Science, Technology,

and Society
A Saurcebaak an Research and Practice

Edited by

David D. Kumar
Florida Atlantic University
Davie, Florida

and

Daryl E. Chubin
National Science Foundation
Arlington, Virginia

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

INNOVATIONS IN SCIENCE EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY

Series Editor:
Karen C. Cohen, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Are Schools Really Like This?: Factors Affecting Teacher Attitude toward
School Improvement
J. Gary Lilyquist
The Hidden Curriculum-Faculty-Made Tests in Science
Part 1: Lower-Division Courses
Part 2: Upper-Division Courses
Sheila Tobias and Jacqueline Raphael
Internet Links for Science Education: Student-Scientist Partnerships
Edited by Karen C. Cohen
Web-Teaching: A Guide to Designing Interactive Teaching for the World
Wide Web
David W. Brooks
Science, Technology, and Society
A Sourcebook on Research and Practice
Edited by David D. Kumar and Daryl E. Chubin
Time for Science Education
Michael R. Matthews

A Continuation Order Plan is available for this series. A continuation order will bring delivery of
each new volume immediately upon publication. Volumes are billed only upon actual shipment.
For further information please contact the publisher.
 Science, Technology,
and Society
A Sourcebook on Research and Practice
 ISBN 978-0-306-46173-6 ISBN 978-94-011-3992-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-3992-2
©2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York in 2000

http://www.wkap.nl

10987654321

A CI.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

AII rights reserved

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or
otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher.
 Contributors

Glen S. Aikenhead, Department of Curriculum Studies, College of

Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N OX1,
Canada

James W. Altschuld, College of Education, The Ohio State University,

Columbus, OR 42310

Dennis W. Cheek, Rhode Island Department of Education, Providence,

RI02903

Daryl E. Chubin, National Science Board Office, National Science Founda-

tion, Arlington, VA 22230

Kathleen B. deBettencourt, Environmental Literacy Council, George

Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C. 20006

Julie C. DeFalco, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C.

20036

Edward J. Hackett, Department of Sociology, Arizona State University,

Tempe, AZ 85287

J. Scott Hauger, Research Competitiveness Program, American Association

for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.c. 20005

David Devraj Kumar, College of Education, Florida Atlantic University,

Davie, FL 33314
v
vi Science, Technology, and Society

Jon D. Miller, Center for Biomedical Communications, Northwestern Uni-

versity Medical School, Chicago, IL 60611-3008

Rustum Roy, Science, Technology, and Society Program, The Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, PA 16802

Peter A. Rubba, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

James A. Rye, Department of Educational Theory and Practice, West

Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506
 Preface to the Series

The mandate to expand and improve science education is an educational

imperative and an enormous challenge. Implementing change, however,
is very complicated given that science as well as science education is
dynamic, continually incorporating new ideas, practices, and procedures;
takes place in varying contexts; and must deal with amazingly rapid tech-
nological advances. Lacking clear paths for improvement, we can and
should learn from the results of all types of science education, traditional
as well as experimental. Successful reform of science education requires
careful orchestration of a number of factors which take into account
technological developments, cognitive development, societal impacts and
relationships, organizational issues, impacts of standards and assessment,
teacher preparation and enhancement, as well as advances in the scientific
disciplines themselves. Understanding and dealing with such a complex
mission is the focus of this book series. Each book in this series deals in
depth with one or more of these factors, these potential factors for under-
standing, creating and sustaining effective science education improvement
and reform.
In 1992, a multidisciplinary forum was launched for sharing the per-
spectives and research findings of the widest possible community of people
involved in addressing the challenge. Those who had something to share
regarding impacts on science education were invited to contribute. This
forum was the Journal of Science Education and Technology. Since the
inception of the journal, many articles have highlighted relevant themes and
topics and expanded the context of understanding to include historical,
current, and future perspectives in an increasingly global context. Recur-
ring topics and themes have emerged as foci requiring expanded treatment
vii
viii Science, Technology, and Society

and presentation. This book series, "Innovations in Science Education and

Technology" is the result.
It is a privilege to be able to continue to elucidate and effect improve-
ment and reform in science education by providing this in-depth forum for
the works of others. The series brings focus and understanding to efforts
worldwide, helping readers to understand, to incorporate, and to utilize
what we know, what we are learning, and what we are inventing techno-
logically to advance the mission of science education reform worldwide.

Karen C. Cohen
Cambridge, Massachusetts
 Contents

Introduction 1
David Devraj Kumar and Daryl E. Chubin
Why STS? ....................................... 2
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 1. Real Science Education: Replacing "PCB" with

S(cience) through-STS throughout All levels of K-12:
"Materials" as One Approach ...................... 9
Rustum Roy
Introduction ..................................... 9
The Old and New Paradigms for Learning "Science". .. 10
The Real Science Approach Based on the S-STS
Paradigm ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14
References ...................................... 19

Chapter 2. The Development of Civic Scientific literacy in

the United States ................................. 21
Jon D. Miller
The Conceptualization and Measurement of Civic
Scientific Literacy ....... :........................ 23
The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy ........ 26
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy ....... " 29
Conclusion ...................................... 42
References 44
ix
x Contents

Chapter 3. STS Science in Canada: From Policy to Student

Evaluation ....................................... 49
Glen S. Aikenhead

Science Education in Canada ...................... 50

Curriculum Policy and Deliberation ..... . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
Classroom Materials and Research and
Development .................................... 66
Teacher Understanding and Implementation ......... 69
Student Learning and Instruction-Assessment . . . . . . .. 73
Summary and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80
References ...................................... 83

Chapter 4. Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and

Technology: Implications for STS Education .......... 91
Julie C. DeFalco
Introduction ..................................... 91
STS and the Endangered Species Act ............... 94
STS and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
Standards ....................................... 104
STS and Airbags ................................. 111
Implications for STS Education .................... 118
References ...................................... 118

Chapter 5. Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS: More

Questions than Answers ........................... 121
James W. Altschuld and David Devraj Kumar
Introduction ..................................... 121
Important Issues in STS that Affect Evaluation . . . . . .. 122
Suggestions for Evaluation ........................ 134
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 137
References ...................................... 138

Chapter 6. Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment:

Scientific Literacy for the Future .................... 141
Kathleen B. deBettencourt
Introduction ..................................... 141
Topics Reviewed by the Independent Commission
and Findings ..................................... 144
Contents xi

Recommendations ................................ 162

Conclusion ...................................... 163
References ...................................... 164

Chapter 7. Marginalization ofTechnology within the STS

Movement in American K-12 Education ............. 167
Dennis W. Cheek
A Matter of Definition ............................ 167
Technological Literacy ............................ 171
The K-12 STS Movement in America ............... 171
STS and K-12 Science Education ................... 175
STS in Technological Education .................... 182
The Perennial Challenges of Educational Reform .. . .. 186
Conclusion ...................................... 187
Acknowledgments ............................... 188
References ...................................... 188

Chapter 8. Student Understanding of Global Warming:

Implications for STS Education beyond 2000 ......... 193
James A. Rye and Peter A. Rubba
Scientific Literacy as a Foundation for
STS Education ................................... 197
The STS Leadership Institute ...................... 199
The Science of Global Warming .................... 200
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
Implications for the New Millennium ................ 225
References ....................................... 225

Chapter 9. STS Education for Knowledge Professionals .......... 231

J. Scott Hauger
The Emergence of Knowledge Professionals. . . . . . . . .. 232
Who are Knowledge Professionals? ................. 234
At Work with Knowledge Professionals . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 237
Knowledge Professionals and STS .................. 239
STS Graduate Education for Knowledge
Professionals ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 243
xii Contents

From Glimpsing One Tree to Surveying a Forest ...... 248

Some Conclusions ................................ 252
References ...................................... 254

Chapter 10. Reculturing Science: Politics, Policy, and Promises

to Keep ......................................... 257
Daryl E. Chubin
Making Changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 259
Fallacy of the Market ............................. 262
Calling versus Recruiting .......................... 262
Images of Careers ................................ 264
The New Scientist ................................ 265
Institutions that Matter ............................ 266
Missions and Dilemmas ........................... 267
Professionalized Scrutiny of Research
and Development ................................ 268
Enterprise as a System ............................ 271
Prospects for a New Compact ...................... 273
References ...................................... 275

Chapter 11. Trends and Opportunities in Science and

Technology Studies: A View from the
National Science Foundation ....................... 277
Edward J. Hackett
Orientation ...................................... 278
The National Science Foundation ................... 278
Origins of STS ................................... 279
The Organizational Culture of the National Science
Foundation ...................................... 281
How STS Decides What to Fund ................... 283
What Lies Ahead? ............................... 287
Conclusion ...................................... 290
References ...................................... 291

Index ....................................................... 293.

 INTRODUCTION

David D. Kumar and Daryl E. Chubin

We live in an information age. Technology abounds: information tech-

nology, communication technology, learning technology. As a once popular
song went, "Something's happening here, but it's just not exactly clear." The
world appears to be a smaller, less remote place. We live in it, but we are
not necessarily closely tied to it. We lack a satisfactory understanding of it.
So we are left with a paradox: In an information age, information alone will
neither inform nor improve us as citizens nor our democracy, society, or in-
stitutions. No, improvement will take some effort. It is a heavy burden to
be reflective, indeed analytical, and disciplined but only constructively
constrained by different perspectives.
The science-based technology that makes for the complexity, contro-
versy, and uncertainty of life sows the seeds of understanding in Science,
Technology, and Society. STS, as it is known, encompasses a hybrid area
of scholarship now nearly three decades old. As D. R. Sarewitz,a former
geologist now congressional staffer and an author, put it
After all, the important and often controversial policy dilemmas posed by issues
such as nuclear energy, toxic waste disposal, global climate change, or biotech-
nology cannot be resolved by authoritative scientific knowledge; instead, they
must involve a balancing of technical considerations with other criteria that are
explicitly nonscientific: ethics, esthetics, equity, ideology. Trade-offs must be made
in light of inevitable uncertainties (Sarewitz, 1996, p. 182).

Motivated by these concerns we created this book to contribute to

classroom practice in STS across grade levels and subjects. We sought to
stimulate debate on the future of STS, including where it fits on the intel-
lectual landscape of the 21st century. Above all, we tried to suggest what
citizenship will require and how STS is a well-lit, unending path to it. We
2 Science, Technology, and Society

present an assortment of content, advice, and examples. This is a book about

teaching and learning and is designed for teaching and learning. A decade
ago one of us wrote, "The value of studying science and technology as social
phenomena is to learn about ourselves as we probe the natural world we
inhabit" (Chubin and Chu, 1989, p. x). This remains compelling for us as
editors. We hope it finds kindred spirits in our readers.

WHY STS?

Science and its social context continue to change. We are citizens of an

increasingly global society influenced by an explosion of knowledge,
advances in technology, and a progressive expansion of the free market.
The hybrid character of STS mirrors this changing scene. STS draws on a
range of intellectual sources: scientists and engineers seeking more than
textbook treatments; educators focused on content that matches pedagogy;
social scientists who insist that "context" imbues the science and technol-
ogy with values, politics, and consequences. To philosophers, scientists, and
commentators, science has become increasingly fragmented and compart-
mentalized, declining in its social relevance in academic circles. Edgar
Morin (1998), for example, envisions for science an understanding of the
"human condition" in the social milieu-too often a factor overlooked in
the academy.
If time has seen STS programs institutionalized in many colleges and
universities, it has diversified them as well. Some STS programs focus on
values, ethics, business, environment, policy, etc. Like ethnic studies and
women's studies programs, STS is a window for looking at the social and
natural world differently. Its intellectual value stems from its breadth
and its attentiveness to context and stakeholders in the outcomes of issues,
controversies, and disputes that contain a science or technology component.
Such value is reflected in STS curricula: The content of courses adds value
through a perspective students lack when they enter college. Most students
are grounded in a discipline and therefore are "content" specialists. Few,
however, know how to view and analyze that technical content in a broader
social, cultural, and policy context. If skepticism is an analytical virtue, then
STS is a virtuous undertaking.
This collection recognizes the diversity of needs, of students, of class-
rooms served under the STS banner. Indeed, we as editors come from dif-
ferent worlds. One of us resides in a university and specializes in the role
of STS curriculum in the teaching of science, while the other inhabits the
policy world of a federal agency dedicated to integrating science education
and research.
Introduction 3

Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and

Practice offers a comprehensive view of STS as it enters the 21st century.
The collection includes scholars in STS from both inside and outside the
academic world. The goals of STS include: making science and technology
literacy available for all; preparing the noncollege-bound student to
compete successfully in a science- and technology-oriented workplace; and
equipping the future citizenry with the tools and information necessary for
making informed personal and policy decisions concerning the role of
science and technology in global society.
STS, however, inhabits a bifurcated world. The evolution of STS
in higher education has largely disconnected it from the community of
scholars in the K-12 sector and the integration of STS themes with class-
room pedagogy, especially in the sciences. Framed by the debates over
national standards and the school-to-work transition, precollege STS is a
different and separate scholarly pursuit from that of 20 years ago. Thus, this
book seeks to unite scholars and their concerns for K-12 vs. higher educa-
tion in a more seamless web of practice. Education specialists, K-12 class-
room teachers, discipline-oriented scientists, mathematicians, and engineers
must be able to understand each other and work together. Their shared
experience can enrich STS and enable it to influence instruction and
produce new generations of "knowledge workers": classroom teachers, re-
searchers, and mentors, who are committed to drawing on the resources
of an international interdiscipline and extending insights through STS
studies.
This book also examines how STS affords perspectives on the role of
science and technology in society that single disciplines miss or overinter-
pret. The future requires the application of a new integration of knowledge
to appreciate and solve social problems with science and technology as a
component. Contributors to this book were selected for their breadth of
knowledge and integrative talents. They see the "big picture" and they seek
to portray its nuances to student and nascent professional audiences who
demand new tools, skills, and approaches to teaching and comprehending
a complex reality.
Environment, technology, ethics, policy, regulation, and curriculum
are but a few of the issues that also serve as tools, resources, and research
sites for the STS educator. This collection includes works by experienced
STS scholars who practice in diverse cultures and work settings. The chap-
ters summarize literature and point the way to fruitful investigations in
and out of the classroom by those dedicated to nurturing new science and
technology-engaged citizens and workers.
Finally, this collection is not about a static body of knowledge pro-
ducers who respect intellectual disciplines and know how to apply concepts
4 Science, Technology, and Society

and techniques to challenging problems. Instead, it is about an open-

ended opportunity to debate STS from unconventional and contemporary
viewpoints. It is in this spirit that "STS" refers not only to teaching and
learning, but also to mentoring human resources for American society-
its work force and within it, the sectors of government and educational
institutions.

What Is the Instructor's Overarching Purpose?

While we cannot answer this question, we can declare our intentions

as editors: We fancied this collection as a resource for the teaching and
learning of STS. Specifically, we hope to demonstrate: the vitality of STS as
a perspective and approach; documented insights that augment and chal-
lenge, if not correct, impressions left by traditional science instruction; and
the existence of STS at the K-12 level and STS as undergraduate and gradu-
ate specializations. Admittedly, this last reason is more esoteric, but it has
great potential impact. These communities are only tenuously connected
and have only begun to be mutually supportive.

What Do the Chapters Offer?

STS should draw on the resources of various international interdisci-
plines. Just as STS research should not be divorced from STS pedagogy or
activism, these chapters should be used as threads for weaving new patterns
of scholarship for use in and out of classrooms. To this end, chapter authors
were encouraged to include:

• A review of STS trends and issues from the literature that point
the way for science-literate citizens and workers;
• A clear analysis of curriculum trends and issues in the segment
of STS addressed (e.g., high school), including relevance to a
particular substantive area such as environmental education;
• Applications of STS for teaching, learning, and mentoring
situations;
• Policy implications of STS, including the level of government
or particular agency with primary responsibility for action;
and
• Issues for further research.

Given these injunctions, we as editors tried to read the book as we

imagined our readers would, and we asked how the resulting chapters could
Introduction 5

be used in STS. Here are our candid suggestions, offered as an assist to

adopters and would-be adopters alike.

Who Is the Audience?

Classroom teachers must decide whether they can use this collection
for a background resource or as a text to be read by students. We would
argue that the length of the chapters favors use by pedagogues, not novices.
The writing assumes too much sophistication from high school students.
This is both good and bad. It means that an instructor will have to adopt
the collection as a whole or use only a selected subset of chapters. Here we
provide a set of roadmaps that anticipates the kinds of courses and themes
supported by different chapter subsets.

Survey and Review of STS Trends and Issues

Chapters 2-7
Advocacy-introspective Study
Chapters 1,5,7-10
Curriculum Trends and Issues
Chapters 2, 4-8
Teaching, Learning, and Mentoring Applications
Chapters 1-4, 6, 8, 11
Policy
Chapters 1-7, 9-11
Research
Chapters 5, 6, 9-11

How Is the Collection Organized?

Given that no one sequence of chapters will meet all classroom needs,
we will characterize the authors and the contents, and make some ob-
servations that elaborate the themes above as possible configurations of
use. Various combinations may serve an instructor's needs, depending on
the level of the course, inclinations of the instructor, knowledge base-
experience of the students, etc. As editors, we detect a mix of chapter
types-by tone as well as content.
Several chapters are oriented more to higher education programs and
audiences. Most of the authors are in higher education settings. The rest do
STS in nonprofit policy research organizations and federal and state gov-
ernments (where policy analysis is a common thread). Here is a synopsis of
chapter themes:
6 Science, Technology, and Society

In Chapter 1, Rustum Roy explains how the value of technology should be

recognized as the pedagogical center of public understanding of policy,
ethics, and society-from elementary grades through graduate study. He
views STS as an approach with untapped potential. Dr. Roy is Evan Pugh
Professor of the Solid State, professor of Science, Technology, and Society,
and professor of Geochemistry at The Pennsylvania State University, as well
as a leader in the STS movement in the United States. He is a member of
the National Academy of Engineering (United States), and a foreign
member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences.

Chapter 2, by Jon D. Miller, presents the state of civic science and tech-
nology literacy in the United States as revealed by secondary analyses of
various national databases. Several models focus on school-based learning
at primary through college levels. These help to explain the origins and
dimensions of the public's literacy in science and technology. Dr. Miller is
director of the International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Lit-
eracy, and professor and director, center for Biomedical Communications
at Northwestern University.

In Chapter 3, Glen S. Aikenhead illustrates how four processes lead to four

general products in STS by providing successful examples of STS in
Canada. The processes are deliberation on policy, research and develop-
ment, implementation, and instructional assessment, and the products are
curriculum policy, classroom materials, teacher understanding, and student
learning. Dr. Aikenhead is professor of Science, Technology, and Society at
the University of Saskatchewan, Canada.

Chapter 4, by Julie C. DeFalco, takes a legal and economic perspective in

its analysis of science and technology regulatory policies. Examined are the
Endangered Species Act, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards,
and the Airbag Mandate. Ms. DeFalco presents a compelling argument for
incorporating the unintended consequences of such science and technology
policies in STS classrooms. She is an adjunct policy analyst at the Com-
petitive Enterprise Institute.

Chapter 5, by James W. Altschuld and David Devraj Kumar, looks at STS

as being supplementary and perhaps preferable to the typical teaching and
learning of science. Also addressed are accountability-evaluation criteria in
STS and the lack ofsufficient STS themes in state science curriculum frame-
works. The authors raise questions for research and development in STS.
Dr. Altschuld is professor of Evaluation and Education Policy at The Ohio
State University, and Dr. Kumar is professor of Science Education at
Introduction 7

Florida Atlantic University and a Fellow of the American Institute of

Chemists.

Chapter 6, by Kathleen B. deBettencourt, supplies the environmental edu-

cation perspective on curriculum and policy issues related to STS. She uses
the Independent Commission's content analysis of textbooks in the United
States to systematically point out the lack of depth of science content in
environmental education with implications for STS. Dr. deBettencourt
is project director of the Independent Commission on Environmental
Education at the George Marshall Institute in Washington, D.e.

Chapter 7, by Dennis W. Cheek, addresses the underrepresentation of tech-

nology in the K-12 STS paradigm and analyzes selected STS curriculum
materials with a particular emphasis on the treatment of technology. Dr.
Cheek is director of the Office of Information Services and Research at the
Rhode Island Department of Education.

In Chapter 8, James A. Rye and Peter A. Rubba discuss students' pre- and
post-instructional alternative conceptions of global warming as part of STS
curricula and teaching for understanding. Dr. Rye is assistant professor of
Science Education at West Virginia University, and Dr. Rubba is professor
of Science Education and chair of the Department of Curriculum and
Instruction at The Pennsylvania State University.

Chapter 9, by 1. Scott Hauger, explores university-based STS programs. He

outlines graduate approaches to STS, its disciplinary connections, and im-
plications for both research and practice. Dr. Hauger is director of the
Research Competitiveness Program at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Chapter 10, by Daryl E. Chubin, looks at the need for a new social compact
for national science policy, and prescribes how STS-savvy policies can
reshape thinking about federal funding, the status of universities, and the
debunking of science. A version of this chapter appeared in "Science and
Public Policy" (1996). Dr. Chubin is senior policy officer for National
Science Board at the National Science Foundation.

In Chapter 11, Edward 1. Hackett explores the history and contemporary

state of STS research within the competitive organizational culture of the
National Science Foundation. Dr. Hackett is professor of Sociology at
Arizona State University. He is a former program director for Science and
Technology Studies at the National Science Foundation.
8 Science, Technology, and Society

We hope this collection of multiple perspectives in STS helps our

readers become better informed about the role of science and technology
in society. Only better teachers, researchers, mentors, and communicators
will reform another generation of classroom practices, curricula, policies,
and citizens in STS.

REFERENCES

Chubin, D. E., and Chu, E. W. (1989). Science Off the Pedestal: Social Perspectives on Science
and Technology, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Morin, E. (1998). Education: Reforme ou reformettes? Le Monde, June 18, 1998.
Sarewitz, D. R. (1996). Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress,
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
 CHAPTER 1

Real Science Education:

Replacing "PCB" with
S(cience) through STS
throughout All Levels of K-12
"Materials" as One Approach
Rustum Roy

INTRODUCTION

I write from the perspective of a chemist-materials researcher who has

spent 50 years on the faculty of Pennsylvania State University. I founded
its most recognized research unit, the Materials Research Laboratory, and
directed it for a quarter century. I have published nearly 700 papers; over
40 were done in the last two years. I cite this to establish my credentials as
a card-carrying, active research scientist.

Rustum Roy, STS Program, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

9
10 Science, Technology, and Society

1. What Went Wrong with "Science" Education? Mislabeling.

My involvement with STS goes back 20 years and my professional

connection with "science" education goes back even farther. Right from the
beginning, I recognized the sloppy use of language was the problem when
science was discussed in the public forum. Everybody who talked about
"public understanding of science" played on the (congressional) leaders'
interest in technology. Thus, I received the first ever National Science Foun-
dation project (INPUT) for Increasing The Public Understanding of Tech-
nology. Very early on 1 recognized materials technology was a particularly
suitable and powerful access route to introduce, link, and connect people
to the "science" they need.

2. Science -:f- Physics + Chemistry + Biology (P + C + B)

When pushed, every scientist, every science educator, every science
student will admit that. Yet 50 million young people have the equation S = P
+ C + B drummed into them (usually in high school) by the existence theorem
that S in fact = P + C + B. Science is institutionalized in all American school
systems as equal to physics, chemistry, and biology. Word has gotten around
for generations about such science. Two words especially: hard and dry (and
not connected to life). A third word, which does not get around, is the root
of both: P + C + B are (too) abstract. Many people simply cannot handle
abstractions remote from life. Nor is there aqy reason for them to do so. But
Western universities are descended from that monstrous absurdity raised to
an Enlightenment mantra: cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore 1 am). Com-
pounding the hubris of Aristotle in separating science for the elite from
techne for the slaves, we thus created the fundamental problem associating
the word science with abstract thought, with upper classes, and with Carte-
sian head-hand dichotomy.

THE OLD AND NEW PARADIGMS FOR LEARNING "SCIENCE"

In Lost at the Frontier: U.S. Science Policy Adrift, a book I co-authored with
Deborah Shapley, we made the case against another gross error that has
become enshrined as gospel in United States science policy and worse in
the United States population in general. That is the so-called linear model
of epistemology and making knowledge into reality.
leads leads
BASIC ABSTRACT SCIENCE~APPLIED SCIENCES~
ENGINEERING~ TECHNOLOGY
Real Science Education 11

soe.r:rr

Figure 1. The last 40 years have

been dominated by the basic
science~applied science~
technology concept. Reprinted ~
with permission from Shapley
and Roy, 1985.

The empirically verifiable route is exactly the opposite, going from felt
need~STS issues or problem~technology needed~applied science~
basic science (for a few that care).
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the difference in another way. They present
the changing paradigm more compellingly than words can.

ItAlIC SClEIICf

Figure 2. The new paradigm total reverses the theory illustrated in Figure 1, putting human
concerns at the center and applied sciences (including materials) outside that to become the
first science encountered. Reprinted with permission from Shapley and Roy, 1985.
12 Science, Technology, and Society

The Nature of Knowledge of Technology and Science

Larkin (1989) stressed the hierarchical structure of knowledge
within physics and Roy (1986) made the case that many applied sciences,
such as materials research, do not lie in the same hierarchical plane as the
basic sciences like physics and mathematics. In other words, materials
research cannot be sandwiched in between physics and chemistry. The
integration of several subject matters or disciplines, including engineering
disciplines, combined with the purposive nature of the work, puts applied
sciences and engineering into a higher hierarchical plane than the abstract
scientific disciplines. In an analogous vein, technology is not a subject
alongside physics and chemistry (see Fig. 2). It includes science as one
among many inputs (see Roy's Two tree theory in Shapley and Roy, 1985
and also Figs. 3 and 4).
The idea that learning science is the necessary precursor to learning
technology is absurd. As historians such as Derek de Solla Price and Melvin
Kranzberg have long pointed out, all of human history is proof. Indeed the
United States Department of Defense has shown that specific, even "high
tech" tasks can be taught well, without any science. There are many entry
points into the system of learning about technology. Figure 1 shows differ-
ent routes that may be employed.

Figure 3. The conventional wisdom about the

relationship between science and technology is
represented as a single tree. If its roots, which
are basic science, are watered, then the fruits,
which are technology, will grow automatically.
This widespread belief is disproved by the
postwar experience of Great Britain (which has
watered its basic science roots but has difficulty
growing technology) and Japan (which has little
basic science but grows technological fruits).
Reprinted with permission from Shapley and
Roy, 1985.
Real Science Education 13

• ..

'~

~I$$
I I CONTEIoIPORAIIY
f BASIC SCIENCE
FI.OWEIIING
TME
\,----~--~

t\
Figure 4. A more accurate metaphor is two trees: one for basic science and one for technol-
ogy. This recognizes their distinct intrinsic character and that they are nurtured separately by
separate policies. Each tree, when properly nourished, produces its own fruit; the basic science
tree grows Nobel Prizes, and the more complex, applied science-engineering-technology tree
grows technology. Reprinted with permission from Shapley and Roy, 1985.

For the median learner in K-12 we believe that the STS route-
entering via the interest in the societal problem-is best. Moreover, it is the
only innovation in content proposed for alleviation of the so-called
math-science crisis. For about 10 percent of the population, entering via
science (the present tradition in the United States) may be the most effec-
tive. But for a larger minority, the entry through hands-on technology may
be the best. The United States has been losing out on the "brains in the
fingertips" of the artisan, the "techne-ologist" by overstressing abstract con-
ceptualization as the only way to learn technology itself and the science that
is related to technology. The next section focuses on the new options.
If we accept this model of how to educate (nourish) 90 percent of our
people in Technology, and hence the Real Science they need, we will need
to address:

a. The need to "radically" abandon the P + C + B traditional

approach.
14 Science, Technology, and Society

b. The need to devise a curriculum, state by state, that uses the

S-STS theory and practice and makes all required science
applied real science dealing with "sens-able" realities.

THE REAL SCIENCE APPROACH BASED ON THE S-STS PARADIGM

Technology Education Neglected

"Technology" as parallel subject matter to "science" has never found
any major place in our K-12 system. This is because of the enormous con-
fusion surrounding the question of the relationship between the icon-words
"science" and "technology." In the American public's belief system,
"science" is a uniform good. The American credo affirms "more scientific
research" is certain to be good for the nation. In economic terms, the public
fails to distinguish between a "consumption good" and an "investment
good." The United States public and its leaders, without any thought or
reflection base actions on the proposition that the supply of new "basic
science" is infinite, that science leads to applied science which in turn leads
to technology and jobs. All of these assumptions are now regarded as egre-
gious errors.
However, the United States attitude toward technology is much more
ambivalent. "High tech" carries the same cachet as "science"; but technol-
ogy as polluter, negligent cause of adverse health effects (from war to
asbestos to "chemicals"), conjures up powerful negative images.
This situation was compounded by a mistaken belief that arose in
America after World War II. Victory was ascribed to the atomic bomb. Even
today only a tiny fraction of the population realize Japan had offered sur-
render before the bomb was dropped, and the atomic bomb was hailed and
celebrated as a product not of United States technology, but of physics!!
Thus was "science" ensconced in America's pantheon.
Finally, while "science" (now represented by P + C + B) became firmly
ensconced in the school system, vocational education, carrying many other
connotations, was the only toehold by which anything resembling "tech-
nology" gained influence within the school system. It is possible that
another historic shift will allow technology to be re-entered into main-
stream K-12 education.

Loss of Comparative Advantage in Top Trained Personnel

The end of the second half of the 20th-century dominated by America
is now clearly in sight. The world of international technology has no clear
Real Science Education 15

concentration of science and technology training or expertise. The United

States still puts in large sums of taxpayer's money into abstract and esoteric
research, in a level playing field devoted to research and development. The
opportunity to return to a measure of reality will never be greater. The
present United States "science emphasis" approach has been a devastating
failure for United States technology and the economy, and this reality must
be proclaimed and reinforced at every opportunity by anyone concerned
about better technology education.

Opportunity and Responsibility

Those concerned with real science and technology education face an
enormous challenge. First, they must clarify the relationships between
science and technology-especially the place of both in the context of the
economy and the political life of the country. Second, they must rethink, de
novo, how and what one would teach the average citizen about technology,
and what should be taught about science.
For the historical background and a discussion of what kinds of
science and technology we need, the reader is referred to several recent
papers (Roy, 1990; Roy 1992a, 1992b; Yager and Roy, 1993). We turn now
to the new strategy that introduces the applied sciences to students. This
includes materials science as the primary contact with science for at least
90 percent of students.

