The increasing number and variety of controversial scientific and technological issues with which citizens are confronted has led, in recent years, to calls for a schooling of science which prepares future citizens for participation in resolving such issues. We examined the social conscience of science teachers as it bears on the teaching of controversial issues. The study was conducted by interviewing teachers in two widely different English-speaking locations, Scotland and the United States. The research explores the perceptions of teachers with regard to the teaching of controversial issues, the problem of handling personal value positions when dealing with issues, and the tension that exists between the teaching of controversial issues and traditional value-free science curricula.

No abstract

The central question facing humankind is ' What kind of society are we to have?' We argue that in order to begin to answer this question, citizens need to recognize that one of the driving forces determining our society is that science is a human social activity like any other. This flies in the face of much of the rhetoric and ideology about science -the stories and myths of formal and informal education. We wish to encourage both a socially responsible science and a public mindful of its strengths and weaknesses. We explore two case studies to illustrate our concerns. These are the construction of knowledge about Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and the social construction of safety standards for exposure to low-level ionizing radiation. These two health-related controversial scientific issues illustrate the problematic nature of much of science and the implications for the public at large.

It is difficult to believe that I have now completed five years as the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) of Microscopy and Microanalysis (MAM) and that this issue, Volume 20(1), is the start of the 20th year of the journal. Time passes quickly when one enjoys their work, and I have certainly enjoyed interacting with the majority of the many authors, reviewers, and editors associated with MAM. During my five years as EIC, we have seen significant growth of the journal and have experienced some growing pains along the way. Despite some of these growing pains and associated problems, I believe (although obviously a biased opinion) that we have been able to significantly enhance the quality of the manuscripts we are publishing and the overall product that the members of the Microscopy Society of America (MSA) and other subscribers receive. The purpose of this editorial is to provide some details on how much MAM has grown, to describe some of the problems and solutions associated with the growth, and to provide information to prospective authors on how to improve their experience of publishing in MAM by discussing some common errors that occur during submission and review of manuscripts.

No abstract