Page 132 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

8 Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education 109

be too cold for them to be able survive. This is the reason that zebrafish do not
populate waterways in North America” (2009a, n.p., emphasis original). This
answer is compelling but does not reveal the whole picture. It is essentially based
on what we now know about zebrafish which are released into US waterways. This
idea is less plausible when we consider all of the land extending northward from
the Columbia-Panama border, Central America, Mexico, the Islands of the Caribbean
Sea, the Artic Archipelago, Canada, and Greenland as part of what constitutes the
landmasses of North America. In other words, there is a sense of ethnocentrism that
privileges our nation but not others when GloFish have the potential to be released
into ecosystems where they may survive. We will see that this issue becomes more
important later as we discuss recent data.
Another “correct” answer for Carolina and Yorktown has to do with “Biotech
Animals: Science, Benefits, Risk & Public Sentiment” (Yorktown Technologies
2009b). The objective of this lesson is to explore the enhancements that can be
made to animals and concerns associated with GMOs. The focus of the lesson is
clearly on the advantages of GMOs and resolving concerns for the GloFish.
Subsequently, any discussion of ethical issues is conspicuously absent; one wonders
how students may possibly construct informed positions on such a controversial
socioscientific issue. Indeed, if teachers were to follow Carolina’s lessons exactly
as written, students would be questioning the legitimacy of their values and beliefs
instead of embracing them as part of the process. The message conveyed is that
personal values are inferior to the progress of science; science clearly trumps all
other human knowledge and experiences. For instance, one worksheet question
asks students whether arguments against GMOs are scientific or ideological. The
implication of this question is that if the argument is ideological (which is how
almost all ethics are warranted by philosophers) it is shortsighted. Another asks
what strategies are good for separating fact from fiction (again referring to the ideo-
logical) as if GloFish have been “proven” to be ecologically safe. An additional
question asks what steps have been taken to ensure GloFish are safe. But again,
“safe” is a term constrained by what is implied by “North America.”
Another aspect of this issue, which may not be discussed in classrooms, is
whether the FDA should be regulating GloFish. Currently, the FDA classifies trans-
genes as new “drugs.” With this guidance, every new GMO will be evaluated as if
it contains a new drug (rDNA), which means that the general public will have to
trust the regulatory authority of the FDA which may not be appropriate for geneti-
cally modified species. With new drug applications and assessments, the FDA oper-
ates behind closed doors to protect application details by federal law. This process
protects highly competitive pharmaceutical companies who are competing for pat-
ents and market rights. It seems disingenuous that the public has access to these
controversial decisions only after decisions have been determined. Not regulating
something is a political charge to avoid sharing responsibility. But if the sales of
ornamental fish are not federally regulated, then who will be responsible?
One might argue that the general public is responsible for what they purchase
(i.e., purchasing power) and that a public “vote” is a way of regulating things.
Perhaps so. But purchasing power is more relevant when people are educated to be