Strategy: Pedagogy from the Obvious, Instead of the Obscure

For centuries, communicating "techne" meant passing on from gener-
ation to generation important stored-up knowledge and wisdom about
obvious, common, and often encountered human contacts with those parts
of reality affecting humans the most. Each generation learned as much as
possible about food, shelter, security, and so forth and passed it on to the
next. For the last century, and over the last 50 years, school systems have
attempted to teach all students about reality viewed from the particular
formalism and stance of abstract science. This science is characterized by
two key parameters: abstraction and mathematicization. These features are
responsible for the power and rapid growth of science. They are at the same
time responsible for its unintelligibility to, and lack of interest by, the vast
majority of the population. Moreover, common sense and widespread
human experience show that most people do not need much abstract
science, and only modest quantification, to function very effectively, even
in a highly technological society. The last president of the United States, the
chairpersons of most of our largest corporations, the leading playwrights,
16 Science, Technology, and Society

poets, and university presidents have very little knowledge of the level of
science some would demand of all students. It is not at all clear that a course
in Advanced Placement physics or chemistry would have made an iota of.
difference to them.
A technology-focused curriculum would eschew abstraction for obvi-
ousness. Everyone would be expected to know about the science of those
parts of contemporary human experience that are obvious yet affect all in
daily living.
A simple algorithm to guide the choice of what to know, which can
expand and deepen with advancing grade simply by going into greater
detail, is to follow the activities of an average pupil through an average day.
From the alarm clock, to the light switch, to the clothes worn, to the rubber
in the sneakers, to the stove that heats water for coffee, to the car that drives
us to work, to the falling snow, and to the salting of highways, we have an
infinite opportunity to take these objects and experiences and use them for
teaching technology and applied science, and derivatively, basic science. This
"applied science" must become the necessary core for all students, before
they are exposed to any abstract science. The beauty of using the same
common human experience-eating, getting dressed, driving-is that they
can be updated for student's successive age level; and with increasing depth
and sophistication, that can form the connecting introduction to any part
of physics, chemistry, and biology. This is the technological literacy neces-
sary for all; it is also much better groundwork for making science more
attractive to many people.

The New Pedagogic Strategy: STS~Technology~Science

I believe student bodies that are exposed to STS will benefit in several
ways:

1. They will be much more informed and aware of the most

significant current issues involving science and technology.
2. They will have been shown a method of critically analyzing
such issues.
3. They will have been made aware of how technology affects
their lives, and how they may interact with technology.
4. A higher percentage than at present may choose to enter
engineering-some may do so because they perceive it as a
means of controlling their own futures.
5. A higher percentage will become interested in the scientific
background behind the engineering, and this could result in
more candidates for science degrees.
Real Science Education 17

Thus the STS approach to "science" education has two separate benefits:
better educated citizens and possibly increased enrollments in science and
engineering.

Educating Americans in Real Science such as Materials Science

If the foregoing is an accurate, albeit necessarily qualitative and

anecdotal description of the present situation of educating Americans
about and in technology, it would call for several radical reforms in the
entire structure and content of K-12 education in technology and real
science. The major and substantive change should be in rectifying the gross
and unnatural imbalance in all formal education toward abstraction and
away from relevance and concreteness in all technical subject matter. This
kind of change is necessary. This degree of abstraction from felt and
experienced reality is what has isolated the entire culture of science and
technology from most Americans. Science must be re-reified. Lemons
and scrubbing ammonia must be the starting point for introducing pH;
toasters and irons must lead through fuses to amps, volts, and watts.
While all the Real Sciences-agriculture, earth, engineering-may be
intrinsically valuable paths to science knowledge, and also the pathways
leading to standard P + C + B knowledge, the mother science of materials
offers a special opportunity. Why? Materials are ubiquitous. Everyone
encounters their local geology and also the weather, but not many are
connected to agriculture. Health can be treated exactly as materials-
a doorway to the biological world. But much of physics and chemistry,
including the most recent work, is present and touchable and visible in new
materials.

Special Role for Materials Science

I have used the materials available to every student in their classroom

and on their way to their classes to link not only to the abstract and the
esoteric materials science but also to STS. For example, starting with the
clothing each student wears--cotton, wool, polyester mixtures-it is easy
to develop the STS issues of global warming, resource depletion, polymer
from oil, job shifting and offshoring, to the density of polymers, metal
exhaustion, etc. In Richland, Washington, Steve Piipo, the pioneering
physics teacher, has taken the local materials research known to all the tri-
county area: radioactive waste forms; and connected it to all of physics and
chemistry. By this connecting to real materials with real meaning in the life
of the community, he has helped increase their enrollments in physics and
chemistry dramatically.
18 Science, Technology, and Society

The metals, plastics, and glasses every human being uses must be the
seedbed from which the teaching of thermodynamics and the periodic table
sprouts. Global climate issues daily reinforce the reality of the earth as a
system from which can issue biodiversity, life forms, evolution, and so forth.
Every illness, pill, and surgical procedure can serve as the "bait" for biology
and lure another fraction of the students who have not responded to the
abstract approach.
But, and this is of the utmost importance, it is not because more stu-
dents may be enticed into entering or "appreciating" technology or science
that this change must be made. It is much more fundamental than that. It
is the repositioning and replacement of science back into its proper niche
as one among many human activities, potentials, values, ideologies, and so
forth. Moreover, it is this reconceptualization that will ultimately rescue
basic science, which is quickly running out of things to study at a price the
public (the only possible patron) is willing to pay. If science is not to become
baroque, besides being broke, the bridges of the everyday world must be
straightened. The replacement of the British-American Nobel Prize-
dominated economies by the Japanese economy as the dominant economic
force with its technology-driven science may bring home the point to the
masses. Einstein once commented that if a culture's pipes did not hold
water, neither would its theories. Yet thousands of graduate students in
physics, chemistry, and even electrical engineering would be baffled by Ein-
stein's claim of the close connection between our technology and our
science because the reductionist paradigm has held that they can be paid
from the public purse to do theoretical physics without any concern for their
country's economic or technological base.
It is not appropriate here to develop and justify an optimum
scope and sequence of the courses in science, technology, and STS, which
could effectively educate the median student. An appropriate mix of K-12
teachers, education professors, and school administrators needs to be
assembled to do just that. Yet, from the foregoing one can summarize some
of the elements that should be present in any new curriculum for an STS
and applied science approach to education of the median student. Table 1
covers some of the key content areas to be brought together under any such
curriculum. Table 2 provides a rough sequence for educating American
students in STS and technology and applied science.
Real Science Education 19

Table 1. Key Items to be Included in New Curricula

1. Require STS components throughout 6-12.

a. Distinction between science and technology. Relationship of science and technology
to society: STS.
b. Role of science and technology in the interaction of science, technology and global
society.
2. Introduce formal science via applied science courses (materials, earth, health,
agriculture).
3. Require some "technology" of every junior and senior high student along with their
science requirements.
4. Shift emphasis of special programs from very science-talented to science-alienated (a
fraction of whom are also talented).

Table 2. Possible STS and Technology Education Emphasis in the New Sequence

Grade 7 8 9 10 11 12

Science Biology Biology Biology

Chemistry Chemistry Chemistry
Physics Physics Physics
Applied Agriculture Earth Materials Health Physics and Physics and
Science Science and and and Chemistry Chemistry
and Concepts Tech Ed Tech Ed Tech Ed via Earth via Earth
Technology and Material and Material
STS STS STS STS STS STS STS
Critical Critical Problems Unit Principles Unit
Issues of Issues of Link to Link to
the Day the Day Appl. Sci. Appl. Sci

REFERENCES

Larkin, J. (1989). Cognition in learning physics. Amer. 1. of Physics 49(6):534-542.

Roy, R. (1986). Pedagogical theories and strategies for education in materials research.
In Hobbs, L. (ed.), Frontiers in Materials Education, Materials Research Society,
Pittsburgh, pp. 23-33.
Roy, R. (1990). The relationship of technology to science and teaching of technology. 1. of Tech.
Edu.l(2):5-19.
Roy, R. (1992a). K-12 Education: A primer for material researchers. MRS Bulletin 5-9.
Roy, R. (1992b). Materials education: The second time around. MRS Bulletin 22-26.
Shapley, D., and Roy, R. (1985). Lost at the Frontier-V. S. Science and Technology Policy Adrift,
lSI Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Yager, R. E., and Roy, R. (1993). STS most pervasive and most radical of reform approaches
to science education in the STS movement. In The Science Technology Society
Movement Yager, R. E. (ed.), NSTA Press, Washington, nc. pp. 7-13.
 CHAPTER 2

The Development of Civic

Scientific Literacy in the
United States
Jon D. Miller

Americans and other citizens of modern industrial societies live in an age of

science and technology. Most adults in the industrialized world live in homes
heated and cooled by a combination of thermostats and microcomputer
chips. They watch pictures of world events transmitted by satellite unfold on
their color television screen, and eat foods prepared and preserved by a wide
array of technologies unknown to their parent's generation. When they
become ill, they are treated with new pharmaceutical products that reflect
20th century advances in antibiotics, virology, or genetic engineering. For
work, play, or family reasons, millions of Americans routinely take commer-
cial air transportation to destinations around the planet.
Today's children-the next generation-will undoubtedly live in a sig-
nificantly more scientific and technological culture. The rapid expansion of
computer technology promises to relieve human beings of an ever larger

Jon D. Miller, Center for Biomedical Communications, Northwestern University Medical

School, Chicago, IL 60611-3008.
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

21
22 Science, Technology, and Society

share of routine and repetitious work. New advances in agriculture and plant
genetics suggest that the perennial struggle to feed the world's population
will require less and less effort. Advances in medicine, communications, and
transportation may lead to significantly longer lives and to a world commu-
nity able to talk and visit with one another routinely. The curve of scientific
and technological advance is still strongly positive.
The economic need for and value of a scientifically literate populace
are well known. Science and technology have had a pervasive impact
on both the methods of production and the products that are manufactured.
The production of traditional industrial products like steel and the shaping
of this and other metals into products has been largely automated. Work
in the modern office is characterized by the machines and technologies
utilized: word processors, data entry operators, database managers, fax
clerks, and photocopy technicians. The industrial challenges of the
21st century will be the manufacture of microcomputer chips, genetically-
engineered products, and new products yet to be invented. In this kind of
economy, a basic understanding of science and technology will be the start-
ing point for the development of the additional professional and technical
skills needed to be competitive in an era of intense international economic
competition.
Parallel to the need for a more scientifically literate workforce, the
economy of the 21st century will need a higher proportion of scientifically
literate consumers. From the experience of the last two decades, it is clear
that increased exposure to computers at work and school has stimulated a
strong and growing home microprocessor market. As more products incor-
porate new technologies, the information about the desirability, safety, and
efficacy of those products will require a basic level of scientific literacy for
comprehension. Some 20th century technologies, such as the irradiation
of foods for preservation, have never achieved a high level of commer-
cial success because of public misunderstanding and resistance. A strong
technology-based economy in the 21st century will require that a substan-
tial portion of the consuming populace be scientifically literate.
Of equal importance to these economic arguments, the preservation
of democratic governments in the 21st century may depend on the expan-
sion of the public understanding of science and technology. Over recent
decades, the number of public policy controversies that require some sci-
entific or technical knowledge for effective participation has been increas-
ing. At the community level, the fluoridation controversies and referenda
of the 1950s and 1960s in the United States illustrated the importance of a
scientifically literate electorate. The more recent controversies over recom-
binant DNA field tests or proposed sites for nuclear power plants and
nuclear waste disposal facilities point again to the need for an informed
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 23

citizenry in the formulation of public policy. At the national level, the

primary technological controversy of the latter decades of the 20th century
has been the ongoing debate over the role of nuclear power in the pro-
duction of energy. As the debate has widened to include the potential effects
of continued burning of fossil fuels on planetary ecology, the need for a
basic level of scientific literacy has become ever more urgent.
In the early decades of the 21st century, the national, state, and local
political agenda will likely include an increasing number of important sci-
entific and technological policy issues. While a more detailed discussion of
public participation in the formulation of science and technology policy is
beyond the scope of this chapter, it is important to note that the public is
likely to play the role of final arbiter of disputes, especially when the sci-
entific community and the political leadership are divided on a particular
issue. As new energy and biological technologies move toward the market-
place, there will be important public policy issues to be decided. Some of
these issues may erupt into full-scale public controversies. The preservation
of the democratic process demands that there be a sufficient number of
citizens able to understand the issues, deliberate the alternatives, and par-
ticipate in the political processes leading to the resolution of public policy
disputes involving science and technology.
If citizens are to discharge this responsibility in the context of an
increasingly scientific society then a significant proportion of the electorate
must be able to understand important public policy disputes involving
science or technology. I refer to this level of understanding as civic scien-
tific literacy. This chapter will propose a definition of civic scientific literacy,
and describe the present level of civic scientific literacy in the United States,
and explore the developmental origins of adult civic scientific literacy. The
chapter will conclude with some suggestions concerning policies to enhance
the level of civic scientific literacy in the United States.

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF CIVIC

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

The first basic conceptual issue concerns the scope of scientific literacy.
Drawing from the basic concept of literacy, meaning the ability to read
and write, scientific literacy might be defined as the ability to read and write
about science and technology (Harman, 1970; Resnick and Resnick, 1977).
But, given the wide array of scientific and technical applications in
everyday life, scientific literacy might include everything from reading the
label on a package of food, repairing an automobile, to reading about the
newest images from the Hubble telescope. Approximately two decades ago,
24 Science, Technology, and Society

Shen (1975) suggested that the public understanding of science and tech-
nology might be usefully divided into practical scientific literacy, cultural
scientific literacy, and civic scientific literacy. In this context, civic scientific
literacy refers to a level of understanding of scientific terms and constructs
sufficient to read a daily newspaper or magazine and to understand the
essence of competing arguments on a given dispute or controversy. Shen
argued:

Familiarity with science and awareness of its implications are not the same as
the acquisition of scientific information for the solution of practical problems.
In this respect civic science literacy differs fundamentally from practical science
literacy, although there are areas where the two inevitably overlap. Compared
with practical science literacy, the achievement of a functional level of civic
science literacy is a more protracted endeavor. Yet, it is a job that sooner or later
must be done, for as time goes on human events will become even more
entwined in science, and science-related public issues in the future can only
increase in number and in importance. Civic science literacy is a cornerstone of
informed public policy. (p. 49)

Through her studies of the nuclear power controversy in Sweden,

Nelkin (1977) has provided a useful framework for thinking about the
content of civic scientific literacy. In the early 1970s, Sweden was seeking to
develop a national policy on the use of nuclear power to generate electric-
ity. To facilitate a broader public debate, the Swedish government provided
small grants for study circles to discuss the nuclear power issue, usually
in groups of 10-15 citizens with materials and a facilitator to provide a bal-
anced presentation of the points of view. After months of discussions with
approximately 80,000 Swedish citizens, the (Swedish) National Board of
Civic Information conducted a study. They found that the portion of
Swedish adults who felt unable to make a decision, having heard both
arguments set forth, increased from 63 percent prior to the study circles to
73 percent after ten hours of study and discussion in study circles. Since it
is primarily at the point of controversy that the public becomes involved in
the resolution of scientific and technological disputes, it is clear that mean-
ingful citizen participation requires a level of civic scientific literacy suffi-
cient to understand the essential points of competing arguments and to
evaluate or assess these arguments (Miller, 1983a).
Ziman and Wynne have attacked the basic idea of seeking to define
and measure the understanding of scientific concepts, referring to this kind
of analysis as a "deficit" model (Ziman, 1991; Wynne, 1991; Irwin and Wynne,
1996). They believe scientific meaning should be socially negotiated and that
it should not be presumed that the knowledge of scientists is better than the
common sense of nonscientists. Durant et al. (1992) have provided a thought-
ful defense of the idea of defining and measuring public knowledge:
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 25

We do not share Levy-Leblond's apparent willingness to divorce the ideals of

democracy and literacy. On the contrary, we believe that the health functioning
of democracy depends crucially upon the existence of a literate public; and in
modern industrial societies, true democracy must embrace scientific literacy.
(p. 163)
... there remains the problem of stigmatization. Clearly to measure levels of sci-
entific understanding within a population is inevitably to assign higher scores to
some individuals than others. By analogy with the notoriously controversial issue
of IQ testing, this may be seen as inherently normative. Surely, it may be said,
by measuring scientific understanding we are automatically branding as inferior
those who score badly? Not at all. It is worth remembering that the French psy-
chologist Alfred Binet developed the IQ test in order to identify those pupils
who were most in need of educational assistance ... (demonstrating) that there
is nothing necessarily prejudicial about the wish to find out how well individu-
als are doing in any particular area of educational and scientific attainment. (pp.
163-164)

In his discourse on the concept of scientific literacy, Shamos (1995)

generally accepts the notion of a consumer scientific literacy and a civic sci-
entific literacy, but, reflecting his own training in physics, insists on reserv-
ing the label of true scientific literacy for those who understand the third
law of thermodynamics in essentially the same terms as a, physicist.
Although Shamos appears to accept the idea of civic scientific literacy at
some points in his discourse, he ultimately concludes that citizens can never
acquire sufficient understanding to participate in science and technology
disputes, and embraces the long-discredited concept of a science court to
remove science policy from the democratic process. Unable to step outside
his own scientific training, Shamos fails to recognize that the general polit-
ical institutions of society are extremely reluctant to exclude areas of
decision-making from democratic influence, as shown in the uneasy experi-
ment with independent regulatory commissions for securities, trade prac-
tices, and communications over the last four decades in the United States.
Any effort to exclude science policy from the normal democratic processes
would almost immediately foster similar demands for exclusive nondemo-
cratic arrangements from numerous other interest groups.
Given the strong likelihood that science and technology policy will
remain within the normal democratic policy formulation process in most
countries, it is important to develop useable measures of civic scientific lit-
eracy to better understand its origins and its function in modern democratic
systems. Building on a series of national surveys initiated in 1979, Miller
(1983b, 1987a, 1995,1997,1998) has attempted to develop an empirical esti-
mate of the proportion of American adults who qualify as being civic scien-
tifically literate; his work remains the only empirical effort to provide an
estimate of the proportion of adults qualifying as civic scientifically literate.
26 Science, Technology, and Society

THE MEASUREMENT OF CIVIC SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

Miller has argued civic scientific literacy is a multidimensional construct. In

a 1983 Daedalus article, Miller (1983b) suggested civic scientific literacy be
conceptualized as involving three related dimensions: (1) a vocabulary of
basic scientific constructs sufficient to read competing views in a newspa-
per or magazine; (2) an understanding of the process or nature of scientific
inquiry; and (3) some level of understanding of the impact of science and
technology on individuals and on society. It was argued that the combina-
tion of a reasonable level of achievement on each of these three dimen-
sions would reflect a level of understanding and competence to comprehend
and follow arguments about science and technology policy matters in the
media. In more recent cross-national studies of civic scientific literacy,
Miller found the third dimension-the impact of science and technology on
individuals and society-to vary substantially in content among different
nations and adopted a two-dimensional construct for use in cross-national
analyses (Miller et ai., 1997).
In his early work, Durant recognized a two-dimensional structure for
scientific understanding, but opted to use a continuous index of 27 items to
measure the public understanding for analytic purposes, preferring to avoid
use of the literacy concept and the establishment of a threshold that would
classify individual respondents as literate and illiterate (Durant et ai., 1989,
1992; Evans and Durant, 1995). In more recent work, Durant and his
colleagues suggested a three-dimensional model, but have continued to
utilize only the vocabulary or construct understanding dimension for analy-
sis (Bauer et al., 1994).
Over the last 15 years there has been a growing agreement that civic
scientific literacy can be usefully conceptualized as a two-dimensional
measure, reflecting a vocabulary dimension of basic scientific constructs
and a process or inquiry dimension. The desirability and feasibility of using
a third dimension that reflects the social impact of science and technology
in conceptualizing civic scientific literacy is still a point of some disagree-
ment. There is general agreement among scholars engaged in national
surveys, however, that a reliable two-dimensional measure of civic scientific
literacy would be useful in a wide range of national and cross-national
research.
Since 1972, the National Science Foundation has sponsored periodic
surveys of public attitudes toward and understanding of science and tech-
nOlogy. Beginning in 1979, the size and scope of the Science and Engineer-
ing Indicators surveys were expanded to include more attitudinal and
knowledge items, and the number of open-ended inquiries used in these
studies increased gradually throughout the 1980s and 1990s (National
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 27

Science Board, 1981, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998). The
1991, 1993, 1996, and 1998 Science and Engineering Indicators studies
and a 1993 Biomedical Literacy Study included an expanded set of knowl-
edge items.
Using this database, a confirmatory factor analysis found two corre-
lated, but analytically separable, factors that reflect the two dimensions
described by Miller (Miller et al., 1997; Miller, 1998). Nine knowledge items
loaded on a construct, or vocabulary, dimension, while three other items
defined a dimension reflecting an understanding of the nature of scientific
inquiry (see Table 1). The nine items reflect the kinds of core concepts a
citizen might need to understand a newspaper or magazine article, or a tele-
vision report, concerning a scientific or technical issue. Given the limita-
tions of time and respondent fatigue inherent in survey research, this set of
items should be seen as a sampling of a larger universe of a hundred or
more items that a well-informed citizen might need to comprehend and
follow current science and technology policy issues. Item-response-theory
(IRT) techniques were used to calibrate the nine items into a single dimen-
sion reflecting the extent of each individual's vocabulary of basic scientific
constructs (Bock and Zimowski, 1997). Approximately 29 percent of
American adults qualified as having a functional vocabulary of scientific
constructs in 1997.
The second factor included three items, reflecting an understanding
of the nature of scientific inquiry. When a citizen reads a news story or sees
a television report about the results of a new medical experiment, for
example, can that individual discern the difference between an appropri-
ately designed and conducted experiment and vigorous medical claims
without rigorous experimental testing, as in the Laetrile case in the United
States? Although it is not reasonable to expect a scientifically literate citizen
to be able to design or conduct an experiment, it is increasingly necessary
for citizens and consumers to be able to recognize a scientific approach from
a nonscientific or pseudoscientific approach. This three-item factor included
one open-ended question concerning the meaning of studying something
scientifically, one open-ended item asking for an explanation of the ratio-
nale for control groups, and a four-part item measuring the level of under-
standing of simple probability statements (see Table 1). Although only three
items loaded on this dimension, each item involved either an open-ended
explanation or a relatively complex multipart answer. Collectively, these
three items provide a relatively rigorous test of the level of understanding
of the nature of scientific inquiry.
The small number of items, however, cause some problems for the
conversion of the responses into a single scale score. An alternative
approach involves the construction of a typology. In previous work, Miller
28 Science, Technology, and Society

Table 1. Confirmatory Factor Results, United States, All Adults, 1997

Construct Process Proportion

Knowledge Knowledge of Variance
Dimension Dimension Explained

Provide a correct open·ended definition of a molecule. .77 .60

Provide a correct open-ended definition of DNA. .77 .59
Disagree that" Lasers work by focusing sound waves." .72 .52
Indicate, through a pair of closed-ended questions, .71 .51
that the Earth goes around the Sun once each year.
Disagree that "All radioactivity is man-made." .67 .45
Agree that "Electrons are smaller than atoms." .59 .35
Indicate that light travels faster than sound. .49 .28
Agree that "The continents on which we live have .48 .23
been moving their location for millions of years
and will continue to move in the future."
Disagree that "The earliest humans lived at .43 .19
the same time as the dinosaurs."
Provide an open-ended explanation of the .69 .47
meaning of studying something scientifically.
Demonstrate an understanding of .66 .44
experimental logic by selecting a research
design and explaining in an open-ended
response the rationale for a control group.
Demonstrate an understanding of the meaning .54 .30
of the probability of one-in-four by applying this
principle to an example of an inherited illness in
four separate questions.

x' = 99.1 i 51 degrees of freedom; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = .022; Upper limit of
the 90% confidence interval for RMSEA = .028; Correlation between Factor 1 and Factor 2 = .91; N =
2,000.

(1983b, 1987a, 1995, 1998) utilized a typology approach. Reflecting the

underlying concept, a typology was constructed that classified all of those
respondents who (1) were able to provide either a theory-building response
to the scientific study question or a correct response to the experimental
design question and (2) were able to define the meaning of probability as
having a minimally acceptable level of understanding of the nature of
scientific inquiry. Approximately 24 percent of American adults met this
criterion in 1997.
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 29

As noted above, the two dimensions are positively and strongly cor-
related, but statistically and conceptually separable. Conceptually, individ-
uals who demonstrate a high level of understanding on both dimensions are
the most capable of acquiring and comprehending information about a
science or technology policy controversy, and these individuals will be
referred to as being "well informed" or "scientifically literate." At the same
time, individuals who demonstrate either an adequate vocabulary of scien-
tific constructs or who display an acceptable level of understanding of the
nature of scientific inquiry are more capable of receiving and utilizing infor-
mation about a science or technology policy dispute than other citizens who
understand neither dimension. This second group will be referred to as
"moderately well informed" or "partially scientifically literate." In the 1997
study, 15 percent of American adults qualified as well informed, or civic
scientifically literate, and approximately 26 percent qualified as moderately
well informed.
Over the last decade, the percentage of American adults qualifying as
civic scientifically literate has increased from about 10 percent in 1988 to
15 percent in 1997 (see Fig. 1). While some portion of this increase can be
attributed to a general increase in adult recognition of the importance of
understanding basic scientific ideas and continuing improvements in the
quantity and quality of informal science education resources in the United
States, it is important to recognize that some part of this growth reflects
the earlier experiences of these adults as students. To improve our under-
standing of the role of family, schools, and teachers in the development of
civic scientific literacy and to gain some insight into the prospects for con-
tinued growth in civic scientific literacy, it is important to turn to the con-
struction and examination of two models of the development of science
achievement during the middle school and high school years and the growth
of civic scientific literacy during the high school and college years.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIC SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

Parallel to the adult studies described in the preceding section, a longitu-

dinal study of the development of student achievement in science was
undertaken in the United States, providing a comparable database with
designed points of linkage and comparison. The Longitudinal Study of
American Youth (LSAY) was designed to study the development of student
interest and competence in science and mathematics during the middle
school, high school, and college years. The LSAY started tracking two
cohorts of public school students in the fall semester of 1987. Throughout
the United States approximately 3,000 seventh-grade students from 50
30 Science, Technology, and Society

""&

\0

~
r..:
0-
0-

'"~
M
I
00
00
0-
M

:1
~ '3
"Cl
co

8!
I~
. C
co
u
"C
.. , "" 0
<lJ
S
-<
.... ~
I

I I
Oll
== C

'•""'
0
~ S
co
I G
I co
I ....
~ 2:l
I :==
u
'5
C
I ~ <lJ
"u
'"
I u
";;
I CI\
00 0
~ ~

~
:::l

-
00 tlO
00 u:::
'"
r-
oo

."" ..... . .. ..... .,..

~

g ~ ~ In S c

.U~;)J~d
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 31

middle schools and 3,000 10th-grade students from 50 high schools were
selected for the study. Each student was asked to complete an extensive
personal questionnaire at the beginning and end of the school year and to
take a science achievement test and a mathematics achievement test each
October. Background data were collected from all science and mathemat-
ics teachers working in the 100 schools in the study, and individual course
reports were collected from each science and mathematics teacher who
served one or more LSAY students in a class. Each school principal was
asked for school reports periodically to collect institutional measures.
To provide measures of home and family influence, one parent of each par-
ticipating student was annually interviewed by telephone for about 25
minutes. As a result of this process, the LSAY has built a record of approx-
imately 7,000 variables for each student over a seven-year period, making
it the most intensive study of the development of science and mathematics
interest and competence ever undertaken.
As Freedman (1997) recently noted, "the search for a viable model of
science instruction that will increase student achievement in science has
become a global agenda." Working from the LSAY database, one could
construct a set of structural equation models! that trace the development
of student achievement in science from seventh grade through four
years after high school, which would be the end of undergraduate work for
those students continuing formal study. Through these models, one could
identify the factors that are primarily responsible for the development of
student competence in science and determine whether a high level of
competence in school science is related to subsequent civic scientific
literacy as adults.
It is necessary to begin with a description of the LSAY measure of
student competence in science. The LSAY utilized the item pool from the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a national study
that provides baseline measures of student achievement in science, mathe-
matics, reading, writing, citizenship, and other subjects (Mullis and Jenkins,
1988). The NAEP studies, however, are cross-sectional, not longitudinal, and
the test questions were developed for that purpose. In its pilot year
(1986-1987), the LSAY conducted an extensive field test of the NAEP item
pool and demonstrated that it was possible, using Item-Response-Theory
(IRT) techniques, to utilize these items to measure change over time (Bock

I In general terms, a structural equation model is a set of regression equations that provide
the best estimate for a set of relationships among several independent variables and one or
more dependent variables. For all of the structural analyses presented in this report, the
program LlSREL was used, which allows the simultaneous examination of structural rela-
tionships and the modeling of measurement errors. For a more comprehensive discussion of
structural equation models, see Hayduk (1987) and Joreskog and Sorbom (1993).
32 Science, Technology, and Society

and Zimowski, 1997; Hambleton et at., 1991). A series of science and math-
ematics achievement tests were developed, keeping a common core of
linked items and rotating other items to make the tests grade appropriate
and avoid excessive repetition in the items. Since the scores are computed
in an IRT format, they can be converted to any of several scales. For this
analysis, the science achievement scores of seventh-grade students were set
to a mean of 50, with a standard deviation of 10. All of the scores of stu-
dents in subsequent years were calibrated on this base scale.
Using this metric, researchers found the mean level of student
achievement in science grew from a mean score of 51.5 in grade seven to a
mean score of 65.1 in grade 12 (see Fig. 2). As one can see, the rate of
achievement growth during the high school years is relatively low, and the
models described in the following text will provide some explanation of this
pattern. Further, an examination of the mean scores for students of the least
educated parents (those who did not complete high school) and the best-
educated parents (those who have a graduate or professional degree) shows
that the rate of growth is more positive for students from better educated
parents and almost flat for students from lesser educated parents. The
cumulative impact of parent and home influence will be illustrated in the
following analyses.

