Page 206 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

14 Questions for Copenhagen: EcoJustice Perspectives and Summary 183

ethical inquiry. Using the GMO Glofish as an example, Mueller and Zeidler explore
the threats to humans and the Earth when the ethical, moral, and socioeconomic
dimensions of this organism are not reflected in the science curriculum. This
includes a consideration of not only the negative consequences pointed out by
Mueller and Zeidler, but also insights gained from studying Glofish that may lead,
for example, to a better understanding of gene expression in cancer. Their discussion
of GMOs carries with it a concern for the inspirations, assumptions, ethical values,
and implications of action that transcend absolute or linear understandings of organ-
isms such as the Glofish, and the impact of its genetic modifications beyond the
controlled environment of the classroom. In his response, Rowe extends the dialogue,
using a nonconsequentialist argument to suggest that socioscientific inquiry can also
provide a context for grappling with larger ethical-educational questions – ones that
might consider the moral imperative of environmental practices. Mueller, for example,
has written about the role of advertising in the green movement, and the underlying
questions of morality that surround this practice. On another level, these authors
engage in a discussion that may even point to questions about the processes that
separate life from nonlife; as some scientists have already begun to agree that “the
best definition of life is the entire Earth” (Kincheloe et al. 1999, p. 74). It may be
that for scientists and lay people attending the Copenhagen summit, global climate
change, from the perspective of what Mueller and Zeidler describe as functional
scientific literacy, can no longer be viewed from purely a cognitive realm. Concern
for ecological balance draws on moral, ethical, and spiritual ways of knowing, focusing
not only on the consequence of human action, but wrestling with complex questions
concerning the morality of these actions.

Going from Copin’ to Hopin’

In the final chapter of this section, George Glasson gives us hope for a vision of the
future which embraces practices consistent with ecojustice theory. Glasson provides
a deeply personal account of how Dr. Givens Chinkhuntha and his son Daniel used
innovations in communications technology (mobile phones) to create a learning
network that enabled them to share sustainable hybridized farming practices with
teachers such as Timothy, a primary teacher in a distant school. Challenging the
legacy of colonization, their Freedom Project illustrates the ways in which commu-
nities can become the microcosm through which ecologically sustainable practices
are generated. Thomson, in his response, notes that we can approach these projects
with humility, as they offer solutions for vulnerable human populations, while some
longer-term ideals are being generated and investigated through these national
efforts. And finally, Sharma adds that it is now time to think about how this work
counters the overarching global capitalist agendas and contributes to nurturing social
changes that everyone can live with.
It is simply not enough to articulate an educational vision where ecojustice is at
the heart of reform. Our call for educational practices reflecting the premises of