Page 143 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

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

EcoJustice Inquiry

Yorktown (2008) notes the following four ethical principles on their website under
GloFish® Fluorescent Fish Ethical Principles: (1) environmental safety first; (2)
humane treatment of fish; (3) advancing scientific research; and (4) open and
informed discussion. We will analyze these principles one at a time.

Environmental Safety First. We believe it is of paramount importance that all the fluo-
rescent fish we offer for sale be safe for the environment. To ensure that we are successful,
stringent testing will be performed before any fish is made available to the public, with
specific emphasis placed on analyzing growth rates, temperature sensitivities, and mating
success. Any line of fluorescent fish demonstrating increased strengths or successes in
these areas relative to nonflourescent fish of the same species, or otherwise displaying any
characteristic that poses an environmental concern, will not be offered for sale (n.p.).
This “ethic” depends on the market share because the environment has been con-
strained to “North America” within lesson plans. All of Yorktown’s supporting
letters of no harm for the environment privilege the US waterways and do not
include other nations’ waterways as considerations. The importance of company
stakeholders seeking to maximize profits for Yorktown may create a conflict of
interest when evaluating environmental safety. Whether or not environments will
really be upheld over profits is not clear. Since a particular environment is not
specified, we have to assume that if environmental safety is first, then it will include
all of the relevant implications for ecosystems worldwide. Asia should be included
as well as other nations constituting the North American continent, and so forth.
But there is no mention of conflicting research, or documented cases where GloFish
have reproduced in aquaria (Bratspies 2005), or concerns from scientists about
GMOs wreaking ecological havoc when released (Stokstad 2002) on Yorktown’s
website or in instructional lesson plans. There is no mention of whether there will
be any stringent testing preformed in diverse geographies outside of the market
share. This idea is aligned with how companies in the USA have historically solved
their problems with cheap labor, where they exploit natural resources, and where
they locate industrial pollution and consumer waste. Workers in economically
marginalized countries are exploited for cheap labor, while the natural resources are
consumed without regard to longer-term consequences. Many times, waste is also
relocated to these countries. If we cannot see it, then it does not much matter, with-
standing fair trade and other efforts to make things more equitable for others.
Yorktown endorses the hubris and ethnocentrism implicit in the presumption that
as long as GloFish minimally impact US waterways they may be sold, despite the
huge consequences facing other nations which may not be able to protect their
cultural communities and local environment from being degraded by GMOs.
Yorktown has a responsibility to consider the ethics of perpetuating an assumption
of superiority over others, and this idea should be represented when teaching
ecojustice ethics.
Next, consider Native American communities in the northwestern USA where
cultural traditions around salmon migrations are severely threatened because of the
escape of an estimated half-million farmed salmon from 1987 to 1997, which are