Page 493 - Cultural Studies of Science Education

468 M.P. Mueller and D.J. Tippins

Governments were forced, some of them reluctantly, to support scientific research and
education. The scientists argued that, in an increasingly industrialized world, they alone
held the key to progress and hence to national development. In order to make this case,
however, they had to stress the practical value of scientific knowledge rather than its theo-
retical content, often concealing their own real interests from their paymasters. (p. 195)
The ideological conflicts between scientific mentalism and other cultural ways of
knowing might be seen as the consequence of how society thought it should be
governed. Theory was de-emphasized and many scientists “abandoned” theoretical
work (Bowler 1992). Scientists who persisted with theoretical projects received
very little funding. Theory would be seen as “secretly” informing scientifically
based environ (mentalist) and other important societal decisions. The generalized
certainty of science was exciting for euro-westerners, which led to accepting it
prima facie as the highest form of knowing; it was believed to provide the rigor and
reason needed for making government decisions. Science would help expand the
frontiers of industrialization. But, a limitation of using Bowler’s 1992 description
is that he does not name specific scientists who de-emphasized or ignored theory
work. Yet, Bowler’s description is highly plausible, and the cultural residue of
de-emphasizing or ignoring the Earth’s high uncertainty as science/environ mentalism
continues to linger in the scientific reports produced by groups of environmental
scientists worldwide (International Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2001).
In the early twentieth century, with the acceptance of natural history, the need for
an interdisciplinary know-how led to the field of ecology. The term “ecology” was
actually coined in 1866 by Ernst Haeckel to describe the relationships and interac-
tions of organisms within the natural world (Bowler 1992). Ecology emerged quickly
for scientists from diverse fields because they could access research funding for many
different kinds of projects. For most scientists, ecology became a way to better inform
the management and sustainability or the exploitation of natural resources (garnering
as much research funding from private institutions as governments).
Environ (mentalism) developed concurrently with the emergence of ecology
(mentalism). Bowler (1992) defines environmentalism as the emergence of a
“green” movement “with its emphasis on the use of science to pinpoint the problems
of the modern world ... a two-edged sword ... to support either an exploitative or
conservationist view of the environment” (pp. 4–5). The “Green movement has
appropriated the term ‘ecology’ for its own purposes by pretending that anyone
aware of the complexity of the interactions between species must be concerned to
preserve the natural balance” (p. 362). In more recent years, the environmental
movement has gained considerably more attention. Now let us shift the focus to
problems with eco/environ mentalism.

Eco/Environ Mentalism and the “Ecological Crisis”

Environmentalism has been growing in the USA and abroad; research institutes,
citizen-based organizations, corporations, spiritual groups, and nonprofit founda-
tions – all have had a hand in its growth. Despite the prevailing cultural view,