Science and ethics: Some issues for education

Abstract

Ethical issues concerning pain and suffering of animals are necessarily a consideration when it comes to killing "pest" or "feral" species in Australia. Within a continent where there are no large predators, many introduced animal species such as rabbits, foxes, horses, donkeys, camels, goats, and mice have been able to thrive, competing with the interests of farmers and graziers, and livestock and food production. These species, thus, gain the label of "pest." Many methods now exist to kill these species and, consequently, ethical issues arise concerning the possible pain and suffering caused as a direct result of these methods. Yet within government and scientific communities, ethical issues are reduced to a secondary consideration without serious debate or contention. Ethical issues appear to be at odds with scientific agendas. How can environmental ethics be incorporated as part of science-based decision making that appeals to objectivity and scientific evidence? Within educational institutions as well, the same dilemma exists: How can ethical issues be addressed within the science curriculum and in the classroom? A greater understanding of various perspectives on the subject of environmental ethics and the value positions advocated by proponents of these perspectives may help teachers consider ways of handling such issues in the science classroom. C 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sci Ed 85:769 -780, 2001.[There are] two sorts of uses for the knowledge coming from ecology; for management by giving us power over nature, and for protection by giving us power over ourselves via an appreciation and respect for nature. Such realisations of value arrive with facts about nature. It is now time that insights from environmental ethics be included as appropriate in scientific environmental studies, especially where these can guide us in choosing the scales of impacts to be detected and their acceptability, the types of ecosystem recovery to strive for in restoration ecology, and the more urgent imperatives within conservation biology. In

The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues

“…By revealing the context dependence of moral reasoning, Zeidler and Schafer (1984) uncovered a possible relationship between conceptual understanding of material and moral reasoning regarding issues related to that material. While moral reasoning, the target of EIT scores, is not synonymous with informal reasoning, moral reasoning forms an integral part of informal reasoning (Andrew & Robottom, 2001;Solomon, 1994;Zeidler, 1984); therefore, it follows that content knowledge may be an important variable for informal reasoning.…”

Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making

“…Some investigators (e.g., Andrew & Robottom, 2001;Evans, 2002;Zeidler & Keefer, 2003) have contended that socioscientific issues, by definition, involve morality, and several studies have supported this claim empirically. Fleming (1986) concluded that 70% of the adolescents he interviewed employed morality in the resolution of genetic engineering and nuclear energy.…”

The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas

“…Construal does not necessarily have to be a conscious process; in fact, it is more likely that a person's immediate reactions, which are informed by emotions, previous experiences, and habits, contribute significantly to construal (Bersoff, 1999). Although experts in bioethics (Evans, 2002;Haker & Beyleveld, 2000;Stock & Campbell, 2000) and science education (Andrew & Robottom, 2001;Pedretti, 1999;Zeidler et al, 2002) may profess the intrinsic morality of socioscientific issues, the ultimate arbiters of morality are the individual decision-makers. In order for moral considerations to contribute to socioscientific decision-making, the individual decision-makers must construe socioscientific issues as moral problems.…”