A Model to Predict Ninth Grade Student Science Achievement

The path model, used to predict science achievement in ninth graders,
is relatively complex and difficult to interpret visually (see Fig. 3). For
readers unfamiliar with structural equation models, it may be useful to
describe the general form and logic of the model. In a path model, all vari-
ables to the left of the model are assumed to be either chronologically or
logically prior to any variable to its right. The basic idea is that prior vari-
ables can influence subsequent variables and that absence of influence-
shown by a path-means the prior variable did not influence the subsequent
variable. The magnitude of any influence or association between two vari-
ables is reflected in the path coefficient, which is the standardized beta coef-
ficient from a regression equation predicting the variable at the end of the
path. As in all path analyses, it is possible to estimate the total influence of
each variable on the predicted variable by multiplying the path coefficients
in all possible paths leading to the predicted variable.
An examination of the estimated total effects of each of the variables
used to predict grade nine science achievement may make the model more
comprehensible. Rather than provide a comprehensive description of all of
the variables used in the model at the outset, the variables in this and sub-
sequent models will be defined as they are encountered in these analyses.
 ~
::;,-
('t)
90 0
('t)
<
('t)
0-
80 "0
3
('t)
;a
70 ~
~
(")
~ <-
'"' c::;.
60 --=- t/l
C"l
iii·
13"" ;a
~
~ r-
...=
Col ~:
.. 50~~
~ 40 OJ
C"l
"<
:l

30 +---------------------------------------------------------- -------------~-___I
:r
('t)

c
:l
§"'
.. -~-.-- ~--- --.-------_..- -- --( 0...
20 +- t/l
0;

10 -1--- -
ffi

O+,----------~--------~----------~--------_r----------~--------~
Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12

~Total ~LTHS ~HSGrad ...:s::uacc I

Figure 2. Science achievement scores for grades 7-12, for all students and by level of parent education.
w
w
 w
.4

(j)
n
iii'
OJ
n
,(1)

in'
n
:;,-
OJ
o
0-
()Q
Figure 3. A path model to predict science achievement in ninth grade.
~

OJ
'"'
co..
(j)
o
n
~..
'<
 The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 35

Grade 7 Achievement

Student Reading Level

Parent Education

..
Parent College Push

Parent Science Issue Int.

Student Gender

Parent Religious Beliefs

MS Science Teacher Push i

I
! I
I

Student Science Attitude

! I
I
I
o 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.8
Total Effect

Figure 4. Estimated total effects of selected variables in the prediction of student science
achievement in ninth grade.

The strongest predictor of science achievement in ninth grade was

student science achievement at seventh grade, with a total effect of .90 (see
Fig. 4). This result indicates that there is little change in the relative stand-
ing of students in science achievement during the middle school years. This
pattern suggests that the basic ranking of students in regard to the level of
science understanding occurs prior to middle school and may reflect a
general stratification of students by reading and other basic academic skills
during the elementary school years. These data provide no evidence of any
significant catch-up during the middle school years. This pattern is consis-
tent with the modest growth rates found in the National Assessment of
Educational Progress and other national time-series studies, all of which
imply a high level of stability without actually measuring individual student
change (Mullis and Jenkins, 1988) and with previous analyses of longitudi-
nal change during the middle school years (Hoffer, 1992).
The second strongest predictor of ninth grade science achievement
was a composite high school reading score,z with a total effect of .53. Despite

2 Using a set of four readings taken from the High School and Beyond study (HSB) and the
National Elementary Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS88), the reading test included 15
items. The Index of High School Reading Ability is a composite score for reading tests taken
in ninth and 12th grades. The Index's range is 0-15.
36 Science, Technology, and Society

solid literature documenting the linkages between reading, writing, and

general academic achievement (Paris et al., 1991; Tierney and Shanahan,
1991; Langer et al., 1990), there has been relatively little analysis of the rela-
tionship between reading and science achievement. A summary of impor-
tant input and outcome variables by the National Research Council does not
mention student reading level as a potentially relevant variable (Raizen and
Jones, 1985). Resnick (1987) has advanced the argument that reading of
complex material is evidence of higher-order thinking, but no National
Assessment study has collected both reading and science achievement mea-
sures from the same students. In this context, then, this finding is particularly
interesting and suggests the need for additional research.
The level of parent education3 had an estimated total effect of .26,
and a measure of parent college push4 had a total effect of .24. These
patterns reflect the structural advantage that better-educated parents gain
for their children in the present system (Oakes, 1990). The level of parent
education is often omitted from educational analyses of student achieve-
ment on the grounds that it is an existing condition outside the control of
schools. Few studies have tried to separate the level of parent educational
push or encouragement from the level of parent education (Keeves, 1975).
The significant parallel impact of parent education and parent college push
suggest these are important factors in understanding student science
achievement and need to be taken into account regularly in educational
research.
The mean science achievement score of children of parents with
strong fundamentalist religious views5 did not differ significantly from the
scores of students whose parents' religious views were less conservative.

3 Parent education is a measure of the highest level of formal education completed either by
a parent in two-parent families or by the single parent in one-parent families. Previous analy-
ses have found that the highest level of educational attainment by either parent is a better
predictor of most student outcome measures than either the mean level of parent education
or the education of either parent.
4 Parent college push is a composite measure of the highest level of education that parents
want their child to attain and the level of disappointment they would feel if the child failed.
Parent expectations that their student would complete a graduate or professional degree
was assigned a value of three; expectations of a baccalaureate were assigned a value of 2;
expectations of completion of high school were assigned a value of 1. A high level of disap-
pointment was assigned a value of 2; a moderate level of disappointment was assigned a
value of 1. The two values were summed, producing an index of 0-5. An index score of 0
would reflect a child whose parents did not expect high school completion, and a score of 5
would reflect a child whose parents expect a graduate or professional degree and would be
very disappointed if that child did not attain it.
S A measure of parent religious views was constructed, using their agreement or disagreement
with three items: "There is a personal God who hears the prayers of individual men and
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 37

Cumulatively, these variables indicate parental transmission of lan-

guage skills, parental encouragement of education, and parent education
provide the driving force in student science achievement, and it appears
that parental religious views do not significantly modify the transmission of
these basic educational skills and goals.
Given the central position of science issues in the science, technology,
and society movement, this analysis will include a set of variables measuring
parent and student interest in science and technology issues? and seek to
understand the influence of these variables on student science achievement.
The level of parent interest in science and technology issues had a total effect
of .13, indicating that the students of parents with more interest in science
and technology issues were likely to score slightly higher on the ninth grade
science achievement test than would children whose parents had little inter-
est in scientific or technical issues. Following the pattern found in the
literature (Rennie and Punch, 1991), student attitude toward science6 during
seventh and eighth grades was unrelated to science achievement.
Boys tended to score higher than girls (.07) on the ninth grade science
achievement test, holding constant parent education, parent religious views,
parent college push, and reading ability. Since the student's gender is
treated as a dichotomous variable in these analyses, with males having a
code of one and females having a code of zero (Code assignment does not
reflect a value judgment), a positive coefficient or total effect means that
boys scored higher and a negative coefficient means that girls scored higher.
This pattern is consistent with three decades of literature examining gender
differences in science (Ormerod and Duckworth, 1975; Young and Fraser,
1994; Catsambis, 1995).

women"; "The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word";
and "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals." Each
respondent was classified as liberal-humanist, moderate-mainstream, conservative, or
fundamentalist on the basis of combinations of these responses.
6 The measure of student attitude toward science was the mean score on four subscales:
interest, ability, utility, and anxiety. Individual items included in the subscales reflected student
agreement or disagreement with the following items: "I enjoy science"; "I enjoy my science
class"; "Math is useful in everyday problems"; "Science is useful in everyday problems"; "It is
important to know science to get a good job"; "I will use science in many ways as an adult";
"I am good at science"; "I usually understand what I am doing in science"; "Doing science
often makes me nervous or upset"; "I often get scared when I open my science book and see
a page of problems." Using Likert scoring, the index range was 0-20.
7 For both parents and students, science issue interest was measured by their reported level
of interest (very interested, moderately interested, and not interested) in new scientific dis-
coveries, the use of new inventions and technologies, and issues about space exploration. A
report of very interested was given 2 points; a response of moderately interested was given
1 point; a report of no interest was given no points. Summed across the three issues, the index
of science issue interest ranges was 0-6.
38 Science, Technology, and Society

A Model to Predict 12th Grade Student Science Achievement

By the last year of high school, the strongest predictor of 12th grade
science achievement was ninth grade science achievement (.84). Seventh
grade science achievement was the second strongest predictor (.75). This
pattern reinforces the previous observation that the relative ordering
of students in regard to science achievement changed very little during
the middle school or high school years (see Fig. 6) and is consistent
with other analyses of longitudinal change during the high school years
(Reynolds and Walberg, 1992). Reading skill was the third strongest
predictor (.54), indicating that basic reading skills are important to success
in science throughout the middle-school and high-school years. Consistent
with the literature (Schibeci, 1989; Oakes, 1990), the combination of reading
and prior achievement provide a de Jacto stratification of students that per-
sists from at least the beginning of middle school through the end of high
school.
The level of parent education was the fourth strongest predictor, with
an estimated total effect of .28. Parent college push had a total effect of .26.
The model shows that the children of better-educated parents have higher
reading scores (.26), are placed in a higher science track by ninth grade
(.12), are likely to take more laboratory science courses in high school (.38),
and receive more parental encouragement to plan for college (.41) than the
children of lesser educated parents.
Among high school students, parent religious views had a negative
total effect of -.10 on science achievement. The children of religious fun-
damentalist parents tended to score lower on reading (-.16) and to express
lower levels of interest in science and technology issues (-.09). The level of
parent interest in science and technology issues during the middle school
years continued to have a small positive influence (.12) on 12th grade
student science achievement.
The major source of school influence is the number of laboratory
science courses taken, with an estimated total effect of .16 (see Fig. 5). Sub-
stantial literature supports the positive contribution of laboratory experi-
ences on student science achievement (Gunsch, 1972; Johnson et at., 1974;
Dickinson, 1976; Freedman, 1997).
By the end of high school, the level of middle-school and high school
science teacher encouragement had no significant influence on the level of
student science achievement. The level of student science track location in
ninth grade is also unrelated to 12th grade science achievement, indicating
that prior parental influence and subsequent high school course-taking fully
account for the ninth grade track placement.
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 39

C ... de 9 Achl ..eme.C

Grade 1 Acblevement

cudenl RtadIDC un'

P.... IEdu.. U••

".rcn I Collq:t Pu.h

-
Slud •• 1 !IS Lob Sci en
I
P...~nt Sdenc:e I ue Int.
I
SludHI~dff'

1'......1 ReUclollS klltrs : ::::::J

HS Stitn« T...,her Pwh

Sludt:nt MS Science Au

ludr.1 HS Sti Is.! lnl

Slude.1 s.ltnce T ....k 9 I

o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
TOIII Errect

eNeg_live

Figure 5. Estimated total effects of selected variables in the prediction of student science
achievement in 12th grade.

Boys continued to score slightly higher in science achievement than

girls (.10), holding constant parental influence, prior achievement, and high
school course-taking patterns. While a full analysis of the differential influ-
ence of gender is beyond the scope of this analysis, it is useful to note that
this total effect is a net effect, including both some positive and negative
influences for each gender group. Girls, for example, have higher reading
scores while boys express a higher level of interest in science issues. Gender
was not related to the number of high school laboratory science courses
taken.
The results from the whole model suggest that early successes
and advantages multiply in the school systems of the United States and may
be attributed to better-educated parents and the early development of
strong reading skills. There appears to be relatively little re-ordering of stu-
dents in regard to science achievement during the middle school or high
school years. The pattern of mean science achievement scores suggests only
modest levels of growth in science achievement during the high school
years.
40 Science, Technology, and Society

A Model to Predict Student Civic Scientific Literacy at Age 22

A second model, using the older LSAY cohort, was constructed to
examine the influence of home and school variables on the development
of civic scientific literacy among young adults. This model used the same
measures employed in the 1998,1990,1995, and 1997 adult studies. For this
cohort, the measure of civic scientific literacy was obtained in Spring 1994
by telephone interview with each LSAY Cohort One student who was four
years post high school. All students were interviewed regardless of whether
they had continued their formal education or not, allowing an examination
of the linkage between school science and subsequent adult understanding
of science and technology.
Using the same general definition and measures described above
(Miller, 1998), 16 percent of LSAY participants qualified as civic scientific
literate in Spring 1994. As previously discussed, 12 percent of adults
qualified as civic scientific literate in a national survey of American
adults approximately a year later. Nearly 30 percent of LSAY students
completing a baccalaureate qualified as civic scientifically literate, com-
pared to 4 percent of LSAY participants who did not enter any post-
secondary study.
A similar measure of civic scientific literacy was collected in Spring
1990 from at least one parent of each student in a telephone interview
during the student's senior year of high school. Approximately 10 percent
of these LSAY parents qualified as civic scientifically literate, which was vir-
tually identical to the percentage of adults in a 1990 national study that
qualified as civic scientifically literate. These data will allow an examination
of the linkage between parents and students in regard to civic scientific
literacy.
Given the complexity of this model, it is useful to look primarily at
the estimated total effects on the level of civic scientific literacy of a student
who has reached age 22. The two strongest predictors of civic scientific lit-
eracy among young adults were the level of student science achievement in
10th grade and student high school reading level, with estimated total
effects of .55 and .45 respectively (see Fig. 6). This reading and science
achievement linkage confirms the importance of formal schooling. This
result does not preclude improvement in civic scientific literacy during the
adult years through informal education activities, but it does suggest that
much of informal education may largely reinforce or enhance basic science
learning during the school years.
The level of parent education was the third strongest predictor of
young adult civic scientific literacy, with an estimated total effect of .37.
Parent college push had an estimated total effect of .27. Parent civic
 The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 41

endt 10 StifftU Ad,

S.udtnt HS Readlnll.~(f:1

Stud.nt HS Lob ScI CB

S",d.nl Cendor (Mole)

Por.... C.Utle Push

Gndt 11 SdcftC.eAdl

Student c.:oll Sd~t n

HS Science Telch.er PU!lh

Puent Ch'ic Scittuln.: Lit

. tudent Colt Stllu Itit c::::::::I

r.~t Scitnc;t lsaue Int t=::l
Srudtn. HS Sdftlc-e An
•
Student HS Scimef 1$1 hu
•
0.1 0.4 0.6 0.8

TOIII Err..,

• Positive 0101<&111••

Figure 6. Estimated total effects of selected variables in the prediction of civic scientific lit-
eracy at age 22.

scientific literacy had an estimated total effect of .16. Parent interest in

science and technology issues during the student's high school years dis-
played a small negative relationship to young adult civic scientific literacy
(-.07). This may reflect the relatively stronger influence of the other parent
variables. Parent religious belief was unrelated to young adult civic scien-
tific literacy, holding constant the other variables in the model. The influ-
ence of parent education has been pervasive through these models, pointing
toward a social class effect based primarily on education. Not only do
better-educated parents teach their children to read earlier and more skill-
fully than the children of less-well-educated parents, but they provide
stronger encouragement and more resources. Schools and teachers reward
this advantage with more advantage. And, presumably, these better-edu-
cated young adults will do the same for their children. It is not a closed
system, as in a caste system. There is a good deal of mobility within the
system, but there is an undeniable structuring to the system.
The number of high school laboratory science courses taken and
the number of college science courses taken were positively related to
young adult civic scientific literacy, with an estimated total effects of .31 and
.19, respectively (see Fig. 6). The level of encouragement by high school
42 Science, Technology, and Society

science teachers was negatively related to young adult civic scientific

literacy (-.18). These results underscore the importance of taking science
courses as a pathway to adult civic scientific literacy and suggest that enjoy-
ment or encouragement do not substitute for actual course enrollment and
participation.
The same gender difference observed throughout the middle school
and high school data appears to persist into young adulthood, with a total
estimated effect of .28. This means young men are significantly more likely
to be civic scientific literate than young women, holding constant the other
variables in the model. While gender differences in American high school
science courses and science achievement scores have declined in recent
years, this result suggests that the gender difference expands during the
post-secondary years. A full exploration of this finding is beyond the scope
of this chapter, but it is a subject that begs for additional analysis.
Finally, this model lends no support to the idea that student interest
in science and technology policy issues is an effective enhancement to or
incentive for student achievement in science. Young adult civic scientific
literacy is a measure of the ability to read and comprehend the scientific
content associated with current science and technology policy issues at the
level that they might be discussed in the Tuesday New York Times or com-
parable media. It is not a measure of science knowledge comparable to the
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or other tests for potential science majors.
Given the citizenship orientation of this measure, it would be reasonable to
expect that parental and student interest in science and technology policy
issues would be strongly and positively associated with civic scientific liter-
acy. The model, however, indicates that a high school student's interest in
science and technology issues is unrelated to young adult civic scientific lit-
eracy, and the parent interest in these issues during the student's high school
years and young adult interest in these issues during these initial post-
secondary years displayed small negative relationships to young adult civic
scientific literacy, with estimated total effects of -.07 and -.09 respectively.
This result raises important questions about the tendency of many science
educators to view issue-oriented courses as an important gateway to student
acquisition of science understanding.

CONCLUSION

This analysis examined the level of civic scientific literacy in the United
States and found a gradual increase in the percentage of American adults
who qualify as civic scientifically literate and are likely to be able to read
about, understand, and participate in a public policy debate involving science
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 43

or technology. The analysis explored the origins of student interest and

achievement in science during the middle-school and high-school years.
A set of structural equation models found a strong linkage between
the learning of science during these school years and the persistence of this
knowledge into the young adult years. The implications.of these results are
substantial. It has been assumed too often that school science was old at the
time of delivery and had little long-term relevance, particularly in adults 20
or more years post high school. Shamos (1995) has argued this point, based
largely on his own classroom observations. These results indicate that the
number of science courses taken in high school and college are strong pre-
dictors of civic scientific literacy. The level of science achievement at 10th
grade was the strongest predictor of civic scientific literacy among 22-year-
olds. While these basic models need to be refined and expanded, this basic
linkage is an important indicator that pre-college and post-secondary
science courses have important life-long consequences.
Equally important, the models point to a stratification of student
science achievement at early middle school years that persists throughout
high school and the post-secondary years. It appears this differential is
widened by enrollment in and completion of a baccalaureate program.
Nearly 30 percent of young adults graduating from college qualified as civic
scientifically literate-more than twice the proportion found in the total
adult population. These models suggest this early stratification in science
achievement is strongly related to parent and home factors. Better-educated
parents have a high level of commitment to enhancing their children's life
chances. Thus, they teach and try to improve their children's early reading
skills. These parents provide home learning resources, such as computers
and microscopes, and stress the importance of success in school. Parents
who give their four-year-old child their first college tee shirt give more than
a piece of clothing.
These models indicate that the early advantages provided by better-
educated parents are recognized and multiplied by formal schooling. This
finding does not mean efforts to enhance the life changes of disadvantaged
children are hopeless, but it does mean intervention programs that ignore
the substantial influence of parents and exclude them from the process are
less likely to succeed.
These findings have important implications for the future of our
democratic form of government. The number of important public policy
controversies involving science and technology will increase substantially
in the 21st century. While the processes of political and issue specialization
will limit the proportion of the population that will become in any public
policy dispute (Miller, 1983a; Miller et al., 1997), a healthy democratic
political system needs more than the 15 percent of American adults who
44 Science, Technology, and Society

currently qualify as civic scientifically literate to be able to participate in

the resolution of public policy controversies. Further, the stratification of
science achievement by level of parent education and related advantages
means that science and technology policy disputes in the next generation
could become intertwined with economic class differences and perhaps
ethnic, racial, or religious differences. The future health of both the
scientific and engineering communities and our democracy may depend, in
part, on some growth in the proportion of Americans who are able to read
and understand the issues in public policy disputes involving science and
technology.
Finally, these results do not support the view that a strong emphasis
on the study of science and technology issues is a viable pathway to an
understanding of science. Four years after high school graduation, both
student and parent interest in science and technology issues displayed a
weak negative relationship to civic scientific literacy. Clearly, the path to
civic scientific literacy runs through science classes in high school and
college, and social science or issue-oriented classes do not appear to be
viable substitutes. It may be that the study of science, technology, and
society as a supplement to a solid core of science and mathematics courses
will produce scientifically literate citizens who have an appreciation of both
science and politics, but these data and this analysis point to a strong and
essential linkage between formal schooling in science and mathematics and
the development of civic scientific literacy.

REFERENCES

Almond, G. A. (1950). The American People and Foreign Policy, Harcourt, Brace & Company,
New York.
Almond, G. A., and Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
N1.
Almond, G. A., and Verba, S. (eds.) (1980). The Civic Culture Revisited, Little Brown &
Company, Boston.
Bauer, M., Durant, 1. R., and Evans, G.A. (1994). European public perceptions of science.Inter-
national Journal of Public Opinion Research 6:163-186.
Bock, R. D., and Zimowski, M. F. (1997). Multiple-group IRT. In van der Linden, W. 1. and
Hambleton, R. K. (eds.), Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory, Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Bosso, C. 1. (1987). Pesticides and Politics: The Life Cycle of a Public Issue, University of Pitts-
burgh Press, Pittsburgh, PA.
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Catsambis, S. (1995). Gender, race, ethnicity, and science education in the middle grades.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32:243-257.
Costner, H. L. (1965). Criteria for measures of association. American Sociological Review
30(3):341-353.
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 45

Dickinson, D. H. (1976). Community college student's achievement and attitude change in

lecture only: Lecture-laboratory approach to general education biological science
courses (Doctoral dissertation, Utah State University, Provo, Utah).
Durant, 1. R., Evans, G. A., Thomas, G. P. (1989). The public understanding of science. Nature
340:11-14.
Durant, 1. R., Evans, G. A., Thomas, G. P. (1992). Public understanding of science in Britain:
The role of medicine in the popular presentation of science. Public Understanding of
Science 1:161-182.
Evans, G. A., and Durant, 1. R. (1995). The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in
the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science 4:57-74.
Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude to science, and
achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:343-357.
Freudenburg, W. R., and Rosa, E. A. (1984). Public Reactions to Nuclear Power. Westview Press,
Boulder, Co.
Goodman, L. A., and Kruskal, W. H. (1954). Measures of association for cross-classifications.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 49:732-764.
Gunsch, L. (1972). A comparison of student's achievement and attitude changes resulting from
a laboratory and non-laboratory approach to general education physical science
courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO).
Harman, D. (1970). Illiteracy: An overview. Harvard Educational Review 40:226--230.
Hambleton, R. K., Saminathan, H., and Rogers, H.1. (1991). Fundamentals of Item Response
Theory, Sage, New York.
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL. The Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press, Baltimore, MD.
Hoffer, T. B. (1992). Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and
mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14:205-227.
Irwin, A., and Wynne, B. (eds.) (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of
science and technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, u.K.
Johnson, R. T., Ryan, F. L., and Schroeder, H. (1974). Inquiry and the development of positive
attitudes. Science Education 58:51-56.
Joreskog, K., and Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8. Scientific Software International, Chicago.
Kaase, M., and Newton, K. (1995). Beliefs in Government, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
UK.
Keeves,1. P. (1975). The home, the school, and achievement in mathematics and science. Science
Education 59:439-460.
Langer, 1., Applebee, A., Mullis, I., and Foertsch, M. (1990). Learning to Read in Our Nation's
Schools, Educational Testing Service, National Assessment of Educational Progress,
Princeton, N1.
Lau, R. R., and Sears, D. O. (eds.), (1986). Political Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, N1.
Milburn, M. A. (1991). Persuasion and Politics: The Social Psychology of Public Opinion,
Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Miller, 1. D. (1983a). The American People and Science Policy, Pergamon Press, New York.
Miller, 1. D. (1983b). Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review. Daedalus
112(2):29-48.
Miller, 1. D. (1987a). Scientific literacy in the United States. In Evered, D., and O'Connor, M.
(eds.), Communicating Science to the Public, Wiley, London.
Miller, 1. D. (1987b). The Challenger accident and public opinion. Space Policy 3(2):122-140.
Miller, 1. D. (1989). Scientific literacy. A paper presented to the 1989 annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, January 17,1989.
46 Science, Technology, and Society

Miller, 1. D. (1995). Scientific literacy for effective citizenship. In Yager, R. E. (ed.),

Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, State University Press of
New York, New York.
Miller, 1. D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of
Science 7:1-21.
Miller, 1. D., Pardo, R., and Niwa, F. (1997). Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A
Comparative Study of the European Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada, BBV
Foundation, Madrid, Spain.
Minsky, M. (1986). The Society of Mind, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Mintz, M. (1965). The Therapeutic Nightmare, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Morone,1. G., and Woodhouse, E. 1. (1989). The Demise of Nuclear Energy?, Yale University
Press, New Haven, cr.
Mullis, I. V. S., and Jenkins, L. B. (1988). The Science Report Card: Elements of Risk and Recov-
ery, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N1.
National Science Board (1981). Science Indicators-1980, US. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.c.
National Science Board (1983). Science Indicators-1982, US. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (1986). Science Indicators-1985, US. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (1988). Science and Engineering Indicators-1987, US. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (1990). Science and Engineering Indicators-1989, US. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (1992). Science and Engineering Indicators-1991, US. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (1994). Science and Engineering Indicators-1993, US. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
National Science Board (1996). Science and Engineering Indicators-I996, US. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.c.
National Science Board (1998). Science and Engineering Indicators-1998, US. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Nelkin, D. (1977). Technological Decisions and Democracy: European Experiments in Public
Participation, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Noll, V. H. (1935). Measuring the scientific attitude. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychol-
ogy 30:145-154.
Oakes, 1. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of Race, Social Class, and Tracking on
Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science, The RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica, CA.
Ormerod, M. B., and Duckworth, D. (1975). Pupils' Attitudes to Science, NFER Publishing
Company, Berks, UK.
Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., and Turner, 1. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In Barr,
R., Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., and Pearson, P. D. (eds.), The Handbook of Reading
Research: Volume II, Longman, New York.
Pick, H. L., van den Broek, P., and Knill, D.C. (eds.), (1992). Cognition: Conceptual and
Methodological Issues, American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York.
Popkin, S. L. (1994). The Reasoning Voter, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Raizen, S. and Jones, L. V. (1985). Indicators of Precollege Education in Science and Mathe-
matics: A Preliminary Review, National Academy Press, Washington, D.c.
The Development of Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States 47

Rennie, L. J., and Punch, K. F. (1991). The relationship between affect and achievement in
science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 28:193-209.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Education and Learning to Think, National Academy Press, Washing-
ton,D.C.
Resnick, D. P., and Resnick, L. B. (1977). The nature of literacy: An historical exploration.
Harvard Educational Review 47:370-385.
Ressmeyer, T. J. (1994). Attentiveness and mobilization for science policy (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL).
Reynolds, A. 1., and Walberg, H. J. (1992). A structural model of science achievement and atti-
tude: An extension to high school. Journal of Educational Psychology 84:371-382.
Rosenau, J. A. (1974). Citizenship Between Elections, Free Press, New York.
Schank, R. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Schebeci, R. A. (1989). Home, school, and peer group influences of student attitudes and
achievement in science. Science Education 73:13-24.
Shamos, M. (1995). The Myth of Scientific Literacy, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
NJ.
Shen, B. S. J. (1975). Scientific literacy and the public understanding of science. In Day, S. (ed.),
Communication of Scientific Information, Karger, Basel, Switzerland.
Tierney, R., and Shanahan, T. (1991). In Barr, R., Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., and Pearson, P. D.
(eds.), The Handbook of Reading Research: Volume II, Longman, New York.
Verba, S., Nie, N. H., and Kim, J. (1978). Participation and Political Equality: A Seven-nation
Comparison, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., and Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in
American Politics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wynne, B. (1991). Knowledges in context. Science, Technology & Human Values 16:111-121.
Young, D. 1., and Fraser, B. 1. (1994). Gender differences in science achievement: Do schools
make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching 31:857-871.
Ziman,1. (1991). Public understanding of science. Science, Technology & Human Values 16:
99-105
 CHAPTER 3

STS Science in Canada

From Pol icy to Student Eval uation
Glen s. Aikenhead

This chapter will map out the territory educators should explore if they
expect to develop STS science curricula. How are successful STS curricula
produced? In Canada, we have had about 25 years experience with research
and development in STS science teaching. In 1997 this experience culmi-
nated in a national STS science framework.
The territory to be mapped out in this chapter includes a range of four
tasks. Each task involves a process that leads to a desired product. The rela-
tionships among four fundamental processes and products are summarized
in Table 1. Table 1 relates the processes of deliberation-research and devel-
opment (R&D), implementation, and instruction-assessment-with their
associated products: curriculum policy, classroom materials, teacher under-
standing, and student learning, respectively. The sequence across Table 1
(from policy to student learning) reflects three levels of curriculum: 1)
intended curriculum (government policy), 2) translated curriculum (text-
books and teachers' ideas about what will be taught), and 3) learned cur-
riculum (the concepts, capabilities, and attitudes that students actually take

Glen S. Aikenhead, Department of Curriculum Studies, College of Education, University of

Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK S7N OXl, Canada
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

49
50 Science, Technology, and Society

Table 1. Relationships between Processes and Products in STS Science Education

PRODUCTS

Curriculum Classroom Teacher Student

Policy Materials Understanding Learning

PROCESSES
Deliberation high low
Research and Development low high low
Implementation low high low
Instruction-Assessment low high

away with them). STS science educators must consider all three levels of
the curriculum before successful STS courses can be produced.
This chapter is organized around the four product-process pairs des-
ignated in Table 1 as having a "high" relationship.
An alternative approach to the one taken in this chapter was proposed
by Cheek (1992). His "STS Curriculum Development Model" included fea-
tures such as: theoretical considerations (constructivism, moral develop-
ment, critical thinking, etc.), data collection considerations (children's views
about the scientific, technological and social aspects of the curriculum
content), content considerations (technology content, values, skills, etc),
delivery system considerations (teacher knowledge, student readiness, etc.),
curriculum materials design, implementation, and evaluation.
Space does not permit a detailed discussion of every process and
product listed in Table 1. Thus, this chapter will only do a cursory explo-
ration of the territory. Emphasis will be given to the first product-process
pair: curriculum policy and deliberation. Discussions will reflect our expe-
riences with STS science education in Canada, though these experiences
are certainly related to international developments in STS, and so some of
these will be noted as well.

