Page 147 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

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

fight against disease or improve livelihoods. This sets the stage for producing
glow-in-the-dark dogs, cats that bark, dogs that meow, cows that lay eggs, and
children with culturally desirable traits. Currently, GloFish do not come with labels
or information that identifies whether phenotypic traits are invented, inherited, or
natural. A more careful analysis of the purpose and by-products of scientific
research are warranted.
Yorktown’s (2008) fourth ethical principle:
Open & Informed Discussion. We recognize that new opportunities available through
increased scientific understanding must be weighed against potential risks. We will regularly
consult with leading experts through our Scientific Advisory Board and with appropriate
state and federal agencies in support of comprehensive scientific research. We encourage
an engaged and informed public discussion surrounding these issues, and provide information
about our fish to enlighten the debate (n.p.).
A strong case has been made in this chapter that evidence is not provided that dem-
onstrates that Yorktown is providing information about GloFish to enlighten the
debate. Yorktown and Carolina Biological’s lesson plans evidence this claim. The
consumer walks into a pet store today and walks out with a cool invention. They fail
to recognize that the wild-type zebrafish that has been popular for aquarium hobbyists
for over two decades is now in one of the bottom tank displays. GloFish are now at
eye level. The wild-type zebrafish are now used as a feeder. Consumers may not know
what is needed to make an informed decision about the hidden cultural and environ-
mental expenses associated with purchasing GloFish. Part of the FDA’s mission is
education. But does the purchase of GloFish by science teachers or consumers pro-
vide tacit support of Yorktown’s comprehensive scientific research that does no regu-
lating or monitoring of GloFish in the environment? Do our purchases imply we need
not become engaged in public debate or make informed decisions surrounding it?
While the medium for such a debate could be provided by Yorktown on their website,
to date, it is not present. The FDA could require companies treading in muddy GMO
waters to provide discussion forums for these types of debates that are publicly acces-
sible, but they do not. Pet stores could be providing information on GloFish to cus-
tomers, but they are not required beyond alleviating concerns with returned fish.
Schools could encourage students to become educated and act on the information, but
instead they promote high-stakes tests which emphasize concepts and facts. When
teachers are limited to what they have to do to keep their jobs, they may not find time
to engage students in SSI unless they find time to reengage their curriculum (Zeidler
et al. 2009). So the question of whether GloFish should be labeled has much more to
do with the information provided; it is a question yet to be decided.

Implications for Science Education

“Context is almost everything” (Atkin and Black 2003, p. 171)
This chapter serves as a model for how ecojustice is cultivated through SSI and
socioscientific reasoning. Our premise has been that the exploration of science