- SUBJECT: Addressing societal issues raised by science
- DATE: 2/97
-
- I'm wondering about approaches that faculty take in college science
courses
- to address societal issues, moral dilemmas, and the like that are raised
- through scientific research and technology. I tend to avoid contentious
- areas (or what i think will be contentious), but wonder about what
others
- do on other campuses. Are there good ways to get students in a science
- class thinking about the importance and relevance of science and
- technology, and their impact on society? Are you familiar with courses
- team taught by scientists and non-scientists focused on societal issues
- raised by new technologies? Any thoughts and information are appreciated.
-
- John Doctor
- Duquesne University
- doctor@duq2.cc.duq.edu
-
-
- >I tend to avoid contentious
- >areas (or what i think will be contentious)
-
- Me too. I do emphasize that science is only good for the facts. In
itself, it
- is not a method for moral judgement. However, the scientist can be
divorced
- from the society. Is it moral to use science to create technology that
can be
- abused, like bombs and genetic engineering?
-
- Dave Williams <ProfDHW@aol.com>
- Science Division
- Anne Arundel Com. Col.
- Arnold, MD 21012
-
-
-
- > >I tend to avoid contentious
- > >areas (or what i think will be contentious)
-
- Why? Science IS contentious. Not that I use my class as a forum for
- people to express beliefs (the contrary - I insist on substantiation).
- But to avoid contention is to avoid science. Perhaps what you mean
to
- say you avoid is discussion of the most intense current public
- controversies, especially when a moral rather that a scientific
- judgement is called for from society? But still (for example), whether
- or not society should preserve flora and fauna even when the species
in
- question are beyond making an ecological contribution to their
- communities IS related to biology. And the question of whether the
- species has become so scarce as to no longer be functional is a
- scientific question itself - one of controversy. Perhaps society wants
- to preserve these species in hopes of resurrecting their ecological
- function in the future. Is this worth discussing in a biology class?
-
- Which scientific questions society can afford to pursue is not a
- scientific question (it is an economic and a moral question), but it
is
- one that scientists (and science students) should be deeply concerned
- about. And there isn't a correct answer, the best answer certainly
- isn't obvious, and it certainly is a controversial (and contentious)
- question.
-
- >
- > Me too. I do emphasize that science is only good for the facts.
-
- Science is only good for the facts? Surely there's more to it than
- that! What about the creativity of science, the methodology used to
- uncover truth. Truth consists of understandings, which go far beyond
- facts. I certainly tell my students that science is NOT a collection
of
- facts. Such misconceptions illustrate the essentialness of a research
- experience for teachers.
-
- > In itself, it
- > is not a method for moral judgement. However, the scientist can
be divorced
- > from the society.
-
- How can "the scientist....be divorced from the society"?
Every
- scientists I've ever known was an integral part of society. Most valued
- their work not only for its own worth to them as seekers of
- understanding, but as contributions to society, whether esthetic
- intellectual contributions or practical problem solving contributions.
- Though my own work is narrow and deals with scientific problems that
few
- have a particular interest in, still, it is not "divorced from
society."
-
- >Is it moral to use science to create technology that can be
- > abused, like bombs and genetic engineering?
- >
-
- Is it moral to pass judgement on the value of a technology because
it
- either is or can be abused? It seems to me that it is the abuse that
is
- immoral, not the creation of the technology, especially when the
- technology has both potential and actual application for much good.
Is
- it moral to avoid developing a technology that has vast potential for
- benefit because someone might abuse it?
-
- > Dave Williams <ProfDHW@aol.com>
- > Science Division
- > Anne Arundel Com. Col.
- > Arnold, MD 21012
-
-
- Dave McNeely, Biology, University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort
- Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520; mcneely@utb1.utb.edu
-
-
- >Perhaps what you mean tosay you avoid is discussion of the most
- >intense current publiccontroversies, especially when a moral rather
- >that a scientificjudgement is called for from society?
-
- Yes. Abortion and creationism.
-
- >But still (for example), whetheror not society should preserve
- >flora and fauna even when the species inquestion are beyond
- >making an ecological contribution to theircommunities
- >IS related to biology.
-
- Yes, but even then I would stick to the facts and leave my (emotional)
- opinions in my living room. Fact is loss of some species may or may
not mean
- anything at all to the system. BTW you are misusing flora and fauna.
They are
- singular collective nouns. There is only one flora in North America,
for
- example (unless you want to divide it up into vascular and nonvascular).
We
- can also speak of the mustard flora, for example, as opposed to the
flora
- composed of members of other families. What you really mean is "plants
and
- animals". The misuse of flora and fauna is characteristic of teachers
who are
- trying to be pretentious. Such misconceptions illustrate the essentialness
of
- a taxonomic experience for teachers.
-
- BTW, what's so important about species making an ecological contribution
to
- their communities? What did their communities ever do for them?
- Anthropomorphism anyone?
-
- >Perhaps society wants to preserve these species in hopes
- >of resurrecting their ecological function in the future. Is this
- >worth discussing in a biology class?
-
- Sure if it's your bag. IMNSHO biology students don't know what gases
compose
- the atmosphere or who Linus Pauling was or the difference between a
cell wall
- and a cell membrane or how to make a graph (or what a fact IS for that
- matter). I put my effort in the areas I think need the most work. The
biology
- of what's happenin' now is not where it's at, at least not for thoroughly
- (not post-) modern me. We are, IMHO, headed down a short path to a
new dark
- age.