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN CANADA

Those unfamiliar with Canadian culture need to know that education is a

fiercely guarded provincial responsibility. As a result, we have a different
educational system in each province. Up until now, provinces have inde-
pendently developed their own science curricula, and they have even
arranged for the publication of accompanying textbooks. Although this
provincial independence has been a source of pride to provincial educators,
it has been an expensive source of pride because of the duplication of effort
and unnecessary disparity among the provinces.
STS Science in Canada 51

Canada inaugurated its first national framework for science education

in October 1997, the Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes
developed by the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada (CMEC,
1997). This pan-Canadian protocol for collaboration on school curriculum
established a science-technology-society-environment (STSE) approach to
achieving scientific literacy in Canada. The publication is a curriculum
policy document and not a curriculum per se. It represents a type of STS
science education that may be attractive to STS educators elsewhere. The
pan-Canadian protocol attempted to balance the two historical factors of
provincial independence versus duplication and unnecessary disparity
among the provinces.
In keeping with Canadian culture, the Common Framework of Science
Learning Outcomes (the Framework) evolved through negotiation and
compromise among provincial bureaucrats, who were advised by interested
parties (stakeholders) in each province. This political process, however, did
not meet the standards of curriculum policy development held by the Cana-
dian science education academic community. This problem was aired at two
national symposia held during annual meetings of the Canadian Society for
the Study of Education in June 1997 and May 1998.
The academic science educator's discontent arose from the dramatic
difference between the standards guiding the CMEC's political process and
the standards used earlier by a national education policy project, funded
and directed by the Science Council of Canada (SCC, 1984; Orpwood, 1985).
The SCC project had painstakingly conducted its education study with the
highest of scholarly standards. (This reform project will be described when
the process of deliberation is explored.) These science educators expected
the SCC's high standards of excellence in formulating curriculum policy
would guide future policy discussions in Canada. The contrast between the
processes followed by the two agencies (the Council of Ministers of Educa-
tion of Canada [CMEC] versus the SCC) led to most of the discontent felt
by university science educators. Certainly the SCC science education study'S
conclusions in the early 1980s did influence the CMEC's bureaucratic nego-
tiations and compromises held in the mid 1990s.
In spite of the discontent over the process that produced the CMEC's
Framework, the Framework will likely be as influential in Canada as the
National Research Council's Standards are in the United States (NRC, 1996).
Canada now has an STSE framework for science curricula across the country.

CURRICULUM POLICY AND DELIBERATION

Curriculum policy and deliberation is the first of the four pairs of prod-
ucts-processes shown in Table 1. Fensham (1992) pragmatically described
52 Science, Technology, and Society

the politics of curriculum policy as societal interest groups (stakeholders)

competing for privilege and power over the curriculum. For example,
school science (quite often physics) can be used to screen out students
belonging to marginalized social groups (some minorities within a country,
for example), thereby providing high status and social power to the more
privileged students who make it through the science "pipeline" and
enter science-related professions. Fensham categorized this societal self-
interest as political. His other categories were: economic interests of busi-
ness, industry, and labor, for a skilled work force; university scientists'
interests in maintaining their discipline; societal groups' interests for empow-
erment in a nation whose culture and social life are influenced by science and
technology; and students' interests for individual growth and satisfaction. As
Fensham (1992) warned, the science curriculum is a social instrument that
serves the interests of those who have a stake in its function and content.
Therefore, stakeholders must be involved in reforming curriculum policy.
The most effective way to involve them is through deliberation.
When we consider curriculum policy by itself, several aspects must be
explored:

1.Function-What are the goals and objectives for teaching the

content?
2. Content-What is worth learning?
3. Structure-How should the science and STS content be inte-
grated and contextualized?
4. Sequence-How should the teaching be organized?
5. The process of establishing the function, content, structure, and
sequence-Who should be involved? How should curriculum
policy decisions be decided?

Each country and community must answer these questions for itself. STS
education responds to the idiosyncratic needs of each educational jurisdic-
tion (Solomon and Aikenhead, 1994). Although I offer no universal con-
clusions to these four aspects of STS curriculum policy, I do sketch the
territory that must be addressed. Following the sections on function,
content, structure, and sequence, I discuss the process of deliberation by
which people can establish a curriculum policy.

Function
The functions (or goals) of STS instruction in schools have been the
focus of a literature rationalizing the STS education movement. This
literature is found in three different fields: science education, technology
STS Science in Canada 53

education, and social studies education. An overview of all three fields

was published in Theory into Practice (Gilliom, Helgeson, and Zuga,
1991, 1992). Science education offers only one orientation toward STS
education, but it is the usual orientation of the Canadian experience
with STS.
What are the goals and objectives for teaching STS science? Its ratio-
nalization is documented worldwide (Aikenhead, 1980, 1985, 1994c; Bingle
and Gaskell, 1994; Bybee, 1985; Cheek, 1992; Cross and Price, 1992;
Eijkelhof and Kortland, 1987; Fensham, 1988; Gaskell, 1982, 1992; Hansen
and Olson, 1996; Hunt, 1988; Hurd, 1975, 1989; Keeves and Aikenhead, 1995;
Nagasu and Kumano, 1997; Pedretti and Hodson, 1995; Sj~berg, 1996;
Solomon, 1981, 1994; Waks, 1987; Yager, 1992a, 1992b, 1996; Ziman, 1980).
The earlier publications and those by Canadian scholars particularly influ-
enced the CMEC's Framework.
STS science is essentially about students making sense out of their
everyday life, today and for the future. But to what purpose? What are the
goals of STS science education in Canada? Themes emerged from the lit-
erature listed above. These were compiled by Aikenhead (1994d) and are
summarized here.
The inadequacies of traditional science education define one over-all
theme. STS science is expected to reverse the existing negative trends in
enrollments, achievement, and career choices. Specifically, STS science is
expected to increase general interest in and public understanding of science,
particularly for the bright creative students who are discouraged by what
they perceive to be a boring and irrelevant curriculum (Oxford University,
1989; SCC, 1984).
STS science is also expected to fill a critical void in the traditional cur-
riculum-the social responsibility in collective decisionmaking on issues
related to science and technology (Aikenhead, 1985; Bingle and Gaskell,
1994; Gaskell, 1982). Such issues require a harmonious mix of a scientific-
technical elite with an informed attentive citizenry. Together both groups
will need to make complex decisions that involve "the application of
scientific knowledge, technological expertise, social understanding, and
humane compassion" (Kranzberg, 1991, p. 238). The pervasive goal of social
responsibility in collective decisionmaking leads to numerous related goals:
individual empowerment; intellectual capabilities such as critical thinking,
logical reasoning, creative problem solving, and decision making; national
and global citizenship, usually "democracy" or "stewardship"; socially
responsible action by individuals; and an adroit work force for business and
industry. These goals emphasize an induction into a world increasingly
shaped by science and technology, more than they support an induction into
a scientific discipline. In Canada in the early 1980s, STS curriculum policy
54 Science, Technology, and Society

was influenced by a series of position papers commissioned by the SCC for

its education policy study (SCC, 1984). One position paper specifically
addressed the pervasive goal of social responsibility in collective decision-
making and students' induction into a world increasingly shaped by science
and technology (Aikenhead, 1980).
Most viewpoints concerning the function or intentions of any science
instruction can be described as "curriculum emphases" (Roberts, 1982,
1988). Roberts argued that science instruction in general has purposes
defined by the answers to a student's plaintive cry: "Why are we learning
this stuff, anyway?" Based on science curricula and textbooks published this
century, Roberts classified the answers into seven categories:

1. Solid foundations-To prepare students for the next level of

science courses
2. Correct explanations-To learn the truths of scientific
knowledge
3. Scientific skill development-To learn the conceptual and
manipulative skills required for participation in scientific
inquiry
4. Structure of science-To learn how the academic side of science
functions as an intellectual enterprise and to see the concep-
tual harmony that a scientist sees
5. Self as explainer-To help students in their personal efforts to
explain natural phenomena and to make personal sense out of
the nature of scientific explanations
6. Everyday coping-To help students understand important
objects and events in their everyday lives
7. Science, technology, and decisions-To become aware of
science in a social and technological context

The last two emphases suggest an STS approach to science instruction.

Fensham (1993) rationalized adding three more emphases to this list.
One, "science in application," acknowledges what SATIS (Hunt, 1988) and
many textbooks do when they add common sense applications of the
science content, but do not allow the applications to determine the content
or sequence of the science instruction. "Science for nurturing" was the
second emphasis Fensham proposed. It stems from the ideology embraced
by the environmental and the women's movements that emphasize nurtur-
ing the earth or the social needs of its inhabitants, respectively. A third
emphasis was "science through making," in which students learn science
through the process of making a technologically useful artifact or through
solving a technological problem. An example of this in Canada is a nation-
ally organized activity called "Science (sic) Olympics"-all the activities are
STS Science in Canada 55

actually technological in nature and the embedded science content is not

part of the competition. Thus, the name "Technology Olympics" would be
more accurate.
Ogawa (1995) expanded the conventional view that there is only one
science to be recognized. He proposed a broader multicultural perspective
when he argued that several legitimate sciences exist, including a commu-
nity's common sense knowledge of nature. Ogawa proposed a "multiscience
perspective" curriculum emphasis when Western science is taught to non-
Western students. The Canadian Framework defines science in such a
way that includes Fensham's application, nurturing, and making emphases
and Ogawa's multiscience emphasis, along with Roberts' original seven
emphases.
Science instruction in any classroom is carried out, consciously or not,
with various combinations of the 11 emphases. A typical STS science course
would likely include the "solid foundations" emphasis but may likely give
it lower priority than the "science, technology, and decisions" or the "science
through making" emphases. Emphases should be identified as functions
of a curriculum, and this identification should be very much a part of
curriculum policy. STS curriculum policy must clarify the mix of emphases
that is intended for a given STS course.
Although STS science courses differ widely because of their different
emphases or goals, this variation reflects differences in the balance among
similar goals. In other words, most STS science courses harbor similar goals
but give different priorities to those goals. This idea of balance is captured
by the slogan "scientific literacy" (Hart, 1989; Roberts, 1983). As a slogan,
scientific literacy provides an element of persuasion in rationalizing science
programs (who can be against scientific literacy?). But the term can be
useful in defining a goal cluster for a curriculum policy statement. This was
the case in Canada, as elsewhere.
The Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes (CMEC,
1997) defines the function of science education primarily in "A Vision for
Scientific Literacy in Canada" (p. 4) along with a rationale entitled, "The
Scientific Literacy Needs of Canadian Students and Society" (p. 5). The
vision statement is repeated here.
The framework is guided by the vision that all Canadian students, regardless of
gender or cultural background, will have an opportunity to develop scientific lit-
eracy. Scientific literacy is an evolving combination of the science-related atti-
tudes, skills, and knowledge students need to develop inquiry, problem-solving,
and decision-making abilities, to become lifelong learners, and to maintain a
sense of wonder about the world around them. Diverse learning experiences
based on the framework will provide students with many opportunities to
explore, analyse, evaluate, synthesize, appreciate, and understand the interrela-
tionships among science, technology, society, and the environment that will affect
their personal lives, their careers, and their future. (CMEC, 1997, p. 4)
56 Science, Technology, and Society

The scientific literacy needs of Canadian students and of Canadian society

are stipulated in the Framework's goals that articulate its vision statement.
These goals lead to "foundational statements," around which the whole
framework is organized (described later).
Unlike an STS curriculum, the function of a conventional science cur-
riculum was to prepare students for the next level of education, to teach
correct answers, and to enculturate students into physics, chemistry, or
biology (Aikenhead, 1996; Roberts, 1988). These functions are not ignored
in STS science, but they are not given as strong an emphasis. As a result, an
STS science curriculum addresses the needs of two groups of students: (1)
future scientists and engineers (that is, the elite), and (2) citizens who need
intellectual empowerment to participate thoughtfully in their society (that
is, the attentive public or "science for all"). The inclusion of both groups of
students in STS science responds to Fensham's (1992) warning that we must
take into account the stakeholders competing for privilege and power over
the science curriculum.

Content
There is a marked difference between the content of university STS
courses and the content of high school STS science courses. University
courses invariably deal with science and technology policy, development, and
discourse (Layton, 1994; McGinn, 1991). The subject matter is abstract. High
school STS courses position themselves among the concrete experiences of
students. These courses provide a simplified, although intellectually honest,
perspective on the human and social aspects of science.
The content of STS science includes both science content and STS
content. Here I focus on clarifying what STS content can be. In the section
that follows, "Integrative Structure," I explore how this STS content can be
integrated with science content.
Hansen and Olson (1996) and Bingle and Gaskell (1994) point out
that many educators narrowly conceive of STS science content as dealing
with social issues that connect science with a societal problem. Rosenthal
(1989), and Ziman (1984) remind us, however, that there are two types of
social issues in STS science:
1. Social issues external to the scientific community ("science and
society" topics, for example, energy conservation, population
growth, or pollution)
2. Social aspects of science-issues internal to the scientific com-
munity (the sociology, epistemology, and history of science, for
example, the cold fusion controversy, the nature of scientific
theories, or how the concept of gravity was invented)
STS Science in Canada 57

The relative importance of various social issues external to science was a

topic researched by Piel (1981) in Project Synthesis and by Bybee and Mau
(1986) in their survey of international science educators.
However, STS science must invariably address the sociology, episte-
mology, and history of science, that is, social issues internal to science.
The social issues internal to science have been delineated by Snow (1987).
His "system of science" has three dimensions: cognitive, personal, and
sociological. The cognitive dimension includes experimental knowledge,
hypotheses, theories, laws, and empirical observations, as well as the values
that underlie them (accuracy, coherence, fruitfulness, and parsimony). The
personal dimension encompasses a scientist's social values that influence his
or her research programs and nonempirical arguments. The sociological
dimension incorporates community values, invisible colleges, credibility,
journal publications, and other aspects of importance to the scientific
community. In his book An Introduction to Science Studies, Ziman (1984)
provides a thorough and systematic treatment of STS content, both exter-
nal and internal to the scientific community. These ideas are reflected in the
content of Canada's Framework (CMEC, 1997). The Framework's STSE
emphasis explicitly includes social issues both external and internal to
science.
The international science education community holds a variety of
views concerning STS content. Nevertheless, a succinct definition
of STS content was offered by Aikenhead (1994d). The definition
attempted to encompass the full range of views held by science educators
everywhere.
STS content is comprised of an interaction between science and tech-
nology or between science and society and anyone or combination of the
following:

• A technological artifact, process, or expertise

• The interactions between technology and society
• A societal issue related to science or technology
• Social science content that sheds light on a societal issue related
to science and technology
• A philosophical, historical, or social issue within the scientific
or technological community. (Aikenhead, 1994d, pp. 52-53)

Diverse examples of STS content in several countries (Australia, Canada,

India, Netherlands, Nigeria, United Kingdom, and United States) are found
in Solomon and Aikenhead (1994). Canada's Framework is flexible enough
to embrace the different goals and content found among the various
provinces.
58 Science, Technology, and Society

Integrative Structure

STS science curricula integrate various types of content in the

following way:
STS science = science content + STS content
= science content + internal social issues
+ external social issues.
But how much science content is integrated with STS content? How is this
integration accomplished? To answer this question (based on a number of
commercial STS materials available world wide), Aikenhead (1994d)
devised "Categories of STS Science," a descriptive scheme with eight
categories that characterize STS science in terms of:
• Content structure-The proportion of STS content compared
with traditional science content, and the way the two are
combined.
• Student evaluation-The relative emphasis given to STS versus
traditional content. The description is an approximate indicator
of relative emphasis, rather than a prescription for classroom
practice.
• Concrete examples of STS science. (Aikenhead, 1994d, p. 53)
A spectrum underlies the proposed scheme and expresses the relative
importance afforded STS content in a science course. At one end of the
spectrum (category one), STS content is given lowest priority compared
with traditional science content, while at the other end (category eight), it
is given highest priority. The eight categories of the spectrum are:
1. Motivation by STS content
2. Casual infusion of STS content
3. Purposeful infusion of STS content
4. Singular discipline through STS content
5. Science through STS content
6. Science along with STS content
7. Infusion of science into STS content
8. STS content
One can think of each category as a conveniently identified point along the
spectrum. Although no particular category can be said to represent "true"
STS science instruction, categories three to six do represent views most often
cited by STS science leaders. Aikenhead's eight-point scheme was inspired
by a similar table about technology education in an article by Fensham
(1988). The eight "Categories of STS Science" are summarized here.
STS Science in Canada 59

7. Motivation by STS Content. STS content is just mentioned by a

teacher to make a lesson more interesting to students. Students are not
assessed on the STS content. The low status given to STS content explains
why this category is not normally taken seriously as STS instruction.

2. Casual Infusion of STS Content. A short study (30 minutes to two

hours in length) of STS content is attached to the science topic of
traditional school science, as defined by Fensham's (1993) curriculum
emphasis "science in application" and exemplified by the SATIS materials
(Hunt, 1988). The STS content is not chosen to convey cohesive themes
about the social issues internal or external to science. Rather, topics are
added when teaching materials are available. Students are assessed
mostly on pure science content, and usually only superficially (such as
memory work) on the STS content. The relative weighting of this assess-
ment might be, for instance, 5 percent STS content and 95 percent science
content.

3. Purposeful Infusion of STS Content. A series of short studies (30

minutes to two hours in length) of STS content are integrated into science
topics in a traditional science course, to systematically explore the STS
content. This STS content forms cohesive themes. Harvard Project Physics
(Holton, Rutherford and Watson, 1970) is a familiar example. Students are
assessed to some degree on their understanding of those STS themes, for
instance, 10 percent on STS content and 90 percent on science content.

4. Singular Discipline Through STS Content. STS science courses take

on a radically different look in this and subsequent categories. Instead of
following the conventional content and sequence found in traditional
science textbooks (categories one to three above), science content and its
sequence are chosen and organized largely by the STS content. First, a cur-
riculum policy designates what STS content will be included in a science
curriculum. Then the science content is selected on a need-to-know basis
guided by the STS content, but selected primarily from one science disci-
pline. There will be an STS biology, an STS chemistry, and an STS physics
curriculum. The American Chemical Society's (1988) ChemCom is a typical
category four course. A listing of pure science topics in such a course could
look quite similar to a listing from a category three science course, though
the sequence would be very different. However, curriculum developers
taking the need-to-know criterion very seriously might include science and
technology content not found in conventional science courses, for example,
Eijkelhof's (1994) STS module Ionizing Radiation includes the concept of
dosage. In category four courses, students are assessed on their in-depth
60 Science, Technology, and Society

understanding of the STS content, but not nearly as extensively as they are
on the pure science content, for instance, 20 percent STS content and 80
percent science content.

5. Science Through STS Content. As in category four courses, STS

content serves as an organizer for the science content and its sequence. But
in category five courses, science content is multidisciplinary, as dictated by
the STS content on a need-to-know basis. A listing of pure science topics
might look like a selection of important science topics from a variety of tra-
ditional school science courses. Again, one can find science and technology
content not found in conventional science courses. Logical Reasoning in
Science and Technology (Aikenhead, 1991) in Canada, and the Science Edu-
cation for Public Understanding courses (Thier and Nagle, 1994) in the
United States, exemplify the inclusion of science and technology content
not normally found in traditional science courses but highly relevant to an
everyday event or issue. In category five courses, students are assessed on
their in-depth understanding of the STS content, but not quite as exten-
sively as they are on the pure science content, for instance, 30 percent STS
content and 70 percent science.

6. Science along with STS Content. STS content is the focus of

instruction. Relevant science content enriches this learning. In Canada, the
British Columbia Ministry of Education developed Science and Technol-
ogy 11 in 1985 (Gaskell, 1989). Students are assessed equally on the STS
content and pure science content.

7. Infusion of Science into STS Content. STS content is a greater

focus of instruction. Relevant science content is mentioned, but not sys-
tematically taught. Emphasis may be given to broad scientific principles.
Materials classified as category seven could be infused into a standard
school science course, yielding a category three STS science course. In
Canada, the possibility of such a course existing was illustrated in Science:
A Way of Knowing (Aikenhead, 1979). In a category seven course, students
are primarily assessed on the STS content, and only partially on pure
science content, for instance, 80 percent on STS content and 20 percent on
science content.

8. STS Content. A major technology or social issue is studied. Science

content is mentioned but only to indicate an existing link to science. The
materials classified as category eight could be infused into a standard school
science course, yielding a category three STS science course. Students are
not assessed on pure science content to any appreciable degree.
STS Science in Canada 61

This eight-category scheme does not attempt to evaluate different

approaches to STS science instruction. Nor does it attempt to prescribe any
particular set of goals or goal priorities. Moreover, the scheme does not
address some highly relevant issues, such as teaching methods (for example,
inquiry, problem solving, decisionmaking), contexts for instruction (for
example, scientific controversies, local issues, public policies, global prob-
lems), and assumptions about how students learn (though constructivism
predominates in STS science [Cheek, 1992]).
Canada's Framework (CMEC, 1997) does not specify a particular
integrative structure for its STSE science curriculum. However, when
describing various grade levels, it explicitly integrates four areas of content
goals (STSE, skills, knowledge, and attitudes), and science content is unam-
biguously contextualized within suggested STSE content. Thus, categories
three to five (previously described) seem to be favored. The provinces are
free to devise their own STSE content, structure, and sequence, but the
Framework's clear expectation is that STSE content will serve as a context
for canonical science subject matter on a need-to-know basis.
The eight categories of STS science provide a language for discussing
various structures for STS curricula, classroom materials, and teachers'
instruction. For instance, we can expect that many science teachers will at
first be more comfortable teaching a category three curriculum than a cat-
egory four curriculum.
Curriculum policy should specify the category or categories of STS
science that are intended in an STS science curriculum. Different parts
of the same curriculum may have different structures, of course. Thus,
different units within a curriculum may be characterized by different
categories.

Sequence
The "Categories of STS Science" represent a general integrative struc-
ture for STS science. A particular sequence to follow by teachers and cur-
riculum writers was empirically discovered by Eijkelhof and Kortland
(1987, 1988). Their research and development (R&D) took place in the
Dutch project PLON (an acronym for physics in a social context), a cate-
gory four curriculum consisting of about 35 modules for grades 7-12.
Eijkelhof and Kortland investigated different sequences and discovered
one pattern that nurtured successful learning by students: Begin with a soci-
etal need or issue which invariably leads to a technology, which in turn
creates the need to know science content, which then leads to further
investigations of related technologies that finally inform a deeper under-
standing of the original societal need or issue. This pattern was discussed
62 Science, Technology, and Society

and illustrated for North American STS science courses by Aikenhead

(1992a, 1994d) and is summarized here.
When an STS science unit or lesson begins, students consider a social
issue or an everyday event (for example, a court case on drunken driving,
or the lighting requirements of various rooms in houses, schools, and busi-
nesses). Then students become acquainted with relevant technology (for
example, the Borkenstein breathalyzer, or architecture designs and com-
mercia I lighting fixtures). The social issue or everyday event, along with the
related technology, create in the students' minds the need to know the
canonical science that helps students make sense out of the issue or event
and the technology. For example, in the case of the issue of drunken driving
and the breathalyzer, students need to know mixtures, redox reactions,
electrical circuits, body systems, and photometry; while in the case of light
sources, students need to know photometry, eye physiology, the nature of
light, and the electromagnetic spectrum. Armed with this relevant science
content, students next reexamine the original technology or explore more
sophisticated technology, and then move on to reexamine the original social
issue or everyday event. This last step often involves making a relevant
decision on the issue or event, for example, should Hoffman LaRoche
develop a "sobering up" pill, a new technology? Or, what type of electrical
bulbs should our home purchase? Students will make thoughtful decisions
informed by an indepth understanding of the underlying science, informed
by a grasp of the relevant technology, and informed by an awareness of
the guiding social values inherent in various decision choices (Aikenhead,
1980,1985).
In summary, Eijkelhof and Kortland (1987, 1988) devised the
sequence:
social content ~ technology content ~ science content ~ advanced
technology ~ advanced social content
Although teachers may spend the majority of their instruction time on the
canonical science content (for instance, 70-80 percent of instruction time),
the Eijkelhof and Kortland sequence ensures that the science content will
be contextualized in a meaningful way for students. This contextualized
learning is promoted in the Canadian Framework (CMEC, 1997).

The Process of Deliberation

Curriculum policy can be established in a number of ways. Educational
jurisdictions vary in the decisionmaking processes they employ. In Canadian
culture, the process of deliberation has shown greatest potential for
success. This is a combination of "top-down" and "grass-roots" methods of
STS Science in Canada 63

policymaking. Deliberation is a structured and informed dialogue among

various stakeholders. In the SCC's science education study (SCC, 1984), for
example, a wide array of stakeholders were involved: science teachers, uni-
versity professors, students, community leaders, parents, and government
officials. An informed decision over curriculum policy was reached, based on
the values held by the stakeholders and their reading of relevant research.
One major purpose of deliberation is to involve the science teachers
who will eventually implement the new curriculum, and at the same time,
to involve the people who can offer those teachers support, encouragement,
and guidance. Roberts (1988) illustrated the need for this support by way
of a case study of STS policymaking in the province of Alberta.
Inspired by Schwab's (1974) "deliberative enquiry," the SCC in the
early 1980s employed the deliberation process during a large national edu-
cation study (Orpwood, 1985). In its report, Science for Every Student (SCC,
1984), the SCC called for a renewal (reform) of science education, advising
educators to teach scientific concepts and skills embedded in social and
technological contexts relevant to all students. It reached this curriculum
policy conclusion through the processes of research and deliberation, which
occurred in three phases:

1. Issue identification-What are the problems?

2. Data collection-What are the facts?
3. Option development-Where do we go from here?

The SCC's education study ensured that significant problems were identi-
fied, that appropriate data were collected, and that these problems and data
were considered by the diverse stakeholders attending one of the 11, two-
day deliberative conferences held across Canada in 1983. As previously
mentioned, stakeholders included high school students (science-prone
and science-shy), teachers (elementary and secondary), parents, elected
school officials, the scientific community, business, industry, and the labor
movement, and university science educators. Although consensus was not
reached at any of those deliberative conferences, a full range of interests
and viewpoints were aired. In one conference, for instance, it was instruc-
tive to watch a rural elementary teacher successfully challenge the rhetoric
of a corporate president representing a biotechnology firm. The delibera-
tive conferences unfolded as Schwab (1978) had predicted:
Deliberation is complex and arduous.... It must try to identify the desiderata
in the case. It must generate alternative solutions.... it must then weigh alter-
natives and their costs and consequences against one another, and choose, not
the right alternative, for there is no such thing, but the best one. (Schwab, 1978,
pp.318-319)
64 Science, Technology, and Society

The "best" solution (a curriculum policy) published by the SCC (SCC, 1984)
is summarized by a set of recommendations that included the following
points (organized according to their future influence on science curriculum
policy development in Canada):

1. Along with scientific concepts and skills, students should learn

an appreciation for:
a. authentic science-the nature of science and scientists,
including the way science generates and uses its knowledge
b. technology in Canada
c. the interrelationships among science, technology, and
society
2. Females should be particularly encouraged to pursue science
and technology in school.
3. Academically talented students should be challenged to reason
critically and creatively.
4. Student evaluation should concentrate on fundamental under-
standings and should reflect the complete range of goals of
science teaching, rather than focus strictly on the memorization
of facts and the rote application of formulas.

These recommendations, as well as the process of deliberation itself, greatly

influenced a study that was designed to change the science curriculum in
Saskatchewan.
The Saskatchewan science study (conducted 1986-1987) is described
in detail by Hart (1989), but a few salient features will be mentioned here.
Drawing in part upon the SCC's study, Hart formulated "a set of re-
commendations designed to illuminate discrepancies between actual and
desired states of school science" (p. 610). This platform for renewal of
science education in Saskatchewan was discussed by 337 educators during
18 one-day deliberative conferences held across Saskatchewan. The sponsor
of Hart's study limited stakeholders to science teachers, administrators, and
science consultants. Many science teachers not attending the conferences
submitted to Hart written responses to the agenda items considered during
the deliberative conferences.
An overwhelming 92 percent of Saskatchewan science teachers
endorsed teaching science in a way that balanced seven set of goals, a goal
cluster referred to as "Seven Dimensions of Scientific Literacy": (1) the
nature of science; (2) the key facts, principles, and concepts of science; (3)
the intellectual processes used when doing science; (4) the interactions
among science, technology, and society; (5) the values that underlie science;
(6) the know-how to use instruments required for doing science; and (7)
STS Science in Canada 65

personal interests and attitudes toward scientific and technological matters.

Although 88 percent of the teachers believed that a STSE emphasis should
be adopted, teachers expressed many concerns about: (1) the balance
between the STSE emphasis and other emphases (for example, a solid foun-
dation for the next level of science study); (2) the evaluation of students
with respect to the STSE goals; (3) the availability of appropriate teaching
materials; (4) the possible erosion of traditional science subject matter; and
(5) the need to teach controversial issues. In other words, teachers were pos-
itive but certainly cautious about changing their science curriculum toward
an STSE approach. The provincial study had assumed that most science
teachers would gain a degree of ownership in a new curriculum developed
on the basis of their deliberative conferences.
The Saskatchewan study illustrates one version of the process of
deliberation that establishes an STS curriculum policy. Roberts (1988)
described what happens when the process of deliberation is not taken
seriously, as was the case in the late 1980s with the Alberta Ministry of
Education's approach to revising its science curriculum into STS science.
Teacher committees and bureaucrats worked conscientiously to develop a
state-of-the-art STS curriculum, but resistance from the vested interests of
a social elite (spearheaded by medical doctors and university science pro-
fessors) ensured sufficient political intervention to stop the implementa-
tion. Blades (1997) provides an intriguing postmodern analysis of the
tensions and dynamics among the principal protagonists. Roberts (1988)
claimed that the main question to be resolved is "What counts as science
education?":

So the sticky question "What counts as science education?" has three charac-
teristics. First, the answer to it requires that choices be made--choices among
science topics and among curriculum emphases. Second, the answer is a defen-
sible decision rather than a theoretically determined solution to a problem
theoretically posed. Third, the answer is not arrived at by research (alone),
nor with universal applicability; it is arrived at by the process of deliberation,
and the answer is uniquely tailored to individual situations. Hence the answer
to the question will be different for every education jurisdiction, for every
duly constituted deliberative group, and very likely for every science teacher
(Roberts, 1988, p. 30)

The province of Alberta subsequently regrouped in the early 1990s and

adopted a more deliberative process (Roberts, 1995), with the result that
their junior and senior high school programs now have an STS science
stream that is accepted by the province's universities for students who are
not entering science-related fields. Alberta produced its own set of text-
books to support the STS science program in the high school (Visions [,
Visions II, and Visions II/).
66 Science, Technology, and Society

Fensham's (1992) caution about the power of stakeholders was illus-

trated in Alberta's experience. Fensham warned that some influential stake-
holders simply want school science to act as society's screening device to
maintain an intellectual, social elite; for example, white male middle-class
students have generally enjoyed a privileged status (Lee, 1997; Roth and
McGinn, 1998). Reformers must know their own political territory well and
must plan ways to negotiate its pathways.
Another group of stakeholders has an interest in maintaining a view of
science as: authoritarian, objective, purely rational, nonhumanistic, purely
empirical, universal, impersonal, socially sterile, and unencumbered by
the vulgarity of human imagination, dogma, judgment, or cultural values
(Aikenhead, 1996). Gaskell's (1992) and Gallagher's (1991) research showed
that high school science teachers are among the strongest defenders of this
view. Thus, it is imperative in the process of deliberation to involve highly
credible people (for example, enlightened science teachers and university
science professors) who will challenge this stereotype view.
In summary, the first product toward developing an STS curriculum
is curriculum policy. STS curriculum policy has a function, content, struc-
ture, and sequence, as well as a process for determining that policy. The most
promising process is deliberation.
Another product along the road to curriculum development is the
material used by classroom teachers.

