derstanding of the nature of scientific entific argumentation in classrooms. Miller, J. D. (2000). The development of knowledge. Science Education, 62, Science Education, 84, 287-312. civic scientific literacy in the United 449-458. Fleming, R. (1986a). Adolescent - States. In D. D. Kumar, & D. E. Chu- Rye, J. A., & Rubba, P. A. (2000). Stu- ing in socio-scientific issues, part I: bin (Eds.), Science, technology, and dent understanding of global warm- Social cognition. Journal of Research society: A sourcebook on research and ing: Implications for STS education in Science Teaching, 23, 677-687. practice . New York: Kluwer Academic beyond 2000. In D. D. Kumar, & D. Fleming, R. (1986b). Adolescent reason- Press. E. Chubin (Eds.), Science, technology, ing in socio-scientific issues, part Miller, K. R., & Levine, J. (1998b). Biol- and society: A sourcebook on research II: Nonsocial cognition. Journal of ogy (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: and practice (pp. 193-230). New York: Research in Science Teaching, 23, Prentice Hall. Kluwer Academic Press. 689-698. National Research Council. (1996). Na- Sadler, T. D. (2003). Informal reasoning Jenkins, E. (1990). Scientific literacy and tional science education standards. regarding socioscientific issues: The in- school science education. School Sci- Washington: National Academy fluence of morality and content knowl- ence Review, 71(256), 43-51. Press. edge. Unpublished doctoral disserta- Johnson, G. B. (1998). Biology: Visual- Nottingham, S. (1998). Eat your genes: tion, University of South Florida. izing life. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart How genetically modified food is enter- Sadler, T. D., Chambers, F. W., & Zeidler, and Winston. ing our diet. London: Zed Books. D. L. (in press). Student conceptualiza- Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, tions of the nature of science in response for citizenship: Tools for dealing with V. (1999). Students’ argumentation in to a socioscientific issue. International the science dimension of controversial decision-making on a socio-scientific Journal of Science Education. socioscientific issues. Science Educa- issue: Implications for teaching. Inter- Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). tion , 85, 291-310. national Journal of Science Education, The morality of socioscientific issues: Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: 21, 745-754. Construal and resolution of genetic A conceptual overview. Science Educa- Pedretti, E. (1999). Decision making and engineering dilemmas. Science Educa- tion, 84, 71-94. STS education: Exploring scientific tion, 88, 4-27. LeMay, H. E., Beall, H., Bobblee, K. M., & knowledge and social responsibility in Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (in press). Brower, D. C. (1996). : Con- schools and science centers through an Negotiating gene therapy controver- nections to our changing world. Upper issues-based approach. School Science sies. The American Biology Teacher. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. and , 99, 174-181.

SPRING 2004 VOL. 13, NO. 1 47 Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2003). Tsai, C. (2000). The effects of STS-orient- Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The Teaching bad science: Highlighting the ed instruction on female tenth graders’ role of moral reasoning and the status past to understand the present. Science cognitive structure outcomes and the of socioscientific issues in science Teacher, 70 (9), 36-40. role of student scientific epistemologi- education: Philosophical, psychologi- Sager, R. J., Ramsey, W. L., Phillips, cal beliefs. International Journal of Sci- cal and pedagogical considerations. In C. R., & Watenpaugh, F. W. (1998). ence Education, 22, 1099-1115. D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral Modern . Austin, TX: Webster, S. (2002). Investigating mal- reasoning and discourse on sociosci- Holt, Rinehart and Winston. formed frogs: Using the Internet to entific issues in science education . Simonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or explore the impact of environmental Netherlands: Kluwer. debate to promote students’ argumen- changes in anurans. The Science Zeidler, D. L., & Schafer, L. E. (1984). tation and justification on an issue Teacher, 69(3), 51-53. Identifying mediating factors of moral in animal transgenesis. International Yager, R. E. (1996). of science/ reasoning in science education. Jour- Journal of Science Education, 23, technology/society as reform in the nal of Research in Science Teaching, 903-927. United States. In R. E. Yager (Ed.), 21, 1-15. Solbes, J., & Vilches, A. (1997). STS Science/technology/society as reform Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. interactions and the teaching of phys- in science education (pp. 3-15). New A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled ics and chemistry. Science Education, York: State University of New York up in views: Beliefs in the nature of 81, 377-386. Press. science and responses to socioscien- Solomon, J., & Aikenhead, G. (1994). STS Yager, R. E., & Tamir, P. (1993). STS tific dilemmas. Science Education, education: International perspectives approach: , intentions, ac- 86, 343-367. on reform. New York: Teachers Col- complishments and outcomes. Science lege Press. Education, 77, 637-658. Troy D. Sadler, Indiana University Bloom- Spaulding, N., & Namowitz, S. N. (1997). Zeidler, D. L. (1984). Moral issues and ington, 201 N. Rose Ave., Suite 3002, Bloom- Heath Earth Science. Evanston, IL: social policy in science education: ington, IN 47405-1005, (812) 856-8145, McDougal Littell. Closing the literacy gap. Science Edu- . Tocci, S., & Viehland. (1996). Chemistry: cation, 68, 411-419. Visualizing matter. Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Trowbridge, L. W., Bybee, R. W., & Powell, J. C. (2000). Teaching sec- ondary school science: Strategies for developing scientific literacy (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

48 SCIENCE EDUCATOR