Page 133 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

110 M.P. Mueller and D.L. Zeidler

informed consumers of science and technology, especially when “informed” means
schooling will adequately engage students in an increasing awareness and under-
standing of the underlying assumptions inadvertently perpetuated and deeply
embedded in issues such as the GloFish (Mueller 2009). Informed in this sense
means being able to exercise socioscientific reasoning. It also assumes a functional
degree of scientific literacy. In contrast, the reality is that our educational system
often fails students in this regard. It teaches them to be complacent, to have unerr-
ing faith in science and technology, and to trust governments to protect consumers.
But any degree of trust becomes suspect when the US government overlooks the
impacts of GloFish on ecosystems in other countries beyond the USA. Normative
or criterion-referenced tests further complicate these imperatives to educate students
for/as empowered as scientists and other community professionals by reducing
informed decision-making to a series of tested concepts. In contrast, SSI and
socioscientific reasoning offer more promise and opportunity for digging in deeper
and for better informing people’s perspectives and enabling actions, where
Yorktown Technologies and Carolina Biological fail to provide adequate science
education. Now let us explore whether GloFish is a socioscientific issue.

Is GloFish a Socioscientific Issue?

To be fair, the FDA did provide a forum for people to comment on GloFish. In
September 2008, the FDA finally provided an online draft of guidelines for its regu-
latory approach to GM animals for public comment. The FDA received more than
29,000 comments by December 2008 from consumers, academics, animal advocacy
groups, trade and professional associations, consumer and environmental groups,
foreign governments, other federal and state government agencies, developers of
GE animals, meat producers and purveyors, and pharmaceutical companies. In a
response report to these comments called “FDA’s Response to Public Comments”
(2009), FDA notes the following:
We recognize that many commenters have strong views on these subjects; however, they
are largely outside the scope of FDA’s authority. The statutory and regulatory review and
approval requirements for NADAs ensure that only drugs that are safe and effective are
approved. In this guidance, our goal is to describe how the existing new animal drug regula-
tory structure applies to GE animals. The moral, ethical, and socioeconomic issues outlined
above [that genetic engineering may have adverse social and economic consequences] do
not fall within the scope of this guidance. It is the FDA’s intent, however, that the regulatory
approach described in the guidance will provide a predictable science-based framework
that will ensure the safety and safe use of GE animals (n.p.).
A final report was produced by the FDA on January 15, 2009 called, “Regulation
of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable Recombinant DNA
Constructs” (US Department of Health and Human Services 2009). However, this
guiding document was produced to provide recommendations rather than enforce-
able responsibilities. It reflects the FDA’s ideology. This ideology is conveyed by
the report title (i.e., “Recombinant DNA Constructs”) which is also interesting