CLASSROOM MATERIALS AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

To meet the demands of STS reform efforts, conscientious teachers require

daily professional guidance to help them fulfill the new curriculum policy.
These teachers deserve suitable classroom materials (for example, practi-
cal teacher guides, booklets, resources, and textbooks). Without suitable
materials, an STS science curriculum will not be achieved.
From country to country, cultural conventions differ over how text-
books and materials are developed. The vested interests of the traditional
textbook establishment (authors included) can undermine attempts at
reform. If STS curriculum developers are to be successful, therefore,
alternative processes of developing classroom materials may need to be
implemented. The most promising process is R&D.
A short case study will illustrate how R&D can work. This case
study, the development of a Canadian grade 10 STS science textbook,
will also show how to integrate the processes of deliberation, R&D, and
implementation, when producing classroom materials helpful to science
teachers.
STS Science in Canada 67

The textbook, Logical Reasoning in Science and Technology (LoRST)

(Aikenhead, 1991), evolved from the two separate deliberation processes
described previously. These deliberations answered the question, "What
counts as science education?" and guided the content, integrative structure,
and sequence within LoRST accordingly.
R&D was the process central to producing the textbook. The project
was informed by the research literature on student learning, teacher prac-
tical knowledge, and STS content itself, and by the developer's earlier expe-
riences producing STS materials (Aikenhead, 1979). The R&D followed a
multistage sequence that took place in various classrooms and involved a
collaboration with students and teachers (Aikenhead, 1994a).
In the first stage, I wrote and taught the first draft in a local high
school. Based on this collaboration, the text was modified to yield the
second draft and a rough draft of the teacher guide was written. Students
acted as consultants by posing questions out of curiosity, by writing mater-
ial in response to assignments, by offering advice, and by spontaneously
interacting in the classroom. These questions, materials, suggestions, and
interactions went into the second draft of LoRST.
In the second stage, this second draft was used by three volunteer
teachers who received no inservice preparation but who were capable of
being flexible. Their classes were observed daily. This collaboration with
teachers and students led to the refinement of the teaching strategies sug-
gested in the teacher guide and led to many revisions in the student mate-
rials. Students' language and interactions were incorporated into the text.
As a result, LoRST was polished into the third draft, both the student text
and teacher guide.
The last stage combined R&D with the process of implementation
(Table 1)-implementing a new curriculum in the province of Saskatchewan.
The implementation process provided a vehicle for obtaining feedback from
teachers who were field testing the new curriculum and the third draft of
LoRST. In the second stage, the materials had worked well with students.
But could the materials work well with a cross section of teachers? The last
stage in the R&D process addressed this question. In this implementation
process, the 30 teachers became the clients of the R&D project. Teacher
feedback helped revise LoRST. The resulting classroom materials were
published as a textbook and teacher guide (Aikenhead, 1991), and they are
now being used in several provinces across Canada.
Most of the 30 teachers involved in the field testing became respon-
sible for implementing Saskatchewan's science education reform in their
own school districts. This implementation process will take many years to
complete and will require concerted attention from time to time. I would
argue that any implementation is successful if, within five years, 50 percent
68 Science, Technology, and Society

of the teachers teach science in the way envisaged by the new STSE cur-
riculum policy, and 25 percent will require another five years. For those who
will not change, retirement will eventually come.
LoRST, the product of this R&D process, is succinctly described here
to illustrate some of the features of STS science mentioned earlier. (For a
detailed description of LoRST see Aikenhead, 1992a, 1992b.) LoRST
teaches scientific content in conjunction with STS content and critical rea-
soning skills to a target audience of grade 10 students of average (or above
average) academic ability. Students learn scientific facts, concepts, and
principles from physics, chemistry, and biology in a way that connects
those facts, concepts, and principles with the students' everyday world.
The interdisciplinary nature of LoRST places it in category five of the
"Categories STS Science" previously described.
The textbook begins with courtroom testimony by scientific experts-
a social context familiar to students. This creates the need to know a host of
science concepts and logical reasoning skills. In LoRST, the social issue of
drinking and driving creates the need to know (1) the technology of the
breathalyzer; (2) how science and technology interact with each other, and
how they both interact with various aspects of society such as the law; and
(3) scientific content such as mixtures, concentration, chemical reactions,
photometry, electrical circuits, and the biology of body cells and systems.
While the content is "driven by" the social issue of drinking and driving,
the content is not limited to that social issue. For instance, students solve
concentration problems in the world of recipes, false advertising, toxic
chemicals, and farm fertilizers. Classification of mixtures is introduced in
the context of the Red Cross and is developed via the technology of salad
dressings. Electricity concepts are learned to bridge the gap between
atomic theory and the household appliances familiar to adolescents (both
female and male). Heat and temperature are taught in an historical context,
accompanied by inquiry labs requiring students to construct relevant
concepts. The textbook ends with everyday, public policy decisionmaking
issues (for example, whether or not to develop an antidrunken driver device
for cars). The issue requires students to synthesize the book's scientific
and STS content with critical reasoning skills and predispositions. The skill
at making different types of decisions (scientific, legal, moral, logical,
and public policy decisions) gradually develops with study and practice
throughout the book.
LoRST's emphasis on logical reasoning reflects a Canadian curriculum
policy to improve students' critical thinking skills (Aikenhead, 1990). Spe-
cific critical reasoning skills are taught in Unit 3, "Science & Critical Think-
ing: The Logic Game." These skills are then applied throughout the book.
More important than the individual reasoning skills themselves is the
STS Science in Canada 69

increase in students' predisposition (habits of the mind) to analyze, to ques-

tion, and to articulate a reasoned argument (McPeck, 1981).
This case study of the LoRST project illustrates how the R&D
process, in conjunction with the processes of deliberation and implementa-
tion, can yield classroom materials that are (1) rationally based in curri-
culum policy and educational research, and (2) effectively grounded in
classroom practice. The R&D study not only focused on the lived experi-
ences of students (giving high priority to the "learned curriculum"), but
also collaborated with those students to produce classroom materials in
harmony with the intended curriculum, usable by teachers with limited in-
service training, and consistent with students' views on relevancy and prac-
tical appropriateness. Students contributed significantly to the textbook's
content, structure, and language. By engaging students in tasks in the
natural setting of their own classroom, I was able to attend to information
that spontaneously emerged during instruction or to information that
thoughtfully evolved from informal discussions with students.
Another influential STS science project in Canada is SciencePlus,
developed by the Atlantic Science Curriculum Project (1986) in the mar-
itime provinces and targeted for grades 7-9 (McFadden, 1980). The R&D
process that produced these classroom materials (three textbooks) involved
teams of classroom teachers coordinated by a university science educator,
Charles McFadden (1991). The SciencePlus textbook series has been
adopted in other Canadian provinces (McFadden et aI., 1989), and in the
United States (McFadden and Yager, 1997), often after a modification has
occurred to match a local curriculum policy. For example, Alberta's STS
curriculum led to the production of SciencePlus Technology and Society
(McFadden et al., 1989), a different textbook for each of grades 7-9. The
R&D process that produced SciencePlus combined naturally with the
process of implementation as will be described.
Up to this point in the chapter, we have examined two pairs of
product/process for STS curriculum development-curriculum policy by
deliberation and classroom materials by R&D. Two other product/process
pairs remain to be addressed, though in much less detail due to space
limitations.

TEACHER UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION

Teacher understanding is a major component in the successful development

of an STS curriculum. The intended curriculum must be interpreted into
the translated curriculum before student learning occurs. Teacher under-
standing is arguably the most influential force in this transformation.
70 Science, Technology, and Society

This influence comes to a head in the process of implementation, though it

is also prevalent in deliberative inquiries that lead to curriculum policy.
In Canada we have not had a systematic study into the implementation
of STS curricula across Canada similar to the study conducted by Kumar
and Berlin (1996) in the United States. However, several provinces have
used various implementation strategies to augment teacher understanding
of STS content and its integration with science content (Blades, 1997;
Gaskell, 1982; Hart, 1989; Leblanc, 1989; Pedretti and Hodson, 1995;
Roberts, 1988).
Science teachers have their own ideas about what constitutes appro-
priate content, instruction, and assessment. Some teachers' preconceptions
will already exemplify the new curriculum policy, but many may not. Teach-
ers' previously held conceptions were constructed during their pre-service
education experiences and from their teaching experiences (Aikenhead,
1984; Duffee and Aikenhead, 1992). Their conceptions fulfill many practi-
cal purposes, such as coping with, and surviving in, a wide range of class-
room comexts and community situations. An inservice program associated
with a new STS curriculum is only a tiny increment in a wealth of past expe-
riences that have shaped a teacher's understanding of science teaching.
Thus, in service intervention alone cannot alter a teacher's acceptance of
STS science. Teachers' conceptions will not likely change unless those teach-
ers are able to influence their teaching contexts and are able to envision
the practical consequences of a new curriculum. This is the common sense
reason behind Roberts' (1988) claim that science teachers must be involved
in establishing curriculum policy.
Teacher understanding has been the object of a educational research
program called "teacher practical knowledge" (Clandinin, 1985; Clandinin
and Connelly, 1996; Duffee and Aikenhead, 1992; Lantz and Kass, 1987).
Teacher practical knowledge is comprised of many interacting sets of per-
sonal ideas, experiences, and feelings of a teacher, including the self-image
that a teacher wishes to project. Teacher practical knowledge is not peda-
gogical theory. Its relationship to pedagogical theory is very similar to the
relationship between engineering expertise and scientific theory.
By taking on a teacher-practical-knowledge perspective, a curriculum
developer pays attention to the common sense inherent in teachers' pre-
conceptions about science teaching, and addresses those common sense
preconceptions. (This is similar to a constructivist teacher confronting
students' common sense preconceptions about natural phenomena.) For
instance, the difficulty in changing from traditional practice to an STS
approach was revealed in research by Aikenhead (1984), Gallagher (1985),
Lantz and Kass (1987), Mitchner and Anderson (1987), and Olson (1982).
Their research offers an alternative view to assuming that teachers are lazy
STS Science in Canada 71

or intransigent, a view often expressed by frustrated curriculum developers

when an implementation has failed to take hold. Perhaps the curriculum
developers themselves have failed.
The 1985 AETS Yearbook (James, 1985) descrihes a number of pre-
service and inservice models for preparing science teachers for STS instruc-
tion. Several chapters are devoted to the problems and successes of
implementing an STS curriculum in the United States. The AETS volume
is an excellent resource for the STS curriculum developer concerned with
teacher understanding. The diverse chapters reflect multifaceted problems
of teacher understanding and curriculum implementation. Teacher practi-
cal knowledge may be a helpful construct to integrate these diverse sets of
problems.
I would like to identify one major problem and then suggest some
general plans of action that we have found successful in Canadian reform
toward STS science. When studying science at university, teachers experi-
ence a process of socialization into a discipline (Barnes, 1985; Kuhn, 1970;
Ziman, 1984). They then develop deep-seated values about science teach-
ing (Aikenhead, 1984; Pedretti and Hodson, 1995). Many science teachers
have been socialized into believing that they too have the responsibility to
socialize their students into a discipline (that is, science for the elite, not
science for all). Many teachers have the self-image of the "little professor"
initiating students into the culture of their scientific discipline. From a
teacher's point of view, the best way to initiate students into a discipline is
the same way that teacher was initiated (Aikenhead, 1984). STS science,
with its goal "science for all," challenges the conventional goal "science for
the elite" and the initiation of students into a scientific discipline (Hurd,
1975). STS science often gives lower priority to the curriculum emphasis
"solid foundations" than a conventional curriculum does. Therefore, to
implement an STS science course successfully is to change the deep-seated,
personally cherished values of a number of teachers. Teachers' professional
knowledge must go through a Kuhnian paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts are
difficult. They involve knowledge, values, assumptions, loyalties, and self-
images, and therefore require more than rational arguments and simple
inservice programs.
Because science teachers have been socialized by university science
professors, then one successful plan of action for achieving reform has been
to involve the scientific community-the community responsible for
shaping a science teacher's values in the first place, and a community
with academic credibility. A cadre of enlightened scientists, carefully
selected from industry, government labs, and universities, must relieve
science teachers of the burden of socializing students into a scientific
discipline. Enlightened scientists (often parents of high school students
72 Science, Technology, and Society

disenchanted with their science courses) will likely support an STS cur-
riculum policy even more if they were involved in the initial deliberation
process for that policy.
Teachers must also add new methods to their repertoire of instruc-
tional strategies. A new routine of instruction is best learned from fellow
teachers-the people who have practical credibility. A successful plan of
action will involve a few cleverly selected teachers chosen to go through an
intense inservice experience. They then become inservice leaders in their
own regions of the country, passing on their leadership expertise to other
teachers who repeat the inservice process in their own communities.
This approach was illustrated with finesse by Leblanc (1989) in a
three-year STS inservice project he designed and carried out in the province
of Nova Scotia, prior to implementing an STS curriculum. He selected
teachers who were held in high esteem by their colleagues. A small
minority of those teachers were known for having an anti-STS outlook, but
they were selected anyway, but on the basis of Leblanc's intuitive expecta-
tion that they were open-minded enough to listen to the other teachers and
university science professors at the intensive inservice summer programs.
Leblanc's patience and planning paid off when Nova Scotia formally imple-
mented an STS science curriculum. He invested three years of inservice
work with a small cadre of selected teachers.
Each province in Canada implements STS curriculum in its own way.
But the successful cases always targeted teacher understanding as the
highest priority. Obviously, teacher understanding is enhanced when
teachers participate in STS curriculum policy deliberations.
The success of inservice programs is characterized by materials and
know-how being passed on from experts to others who work in different
locations. Industry calls this method of implementation "technology trans-
fer." Educators could benefit from adopting technology transfer methods
from industry. For instance, transfer of expertise requires practical on-site
experience and a network of participants. In education this would mean that
science teachers who are novices with respect to STS science would spend
time in the classroom of an "expert" teacher-one who is implementing an
STS course.
Action research is an alternative method. Pedretti and Hodson (1995)
conducted a one-year study with six science teachers who were positively
predisposed to STS science. The aim was to produce usable curriculum
materials through teacher ownership and understanding, all organized
around an action research group. Pedretti and Hodson documented teach-
ers' increased understanding in matters of: the nature of science, develop-
ing curriculum materials, personal and professional development, and
collaboration. In addition, participants reaffirmed many of their personal
STS Science in Canada 73

theories and practices (components of teacher practical knowledge), devel-

oped new ones, and had some seriously challenged. This effect was called
"reinforcement." The researchers concluded:
Closely tied to the issue of reinforcement are the increased confidence that the
teachers now feel in their personal theories and in their ability to make their
own curriculum decisions, and the feelings of enhanced credibility concerning
their own educational practice. As a direct consequence of their involvement in
the group they now know that they are capable of carrying out meaningful
research and contributing to curriculum design and development. (Pedretti and
Hodson, 1995, p. 481, emphasis in the original)

The action research method again demonstrated that a combination of

"grassroots" and "top-down" approaches to implementation can nurture
increased understanding by teachers, an understanding that has personal
meaning to their unique teaching situations, and more important, an
understanding that has direct implications to their students' learning. A case
study of teacher understanding and STS implementation in a grade 3-4
classroom is documented by Pedretti (1997). McFadden's (1991) R&D
group that produced Canada's SciencePlus series represents a variation to
Pedretti and Hodson's method of action research.
The research literature on curriculum implementation is rich in other
ideas and schemes to help us plan the process thoughtfully (for example,
see Cheek, 1992).

STUDENT LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION-ASSESSMENT

Curriculum policy, classroom materials, and teacher understanding all lead

to student learning. Instruction and assessment are the obvious processes
that nurture student learning in the formal setting of schools.
Science education research of the 1960s reached an unambiguous con-
clusion: The classroom teacher will influence student outcomes far more
than specific curricula, textbooks, or teaching strategies (WeIch, 1969). Thus,
student learning from the same STS course can vary significantly from one
teacher to another. Within any population of teachers there will be three
groups: (1) those whose philosophy of science education is consistent with
an STS approach (for example, Pedretti and Hodson's group of teachers);
(2) those who are diametrically opposed to an STS approach; and (3) those
in the middle who can move in either direction due to persuasion or by the
requirement to use certain materials. All three groups will have their own
influence on student learning.
Teachers and parents often express the fear that students will not
learn as much science content from an STS science curriculum. Their fears
74 Science, Technology, and Society

are largely unwarranted. Research into student learning shows that spend-
ing time on new topics and activities (not normally considered science
content but related to that content, for example, STS content) is not de-
trimental to student achievement on traditional science content tests or
to careers in science and engineering (Aikenhead, 1994b; Champagne &
Klopfer, 1982; Yager & Krajcik, 1989). Therefore, in terms of Roberts' cur-
riculum emphasis "solid foundations" (preparing for the next level of edu-
cation) described earlier, a high school STS science curriculum will not
necessarily be detrimental to student achievement in first year university
courses, provided that students have a facility in quantitative problem
solving (Aikenhead, 1994b).
STS science instruction has relevance to students' everyday world.
Thus, STS instruction tries to make a real difference to students' everyday
life and to the well being of their community (Solomon and Aikenhead,
1994). While such relevance usually enhances student motivation, and
therefore achievement (Mesaros, 1988), relevant contexts may to some
extent obfuscate the acquisition of science content and the solving of
science problems (Solomon, 1987). Students tend to experience difficulty
when moving between the theoretical world of pure science concepts, char-
acterized by logical reasoning with evidence, and their everyday world of
common sense concepts, characterized by social interactions and consensus
(Hennessy, 1993; Lijnse, 1990). If STS science requires students to learn the
science content in enough depth to use in everyday situations (rather than
to memorize for an examination), then STS science has taken on a much
more rigorous task than traditional science. This in-depth learning contrasts
with making a political difference to students' lives by passing tests that arti-
ficially open doors to social opportunities (for example, attending a
university), but without achieving any meaningful learning of the
science content (Costa, 1997).
Because STS instruction aims to make a real difference to a student's
everyday life, STS science educators run the risk of judging their own success
by much higher standards and expectations than teachers who subscribe to
the standard of getting students through their course or catering to the elite
students who have the savvy to learn meaningfully on their own. In this sense,
then, traditional science instruction-assessment can be viewed as "soft" and
superficial while STS science instruction-assessment can be thought of as
"hard" and rigorous. For instance, memorizing how to solve heat transfer
problems is superficial. Explaining how the conceptual invention of energy
changed scientists' ideas about heat transfer, on the other hand, is rigorous.
The assessment of student learning can be superficial or rigorous.
The problem of superficial learning was dramatically discovered by
Larson (1995) when she found students in a high school chemistry class who
STS Science in Canada 75

actually told her the rules they followed so they could pass Mr. London's
chemistry class without really understanding much of chemistry. Larson
called these rules "Fatima's rules" after the most articulate student in the
class. For example, one rule was not to read the textbook but to memorize
the bold face words and phrases. Fatima's rules include such coping or
passive-resistance mechanisms as "silence, accommodation, ingratiation,
evasiveness, and manipulation" (Atwater, 1996, p. 823). What results is not
meaningful learning but merely "communicative competence" (Kelly and
Green, 1998) or "an accoutrement to specific rituals and practices of the
science classroom" (Medvitz, 1996, p. 5). Loughran and Derry (1997) inves-
tigated students' reactions to a science teacher's concerted effort to teach
for meaningful learning ("deep understanding") as STS science teachers do.
The researchers found a reason for Fatima's rules, a reason related to the
culture of public schools:
The need to develop a deep understanding of the subject may not have been
viewed by them [the students1as being particularly important as progression
through the schooling system could be achieved without it. In this case such a
view appears to have been very well reinforced by Year 9. This is not to suggest
that these students were poor learners, but rather that they had learnt how to
learn sufficiently well to succeed in school without expending excessive time or
effort. (Loughran and Derry, 1997, p. 935)

Their teacher lamented, "No matter how well I think I teach a topic, the
students only seem to learn what they need to pass the test, then, after the
test, they forget it all anyway" (Loughran and Derry, 1997, p. 925). Tobin
and McRobbie (1997, p. 366) documented a teacher's complicity in Fatima's
rules: "There was a close fit between the goals of Mr. Jacobs and those of
the students and satisfaction with the emphasis on memorisation of facts
and procedures to obtain the correct answers needed for success on tests
and examinations." When playing Fatima's rules, students (and some
teachers) make it appear as though meaningful learning has occurred,
but at best rote memorization of key terms and processes is only achieved
temporarily.
Costa (1997) synthesized the work of Larson (1995) and Tobin and
McRobbie (1995) with her own classroom research and concluded:
Mr. Ellis' students, like those of Mr. London and Mr. Jacobs, are not working on
chemistry; they are working to get through chemistry. The subject does not
matter. As a result, students negotiate treaties regarding the kind of work they
will do in class. Their work is not so much productive as it is political. They do
not need to be productive-as in learning chemistry. They only need to be polit-
ical-as in being credited for working in chemistry. (Costa, 1997, p. 1020)

The three teachers (Ellis, London, and Jacobs) exemplify the superficial
teaching that can pass as legitimate instruction in traditional classes. But
76 Science, Technology, and Society

superficial teaching can become obviously transparent in an STS science

class.
The main point is this: the general goal "science for all" associated
with STS learning in Canada represents a political paradigm shift from the
traditional goal "science for the elite." Learning and instruction-assessment
will change accordingly, if STS curriculum development is to succeed.
Today we recognize that learning will likely be more effective
when classroom activities serve both instruction and assessment functions
(Black, 1997; Gallagher et al., 1996). As a result, formative assessment
techniques that accumulate data while instruction takes place (for
example, quizzes, check lists, portfolios, concept maps, posters, and self-
assessments) are conceived to be instructional strategies as well as assess-
ment techniques. In the classroom, instruction and assessment are best inte-
grated. However, when discussing the two processes, it will be convenient
to separate the two.

Instruction
Traditional science teaching methods tend to be characterized by con-
vergent thinking and lecture-demonstrations. STS science instruction,
however, includes divergent thinking but demands a wider repertoire of
teaching strategies (Solomon and Aikenhead, 1994).
Instructional strategies for STS science were first addressed system-
atically in 1980 by Ziman in his book Teaching and Learning about Science
and Society. Solomon's (1993) Teaching Science, Technology and Society is
an excellent current resource for technology transfer programs for
STS science teachers. Aikenhead (1988) developed a monograph and video-
tapes, as part of Saskatchewan science reform, to show how to use specific
STS instructional strategies. This monograph, Teaching Science Through
a Science- Technology-Society-Environment Approach: An Instructional
Guide, gives special attention to instructional methods that produce
interactivity among students, for instance, divergent thinking, small group
work, student-centered class discussion, problem-solving, simulations, deci-
sionmaking, controversies, debating, and using the media and other com-
munity resources. In addition, the teacher guide that accompanies the
STS textbook Logical Reasoning in Science & Technology (Aikenhead,
1991) coaches teachers through activities that work best if they use student
interactivity.
Aikenhead (1994b) reviewed the research literature on STS instruc-
tion and found little research identifying the effects of STS teaching
methods. Notable exceptions included the Discussion of Issues in School
Science (DISS) project, a research program based on small-group work and
STS Science in Canada 77

applied specifically to STS science content (Solomon, 1988). The DISS

project documented students' capabilities at conducting effective small-
group discussions on science-related social issues. Byrne and Johnstone
(1988) generalized the efficacy of small-group discussions. They concluded:
"It is the achievement of interactivity, rather than the exact format, whether
it be simulation, group discussion or role playing" (p. 44). Interactive learn-
ing approaches are often identified with STS science instruction. The
research evidence suggests the following (Byrne and Johnstone, 1988):

1. Simulations and educational games can be just as effective as

traditional methods in teaching science content. Simulations
and games can be far more effective than traditional methods
in helping to develope positive attitudes
2. In terms of attitude development, the strategies of role playing,
discussion, and decisionmaking can be highly effective
3. "Group discussion can stimulate thought and interest and
develop greater commitment on the part of the student." (p. 45)
4. An analysis and evaluation of historical case studies can be
effective in promoting an understanding of the processes of
science.

These findings were supported by the R&D project that produced Logical
Reasoning in Science and Technology (Aikenhead, 1991) described earlier.
According to 80 percent of the students who helped develop the third draft
of the textbook, simulations served as concrete connections between the
everyday world and academic science content, and simulations made the
academic science more interesting to learn. Only 8 percent of the students
found simulations of little or no value.
In general, taking on STS instructional methods usually involves a
professional paradigm shift in teachers' ideas away from a scientist-
dominated view of the world conveyed to students by a teacher-centered
approach to teaching, toward a student-dominated view of the world
(informed by science and technology) conveyed by more student-centered
approaches to teaching.

Assessment
The process of instruction and the product of student learning are
intricately tied to the process of assessment. Therefore, good assessment is
indistinguishable from good instruction.
The professional and political paradigm shifts associated with STS
instruction have direct implications for assessment practices beyond the
78 Science, Technology, and Society

assessment of students. In Canada, we are trying to broaden assessment to

include two major issues: assessing the new STS curricula themselves, and
assessing the support experienced by teachers. Part of the design of an STS
curriculum should include concrete plans for assessing the support that
teachers receive from government, industry, universities, and parents. The
stakeholders who participated in the deliberation process must initiate ways
by which the jurisdictions they represent will be evaluated by teachers in
terms of support during an extended implementation process. Stakehold-
ers must be held accountable to teachers in any reform effort, and this
accountability must be designed into the STS curriculum policy from the
very beginning.
For the purpose of clear and critical thinking, it is important to dis-
tinguish between the act of observing or collecting student work and the
act of interpreting or judging that collection of work. However, confusion
arises over what to name each act. Some educators, by convention, use the
same term for both acts. This would tend to equate the methods of collect-
ing data with the methods of interpreting those data. (In science classes, we
usually teach students the difference between observing and interpreting.)
Recently in Canada, we have begun to refer to the act of collecting student
work as "assessment" and the act of judging that work as "evaluation." This
distinction can help teachers escape the old paradigm of student assess-
ment associated with traditional science. For instance, teachers can practice
new assessment techniques without necessary changing their evaluation
standards.
The challenge of such a paradigm shift was clarified in Canada by
Ryan (1988) when he described three paradigms of assessment and evalu-
ation (based on the work of Habermas, 1971):

1. Empirical-analytic-Western technical rationalism embodied

in logical positivist origins. This amounts to the traditional stan-
dardized approach to assessment and evaluation.
2. Interpretive-Understanding student's language, concepts, and
actions from the student's point of view. Alternative assessment
techniques, such as portfolios and concept mapping, illustrate
this paradigm.
3. Critical-theoretic-The elimination of oppressive human rela-
tionships (oppressive is defined as forced assimilation). Two
examples would be: assessment rubrics for thoughtful deci-
sionmaking developed collaboratively between teacher and
students, and student self-evaluation.

These three paradigms clarify key issues in assessment and evaluation: (1)
the issue of standardized tests falls within the empirical-analytic paradigm;
STS Science in Canada 79

(2) the issue of formative assessment is clearly within the interpretive

paradigm; and (3) the issues of equity and student empowerment both fit pri-
marily within the critical-theoretic paradigm. We must be able to function
eclectically in all three paradigms. For the sake of clear thinking, however,
we should not lose sight of the paradigm we are in, at any given moment.
For example, there are many purposes of assessment and evaluation
in Canadian schools. Student certification and the development of educa-
tional policy are treated within the empirical-analytic paradigm. Teaching
improvement usually falls within the interpretive paradigm. Student
empowerment is clearly within the critical-theoretic paradigm.
Student outcomes also vary, so they require different approaches to
assessment and evaluation depending on the appropriate paradigm. The
empirical-analytic paradigm focuses on the product of instruction and the
students's tangible work, and it gives priority to the quantitative standard-
ization of that work. The interpretive paradigm focuses on both the
student's product and on how the student produced the work-the process.
It embraces non quantitative assessment techniques, such as rubrics, concept
mapping, check lists, and authentic assessment (Black, 1993, 1997). The crit-
ical-theoretic paradigm gives special attention to the social or cultural
context in which assessment takes place, a context that greatly influences
both the process and product of a student's work (Roth and McGinn, 1998).
The critical-theoretic paradigm focuses on the product, process, and context
of student learning.
The assessment and evaluation of scientific literacy has traditionally
been conducted well within the empirical-analytic paradigm (Aikenhead,
Fleming and Ryan, 1987). Student responses are either right or wrong, with
little interpretation and little consideration for context. Scores are stan-
dardized against such norms as statistical distributions or judgments by
panels of experts. Assessment tends to be confounded with evaluation,
thereby merging the two concepts into one. An alternative type of instru-
ment that operates within the interpretive paradigm for assessing STS
content is Views on Science- Technology-Society, VaSTS (Aikenhead, Ryan,
and Fleming, 1989). By collaborating with students, the researchers
developed an empirically based, multiple-choice, assessment instrument
(Aikenhead and Ryan, 1992). The empirical data consisted of the students'
written and oral work itself. As a consequence, students are generally able
to express their personal and reasoned viewpoints in their own language
when they respond to any of the 114 VaSTS items. VaSTS can serve as a
point of departure for formulating an item bank unique to any STS science
curriculum.
As Champagne and Newell (1992) point out, certain educational
jurisdictions demand that assessment be simplistic, competitive, and unidi-
mensional in order to distinguish winners from losers. Tests are designed "on
80 Science, Technology, and Society

the assumption that knowledge can be represented by an accumulation of

bits of information [playing Fatima's rules] and that there is one right
answer" (p. 846). On the other hand, "alternative assessment is based on
the assumption that knowledge is actively constructed by the child and
varies from one context to another" (p. 847). We can n9W identify these
two positions as exemplifying the empirical-analytic and interpretive para-
digms, respectively. Moreover, using the three-paradigm framework sug-
gested by Ryan (1988), we can now ask ourselves the question, What does
the critical-theoretic paradigm say about what knowledge is important
to learn? The answer leads to other issues such as: Whose knowledge is
privileged in the assessment? Whose social interactions have cultural
capital? Whose goals define the criteria for evaluation and how are
these goals established? These critical-theoretic issues are discussed by
O'Loughlin (1992).
My R&D project that produced Logical Reasoning in Science & Tech-
nology, LoRST (described previously) uncovered the need to guide teach-
ers as they attempted teaching new STS science content using alternative
methods of instruction and using new assessment and evaluation tech-
niques. Throughout the teacher guide to LoRST, there are teacher inservice
sections on assessment and evaluation. This includes sample work from a
cross-section of students, along with how teachers assessed the work, and
how the work can be evaluated. Concept maps, check lists, and rubrics are
featured, although postermaking and portfolios are also mentioned.

