Page 136 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

8 Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education 113

a large part of what it means to engage in the community and environmental sciences.
Most major scientific documents discuss the ethics of engaging in investigations,
for example, the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC 2001):
It is critical that the IPCC process remains truly representative of the scientific community.
The committee’s concerns focus primarily on whether the process is likely to become less
representative in the future because of the growing voluntary time commitment required to
participate as a lead or coordinating author and the potential that the scientific process will
be viewed as being too heavily influenced by governments which have specific postures
with regard to treaties, emission controls, and other policy instruments. The United States
should promote actions that improve the IPCC process while also ensuring that is strengths
are maintained (p. 5).
Another example is the Manual for Addressing the Ecological and Human Health
Effects of Genetically Modified Organisms (1998) by the Scientists Working Group
on Biosafety at the Edmonds Institute (Seattle, Washington). This report notes that
genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) will improve agricultural crops and crop
yields, plant susceptibility to insects and diseases, and cultivate microbes for biore-
mediation that can be used for projects such as environmental cleanups, and yet
genetic engineering may also lead to environmental hazards to human health and
hazards. The Scientists Working Group explains that there are high uncertainties
with GEOs: changes may include but are not limited to growth rates; reproductive
outputs; tolerances to physical and chemical variables; hybrid organisms; and the
allergenicity, toxicity, and nutritional composition of foods. The risks linked with
these changes may include new evolutionary competitions, gene transfers, human
well-being, and unforeseen ecological surprises. Because of the potential dangers
involved with GEOs, the Scientists Working Group advocates careful scrutiny, or
biosafety assessment, which “systematically examines the potential consequences
of the deliberate or accidental release of a GEO and does so with sufficient thor-
oughness to enable a reasonably confident determination of whether the particu-
lar GEO can be used safely” (p. 5). Working with GEOs requires something not
always acknowledged as scientific work and good pedagogy – the anticipation of
the effects of research on the cultural and environmental milieu (or the prevalence
of care, concern, and commitment in the profession).
Where the IPCC (2001) advocates the ethics of protecting science investigations
from political influences, the field of epidemiology promotes engaging in ethical,
political, and social judgments to resolve racial disparities and to do better science
(de Melo-Martin and Intemann 2007). Scientists evaluate issues associated with
attempts to eliminate diseases, improve patient care, and use resources more effec-
tively. There is a broad agreement on the need to eliminate racial disparities,
improve health care for racial and ethnic populations, understand why particular
races and ethnic minorities are susceptible to particular diseases, and understand
why various groups respond differently to medicines and treatments. Defending
racial and ethnic groups in scientific research to reduce racial disparities “requires
scientists to evaluate political and social factors that bear on the efficacy of genetic
knowledge” (de Melo-Martin and Intemann 2007, p. 217). For example, if some
racial and ethnic populations do not have access to genetically tailored drugs then