Page 134 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

8 Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education 111

when we consider how the FDA’s recommendation regarding the labeling of GMOs
for consumers plays itself out. The FDA assumes a similar position for animals as
it does for GM plants, which provides that, unless food nutrition values (or other
attributes of food itself) are different from the nonengineered counterpart, it does
not have to be indicated in the food labeling. For the purposes of labeling, differ-
ence matters. Difference also matters when applying for intellectual property rights
(i.e., patents).
When applying for US patents, the applicant must make a strong case that they
have invented something new. A patent provides intellectual and property rights. In
the case of GM foods, Vandana Shiva (1997) questions whether patents for the life
spaces of plants and animals through private intellectual property rights should be
accepted. She explains that patents for new life forms have been justified on the
circular argument that scientific institutions or corporations are the sole constructors
of nature, so it must be their property. Ironically, the same institutions or corporations
turn around and claim that the GMO is nature, which enables GM products to be
placed on the shelves of supermarkets (without the need for labels).
Now consider the patent for the ornamental transgenic zebrafish (Gong et al.
2006). The “invention” claimed is a transgenic fish, comprising a fluorescent protein
gene which is expressed in the presence of sunlight, a new and inheritable trait,
which makes the unnatural fish and technology eligible for patent. Subsequently,
the patent privatizes the fish and technology and defines it as a natural zebrafish!
Obviously there is an important debate about what is natural and what constructed,
which begs the question: If the GloFish were food, would they need a label
“GMO?” Imagine the trademark: “The Glo in Your Mouth Meal!” According to
FDA’s guidelines, a GMO will never be labeled as such, as long as the material data
is included. Would consumers begin to wonder if their food glows green under the
grocer’s lights? The point is that the debate is not over. What remains is a significant
conversation of the caliber other SSI entail. Let us explain further.

Philosophical Research and SSI Analysis

Socioscientific issues (Zeidler et al. 2002) comprise many facets of everyday life
(ethical, environmental, political, social, etc.) where students invoke a spectrum of
reasoning to decipher best choices for action. SSI are controversial and often philo-
sophical problems such as whether animals should be used for medical research,
whether people should eat meat, or whether plants should be genetically modified
to resist certain herbicides. Other SSI may not be considered controversial for scientists
in the professional sector, and yet prompt a significant discussion in the classroom,
for example, whether global warming is occurring, or whether it is natural or
anthropogenic climate change. Early on, SSI were used to better engage students
through debate and eventually led to teaching many science subjects through varied
modes of discourse. In the case of teaching the nature of science (NOS), for example,
explicit instruction combined with relevant SSI serves to provide real-world