Conclusion
The STS science curricula developed in Canadian provinces all deal
with instruction and assessment-evaluation in their own particular way.
Some provinces (such as Saskatchewan) have produced their own publica-
tions which were originally used with inservice programs, but are now found
in preservice B.Ed. programs at universities. The processes of instruction
and assessment-evaluation were beyond the scope of the Common Frame-
work of Science Learning Outcomes (CMEC, 1997). It devotes most of its
attention to specifying the student learning (organized within four areas:
STSE content, skills, canonical science knowledge, and attitudes) expected
irr a Canadian STSE science curriculum. The processes of achieving that
learning is left to the individual provinces.

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter explored four pairs of fundamental processes and crucial prod-
ucts that lead to a successful STS science curriculum. Each of the crucial
STS Science in Canada 81

products-curriculum policy, classroom materials, teacher understand-

ing, and student learning-was associated with a different process-
deliberation, R&D, implementation, and instruction-assessment, re-
spectively. These products and processes are interrelated as depicted in
Table 1 by the designation of "high" and "low" associations between them.
This chapter covered the territory that educators should explore if
they expect to develop successful STS science curricula. Important features
of this territory were illustrated by Canadian examples. Although regions
within the United States (or in any other country) will have their own
unique features, the coordination of each of the four product-process
pairs identified in this chapter will be essential to producing successful STS
teaching in any country.
Based on our Canadian experiences with STS science teaching, science
educators in other countries can better anticipate the nature of the chal-
lenges they face as they work with students, teachers, and other stakehold-
ers, many of whom will need to experience a type of paradigm shift. The
biggest challenge in Canada continues to be the paradigm shift over who has
privilege and the political power to decide what ought to be learned in
science classes and what ideologies will prevail-"science for all" or "science
for an elite"? (Blades, 1997; Fensham, 1992; Roberts, 1988). Some regions in
the United States will have the issue of privilege and political power well
established by cultural convention, while in other regions the issue will need
to be negotiated. From region to region the political topography will vary
according to the dominant stakeholders, but the tension between "science
for all" and "science for an elite" can be anticipated, along with other
tensions and dilemmas described in this chapter.
The appropriate way to deliberate over curriculum policies will
depend on the cultural convention of that region, but deliberations must
take place nevertheless. When contemplating how to engage in the process
of deliberation, a science educator must know the political topography of
the community. This savvy will be essential to success. National projects
such as Project 2061 (AAAS, 1989) and Standards (NRC, 1996) can influ-
ence the political topography. These two projects do address the ideologi-
cal choice between "science for all" and "science for an elite," however, both
projects appear to emphasize science for an elite because they privilege
the assimilation of students into thinking like scientists think (Aikenhead,
1997). The political self-interest of all stakeholders will pervade delibera-
tions and curriculum policy in any country.
In this chapter we discovered political power is an issue in both
teacher understanding and student learning. It was recognized as a focus
within the critical-theoretic paradigm of assessment/evaluation. How
it plays out in a non-Canadian setting will need to be carefully
82 Science, Technology, and Society

considered by STS science educators wishing to reform their own science

curriculum.
The territory mapped out in this chapter embraced the intended, the
translated, and the learned curriculum. All three must be considered by any
educational reform. To clarify the nature of those curricula, we found it
very helpful to consider the concept called "curriculum emphases" and we
found it important to identify those emphases in all the products of cur-
riculum change: curriculum policy, teaching materials, teacher understand-
ing, and student learning. Although the priority of curriculum emphases
chosen for a given region will vary, what is crucial is the need to identify
this priority. Unarticulated priorities and curriculum emphases lead to
failed reform efforts.
STS content constituted another fundamental feature to the territory
mapped out in this chapter. Similar to curriculum emphases, STS content will
vary from region to region. However, the structure for integrating science
content with STS content, identified in the chapter by an eight-category
scheme, will be an essential feature to any STS science instruction
world wide. STS educators are well advised to use the scheme to reflect on
their own views and to communicate those views to teachers and other
stakeholders.
Teacher understanding was clarified in Canada through "teacher prac-
tical knowledge," which includes the teacher's past experiences of being
socialized into a scientific discipline. For reform minded science educators,
one implication to this entrenched social practice is to initiate counter mea-
sures. Technology transfer and collaborative action research both hold
promise to supplement the normal implementation methods used in any
community.
And last, we explored the tensions between meaningful learning and
superficial learning: students' playing Fatima's rules. By playing Fatima's
rules, we privilege "science for an elite" because our instruction tends to
screen out those students who do not share the worldview embraced by
most scientists (Cobern, 1991; O'Loughlin, 1992). Screening out students
may be a cultural feature of a community's schooling. When STS science
reform is contemplated for such a community, the dilemma over meaning-
ful versus superficial learning will emerge. Those science educators famil-
iar with a constructivist approach to meaningful learning (Tobin, 1993) will
have already experienced reactions against this innovation and the enor-
mous pressures placed on teachers to play Fatima's rules (under the guise
of "covering the curriculum" sanctified by scientific authorities, including
national associations and councils). Costa's (1997) and Loughran and
Derry's (1997) recent work spoke to those pressures.
STS Science in Canada 83

In a recent comparative study of national science curricula in United

States, Australia, New Zealand, England and Wales, and the province of
Ontario, Orpwood and Barnett (1997) reinforced the need to support the
development of teachers as they attempt to implement reform. Orpwood
and Barnett concluded:
In our view, a curriculum framework is a necessary but not a sufficient condi-
tion for quality teaching and learning. Teachers' use of a curriculum framework
in the classroom to serve the increasingly diverse needs of their pupils requires
considerable sophistication of understanding and professional judgement and
creativity. No national framework or curriculum policy, however well developed,
can function as a direct instrument to affect pupils' learning-the failure of past
attempts at "teacher-proof curricula" are surely evidence of this. What a frame-
work can provide, however, is a common set of goals and expectations from
which teachers can design programmes which are meaningful and effective in
their specific contexts. (p. 347)

This chapter has described myriad other products and processes

(beyond curriculum policy and teacher understanding) that need to be
orchestrated to create a meaningful and effective STS science experience
for students.
The professional and political paradigm shifts associated with suc-
cessful STS reform have direct implications for assessment and evaluation
practices. In addition to the implications for student assessment discussed
in the chapter, we need to broaden those implications to include evaluating
the support experienced by teachers. Part of the design of a rational reform
effort should include concrete plans for assessing the support that teachers
receive from government, industry, universities, and parents. The stake-
holders who participated in the deliberation process over STS reform must
initiate ways by which the jurisdictions they represent will be evaluated by
teachers in terms of the perceived support provided during an extended
implementation process. Stakeholders must be held accountable to teach-
ers in any reform effort, and this accountability must be designed into the
curriculum policy from the very beginning.

REFERENCES

AAAS. (1989). Project 2061: Science for all Americans, American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, Washington, D.C.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1979). Science: A way of knowing. The Science Teacher 46(6):23-25.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1980). Science in social issues: Implications for teachin/? Science Council of
Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1984). Teacher decision making: The case of Prairie High. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching 21:167-186.
84 Science, Technology, and Society

Aikenhead, G. S. (1985). Collective decision making in the social context of science. Science
Education 69:453-475.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1988). Teaching Science through a Science-Technology-Society-Environment
Approach: An Instruction Guide, SIDRU, Faculty of Education, University of Regina,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1990). Scientific!technologicalliteracy, critical thinking, classroom practice.
In Norris, S. and Phillips, L. (eds.), Foundations of Literacy Policy in Canada, Detselig
Enterprises, Alberta, pp. 127-145.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1991). Logical reasoning in science and technology. John Wiley of Canada,
Toronto.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1992a). Logical reasoning in science and technology. Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society 12:149-159.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1992b). The integration of STS into science education. Theory into Practice
31(1):27-35.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994a). Collaborative research and development to produce an STS
course for school science. In Solomon, 1. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS education:
International Perspectives on Reform, Teachers College Press, New York. pp. 216-
227.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994b). Consequences to learning science through STS: A research per-
spective. In Solomon, 1. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS Education: International Per-
spectives on Reform, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 169-186.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994c). The social contract of science: Implications for teaching science. In
Solomon,1. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS Education: International Perspectives on
Reform Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 11-20.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1994d). What is STS teaching? In Solomon, 1. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS
Education: International Perspectives on Reform, Teachers College Press, New York,
pp.47-59.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science.
Studies in Science Education 27:1-5l.
Aikenhead, G. S. (1997). Toward a First Nations cross-cultural science and technology cur-
riculum. Science Education 81:217-238.
Aikenhead, G. S., Fleming, R. w., and Ryan, A. G. (1987). High school graduates' beliefs about
science-technology-society. Part I. Methods and issues in monitoring students views.
Science Education 71:145-161.
Aikenhead, G. S., and Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: Views on
science-technology-society (VOSTS). Science Education 76:477-491.
Aikenhead, G. S., Ryan, A., and Fleming, R. (1989). Views on Science-Technology-Society
(form CDN.mc.5), Department of Curriculum Studies, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, Canada.
American Chemical Society (1988). ChemCom: Chemistry in the Community, Kendall/Hunt,
Dubuque, Iowa.
Atlantic Science Curriculum Project (1986). Science Plus, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,
Toronto.
Atwater, M. M. (1996). Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education
research agenda. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 33:821-837.
Barnes, B. (1985). About Science, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Bingle, W. H., and Gaskell, P. 1. (1994). Scientific literacy for decision making and the social
construction of scientific knowledge. Science Education 78:185-201.
Black, P. (1993). Formative and summative assessment by teachers. Studies in Science
Education 21:49-97.
STS Science in Canada 85

Black, P. (1997). Assessment in the service of science education. In KEDI (Korean Educational
Development Institute), Globalization of Science Education. Pre-conference proceed-
ings for the International Conference on Science Education, Seoul, Korea, pp.165-177.
Blades, D. (1997). Procedures of Power and Curriculum Change, Peter Lang, New York.
Bybee, R. W. (1985). The Sisyphean question in science education: What should the scientifi-
cally and technologically literate person know, value and do-as a citizen? In Bybee,
R. W. (ed.), Science- Technology-Society, 1985 NSTA Yearbook National Science Teach-
ers Association, Washington, D.c., pp 79-93.
Bybee, R. w., and Mau, T. (1986). Science and technology related to global problems: An inter-
national survey of science educators. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
23:599-618.
Byrne, M. S., and Johnstone, A. H. (1988). How to make science relevant. School Science
Review 70(251):43-46.
Champagne, A. 8., and Klopfer, L. E. (1982). A causal model of students' achievement in a
college physics course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 19:299-309.
Champagne, A. 8., and Newell, S. T. (1992). Directions for research and development: Alter-
native methods of assessing scientific literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
29:841-860.
Cheek, D. W. (1992). Thinking Constructively about Science, Technology and Society Educa-
tion, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
Clandinin, D. 1. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers' classroom images.
Curriculum Inquiry 14:361-385.
Clandinin, D. 1., and Connelly, F. M. (1996). Teachers' professional knowledge landscapes:
Teacher stories-stories of teachers-school stories-stories of schools. Educational
Research 25(3):24-30.
CMEC (1997). Common Framework of Science Learning Outcomes, Council of Ministers of
Education of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Cobern, W. W. (1991). World View Theory and Science Education Research, NARST
Monograph No.3. National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Manhattan,
KS.
Costa, V. (1997). How teacher and students study "all that matters" in high school chemistry.
International Journal of Science Education 19:1005-1023.
Cross, R. T., and Price, R. F. (1992). Teaching Science for Social Responsibility, St. Louis Press,
Sydney.
Duffee, L., and Aikenhead, G. S. (1992). Curriculum change, student evaluation, and teacher
practical knowledge. Science Education 76:493-506.
Eijkelhof, H. M. C. (1994). Toward a research base for teaching ionizing radiation in a risk
perspective. In Solomon, 1. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS Education: International
Perspectives on Reform, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 205-215.
Eijkelhof, H. M. c., and Kortland, K. (1987). Physics in its personal, social and scientific context.
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 7:125-136.
Eijkelhof, H. M. c., and Kortland, K. (1988). Broadening the aims of physics education. In
Fensham, P. 1. (ed.), Development and Dilemmas in Science Education, Falmer Press,
New York, pp. 285-305.
Fensham, P. 1. (1988). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International
Journal of Science Education 10:346-356.
Fensham, P. 1. (1992). Science and technology. In Jackson, P. W. (ed.), Handbook of Research
on Curriculum. Macmillan, New York, pp. 789-829.
Fensham, P. 1. (1993). Reflections on science for all. In Whitelegg, L. (ed.), Challenges and
Opportunities in Science Education. The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
86 Science, Technology, and Society

Gallagher, 1. 1. (1985). Secondary science teaching practices with implications for STS imple-
mentation. In James, R. K. (ed.), Science, Technology and Society: Resources for Science
Educators, 1985 AETS Yearbook. SMEAC Center, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio, pp. 23-32.
Gallagher, 1. 1. (1991). Prospective and practicing secondary school science teachers' knowl-
edge and beliefs about the philosophy of science. Science Education 75:121-133.
Gallagher,1. 1., Parker, 1., Alvarado, T., Haley, G., and Sandys, D. (1996). Initiating and main-
taining continuous assessment in middle school science classes. A paper presented at
the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St.
Louis, MO, March 31-ApriI3, 1996.
Gaskell, 1. P. (1982). Science, technology and society: Issues for science teachers. Studies in
Science Education 9:33-46.
Gaskell, 1. P. (1989). Science and technology in British Columbia: A course in search of a com-
munity. Pacific Education 1(3):1-10.
Gaskell, P. 1. (1992). Authentic science and school science. International Journal of Science Edu-
cation 14:265-272.
Gilliom, M. E., Helgeson, S. L., and Zuga, K. F. (eds.) (1991). Theory into Practice (special issue
on STS), 30(4):230-315.
Gilliom, M. E., Helgeson, S. L., and Zuga, K. F. (eds.) (1992). Theory into Practice (special issue
on STS), 31(1):2---S4.
Hansen, K.-H., and Olson, 1. (19%). How teachers construe curriculum integration: The
science, technology, society (STS) movement as Bildung. Journal of Curriculum Studies
28:669-682.
Hart, E. P. (1989). Toward renewal of science education: A case study of curriculum policy
development. Science Education 73:607...{i34.
Habermas,1. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interest, Beacon, Boston.
Hennessy, S. (1993). Situated cognition and cognitive apprenticeship: Implications for class-
room learning. Studies in Science Education 22:1-41.
Holton, G., Rutherford, 1., and Watson, F. (1970). The Project Physics Course, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, New York.
Hunt, 1. A. (1988). SATIS approaches to STS. International Journal of Science Education
10:409-420.
Hurd, P. (1975). Science, technology and society: New goals for interdisciplinary science teach-
ing. The Science Teacher 42:27-30.
Hurd, P. (1989). Science education and the nation's economy. In Champagne, A. B., Lovitts, B.
E., and Calinger, B. 1. (eds.), Scientific Literacy, American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, Washington, D.C., pp. 15-40.
James, R. K. (ed.) (1985). Science, Technology and Society: Resources for Science Educators,
AETS Yearbook. SMEAC Center, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Keeves, 1., and Aikenhead, G. S. (1995). Science curricula in a changing world. In Fraser, B. 1.
and Walberg, H. 1. (eds.) Improving Science Education, The National Society for the
Study of Education, Chicago, pp. 13-45.
Kelly, G. 1., and Green, 1. (1998). The social nature of knowing: Toward a sociocultural
perspective on conceptual change and knowledge construction. In Guzzetti, B.
and Hynd, C. (eds.), Perspectives on Conceptual Change, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah,
NJ.
Kranzberg, M. (1991). Science-technology-society: It's as simple as XYZ! Theory in Practice
30:234-241.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.), University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
STS Science in Canada 87

Kumar, D., and Berlin, D. (1996). A study of STS curriculum implementation in the United
States. Science Educator 5(1):12-19.
Lantz, 0., and Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers' functional paradigms. Science Education
71:117-134.
Larson, J. 0. (1995). Fatima's rules and other elements of an unintended chemistry curriculum.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual meeting,
San Francisco, April 18-22,1995.
Layton, D. (1994). STS in the school curriculum: A movement overtaken by history? In
Solomon, J. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS Education: International Perspectives on
Reform, Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 32-44.
Leblanc, R (1989). Department of education summer science institute. Halifax, Canada: PO Box
578.
Lee,o. (1997). Scientific literacy for all: What is it, and how can we achieve it? Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 34:219-222.
Lijnse, P. (1990). Energy between the life-world of pupils and the world of physics. Science
Education 74:571-583.
Loughran,1. and Derry, N. (1997). Researching teaching for understanding: The students' per-
spective.International Journal of Science Education 19:925-938.
McFadden, C. (1980). Barriers to science education improvement in Canada: A case in point.
In McFadden, C. (ed.), World Trends in Science Education Atlantic Institute of Educa-
tion, Halifax, Canada, pp. 49-59.
McFadden, C. (1991). Toward an STS school curriculum. Science Education 75:457-469.
McFadden, c., and Yager, R (1997). SciencePlus Technology and Society, Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, Austin, TX.
McFadden, c., Morrison, E. S., Armour, N., Moore, A., Hammond, A. R, Nicoll, E. M.,
Haysom, 1., and Smyth, M. M. (1989). SciencePlus Technology and Society, Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Toronto.
McGinn, R E. (1991). Science, Technology, and Society, Prentice Hall, Englecliffs, N1.
McPeck, 1. E. (1981). Critical Thinking and Education, Martin Robertson Press, Oxford.
Medvitz, A. G. (1996). Science, schools and culture: The complexity of reform in science edu-
cation. A paper presented to the 8th symposium of the International Organization for
Science and Technology Education (IOSTE), Edmonton, Canada, August 17-22,1996.
Mesaros, R. A. (1988). The effect of teaching strategies on the acquisition and retention of
knowledge. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1987). Dissertation
Abstracts International 49(2):229-A.
Mitchener, c., and Anderson, R. (1989). Teachers' perspective: Developing and implementing
an STS curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 24:351-369.
Nagasu, N., and Kumano, Y. (1997). STS initiatives in Japan. A paper presented to the Inter-
national Conference on Science Education: Globalization of Science Education,
Korean Education Development Institute, Seoul, Korea, May 26-30, 1997.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National Science Education Standards, National
Academy Press, Washington, D.c.
O'Loughlin, M. (1992). Rethinking science education: Beyond Piagetian constructivism toward
a sociocultural model of teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teach-
ing 29:791-820.
Olson, J. (ed.) (1982). Innovation in the Science Curriculum, Croom Helm, London.
Ogawa, M. (1995). Science education in a multi-science perspective. Science Education
79:583-593.
Orpwood, G. (1985). Toward the renewal of Canadian science education. I. Deliberative
inquiry model. Science Education 69:477-489.
88 Science, Technology, and Society

Orpwood, G., and Barnett, 1. (1997). Science in the national curriculum: An international per-
spective. The Curriculum Journal 8:331-349.
Oxford University Department of Educational Studies (1989). Enquiry into the Attitudes of
Sixth-formers towards Choice of Science and Technology Courses in Higher Education,
Department of Educational Studies, Oxford.
Pedretti, E. (1997). Septic tank crisis: A case study of science, technology and society educa-
tion in an elementary school. International Journal of Science Education 19:1211-1230.
Pedretti, E., and Hodson, D. (1995). From rhetoric to action: Implementing STS education
through action research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 32:463-485.
Piel, E. P. (1981). Interaction of science, technology, and society in secondary schools. In Harms,
N. and Yager, R. (eds.), What Research Says to the Science Teacher, Volume 3, National
Science Teachers Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 94-112.
Roberts, D. A. (1982). Developing the concept of "curriculum emphases" in science education.
Science Education 66:243-260.
Roberts, D. A. (1983). Scientific Literacy, Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Roberts, D. A. (1988). What counts as science education? In Fensham, P. 1. (ed.), Development
and Dilemmas in Science Education. Falmer Press, New York, pp. 27-54.
Roberts, D. A. (1995). Junior high school science transformed: Analysing a science curriculum
policy change. International Journal of Science Education 17:493-504.
Rosenthal, D. B. (1989). Two approaches to STS education. Science Education 73:581-589.
Roth, W-M., and McGinn, M. K. (1998). unDELETE lives, work, and voices. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35:399-421.
Ryan, A. G. (1988). Program evaluation within the paradigm: Mapping the territory. Knowl-
edge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 10(1):25-47.
SCC (1984). Science for Every Student: Educating Canadians for Tomorrow's World (Report
No. 36). Science Council of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Schwab, J. J. (1974). Decision and choice: The coming duty of science teaching. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching 11:309-317.
Schwab, 1. 1. (1978). Science, Curriculum, and Liberal Education, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Sjlilberg, S. (1996). Scientific literacy and school science: Arguments and second thoughts. A
paper presented at the seminar on Science, Technology and Citizenship, Leangkollen,
Oslo, Norway, November 22-24,1996.
Snow, R. E. (1987). Core concepts for science and technology literacy. Bulletin of Science, Tech-
nology and Society 7:720-729.
Solomon, 1. (1981). Science and society studies in the curriculum. School Science Review
(82):213-220.
Solomon, 1. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupil's understanding of science.
Studies in Science Education 14:63-82.
Solomon, 1. (1987). Social influences on the construction of pupil's understanding of science.
Studies in Science Education 14:63-82.
Solomon, 1. (1988). Science technology and society courses: Tools for thinking about social
issues. International Journal of Science Education 10:379-387.
Solomon, 1. (1993). Teaching Science, Technology and Society. Open University Press,
Buckingham, UK.
Solomon. 1. (1994). Conflict between mainstream science and STS in science education. In
Solomon, 1. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS Education: International Perspectives on
Reform Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 3-10.
Solomon, 1., and Aikenhead, G. (eds.) (1994). STS Education: International Perspectives on
Reform. Teachers College Press, New York.
STS Science in Canada 89

Tobin, K. (ed.) (1993). The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education, American Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C.
Tobin, K., and McRobbie, C. (1996). Cultural myths as constraints to the enacted science cur-
riculum. Science Education 80:223-241.
Tobin, K., and McRobbie, C. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science
curriculum. Science and Education 6:355-371.
Thier, H., and Nagle, B. (1994). Developing a model for issue-oriented science. In Solomon,
J. and Aikenhead, G. (eds.), STS Education: International Perspectives on Reform,
Teachers College Press, New York, pp. 75-83.
Waks, L. J. (1987). Afterword: The STS prophets and their challenge to STS education. Bul-
letin of Science, Technology and Society 7:1001-1008.
Welch, W. W. (1969). Curriculum evaluation. Review of Educational Research 39:429-443.
Yager, R. E. (1992a). Science-technology-society as reform. In Yager, R. E. (ed.), The Status
of STS: Reform Efforts around the World, ICASE 1992 Yearbook. International
Council of Associations for Science Education, Knapp Hill, South Harting, Petersfield,
pp.2-8.
Yager, R. E. (ed.) (1992b). The Science, Technology, Society Movement, National Science
Teachers Association, Washington, D.C.
Yager, R. E. (ed.) (1996). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, SUNY
Press, Albany, NY.
Yager, R. E., and Krajcik, J. (1989). Success of students in a college physics course with and
without experiencing a high school course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
26:599-608.
Ziman, J. (1980). Teaching and Learning about Science and Society, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Ziman, J. (1984). An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of
Science and Technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
 CHAPTER 4

Trade-offs, Risks, and

Regulations in Science and
Technology
Implications for STS Education
Julie C. DeFalco

INTRODUCTION

Risk is inherent in life. Just by stepping out of bed in the morning, you set
in motion a chain of events that can in some sense be risky. Taking a shower
is hygienic and makes you pleasant to be around, but you could slip and
hurt yourself in the tub. Having eggs for breakfast gives you energy, but
they also contain cholesterol. You need to walk outside to go to the bus
stop, but on the way, you could fall on the sidewalk. And if you are too
frightened to leave the house, simply lying in bed incurs the risk of
inactivity.
We accept these risks, and in doing so, often try to control them. We
do this by calculating trade-offs: the "costs" and "benefits" of doing or not

Julie C. DeFalco, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.c. 20036.

Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

91
92 Science, Technology, and Society

doing a certain activity, or doing something else. As U.S. Supreme Court

Justice Stephen Breyer (1993) notes,
We find it worth spending money on an ordinary fire alarm system, but not worth
installing state-of-the-art automatic-phone-dialing fire protection. We believe it
worth installing guard rails on bridges, but not worth coating the Grand Canyon
in soft plastic to catch those who might fall over the edge. (p. 16)

We could refrain from playing sports because we could be injured, but not
exercising incurs serious health risks as well.
While trade-offs such as these are well known on the personal level,
they also exist at all levels and in all activities. In physics, every action causes
an equal and opposite reaction, both of which are clearly apparent. Unlike
physics, however, when it comes to human actions, the consequences are
frequently not seen. This is what the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton
Friedman meant when he famously said that there's no such thing as a free
lunch. Someone had to grow the food, transport it, cook it, and serve it.
Somehow, somebody has paid for that meal.
This chapter will discuss the sometimes invisible trade-offs which
occur when policymakers attempt to limit risks in science and technology
through laws and regulations. Federal, state, and local laws and regulations
cover nearly every action we take: the manufacturing, purchasing, and mar-
keting of products, the hiring and firing of labor, the attempts to protect the
environment. Many of these laws have been passed because of a belief that
our market economy has somehow failed-failed to protect consumers
against ever-increasing applications of technology or faulty goods, failed to
protect workers from hazardous conditions, or failed to save the environ-
ment from harm.
More often than not these government regulations "fail." They fail in
ways more profound than the claimed market failure. Sometimes these laws
demonstrably hurt those whom the laws intended to protect. Risk experts
John Graham and Jonathan Wiener (1995) write:
Americans are engaged in a national campaign to reduce risk. Yet confounding
this national campaign to reduce risk is the phenomenon of "risk tradeoffs."
Paradoxically, some of the most well-intentioned efforts to reduce identified
risks can turn out to increase other risks. (p. 1)

One explicit example of this happened in Peru. Following the advice of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency, one city in Peru stopped
using chlorine to purify the municipal water supply because the use of this
chemical may slightly increase the risk of some cancers. Because one of the
most effective water treatments was banned, 3,000 people died in a cholera
epidemic. Cholera is spread by contaminated water. After this tragedy,
Peruvian officials repealed the chlorine ban (Anderson, 1991).
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 93

Sometimes measures to reduce risk actually increase it, but in a less

obvious way. For example, the number one health risk is poverty. Justice
Breyer (1993) writes that
[Government] regulation of small risks can produce inconsistent results, for it
can cause more harm to health than it prevents.... At all times regulation
imposes costs that mean less real income available to individuals for alternative
expenditure. That deprivation of real income itself has adverse health effects, in
the form of poorer diet, more heart attacks, more suicides. (p. 23)

It is not just taxpayer dollars spent by the government on government-

sponsored programs that decrease overall wealth. The amount of money
businesses spend on compliance with federal regulations is greater than the
amount the federal government spends on all domestic discretionary spend-
ing programs. It is triple the amount of the federal deficit and a third of the
level of all federal outlays (including military and entitlement spending)
(Crews, 1996). And because regulatory costs for businesses are passed on
to customers, "regulatory costs exceed 19 percent of a household's after-tax
budget" (Crews, 1996). Regulation is an invisible tax on the American
people.
One way to look at how much the cost of regulation affects people is
to look at what else people could do with this money. Economists' term for
such an alternative expenditure is "opportunity cost"-the value of your
next best option. We seek to minimize our opportunity costs in our daily
lives. Frequently, when it comes to regulations, the opportunity cost of an
action is not considered. This can lead to outcomes where we are worse off
than before.
For example in the early 1990s, courts in New York City ordered the
removal of asbestos insulation in schools because there is evidence that this
material can cause cancer. Not only did this action raise the risk for the
workers who removed the asbestos, and for the students in the schools
(asbestos dust in the air is far more harmful than dormant asbestos slabs in
the walls), but it also took the hundreds of millions of the city's dollars away
from other municipal purposes, such as hospitals or police protection. Thus,
not only were taxpayer dollars wasted, but people's health was more at risk
than before. As Graham and Wiener (1995) point out:
Unless policymakers consider the full set of outcomes associated with each effort
to reduce risk, they will systematically invite such risk tradeoffs.... The net
effect of actions taken to reduce risk is complex; the phenomenon of risk trade-
offs suggests that in the national campaign to reduce risk, not as much health,
safety, and environmental protection is being achieved as was intended and
expected. (p. 2)
This chapter examines the effects of three laws and regulations: the
Endangered Species Act, which intends to save certain flora and fauna from
94 Science, Technology, and Society

extinction; the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for

passenger vehicles, which intends to cut down on oil imports; and the air
bag mandate, which intends to increase car safety.
The track record of these rules shows that the risks they were sup-
posed to ameliorate actually increased risk. Thus, that which was presented
to the public as a "free lunch" turned out to be a poison pill.

STS AND THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Introduction

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) attempts to achieve a laudable

goal: protect and conserve animals and plants in danger of extinction.
Unfortunately, the ESA not only has failed to achieve its stated aim, but it
has worsened the problem.
The ESA affords a good opportunity to explore many aspects of STS
education. For example, a civics class could discuss how the political envi-
ronment influences the creation of legislation, how a bill becomes a law, and
how courts interpret laws that have been passed. A biology class could learn
how biologists determine taxonomy. A math class could learn how statistics
are used to determine populations of species.

