Pigs, sheep and scientific futures: enthusing young people through science

Ralph Levinson

Institute of Education

University of London

r.levinson@ioe.ac.uk

Motivating factors

Citizenship 21st Century Science Nuffield A-level Biology Science Museum report (Reiss et al); King’s (Osborne and Collins) Valuable Lessons House of Commons S&T sub committee 2002 Supports reflection on the Nature of Science (Zeidler et al) Statutory requirement (National Curriculum) It might just help young people to recognise that there’s a connection

between science and values

Pigs and xenotransplantation

Media Market Scientific acceptability Risk/probability/danger Rights and responsibilities Consideration of interests Precautionary principle Empathy Mythology

Hot p®otatoes

First to third world attitudes Power/politics Trust Regulation Statistics Complexity of scientific process Notion of ‘natural’

The naturalistic fallacy and its problems It is widely recognised that ‘is’ statements in science cannot be turned

into the ‘ought’ statements of moral discourse. For example, science can fairly accurately judge the consequences of bringing together a number of sub-critical masses of U-235 above a densely populated geographical area. It can say absolutely nothing, however, about whether such an action would be right or wrong. The answer to the latter question lies outside the domain of science but within the remit of a moral discourse. The domains of scientific and moral discourse are fundamentally different; they have different core concepts . . ., different procedural ground rules and different tests for truth. . . To apply science’s empirical test for truth within the moral domain would turn morality into pragmatism. (E. Hall, SSR (295) p.15.)

The ‘impurity’ of science

From its Baconian inception, modern science has been about both knowledge and power, above all the power to control and dominate nature, including human nature. Nowhere perhaps has this Faustian pact been made so explicit as in the programme that has shaped molecular biology since its origins (Stephen Rose, Lifelines, Penguin.)

Dealing with a dilemma

Evidence

ReasonDifference of opinion

Feelings Ethics

Imagination

Risk

Uncertainty

Why teaching contemporary issues in science might be particularly suitable for G&Ts

Encourages learners to be open to new ideas Supports learning across subjects Links to wider contexts Involves learners in a range of settings Reflect on process of their own learning Models how experts handle complex tasks Analysis using processes of arguments

Teacher roles

Not to be directive (G&Ts tend to be good self-regulators)

Formulate procedures for discussion Socratic questioning Dealing with ‘the grey’ Weighing judgements

Research into teaching controversial issues in science Argumentation (Osborne et al) ‘Stories’ (Solomon) Consensus projects (Kolstoe) Drama (Odergaard) Consequence maps/decision-making

(Ratcliffe)

Stimulating discussion

Newspaper headlines Concept cartoons Advertisements Video clips (e.g. www.highwire.org.uk/awards/pages/index.html) Photographs Websites Radio excerpts (plan in advance to tape) Soaps (Holby City, The Archers) Museum exhibits

Promoting group discussion

Defined outcome Focused topic Personalised topic Explicit procedures Structure of and roles within group Time limits Conflict stimulus Intervention Experience of group work Access resources

Organising group discussion

EnvoysRainbowsSnowballs

Encouraging group discussion

Experiences of everyday life give rise to talk Strong explicit interactional rules. Sequence of

what is going to be done is brought into the discussion

Adult’s role is mainly procedural and to clarify what has been said.

Adult is not judgemental about a pupil’s contribution

Pauses to allow for reflection

Problems with controversy

Early consensus Knowledge Expectations of teacher/leader Anti-social views Dogma Sensitivities Grey areas

Strategies for discussion on ethics

Some people think ….is a good idea because . . .

Others think it is a good idea because. . . . .

Further arguments that are in favour are . . . But some people think that it is not a good idea

because . . .

Others say . . .

Further arguments against are . . .

Having looked at the arguments for and against I think . . .

What would I do?

What could I do?

What should I do?

What if I tell Rick I’m a carrier?

Personal

He’ll leave me whether we’re tested or not

He’ll agree to be tested

Rick will be tested positive

Rick will be tested negative

We’ll split up. We don’t want to risk having a sick child.

We’ll stay together and have a baby

Our baby will be free of the condition

Our baby will have the condition

We will have to make special arrangements to care for the baby

Family

My brothers and sisters will be tested

Useful websites

http://www.ase.org.uk/htm/teacher_zone/upd8/– Cloning– Caffeine – Global warming– Biowarfare– Mobile phones

http://www.schoolscience.co.uk/content/index.asp– Nuclear waste

http://www.sycd.co.uk/can_we_should_we/startfil/home.htm– Immunisation– Energy resources

Re-thinking science lessons Science itself may be a study of nature,

but science lessons should be the study of what people have said and thought about nature. (Clive Sutton, 1992, Words, Science and Learning, Open University Press, p.92)