Reframing and Articulating Socio-scientific Classroom Discourses on Genetic Testing from an STS Perspective

Abstract

In recent decades, Science & Technology Studies (STS) have revealed the dynamic interaction between science and technology and society. Technology development is not an autonomous process and its artifacts are not socially inert. Society and technology shape each other. Technologies often have 'soft impacts' in terms of unpredicted side effects on individuals and society. Nevertheless, current societal discourse on technological innovations is still dominated by 'hard impacts' such as quantifiable risks for health, safety and the environment. Furthermore, participants in socio-scientific discourses often underestimate their agency in influencing technological innovations, and at the same time overestimate their freedom of choice to use a technology. Past debates on technological innovations have shown how these debates were framed and often caught in fruitless discourse patterns or arguments. Interventionist STS research experiments with solutions to this problem. Assuming that an STS perspective is helpful in reframing and articulating socio-scientific classroom discourses, the case of genetic testing is used to explore this. An important positive 'hard impact' of genetic testing is disease prevention. However, this is put into perspective by addressing 'soft impacts' such as limited access to certain careers based on genetic risk and changes in the conception of health and the perception of responsibility for one's health. Discussion stoppers such as 'playing God' or 'We can't stop technological advancement' can be challenged through uncovering underlying assumptions. The use of narratives and future scenarios in classrooms seems 123 Sci & Educ (2014) 23:485-507 DOI 10.1007 fruitful in provoking imagination and engaging students in public debates on technological innovations.The message of the gene appears to be equivocal. It promises both certainty, order, predictability, control and helplessness, limitation and acceptance of biological fate. It can stress both similarities and differences. It can discover human relations and at the same time break them off (Ten Have 1995, p. 29; translation from Dutch).

RRI & science museums; prototyping an exhibit for reflection on emerging and potentially controversial research and innovation

“…We had incorporated fictitious elements into the information about each synthetic organism in the OL. These fictitious elements might have gone beyond reasonable extrapolations [Nordmann, 2007] and realistic expectations [Boerwinkel, Swierstra and Waarlo, 2014] of SB. However, Skydsgaard noted that curiosity-evoking triggers and potential scenarios in science museum exhibits are crucial to facilitate deep reflection [2016].…”

“…Therefore, it is good to develop safe settings in which people can practice their skills of sense making on controversial R&I [see e.g. Boerwinkel, Swierstra and Waarlo, 2014]. In other words, environments are needed in which people can practice reflection on R&I framing so that they are prepared for reflection in RRI contexts.…”

Considering Grand Challenges in Biology Education: Rationales and Proposals for Future Investigations to Guide Instruction and Enhance Student Understanding in the Life Sciences

“…One justification for biology education is to support citizenship, with the aim of empowering students for decision making by bringing both the findings of biology research and related implications into the classroom. Both the risks and benefits of recent technologies and findings should be addressed, but also the socalled "soft impacts" (Boerwinkel, Swierstra and Waarlo, 2014).…”

Sport and Genomics; prospects and ethical framing

“…While rejecting a deterministic perception of technology, STS studies focus on interaction, dialogue, participation and the use of narratives for anticipatory governance. Boerwinkel, Swierstra and Waarlo 26 illustrate how narratives and future scenarios can be used as a teaching method to enhance imaginative power, to stimulate thinking ahead and to reflect critically on issues arising from new technology. Arguing from the perspective of the co-evolution of science, technology and society, the authors illustrate how the use of stories that describe possible futures make students aware of conflicting values and their possible role in future developments, Students can then be invited to discuss conflicting moral values and political choices.…”