-
- >Science is only good for the facts? Surely there's more to it than
- >that! What about the creativity of science, the methodology used
to
- >uncover truth.
-
- Slice it any way you want Dave but in the final analysis it comes down
to
- facts. All the rest is conjecture (assumption, postulate, postulation,
- premise, presumption, supposition, thesis, theory, hypothesis, speculation).
- Good conjecture (assumption, postulate, postulation, premise, presumption,
- supposition, thesis, theory, hypothesis, speculation). Scientific conjecture
- (assumption, postulate, postulation, premise, presumption, supposition,
- thesis, theory, hypothesis, speculation) if you will. But none-the-less
- conjecture (assumption, postulate, postulation, premise, presumption,
- supposition, thesis, theory, hypothesis, speculation).
-
- >I certainly tell my students that science is NOT a collection of
facts.
-
- I do not consider science to be a collection of facts nor do I teach
it that
- way. But I don't tell the students that. I hope that they find out
for
- themselves.
-
- >Truth consists of understandings, which go far beyond facts.
-
- Perhaps it would be best not to get into "truth", whatever
that is.
-
- >Such misconceptions illustrate the essentialness of a research
experience
- for teachers.
-
- I can assure you that my research (and that of most of my colleagues)
has
- produced many facts, very little conjecture, and no truth (whatever
that is)
- whatsoever.
-
- >Is it moral to pass judgement on the value of a technology because
it
- >either is or can be abused? It seems to me that it is the abuse
that is
- >immoral, not the creation of the technology, especially when the
- >technology has both potential and actual application for much good.
Is
- >it moral to avoid developing a technology that has vast potential
for
- >benefit because someone might abuse it?
-
- Oh! I get it. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. But seriously
- folks--I would think twice (or more times) about creating a pill that
would
- make a person invincible (or all powerful).
-
- These are only my opinions. They need not be taken seriously.
-
- Dave Williams
- ProfDHW@aol.com
- Science Division
- Anne Arundel Community College
- Arnold, MD 21012
-
-
- > Yes, but even then I would stick to the facts and leave my (emotional)
- > opinions in my living room.
-
- Me too. But society must deal with the emotionalism of its members,
and
- students are citizens (as are scientists). This morning a student asked
- about (in class) a very contentious local issue. Sport fishing is
- economically important locally, and the populations exploited are
- subject to dramatic population fluctuations due to physical conditions
- (cold shock in winter is a major event some years). Texas monitors
and
- regulates the fishery rather tightly, with small daily limits and
- restrictions on fishing gear. The regulations vary year to year,
- dependent on population status and political pressures. Mexico has
- much less stringent regulation of the fishery for the same species
and
- little enforcement. Local people see gill nets set on the Mexican side
- of the Rio Grande and the fish caught in the nets marketed commercially
- in Mexico. The scientific facts are fairly simple and the populations
- have been intensively studied (society values certain kinds of
- scientific information more than other kinds).
-
- The question of how Texas and Mexico should behave in the exploitation
- of the fish populations is not a scientific question, it is a political
- and an emotional issue. Scientific methodology can only supply the
- necessary information for understanding how the population works, but
if
- that information is not made available in the context of society's
needs
- (and emotions) then many members of society will have no way to use
or
- value it.
-
- We didn't spend much time belaboring the issue in class (far less than
I
- have spent in crafting this letter), but I did suggest to the students
- that there are non-scientific forums where the issue might be profitably
- explored, such as environmental groups, political groups, governments.
- And I asked the students if the questions they wanted answers to were
- scientific or political? I also asked them if they had ever been hungry
- or needed a few bucks to pay a child's medical or school expenses.
Then
- we went on with science. But these students have a context in which
to
- learn science that may motivate them to learn it, perhaps better than
if
- I refused to allow them the 2-3 minutes of consideration of this
- non-scientific question. The non-scientific question has to be answered
- in the context of how the animal populations work, and for the students,
- they can only pursue understanding of the specific populations if they
- have some knowledge of population biology.
-
- Fact is loss of some species may or may not mean
- > anything at all to the system. BTW you are misusing flora and
fauna. They are
- > singular collective nouns. There is only one flora in North America,
for
- > example (unless you want to divide it up into vascular and nonvascular).
We
- > can also speak of the mustard flora, for example, as opposed to
the flora
- > composed of members of other families. What you really mean is
"plants and
- > animals". The misuse of flora and fauna is characteristic
of teachers who are
- > trying to be pretentious. Such misconceptions illustrate the essentialness
of
- > a taxonomic experience for teachers.
-
- Ouch!! But I guess I asked to take a "hit." I didn't misuse
the terms,
- but apparently didn't communicate effectively. I meant flora and fauna
- in exactly the sense you defined them. A flora has been preserved if
- its members have been preserved and exotics have been excluded.
- Whether, and how to accomplish these things are questions that science
- can help answer, (even though not all parts of the question or all
the
- answers are scientific) but only if we participate as citizens. I have
- no problem with teachers having a taxonomic experience, indeed advocate
- it (and your answer to the lady who wants to have less zoology taught
- was super). But I'm not pretentious.
-
- That scientists contribute only facts IS a misconception, any claims
to