Page 137 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

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

these drugs do little to remedy health inequalities stemming from racial and ethnic
genetic differences. Epidemiologists make ethical, political, social evaluations, and
so forth, with respect to their scientific research programs that will diminish longer-
standing health disparities. Such actions resonate with the caring-emotive aspects
of socioscientific reasoning.
One objection to the aforementioned point is that scientists should not be
involved in the political aims of scientific research (IPCC 2001). But this assumption
cannot be defended because scientists are typically not as involved in the policy-
making as much as they are involved in reducing health disparities through the
selection of their research goals. The goal of research on health disparities is to
accurately describe health differences and to determine their causes; it is also to
make better predictions, prevent greater disparities, and improve health (de Melo-Martin
and Intemann 2007). Scientists make ethical judgments about the best data to
collect, how that data should be measured (regardless of whether race is socially
constructed or biological), and how to compare data to monitor and track improve-
ments or reductions in health disparities. Although there remain other categories
(genetic markers, disease incidence, socioeconomic status, education, etc.) for epi-
demiologists to consider, without the ecosociocultural contexts of racial and ethnic
constructs, the value judgments do not accurately represent the goals of trying to
reduce health disparities. Ethical inquiry is good for epidemiologists because it
helps them to be more conscientious human beings, which in turn, helps them to be
better scientists. Ethical inquiry helps epidemiologists evaluate whether the value
judgments they make result in reducing health disparities and whether local
resources are being allocated appropriately. It can be argued that the development
of these characteristics is essential to more equitable scientific progress.
In contrast, consider FDA’s de-emphasizing ethical, moral, or socioeconomic
matters. This lack of emphasis likely creates (un)intended disparities, vulnerabilities,
or threats for humans and the Earth. The way that the FDA represents science and
their responsibility to investigate GMOs does not resonate under the SSI frame-
work. Socioscientific reasoning provides opportunities for students to wrestle with
the ethical, moral, and socioeconomic matters associated with GloFish in a way that
may even be used to challenge the FDA’s views of their scientific responsibility.
Reflective judgment and character development (e.g., moral sensitivity) is shown to
advance through SSI (Fowler et al. 2009). When the conditions for a more human-
izing science and science education exist, scientists and teachers share some of the
responsibility for engaging those affected with ethical, political, and social
judgments.

Guided Inquiry and SSI

Zeidler and Sadler (2008) suggest that “educational programs and research focused
on promoting argumentation and character development should attend to how well
students are able to article coherent and internally consistent arguments, recognize