Page 146 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

8 Moral–Ethical Character and Science Education 123

Singer (2000) argues that we should regard using nonhuman species as luxuries
for our pleasure and happiness as wrong, especially when species become threat-
ened, more vulnerable or even lost at the expense of our happiness. When this idea
is applied to the GloFish, it becomes clear that we are using these fish to serve as
our luxuries, at the expense of wild-type zebrafish that become more vulnerable.
Moreover, zebrafish, in order to be genetically viable, need to be able to reproduce
successfully. The humane treatment of GloFish should include the option for these
fish to reproduce. The question of whether GloFish are natural or unnatural, and
whether they should be patented, should become clearer. If GloFish are just toys or
luxury pets for human pleasure and happiness, then perhaps they should be patented
so that the property of companies with a vested financial interest in research can be
protected. But Yorktown’s second ethical principle is not defensible on the grounds
that GloFish need to live in exemplary, healthy environments with the capacity to
carry out their life cycle.
This brings us to Yorktown’s (2008) third ethical principle:
Advancing Scientific Research. We value the potential of the technology that brought us
fluorescent fish, and we will work to support additional medical and scientific applications
that utilize this technology. GloFish® fluorescent fish were originally developed to detect
pollutants in our water, one of the many discoveries with roots in the ongoing biotechnology
revolution. This revolution promises to aid in the fight against countless diseases and
significantly improve peoples’ lives and environments. We will work to promote and sup-
port this research; a portion of the proceeds from the sale of every GloFish® fluorescent
fish will go towards this effort (n.p.).
Some science educators (van Eijck and Roth 2007) have argued that instrumental
value should be used to determine whether something is science and whether that
science should be used to inform science education curriculum. The logic here is
that if organisms are used in scientific research and that research benefits human
beings, then it is science and it should be used to inform science education curriculum.
We agree with those who might argue that if GloFish are used in the classroom,
then they should be used in a way that is science and informs what is emphasized
in science education curriculum. Teachers should have opportunities to discuss the
SSI of GloFish with their students in a way that they will become more knowledgeable
and able to act using evidence-based decisions. But there are two ideas working
here. On the one hand, there is science which has an instrumental value for ensuring
the basic needs of humans are met. For example, the zebrafish is being used to find
causes of cancer, which cuts human life short. On the other hand, there is science
which has an instrumental value for luxury or nonbasic human needs. Although
there is a blurred boundary between what is considered luxury and what is not, the
GloFish clearly has no other purpose than the pleasure and happiness that comes
from humans owning a fluorescent fish pet. The ethics of using the proceeds to fight
against diseases and improve peoples’ lives is admirable but is it defensible in
light of the fact that the zebrafish is being modified for purely luxury needs
(Gong et al. 2003). Stopping with a red fish might have been defensible in light of
producing “accidents” that meet luxury pet needs. But Yorktown did not stop with
red, they produced green and orange colors, which are not currently being used to