Legislative History
Americans have always sought ways to prevent the extinction of
animals. Since the 18th century, state and local laws have dealt with such
conservation issues. By the early part of this century, private organizations
had been instituted to monitor the populations of various creatures. The
1908 Lacey Act was the first federal law passed to deal with these issues.
Using the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, it forbade the
interstate trafficking of wildlife if it broke a state law. In 1934, hunters and
anglers lobbied states to impose taxes on certain sporting activities to fund
conservation efforts, and this tax was soon expanded to cover the manu-
facturers of certain sporting equipment.
It was not until the 1960s, however, that major federal laws were pro-
posed. The first of these laws, the Endangered Species Preservation Act of
1966, authorized federal government acquisition of land to provide habitat
for wildlife at risk of extinction. This was only applicable to selected fish
and wildlife species. It was not considered strong enough, so in 1969, the
Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA) was passed. The ESCA not
only covered species not native to the United States, but also barred trade
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 95

in endangered species except in clear cases of economic hardship, and

asserted coverage over reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, and crustaceans. It
also required the Secretary of the Interior to set up an international
meeting to deal with these issues. For that reason, in 1972, the Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna
(CITES) was created. Congress passed today's ESA in 1973 as a way to
comply with the international treaty, despite the fact that CITES had not
yet been ratified. The ESA expanded the government's jurisdiction even
further than the previous acts did, and it contained several provisions
that have led to great controversy. Consequently, the act was amended in
1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988, and still has reform legislation
pending.

Today's Endangered Species Act

The ESA sounds like a simple law. The federal government makes a
list of animals or plants in danger of extinction, and then monitors and
protects the creature until it is recovered, before finally removing it
from the list. In practice, however, the law is extremely complicated. "The
Endangered Species Act is 'the pit bull of environmental laws,' said Donald
Barry (Adler, 1995), assistant secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks at the
Department of the Interior. 'It's short, compact, and has a hell of a set of
teeth'" (p. 17)
Analysts Thomas Lambert and Robert Smith (1994) outlined three
key provisions of the ESA:

• Section four of the ESA mandates that species be listed as

endangered or threatened "solely on the basis of the best avail-
able scientific and commercial information regarding a species
status, without reference to possible economic or other impacts
of such determination";
• Section seven of the act, as it has been interpreted by the
judiciary and implemented by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, requires federal agencies to insure that the actions they
authorize, fund, or carry out neither jeopardize the continued
existence of a listed species nor modify habitat that is critical
for its survival;
• Section nine states that no person may take an organism listed
as endangered or threatened, where "take" means, "to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or
to attempt to engage in any such conduct." The strength of this
provision lies in the definitions of harass and harm. (pp. 6-8)
96 Science, Technology, and Society

Problems with the Endangered Species Act

There are three main problems with the ESA:

• The ESA infringes upon property rights. While the ESA allows
the federal government to restrict the use of privately owned
land to provide habitat for a given species, nothing in the ESA
requires the federal government to compensate the landowner.
This goes against several hundred years of accepted common
law and the American tradition of respecting private property.
Even more important, the ESA violates the Fifth Amend-
ment of the United States Constitution, which reads: "nor
shall private property be taken for public use without just
compensation."
• The ESA is ineffective. The purported goal of the ESA is to
"recover" species. Although a total of 1,119 species have been
listed since the law's inception, 1 only 27 have been removed
from the list. Of these, seven became extinct while listed. Nine
were officially delisted because of data errors (that is, new pop-
ulations of the species were discovered after its listing or taxo-
nomic errors were discovered). Only 11 were considered
"recovered," although the evidence shows that even this is not
true.
• The ESA is unrealistic and expensive. The ESA ostensibly
requires that all species be saved at any cost. This is unrealistic
because some species are biologically marginal and might
become extinct anyway. Due to public pressure, the vast
majority of ESA funds is skewed toward "popular" animals,
such as whales and bald eagles, at the expense of less
interesting creatures, such as insects. ESA alone costs the
federal government hundreds of millions of dollars. This does
not even count the costs the regulations impose on private
landowners.

Property Rights
When a species is listed, there is a freeze across all of its habitat for two to three
years while we construct a habitat conservation plan which will later free up the
land.
Bruce Babbitt (1994), United States Secretary of Interior

I At the time of this writing, there were 890 endangered species listed in the United States
(337 animals, 553 plants). There are 229 species listed as "threatened" (114 animals, 115
plants). Of the total figures presented, 451 are animals and 668 are plants.
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 97

The premise of the ESA is that wildlife belongs to all citizens in

common. Therefore, government regulations and not private markets are
necessary to ensure the survival of endangered species.
The ESA is simply a manifestation of the public's interest in wildlife, and
the public's aversion to paying for the satisfaction of that interest. Clearly, if
"wildlife belongs to all citizens in common," then the presumption is that there
is little reason to pay for something that "we" already own. Of course, it is
unclear whether the public actually "owns" the wildlife. 2 Conversely, private
property rights in land are well defined, if not well defended. (Sugg, 1993-1994,
p.11-12)

Contrary to the assertions of many ESA proponents, the law heavily

infringes upon private property rights. As Secretary Babbitt's quote illus-
trates, the ESA's primary consideration is the habitat of the species and not
whatever plans the landowner had for the property or how much a "freeze"
on the property will cost the landowner.
A 1978 Supreme Court case, Tennessee Valley Authority vs. Hill,
enshrined this principle when it declared "that 'the balance has been struck
in favor of affording endangered species the highest of priorities' and that
'the plain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse
the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost."'(Sugg, 1993-1994,
p.ll). Though the legislative history of the ESA-what Congress said when
it wrote the law--does not support this contention, this case has been the
basis for subsequent decisions against the rights of landowners.
If the public wants to have land set aside for endangered species,
the public ought to pay for it instead of forcing a single party to finance
it. When the federal government decides to build a highway or military
base, the principle of "eminent domain" allows it to take the necessary
land, but the Fifth Amendment guarantees that the landowner receives
just monetary compensation (whether that compensation is accurate is
another issue entirely). Though the ESA is not an overt act of eminent
domain, it nonetheless, in practice, constitutes a "regulatory taking" of
the land. When a piece of land falls under the ESA, the owner's ability
to build on it or otherwise develop it can be prohibited. For that reason,
its market value drops. People have lost their life savings in this
manner.
The government has clearly overstepped the boundaries of the
original intent of the legislation. Today, regulatory takings cover not only

2 At least one federal court case plainly denies such ownership to the government (see Hughes
vs. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322 (1979), in which the court expressly abolishes such state
ownership).
98 Science, Technology, and Society

the territory the species is known to inhabit, but also territory the species
might use. There has even been an effort to set aside whole "ecosystems"
for preservation. It is called the Habitat Conservation Plans. These plans
proceed, notwithstanding that "ecosystems, cannot be objectively delin-
eated. Discussing the development of the 'ecosystem' concept, renowned
ecologist Paul Colinvaux wrote, 'The idea was that patches of earth, of any
convenient size, could be defined and studied to see how life worked there.'
In other words, ecosystems are units of nature arbitrarily defined by humans
for their scientific convenience" (Lambert and Smith, 1994, p. 50). Even Sec-
retary Babbitt has admitted this, saying that ecosystems "are in the eye of
the beholder" (Lambert and Smith, 1994, p. 52).
The worst aspect of this abrogation of property rights is that it leads
to perverse incentives. Since the ESA brings with it a host of financial and
legal headaches, the property owner might decide to either destroy the
species before the government discovers its presence or destroy its habitat
before a species settles there. In the Pacific Northwest, this practice is
known as "shoot, shovel, and shut up" (Vivoli, 1992). As Sam Hamilton, Fish
and Wildlife Service administrator for the state of Texas noted, "The incen-
tives [of the ESA] are wrong here. If I have a rare metal on my property,
its value goes up. But if a rare bird occupies my land, its value disappears.
We've got to turn it around to make the landowner want to have the bird
on his property" (Seasholes, 1995, p. 8).
Even one prominent supporter of the ESA, Michael Bean, chair of
the Environmental Defense Fund's Wildlife Program, acknowledged this in
a seminar for FWS employees (Bean 1994):

Despite nearly a quarter of a century of protection as an endangered species,

the red-cockaded woodpecker is closer to extinction today than it was a quarter
of a century ago when the protection began. There is, however, increasing evi-
dence that at least some private landowners are actively managing their land so
as to avoid potential endangered species problems. The problems they're trying
to avoid are the problems stemming from the act's prohibition against taking
endangered species by adverse modification of habitat. And they're trying to
avoid those problems by avoiding having endangered species on their prop-
erty .... Now it's important to recognize that all of these actions that landowners
are either taking or threatening to take are not the result of malice toward the
red-cockaded woodpecker, not the result of malice toward the environment.
Rather they're fairly rational decisions motivated by a desire to avoid poten-
tially significant economic constraints. In short, they're really nothing more than
a predictable response to the familiar perverse incentives that sometimes accom-
pany regulatory programs, not just the endangered species program but others.
(no page number)

The ESA's infringement on property rights not only demonstrably hurts

people, but it hurts endangered species as well.
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 99

Table 1. Partial List of Delisted Endangered Species

Common Name Historic Range Date Listed Date Delisted Official Reason
(Real Reason)

Brown pelican USA (AL, FL, GA, 10113/1970 2/411985 Recovered

SC, NC, etc.) (DDT Ban)
Arctic peregrine USA (AK), Canada, 10/1311970 10/5/1994 Recovered
falcon Greenland (DDT Ban)
Palau dove W. Pacific: USA 61211970 9/12/1985 Recovered
(Palau islands) (Data Error)
Palau fantail W. Pacific: USA 6/211970 9/12/1985 Recovered
flycatcher (Palau islands) (Data Error)
Palau owl W. Pacific: USA 6/211970 9/1211985 Recovered
(Palau islands) (Data Error)
Rydberg USA (UT) 4/26/1978 9/14/1989 Recovered
milk-vetch (Data Error)
Gray whale USA (CA, OR, WA, 12/211970 6116/1994 Recovered
AK), Canada, Russia (1937
Whaling ban)
American USA (AL, AR, FL, 3/1111967 partial delistings Recovered
alligator GA, LA, MS, NC, 1975-1985 (Data Error)
OK,SC,TX)
Red kangaroo Australia 12/30/1974 319/1995 Recovered
(Data Error)
Eastern gray Australia 12130/1974 319/1995 Recovered
kangaroo (Data Error)
Western gray Australia 12130/1974 319/1995 Recovered
kangaroo (Data Error)

Reprinted with permission from "Delisted and Endangered Species" Competitive Enterprise
Institute, Washington, D.C., April, 1997.

Efficacy of the ESA

Despite impressions to the contrary, the Endangered Species Act has
not saved a single species. Table 1 lists some of the ESA's "success stories."
None of these recoveries had anything to do with the ESA (eEl, 1997):

• The main factor in the recovery of the Eastern brown pelican

and the arctic peregrine falcon was the banning of the pesticide
DDT, which caused reproductive failure in these birds. DDT
100 Science, Technology, and Society

was banned in 1972, one year prior to the enactment of the

ESA. In the case of the brown pelican, reintroduction efforts by
the Louisiana Department of Wildlife (independent of the U.S.
FWS) contributed to its recovery. As for the arctic peregrine
falcon, "it was the remoteness" of the nesting habitat in north-
ern Alaska, according to Jay Sheppard, formerly of the FWS'
Office of Endangered Species, that contributed to the bird's
rebound, not actions taken under the ESA.
• The Palau dove, the Palau fantail flycatcher, the Palau owl, and
the Rydberg milk-vetch are examples of recovery due to data
error. A 1988 U.S. General Accounting Office report noted that
"according to FWS officials ... the three Palau species owe their
'recovery' more to the discovery of additional birds than to suc-
cessful recovery efforts" (GAO, 1998). As for the milk-vetch, a
small plant, new specimens were discovered that brought its
numbers from an estimated 2,000 to an estimated 200,000-a
10,000 percent increase. Said Jon L. England, the FWS botanist
who wrote the final rule delisting the milk-vetch, "it was essen-
tially a data error."
• The recovery of the gray whale had nothing to do with the
ESA. Once prized for their useful oil, whales became less in
demand when the market for oil collapsed in the early part of
the 20th century (because of the development of cheaper sub-
stitutes). Whaling became viable again in the 1920s, but was
banned in 1937 by an international treaty. The U.S. passed the
Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972, one year before the
ESA, and, even more important, the Mexican government
began to protect calving lagoons.
• The recovery of the alligator, the most famous example of the
ESA, turned out to be due to the discovery of a data error. The
National Wildlife Federation has even stated that "it now
appears that the animal never should have been placed on the
Endangered Species List; recent evidence suggests that the
'gator was thriving in some parts of its range throughout
the 1960s, albeit at somewhat lower population levels than now
exist." (Lewis, 1987) Indeed, it has been suggested that the ESA
hampered the states of Florida and Louisiana, which tried to
manage their alligators as a renewable resource and thus make
protecting alligators profitable.
• The ESA had no effect at all on the recovery of the three kan-
garoos listed, for they are all native to Australia and the ESA
has no jurisdiction there. Incidentally, these kangaroos were
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 101

never in danger of extinction; their population fluctuates with

rainfall changes, but they number in at least the hundreds of
thousands. The FWS was simply looking for a foreign species to
include on its list, and the kangaroo seemed appealing.

The act's supporters claim the ESA saves species when all the evidence is
clearly to the contrary. The problem is not that people don't care about
endangered species, but that the egregious regulatory regime engendered
by the ESA, with its perverse incentives, guarantees the act will never work.

Cost of the ESA

Perhaps the Supreme Court was only using uplifting rhetoric in its
1978 decision to preserve endangered species at "whatever the cost." But
this virtual mandate has turned out to be extremely expensive. Consider-
ing the ineffectiveness of the ESA, and its imposition on private landown-
ers, this is highly disturbing.
As Lambert and Smith (1994) pointed out, the implementation cost
of this act is very high. For example, the total reported spending in 1992 for
endangered species protection is $290 million, and the inspector general of
the Department of the Interior estimates $4.6 billion is needed to recover
all presently known species. For every dollar FWS spends on recovery of
endangered species, it spends another $2.26 on consultation, permitting, law
enforcement, and research done to list species.
High as they are, these figures also do not take into account the costs
to landowners who must comply with these regulations and whose land
often loses real value because of the ESA's strictures. Given the poor record
of the ESA, this money is wasted. The opportunity cost of these resources-
what else could have been done with those funds-is very high.
As long as the government does not have to pay for the land it takes
by regulation, it can avoid making difficult decisions about what is most
important. We all have to work within budget constraints (most of us drive
Hondas instead of Rolls Royces) and there is no reason why the govern-
ment should not have similar limits. The only way to do this is to require
government to pay for the land it wants to reserve for endangered species.
Counting money wasted on a dilatory regulation is one thing. It is
quite another to determine what the social costs of the regulation are. Here
are two examples of how the ESA has demonstrably hurt people:

The Stephens kangaroo rat and the California fires. To minimize the
damage to people and property, state and local regulations in Southern
California require landowners to remove flammable vegetation around
102 Science, Technology, and Society

structures because of the fires that annually sweep through the area. The
best method of clearing this brush away is a practice called "disking," a
process by which the top layer of soil is overturned, burying the vegetation
safely beneath the ground.
In 1989, these state and local regulations came into direct conflict
with the federal ESA. The Fish and Wildlife Service ordered the people of
Riverside County, CA to mow (instead of disk) their property in order to
preserve the habitat of the endangered Stephens kangaroo rat (k-rat).
Mowing will not disturb the k-rats' burrows, but neither does it clear the
vegetation away.
In October 1993, a fire swept through Riverside County, burning
25,000 acres and destroying 29 of 300 homes in its path. Nineteen of these
homes were in designated k-rat "preserve study areas" and for that reason,
the homes' owners were not permitted, under the ESA, to properly protect
their property by disking.
One couple, Andy and Cindy Domenigoni, had let 800 of their 3,200
acres of farmland lie fallow. Into the undisturbed land came the k-rat, and
soon after, ESA restrictions. Though local regulations required them to
remove the underbrush on the property, the federal government forbade
disking, the only effective way of clearing all of it. They did manage to clear
a small area-seven acres. This field was where the Domenigonis, with their
100 head of cattle, waited out the fire which consumed the rest of their prop-
erty. In the aftermath of the fire, it was discovered that the k-rat was no
longer in the area-not because of the fire, but because the brush and weeds
had grown too thick (Lambert and Smith, 1994).
The Domenigonis' neighbor, Michael Rowe, fared slightly better on
that night. As he saw the fire approaching, he went out with a tractor in the
middle of the night and disked a firebreak between his house and the
Domenigonis field, even though disking was still technically forbidden.
Despite an unfortunate shift in the wind which blew the fire toward his land,
Michael Rowe saved his home.
"There's an inherent conflict between preserving wildlife and fire
safety," said Richard Wilson, director of the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection (Sugg, 1994, p. 4). In this case, the k -rat received
more consideration than did the people who owned its habitat.

The Golden-Cheeked Warbler. Travis County, Texas contains some of

the best land in the state, and, in 1990, discovered it had one of the worst
problems: an endangered neotropical migratory songbird called the golden-
cheeked warbler.
The FWS ordered so much private land to be set aside for the warbler
that "according to the county's deputy chief tax appraiser, county property
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 103

values decreased nearly $360 million ... Before the birds were added to the
endangered-species list, the market appraisal of this real estate was ten
times greater than after their listing" (Lambert and Smith, 1994). In one
case, a woman who had purchased 15 acres as an investment to supplement
her retirement income saw the value of her land plummet from $830,960 in
1991 to $30,380 in 1992 as a direct result of the development prohibitions
of the ESA (Kazman, 1995).
The case of the golden-cheeked warbler also shows that the FWS has
overstepped its bounds. The FWS not only forbids development on land
that is demonstrably warbler territory, but it also freezes development on
nearby land. "No actual members of a listed species needed to be present
for FWS to preclude someone from using their own land under its 'harm
regulation.' [As the FWS has written,] 'Although [the] development area
does not contain occupied warbler habitat. ... The service currently
believes that development activities in general will cause indirect impacts
to the warbler. .. .' "(Kazman, 1995, pp. 4-5).
Because people felt threatened by the ESA regulations, they did their
best to avoid encountering these birds in the first place. "While I have no
hard evidence to prove it, I am convinced that more habitat for the black-
capped vireo [another endangered bird] and especially for the golden-
cheeked warbler, has been lost in those areas of Texas since the listing of
these birds than would have been lost without the ESA at all," said Larry
McKinney, director of Resource Protection at the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (Seasholes, 1995, p. 8).

Conclusion
An STS curriculum studying this perspective of the ESA would benefit
students and better prepare them to evaluate trade-offs in public policy. It
neatly captures the perils of imposing a law without evaluating its conse-
quences. We all see value in a diversity of wildlife. However, conserv-
ing species is only one of many competing goals of society-a fact
sometimes lost in the course of studying other STS subjects. Society's
other goals include preserving individual freedoms and respecting the Con-
stitution. Resources consumed by ESA mandates are resources unavail-
able for other projects. This point is especially pertinent because it is
overwhelmingly clear that the ESA, after 25 years, cannot claim a single
recovery.
There are other, better ways to promote conservation while retaining
our individual rights. First, FWS' ability to prohibit land use must be
eliminated, and in the event that land is taken, property owners must be
compensated. Otherwise, the perverse incentives will continue.
104 Science, Technology, and Society

Second, we must learn from the efforts made by private individuals

and groups long before the ESA was ever conceived. Government regula-
tion tends to be arbitrary and restrictive. In contrast, in a market economy,
people can be free to express their values and can experiment with innov-
ative, creative ways of preserving species. One environmental group has
claimed that "when a man puts a price tag on a wild animal, that wild animal
eventually disappears" (Struzik, 1992, p. 24). Indeed, in practice, we have
seen quite the opposite. Harnessing the profit motive and self-interest has
repeatedly proven successful for both human and beast.
This can mean buying land and keeping it in trust simply to provide
land for wildlife. A good example of this is the Nature Conservancy (TNC).
TNC operates a key migratory bird corridor in Cape May, New Jersey.
Another way is through private conservation funds, which have been instru-
mental in making the wood duck, as well as all three species of American
bluebird, common once again (Seasholes, 1995). Numerous other organiza-
tions exist to protect other animals, such as the Peregrine Fund (for pere-
grine falcons). Companies such as International Paper have implemented
innovative forest management strategies to preserve a variety of wildlife.
They also charge admittance fees that are used for these conservation
efforts. Internationally, in Zimbabwe, local farmers have benefited from
"privatization" of wildlife such as elephants, and in Papua, New Guinea,
profits from butterfly farming have encouraged locals to refrain from
cutting down valuable forest land.
America has a long tradition of private conservation. Government
regulations of the past 30 years have stifled this innovation, replacing it with
an inflexible bureaucracy. Market solutions are dispersed, enabling creative
solutions and approaches tailored to specific, local conditions. Instead of
wasting resources lobbying the government to act in one way or another,
a better use of this time and money would be toward protecting species
individually. We should revive this venerable tradition once again as the
best way of ensuring the survival of species.

STS AND CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS

Introduction
Passed during the oil crises of the 1970s, the federal government's
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were specifically
intended to reduce America's dependence upon foreign oil. More than
20 years later, CAFE is now being promoted as a way to save the
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 105

environment. While the evidence for CAFE's effectiveness in achieving

either of these goals is slim to nonexistent, it is demonstrably true that
CAFE has had a serious, unintended effect: By causing vehicles to be
smaller and lighter than they otherwise would be, CAFE kills people.
CAFE is a good issue to include in STS education because it clearly
illustrates how even well intended ideas and good science can result in
laws that have unintended, negative effects. A history class might study the
political environment leading up to CAFE's passage in 1975, including
America's relations with the Middle East, and the rise of OPEC (Organi-
zation of Petroleum Exporting Countries). An economics class might study
the effects of price-controls and rationing; artificially low prices for a
product means that suppliers may not be willing to produce much of it, and
artificially high prices mean there might be less demand for it. A chemistry
class might study how auto emissions are measured and examine the effects
of the mix of emissions.

Legislative History

Price controls and rationing of many goods were initially imple-

mented during the Nixon administration and continued throughout the
Ford and Carter administration. These policies exacerbated, rather than
ameliorated, the economic problems throughout the 1970s. The OPEC oil
embargo of 1974 was the major crisis. Gas prices shot out of control. Com-
mentators of the period predicted that gas prices would skyrocket by the
mid-1980s, perhaps reaching $2.50/gallon (in 1975 dollars). The resulting
recession led politicians to seek legislative solutions to quell the public's ire.
Because the price controls and rationing had failed, politicians sought
another way to counteract the effect of the oil embargo.
One way to handle this problem, many believed, was to decrease the
United States' dependence upon foreign oil. Accordingly, CAFE standards
were made into law in 1975. Under CAFE, each auto manufacturer selling
in the U.S. was required to make its entire passenger car fleet meet a specified
fuel economy target every year. CAFE was gradually increased over the
years. Currently, for passenger cars, the CAFE standard is 27.5 miles per
gallon, and for light trucks and vans, the standard is 20.7 miles per gallon.
Manufacturers who failed to meet CAFE standards would be fined. Con-
gress charged the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
with administering the program and monitoring compliance.
CAFE is always a work in progress. Oil prices were so low in the 1980s
that more consumers bought large cars. As a result, auto companies
requested that CAFE be relaxed. NHTSA decreased it for model years
106 Science, Technology, and Society

1986-1989-four years in all-before increasing it again in 1990. Congress

picked up on this trend, and many members began a strong push to increase
CAFE, resulting in numerous bills. The most important was that supported
by Senator Richard Bryan (D-Nevada), which would have raised CAFE to
40 miles per gallon by the year 2000. "Despite opposition by the Bush
administration and automakers, the Bryan bill came close to passing the
Congress in both 1990 and 1992" (Graham and Wiener, 1995, p. 89). Raising
CAFE was even suggested in Bill Clinton's presidential campaign mani-
festo, "Putting People First" (Clinton, 1992).
Meanwhile, the rationale for CAFE changed. Concerns about
America's dependence upon foreign oil gave way to concerns about the
amount of vehicle emissions. In the 1990s, there have been many proposals
to increase CAFE because of its supposed environmental benefits. To date,
all have been successfully opposed. However, the signing of the Kyoto
greenhouse protocols in 1997, which, if implemented, would commit the
U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, have given pro-CAFE forces
another opportunity to push for an increase in CAFE. This would have a
negligible impact on the environment, but a disastrous impact upon auto
safety.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Oil Imports

Despite the dire predictions of the 1970s, gas prices actually
plummeted after 1982 when President Reagan lifted the price controls on
gasoline. In 1995, gas prices reached their lowest in history. Foreign oil is
cheaper to produce than American oil. That means when gas prices are
low-as they have been in recent years-American oil is generally too
expensive to be competitive, and thus, more gasoline is imported. As a
result, "oil imports have risen from 35 percent in 1974 to more than 50
percent in 1995" ("Minivans," 1997).
CAFE was initially proposed on grounds of national security. Pre-
sumably America would be less dependent upon oil and therefore less
affected by oil price changes. But CAFE doesn't affect only foreign oil
sales-it affects all oil sales. Thus, we would also see less oil production in
the U.S. as well. If the overall reduced demand for oil still depends upon
imports from volatile areas, then CAFE hasn't done anything to forward
national security.
It is important to note that mandating decreased oil imports on
national security grounds is highly debatable. One could argue that it makes
more sense to husband America's oil until an emergency, when it would be
available as a backup, rather than force people to use the relatively more
expensive American oil today.
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 107

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and the Environment

Today, much public debate is centered not on decreasing America's

dependence upon foreign oil, but on finding solutions to environmental
problems, particularly pollution. Along with numerous federal, state, and
local regulations determining the quantity of certain emissions permitted
in the air, CAFE has been portrayed as a way to help reduce these emis-
sions-some of which have been accused of contributing to global climate
change (Since this is a contentious related issue, we will simply say that the
effect of these emissions on the climate is debatable). The Sierra Club has
claimed that an increase in CAFE is "the biggest single step to curbing
global warming" ("Single Step," undated).
Total emissions may not fall with a higher CAFE for several reasons.
Cars and light trucks make up only 1.5 percent of all global human-made
greenhouse gas emissions. Hiking CAFE standards by 40 percent would
only reduce those emissions by 0.04 percent, according to the government's
own data (DeFalco, 1997).
All new cars must meet the same emissions standard (measured in
grams per mile) regardless of the car's fuel efficiency. Thus, the emissions-
known as "volatile organic compounds, or VOCs-from all cars and light
trucks must fall under the same ceiling. "Manufacturers therefore design
engines and emission control systems to just meet the grams per mile stan-
dard, so improved fuel efficiency does not necessarily lead to fewer VOC
emissions. More fuel efficiency is just as likely to result in less stringent
emission control systems that still meet the grams per mile standard"
(Graham and Wiener, 1995, p. 93). Though it may be likely that a larger
vehicle would emit more than a smaller vehicle, it is possible that the oppo-
site may be the case. Just as a person running faster than another person
would likely perspire more, a smaller vehicle's engine must work harder
and may therefore emit more pollutants.
Because confusing regulations could arbitrarily change, and because
pollution control equipment often adds weight to a car, the National
Research Council wrote in a 1992 report that "compliance with [emissions]
standards will make it difficult to introduce more fuel efficient vehicles"
(NRC, 1992, p. 75).
Despite their overall support for increased CAFE, the federal gov-
ernment's Office of Technology Assessment and the National Academy of
Sciences have also suggested that CAFE might make people drive more,
thwarting CAFE's entire purpose. In the words of Graham and Wiener
(1995):
By reducing the amount of fuel needed to drive a vehicle each mile, improved
fuel efficiency lowers the driver's cost of operating a vehicle per mile of travel,
108 Science, Technology, and Society

and thereby encourages drivers to travel more miles. More total miles of driving
thus offsets some of the energy conservation gains achieved by the lower fuel
use per mile of more fuel-efficient vehicles. The magnitude of this offsetting
effect is uncertain, but it is estimated that somewhere between 10 and 30 percent
of the potential fuel savings from increased CAFE ~tandards will be lost to
increased driving .... " (p. 90)

Any benefits from CAFE would be delayed because the rule retards
the sale of new cars. CAFE requires manufacturers to make smaller cars.
If people would rather buy larger cars, then manufacturers must subsidize
the price of small cars (to increase demand) or raise the price of larger cars
(to decrease demand) in order to achieve CAFE goals and avoid fines. This
leads to several situations: consumers holding onto their older, more pol-
luting cars for longer periods of time; and, recently, people buying light
trucks and minivans instead of large cars. This is what led to the slight
decrease in CAFE in the mid to late 1980s.

Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and Auto Safety

Decades of auto research have shown that a large car is almost

always safer than a small car. "Traffic safety analysts have found that
occupants of lighter cars incur an elevated risk of serious injury and death
in crashes compared to occupants of heavier cars. This statistical asso-
ciation has been demonstrated for both single-vehicle and multivehicle
crashes ... The negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality
risk is one of the most secure findings in the literature" (emphasis added)
(Crandall and Graham, 1989, p. 110). A large car with airbags is still safer
than a small car with air bags. In a two-car collision, occupants of the larger
car come out better than the occupants of the smaller vehicle. In a collision
with a tree or a wall, large cars are safer, because they have more "crush
space" than do small cars.
This simple physical fact is often overlooked yet it is crucial to under-
standing the deadly effects of CAFE. "Most of the improvements in new
car fuel economy were achieved before 1985" (Graham and Weiner, 1995,
p. 89) by introducing new technologies, such as fuel-injected engines, and
decreasing the size and weight of the vehicles.
Between 1979 and 1989, the average weight of a passenger car
dropped by 1,000 pounds (roughly a 25 percent total reduction), and about
half of this downsizing was due to CAFE. "The 500-pound ... reduction in
the average weight of 1989 cars caused by CAFE is associated with a 14-27
percent increase in occupant fatality risk" (Crandall and Graham, 1989). By
using updated fatality figures from the Insurance Institute of Highway
Safety, it is estimated that in 1996, 2,700-4,700 passenger car occupant
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 109

deaths (of a national total of 22,000) were the result of CAFE's downsiz-
ing effect (DeFalco, 1997).
One federal judge (eEl vs. NHTSA, 1992) criticized the increase in
CAFE after model year 1989 in a 1992 case on this issue:
Choice means giving something up. In deciding whether to relax the previously
established CAFE standard for 1990, NHTSA confronted a record suggesting
that refusal to do so would enact some penalty in auto safety. Rather than
affirmatively choosing extra energy savings over extra safety, however, NHTSA
obscured the safety problem and thus its need to choose.... [Instead, NHTSA]
fudged the analysis, held the standard at 27.5mpg, and, with the help of statisti-
cal legerdemain, made conc1usory assertions that its decision had no safety cost
at all. That is what it chose." (pp. 322-324)

Unfortunately, many of those who favor increases in CAFE de-

emphasize or dismiss this trade-off. "We can safely raise CAFE standards
while saving oil, lives and dollars," wrote Sierra Club activists Ann Mes-
nikoff and Steve Pedery (Mesnikoff and Pedery, 1996, no page number) in
a statement typical of CAFE's supporters. They state traffic fatalities have
declined since CAFE's enactment, that a wide assortment of automobiles
are available to the American public, and some small cars fare better
in crashes than do sports utility vehicles (SUVs). These statements are
misleading.
It is true traffic fatalities have declined since 1975. But a broader
picture is necessary to completely show the whole situation. Traffic fatali-
ties have been steadily declining since the 1920s. This still does not answer
the question of what would have happened in a world without CAFE. The
available evidence-the thousands of fatalities attributable to CAFE-sug-
gests those figures would have declined even further had CAFE never
existed.
That there are many sizes of vehicles available to the public is an
equally irrelevant argument. The issue is that these vehicles have all been
affected by CAFE downsizing. Consumers have repeatedly demonstrated
that they are not interested in buying small cars. Every year the Environ-
mental Protection Agency puts out a list of the top ten most fuel efficient
cars. These ten cars are never the same as the top ten most purchased cars.
The proliferation of SUVs on the road clearly demonstrates that consumers
seek size, power, space, and safety over fuel efficiency in the automobiles
they choose.
It is also true that some SUVs may fare as badly as small cars do in
single car crashes. This is because the center of gravity on many SUVs is
higher than it is in passenger cars, making SUVs somewhat more unstable.
But this argument does not address the fundamental issue of whether large
passenger cars are safer than small passenger cars. It is quite clear that
110 Science, Technology, and Society

increasing the mass of a vehicle reduces the risk its occupants face in a
crash.
The safety of SUVs is an important question. The most recent criti-
cism leveled against SUVs is that they are more dangerous to occupants of
other cars when an SUV and a passenger car crash. This has led to a call
for an increase in CAFE for SUVs, instead of a decrease in the CAFE for
passenger cars.
NHTSA issued a report in summer 1997 that stated there would be
40 fewer fatalities annually if the weight of SUVs were reduced by 100
pounds (NHTSA, 1997). Although the report specifically said this figure was
not statistically significant (i.e., it was likely the result was by chance), this
fact was heavily promoted in news reports about the study. Consequently,
this calculation has been put forth as evidence that the fuel economy stan-
dard for SUVs should be reduced.
Unfortunately, the same press coverage omitted a much more impor-
tant point. The same NHTSA study said that by increasing the average
weight of passenger cars by 100 pounds, more than 300 lives would be saved
every year-a fact that is statistically significant. It is important to note the
study also admitted a reduction in the size and weight of trucks made these
vehicles "become less crashworthy" and lessened the amount of damage
they caused to other vehicles. But all crashes are not multi vehicle crashes.
Walls and trees have not been downsized accordingly and can cause much
damage and death. People rightly buy cars to protect themselves and their
families, not the unknown passengers of other cars. Similar information
should be openly discussed and debated in STS classrooms. The trade-offs
of CAFE are not immediately apparent, but they are serious and require
significant debate.

Conclusion
When the government takes steps to achieve a particular goal, its
actions should be as straightforward and narrowly tailored as possible. Under
this criterion, CAFE clearly fails. The onus is upon those who would push for
downsizing cars-against the clear wishes of consumers-to show the benefit
of the policy. It is clear there are no net benefits from CAFE. CAFE has
not reduced fuel consumption nor has it reduced the necessity for oil
imports. Yet, through its auto downsizing, CAFE has engendered tragic
consequences.
If reducing fuel consumption is an important and worthy goal, then
there are better and more honest ways of doing this, such as increasing taxes
on gasoline. This would be the most direct way of achieving this goal. The
more fundamental issue, however, is whether fuel consumption ought to be
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 111

reduced. People use gasoline because they find it useful. Restricting its use
means denying them a resource that is valuable in their lives. People ought
to be able to buy as much gas as they are willing to pay for, and if that
means they would like to buy a car with lower fuel efficiency, that is their
decision.
It is hard to reduce the "costs" incurred by fuel consumption without
reducing the benefits of fuel consumption as well. One important benefit of
auto use is increased mobility, something that has benefited the less well
off in our society. In a discussion of the often-intangible benefits of this "auto-
mobility," philosophy professor Loren Lomasky writes, "Previously one
either lived in direct proximity to one's work or else on a commuter rail line.
. .. The coming of the motor car augmented the bargaining power enjoyed
by workers.... Widespread automobile ownership meant that the geo-
graphical radius of possible employment venues was dramatically extended"
(Lomasky, 1995, pp. 11-12). No longer were people tied to a specific area so
that they could be near their jobs. Dr. Lomasky (1995) contends "the auto-
mobile is, arguably, rivaled only by the printing press and the microchip as
an autonomy-enhancing contrivance of technology" (p. 10).
As well as the goals stated previously, an STS class may also use
CAFE as a way to study how a law supported by divergent parties (in
CAFE's case, the legislation currently has the support of the federal gov-
ernment, consumer groups, environmental groups, and the auto industry)
becomes virtually impossible to have a candid discussion about the trade-
offs. While many groups not only defend CAFE, but also argue that it
should be made more stringent, not a single one has forthrightly dealt with
its safety consequences. In the case of CAFE, these various parties find it
difficult, for reasons of money or political reputation, to admit CAFE is a
serious problem. This presents an interesting angle which may be included
in an STS class: why certain groups are tied to policies in the face of clear
evidence to the contrary.
In the end, CAFE is primarily a political bill with dangerous conse-
quences. There is very little hard scientific evidence to support CAFE;
indeed, the evidence available suggests CAFE should be repealed
completely.

STS AND AIR BAGS

Introduction
Like CAFE and the ESA, air bags were initially promulgated in the
1970s, a period in which an active government asserted its wisdom over that
112 Science, Technology, and Society

of the average citizen. Air bags were conceived as a way to provide "passive
protection" to vehicle occupants in a day when most people did not wear
seatbelts. They were introduced gradually at first, but were eventually man-
dated. It was not until reports of children, small women, and elderly people
being severely injured and, at times, killed by air bags that many people
began to think more critically of air bags.
Like other topics discussed in this chapter, air bags illustrate how
some political forces (in this case, the federal government, so-called auto
safety groups, and the auto industry) can band together and attempt to
frame and reframe how the public views air bags. Air bags also can be used
to study physics: how the force of the activated air bag counteracts the force
of a crash, and how this can sometimes save lives, and sometimes be deadly
for an occupant.

Legislative History

Air bags were originally developed in the 1960s as a passive restraint

to protect the vast majority of drivers who were not accustomed to wearing
seatbelts, an active restraint. As Brian O'Neill (1997), president of the Insur-
ance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit group funded by the auto
insurance industry writes, in the latter part of the decade, lap belt use was
20 percent, shoulder belt use was as low as 2-5 percent, and lap-shoulder
belt use was not even required until 1973. It should be noted that the
purpose of air bags was to protect people in frontal crashes.
In 1977, NHTSA ruled that by 1982, new cars had to have passive pro-
tection (either air bags or automatic seat belts) for occupants. This rule was
challenged and revised, coming out in final form in 1984. That rule required
a phase-in of either of these passive restraints, starting with 1987 model
vehicles. In 1991, Congress declared that by September 1996,95 percent of
passenger cars must have air bags (to be increased to 100 percent by Sep-
tember 1997). A similar rule was passed for light trucks and vans. NHTSA
was charged with administering this mandate. People with special medical
problems could get permission to deactivate their air bags, but this was
difficult to obtain, and it was difficult to find a dealer or mechanic who
would deactivate the air bag.
Due to public concern and outcry about the unintended effects of air
bags after the mandate was fully in force, in November 1997, NHTSA
released a compromise rule. The compromise said that air bags would still
be mandatory equipment in cars, and people still would not be permitted
to tum them off at will. However, beginning in January 1998, citizens falling
into one of four risk categories could fill out a form and receive permission
from NHTSA to have an on-off switch attached to one's air bag. (These
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 113

risk categories are: unavoidably using a rear-facing infant seat in the front
passenger seat; unavoidably carrying children in that seat; sitting closer than
10 inches to the steering wheel; or having a medical condition putting one
at risk.) Although the agency has said it would not check up on the verity
of people's claims, those who lie on these forms could conceivably receive
up to five years in federal prison.

The Efficacy of Air Bags

Air bags have not performed as well as originally predicted, but

they are still credited with saving 1100-1600 lives through part of 1996
(Claybrook, 1997). There are many ways to evaluate how effective airbags
are.
Air bags are installed in the steering column or on the dashboard on
the passenger side (some manufacturers also offer side impact air bags in
certain models, although these are not required by law). A sudden decrease
in speed (as in a crash) prompts the air bag mechanism. In less than a
second, a combination of chemicals is ignited, causing the bag to be filled
with an expanding gas (pyrotechnical inflation). The bag bursts forth at
approximately 200 miles per hour, preventing the driver from hitting the
windshield and steering wheel.
The air bag's force alone has killed or injured more than 50 people, a
problem to which we shall return. In addition, the loud noise made when
the air bag expands has reportedly caused hearing problems, and many
people have incurred slight or major burns from the chemicals used to
ignite air bags. One of the biggest complaints is that air bags are often set
off in relatively minor collisions, such as parking lot fender-benders, serving
no protective function. Nonetheless, it is demonstrably true that many
people's lives have been saved by air bags.

Mandating Air Bags

The original claims for air bags were extensive. First, air bags were
supposed to be the vanguard of passive protection. A 1977 NHTSA brochure
for the general public described airbags as "systems that protect automobile
occupants from collision injuries automatically, without the need to fasten
belts or to take other actions" (Kazman, 1983, no page number). Another
NHTSA brochure (1977) issued during that time asked, "Is it necessary to
wear a lap belt with an air bag?" The answer was no.
But there had already been some evidence that air bags were not
only ineffective, they were dangerous. Sam Kazman, general counsel of the
114 Science, Technology, and Society

Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington D. c., who unsuccessfully

sued NHTSA in 1979 over the air bag mandate, cited one study, entitled
"Comparative Restraint System Evaluation Using Dummies and Cadavers
in Car-to-Car Crash Tests," by Thomas Glenn of NHTSA's Office of Vehicle
Safety Research. Kazman (1996) said this study, which showed how air bags
might be less effective than lap-shoulder belts in certain types of crashes,
was kept from the public, and the author of the study was "threatened
with disciplinary action." Also, it was not until NHTSA was threatened
with court action did they release their study of several crash-related
deaths in air bag-equipped cars that showed a higher fatality rate than
conventional cars. For over two years, this study had been kept from the
public.
Supposedly, air bags had been extensively tested. According to Joan
Claybrook (1997), administrator of NHTSA from 1977-1981, the air bag
has undergone about 5,000 crash tests and computer tests since 1969,
making it perhaps the "most tested" technology used in cars. Mrs. Clay-
brook had been responsible for the 1977 air bag rule and has since been a
great supporter of them.
However, her agency admitted at the time that though there had been
laboratory tests and simulations, there was no significant real world data to
support the initial mandate. NHTSA noted this in 1977, claiming it could
"force technology." NHTSA dismissed concerns thusly:

It has been argued that the Department [of Transportation, of which NHTSA is
apart1should not issue a passive restraint standard in the absence of statisti-
cally significant real-world data which confirm its estimates of effectiveness. Sta-
tistical 'proof' is certainly desirable in decision-making, but is often not available.
(42 Federal Register 34,292).

Finally, air bags were supposed to be suitable for children. In 1977,

NHTSA declared that the newer, pyrotechnically inflated air bags (the
kind used today) would allow out-of-position children to be "pushed more
gently out of the way" (42 Federal Register 34,292). As late as 1983,
after she had left the government and became a consumer advocate, Mrs.
Claybrook stated on television that air bags "fit all different sizes and types
of people, from little children up to ... very large males" (CNN, 1983, no
page number).
Yet auto manufacturers had been aware of the problem since at least
1969, and had brought these concerns to NHTSA. These concerns were dis-
missed. In 1979, the General Accounting Office pointed out that NHTSA
"does not share our concern about the potential injuries to out-of-position
occupants" such as children. A 1979 Associated Press story quoted Mrs.
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 115

Claybrook as charging that General Motors delayed installation of air bags

because of "a 'hurry-up style' finding that they hurt small children." Indeed,
industry observers in 1979 pointed out:
Both GM and Ford, which planned to offer air bags as options on some big cars
in 1981, are concerned about a new problem: children. It seems the small fry are
especially vulnerable because they're often sitting or standing in a position
where they won't be properly restrained by air bags. Both companies feel that
they could be subject to a myriad of product-liability suits involving children.
Even if their air bag systems meet the letter of the law. (Car and Driver, 1997,
p. 16)

Air Bag Debates

During the 1980s, air bags grew in popularity. To an extent, this enthu-
siasm was justified. However, as more and more cars, equipped with air bags,
went on the road, the potential danger of these devices became more appar-
ent to the public at large. In December 1992, NHTSA requested public
comment on what information should be contained in permanent air bag
warnings on vehicle sun visors. The American Automobile Manufacturers
Association (an organization which represented the major car manufac-
turers until 1999) (AAMA, 1993) petitioned NHTSA to include explicit air
bag warnings such as:

• "Air bags inflate with great force, faster than you can blink your
eyes. If you are too close to the inflating air bag, it could seri-
ously injure you."
• "An occupant who is too close to the inflating air bag can be
seriously injured."
• "An inflating passenger air bag can seriously injure a child in a
rear-facing child restraint" (American Automobile Manufac-
turers Association, 1993).

On the other hand, many self-named auto safety and consumer groups
took the opposite stance, leading NHTSA to adopt a watered-down
warning. These organizations told NHTSA:

• "Advocates [of Highway and Auto Safety] (1993) does not

believe that a special notice or label regarding the means of
obtaining the maximum protection from the ... air bag needs to
be permanently affixed to the vehicle. The required statement of
such information in the owner's manual is sufficient."
116 Science, Technology, and Society

• "It would be counterproductive to present this informa-

tion [about the risks of airbags] by way of unnecessarily
alarming statements as are proposed in this rulemaking"
(AHAS, 1993).
• "If the NHTSA determines that [a label with a straightforward
'dos and don'ts' of airbags] is needed, no other informational
statements, directions, or warnings should be permitted to
confuse the intended message" (AHAS, 1993).
• "The Coalition [for Consumer Health and Safety] (1993) is
concerned that motor vehicle manufactures may put their own
language on labels that will inadvertently alarm motor vehicle
occupants.... [We oppose] expanding upon the information
proposed."
• "The warning not to sit too close or lean over the air bag implies
that being too close to the steering wheel or the dashboard is a
problem only in cars with air bags" (IIHS, 1993).
• "The proposed warning would mislead the public by implying
that air bags can cause fatal or serious injuries that would not
have occurred in a comparable vehicle without an air bag"
(IIHS, 1993).

This is a strange position for organizations, who speak in the name of

consumers and auto safety, to take. However, many of these groups had sup-
ported the air bag mandate all along (Joan Claybrook is a cochair of Advo-
cates for Highway and Auto Safety), and it is not surprising they would
continue to support the mandate despite the growing body of evidence
against it.
By 1996, disturbing headlines drew national attention to the downside
of air bags. Several people had been literally killed by their air bags. In one
case, an infant was decapitated by an air bag hitting his rear-facing infant
seat, which was in the front passenger seat. About 50 people, mostly elderly
people, short women, and children, had been killed in this manner. Hear-
ings held by the United States Senate and by NHTSA focused on the details
of such accidents, and how the technology might be improved, but no one
asked whether air bags ought to be a mandatory piece of equipment at all.
(Senate Commerce Committee, 1997).

Conclusion
Although airbags are good in general, they are bad for children, short
women, and the elderly. Ironically, these people have traditionally fallen
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 117

into the groups of people society believes need extra protection. The ques-
tion is not whether air bags should be in cars at all-many consumers con-
sider airbags highly desirable. Rather, we should ask: Why must everyone
must be forced to purchase air bags, even when some people intend to turn
them off?
Although the governmental paternalism inherent in all such safety
regulations-the idea that coercion is necessary "for our own good"-is
troubling in itself, that is not the only reason to oppose the air bag mandate.
Arguably, mandating air bags in autos has probably saved more people than
if the air bags were simply optional equipment. But the mandate explicitly
puts a specific, readily identifiable group at great danger.
Philosophy professor Loren Lomasky (1997) compares mandating air
bags with mandating a vaccine: Even though the polio vaccine has mostly
eliminated polio, each year a tiny percentage of people get polio from the
vaccine itself; yet polio vaccination is mandated in this country. That is
because it is impossible to predict who does and who does not need the
vaccine, and therefore, it is a good bet for everyone to take the vaccine.
Lemansky says that the analogy breaks down in the case of air bags because
we know beforehand that children are more at risk than adults to get
injured by air bags in car crashes. Therefore, the air bag mandate is an
unconscionable public policy position.
Since ultimately the public has to buy the air bags (which add approx-
imately $600 to the price of a new car), the public ought to decide for itself
what it wants. One 1997 poll (IIHS, 1997) found 79 percent of respondents
would want at least a driver-side air bag in their next vehicle, and 81 percent
would feel safer in vehicles with air bags (although 68 percent thought chil-
dren are more at risk in such vehicles). Another poll (eEl, 1997) showed
with a ratio of 3: 1, the public favors giving people the choice of purchas-
ing a new car with or without an air bag.
Air bags were supposed to work for everybody and were supposed to
work without seatbelts. Today, public officials and consumer groups alike
claim air bags were never supposed to be used for children, and that they
were always supposed to be used in tandem with seatbelts. Air bags were
largely untested when they were initially mandated, and new findings about
them were continually covered up. The most important lesson an STS
class-and the public in general-can learn from the air bag story is that
rules passed in the name of public safety can backfire. We, the public, cannot
always expect groups and individuals, which have staked reputations upon
the success of the law, to acknowledge that the original rule was a bad idea.
This theme ought to be fully explored in STS classes, for it is especially egre-
gious when these groups and individuals claim to be speaking in the name
of "consumers," "the public," or "safety."
118 Science, Technology, and Society

IMPLICATIONS FOR STS EDUCATION

One of the goals of STS education is to pave the way for a scientifically
literate citizenry (Kumar and Berlin, 1996). Other goals include presenting
an objective view of a science and technology-dominant world to students,
using science and technology issues to engage students in critically analyz-
ing related issues impacting society. From this viewpoint, it is necessary that
STS education deal with the positive and the negative aspects of how
science and technology interact with society.
Frequently, in STS, the discussion skews toward more regulation of
how science and technology are used. Students should be exposed to the
frequently unseen negative impacts of regulation. Teachers should also
resolve to present both sides of the story, that is, enable a discussion of the
human costs of regulations. STS education should challenge students to
explore both sides of the issue, and curricula should reflect this.
When students are made aware of the pitfalls of government regula-
tion they become better informed, which enables them, when they grow
older, to become productive members of society. They will be better able
to evaluate public policy positions concerning science and technology if
they take into account how rules and regulations may worsen the problem.
They will be properly skeptical of claims made by those who supposedly
speak in the name of "health and safety."
We all want to protect health and increase safety. We want to conserve
the environment and help other people. But citizens must recognize that
passing a law to solve one problem may create other challenges. The law
may actually worsen the situation it tries to fix. More important, the law
may blatantly disregard the values underpinning our society: individual
freedom, property rights, and rule of law. People who understand trade-offs,
who are able to appreciate the balancing of risks, will be well positioned to
ensure the survival of our free society.

REFERENCES

Adler, 1. (1995). Environmentalism at the Crossroads: Green Activism in America, Capitol

Research Center, Washington. D.c.. p. 17.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (February 11.1993) Comments to NHTSA. Docket
No. 74-14-N79-006.
American Automobile Manufacturers Association (February 12, 1993). Comments to NHTSA.
Docket No. 74-14-N79-023, p. 2.
Anderson, C. (1991) Cholera epidemic traced to risk miscalculation. Nature. 354:255.
Babbitt, B. (1994). The triumph of the blind Texas salamander and other tales from the
endangered species act. E Magazine 5, No.2 (April 1994).54-55.
Trade-offs, Risks, and Regulations in Science and Technology 119

Bean, M. (1994). Speech from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Office of Training and
Education Seminar Series, Marymount University, Arlington, VA, November 3, 1994.
(This seminar was closed to the public; transcripts were obtained only by filing a request
under the Freedom of Information Act.)
The Biggest Single Step to Curbing Global Warming (Undated). Statement by Sierra Club,
Washington D.C.
Breyer, S. (1993). Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 16,23.
Claybrook, 1. (1997). Air bags save lives; I still back them. Letter to the editor, Wall Street
Journal, January 2, 1997.
Clinton, W, and Gore, A. (1992). Putting People First, Times Books, New York, p. 90.
CNN news report (1983, November 18).
Coalition for Consumer Health and Safety (1993). Comments to NHTSA, Docket No. 74-14-
N79-021, February 12, 1993.
Competitive Enterprise Institute poll (1997). Conducted by the polling company, Washington,
D.C., March 28, 1997.
Competitive Enterprise Institute vs. NHTSA, 956 F.2nd 321 (D. C. Cir. 1992), p. 322-324.
Competitive Enterprise Institute (1997, April). Delisted and Endangered Species Act.
Washington, D.C.
Competitive Enterprise Institute. (1997, April). The ESAs Dismal Record: The Failure to
Recover Endangered and Threatened Species. Washington, D.C.
Crandall, R. W, and Graham, 1. (1989). The effect of fuel economy standards on automobile
safety. Journal of Law and Economics XXXII: 110--11 1.
Crews, C. W (1996). Ten thousand commandments: A policymaker's snapshot of the federal
regulatory state. Competitive Enterprise Institute Monograph, September 1996.
December 1979 Car and Driver comment printed in letters section of Car and Driver, Decem-
ber 1997, p. 16.
DeFalco, 1. C. (1997). CAFE's Smashing Success: The Deadly Effects of Auto Fuel Economy
Standards, Current and Proposed. Competitive Enterprise Institute Monograph, June
1997.
42 Federal Register 34, 292.
General Accounting Office (1988) Endangered Species: Management Improvements Could
Enhance Recovery Program. RCED 89-5, p. 18.
Graham,1. D., and Wiener, Baert, 1. (eds.) (1995). Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health
and the Environment, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1,2,89,93,90.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (1997) Letter to NHTSA regarding Docket No. 74-14,
Notice 107, August 18,1997.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (1993). Comments to NHTSA, Docket No. 74-14-N79-
013, February 12, 1993.
Kazman, S. (1983). Deflating the claims of air-bag studies. Opinion page, Wall Street Journal,
July 21, 1983.
Kazman, S. (1995). Amicus curiae brief of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in support of
respondents, Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et at. v. Sweet Home Chapter of
Communities for a Great Oregon, et at. pp. 4-5, 8.
Kazman, S. (1996). Naderites' nadir. Opinion page, Wall Street Journal, December 3, 1996.
Kumar, D. D., and Berlin, D. F. (1996). A study of STS curriculum implementation in the United
States, Science Educator, 5(1).
Lambert, T., and Smith, R. 1. (1994). The endangered species act Time for a change. Center for
the Study of American Business, St. Louis, MQ. Policy Study, No. 119, March 1994..
Lewis, T. A. (1987). Searching for truth in alligator county. National Wildlife. p. 14.
120 Science, Technology, and Society

Lomasky, L. (1995). Autonomy and automobility. Competitive Enterprise Institute Mono-

graph, June 1995, pp. 10--12.
Lomasky, L. (1997). Sudden impact: The collision between the air bag mandate and ethics.
Competitive Enterprise Institute Monograph, March 1997, p. 5.
Mesnikoff, A., and Pedery, S. (1996). Curbing our oil addiction to protect our health and
environment. Intellectual Capital web site: <www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/96/
10205/icpro.html>, December 1996.
National Research Council (1992). Automotive Fuel Economy; How Far Should We Go?
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 75.
NHTSA brochure (1977) Passive Vehicle Occupant Restraints.
NHTSA Summary Report (1997). Relationship of vehicle weight to fatality and injury risk
in model year 1985-93 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, April 1997, p. 3.
O'Neill, B. (1997). Narrow account of air bag history. Letter. Regulation Spring: 20(2):4.
Seasholes, B. (1995). Species protection and the free market: Mutually compatible Endangered
Species Update 12(4, 5):8.
Senate Commerce Committee Transcripts (1997). Hearing on air bags. January 9, 1997.
Struzik, E. (1992). Trouble back at the game ranch International Wildlife 24.
Sugg, I. C. (1993-1994). Caught in the act: Evaluating the Endangered Species Act, its effects
on man, and prospects for reform. Cumberland Law Review 24(1):1-78.
Sugg, I. C. (1994). Rats, lies and the GAO: A critique of the General Accounting Office report
on the role of the Endangered Species Act in the California fires of 1993. Competitive
Enterprise Institute Monograph, August 1994, p. 4.
Tennessee Valley Authority vs. Hill,437 U.S. 153 (1978).
Vivoli, M. (1992). Shoot, shovel, and shut up. The Washington Times.
Will Minivans Become an Endangered Species? National Center for Policy Analysis (1997).
Brief Analysis No. 232, June 4, 1997.
 CHAPTER 5

Thoughts about the

Evaluation of STS
More Questions than Answers
James w. Altschuld and David Devraj Kumar

INTRODUCTION

This chapter focuses on issues affecting the design and implementation of

evaluation of STS (Science, Technology, and Society) programs, particularly
accountability and national evaluation. Questions are raised about STS, and
how its programmatic evaluation could be conceptualized and conducted.
Also examined are important issues that must be considered in evaluation
and a discussion of suggestions for implementing evaluation. The approach
taken incorporates the critical, negative mask of the evaluator as described
by Patton (1990), as well as the skeptical view suggested by Scriven (1973),
with the intent not to dampen, but to bring to the surface the subtle issues
that affect STS and the evaluation of STS programs.
In a social studies classroom, but not one in science (a critical point
that will come up later), students were asked to identify major problems

James w. Altschuld, College of Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 42310
David Devraj Kumar, College of Education, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, FL 33314
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

121
122 Science, Technology, and Society

affecting society and then to delve into literature about a single problem.
A student and one co-author chose to look at drug addiction. They asked:
Where did it come from? What were its effects on individuals and society?
How many people did it affect in society at that time? How did people kick
the habit? How much did it cost society? What actions should society con-
sider in regard to the problem area? Does taking drugs automatically lead
to addiction?
Students were required to produce a paper and lead the class in a dis-
cussion of a variety of parameters around their chosen topic. It was not an
easy assignment and it was not based upon the guidance currently available
in the STS literature. (See the guidelines included in the NeSS position
statement and guidelines in the Social Education, Volume 54, 1990.) The
learning from this STS type experience, as retrospectively recalled and
reconstructed over a very long period, was heavily slanted toward the socie-
tal part of the equation. The assignment might have had a much different
slant if it were part of a biology or chemistry classroom where more of the
science aspects would have been emphasized.
Yet, because the topic was one generated by students' own views and
concerns about society, it was interesting and thought provoking. Indeed, a
lot of learning occurred-if one can judge from a former student remem-
bering an assignment several years later. To be specific, this course was
similar to a curricular thrust in the Eight Year Study (1933-1941), whose
main focus was the reform of secondary education in the United States.
One emphasis in that study was a civics course that dealt with "Problems
of Democracy." Problems of Democracy was intended to bring together stu-
dents, representing different academic abilities and programs, to look
jointly at the problems of society that affected everyone. So, although STS
brings science and technology more clearly and appropriately into the con-
temporary picture of a global information age, it does have similar charac-
teristics to what educators proposed long ago.

IMPORTANT ISSUES IN STS THAT AFFECT EVALUATION

While there are many potential issues in STS, the ones that will be discussed
here relate to: the purposes of STS, place of STS within the curriculum,
implementation of STS, teacher education, and extant evaluation proce-
dures. See Table 1 for a brief overview of the issues.

Pu rposes of STS
From the Project Synthesis (Harms, 1977), Yager (1990) derived four
main purposes of STS. In somewhat paraphrased form they are to:
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 123

Table 1. Some STS Issues Affecting Evaluation

Issue Commentary

Purposes of STS Many different purposes can be inferred for STS which, in
tum could lead to many different evaluation emphases and
activities.
Nature of STS STS really combines three somewhat unique areas, and is
interdisciplinary. Depending on its placement in the
curriculum, the emphasis in STS instruction would be
different resulting in varied outcomes. Interdisciplinary
programs have strengths as well as weaknesses and are
complex to evaluate.
Implementation of STS How should STS be represented in the curriculum and
implemented into instruction? Should it be implemented as
separate STS units, integrated into other material, made an
extension of another part of content, or as other options?
STS programs at the upper elementary and middle school
levels might look quite different than those in grades 9-12.
Teacher Education To what extent are teachers, especially secondary science
teachers, trained in STS programs, and do they have the
requisite background necessary to implement them?
Extant Evaluation Strategies The focus of STS on the integration of science, technology,
and society concepts as viewed through an issue-oriented
perspective is and will continue to be difficult to assess. The
picture is even more complicated when the possibilities of
varying goals for STS, patterns of implementation, and
similar other factors are taken into consideration.

• prepare students to use science for improving their own lives

and as a corollary to be able to better understand and cope with
an increasingly technological society;
• enable students as they progress through life to deal in a
responsible manner with technology-society issues;
• identify a body of knowledge that would enable them to deal
with science-technology-society issues; and
• acquire knowledge and understanding about career opportuni-
ties in the field.

Hurd (1985) and Yager (1990) argued that STS would change the tradi-
tional ways of teaching science. Classrooms would be driven by exploration
of current science and technology related problems facing society. Students
would recognize and attend to social, technical, political, and humanistic
factors. Instruction would tend to be based on problems chosen by students
and on the interests of students, who would be motivated by working with
124 Science, Technology, and Society

current, personal and real world STS issues. Science instruction would, of
necessity, have to incorporate hands-on techniques into the learning envi-
ronment. With the progress in information technology, opportunities for
students to seek and critically analyze the vast array of data and informa-
tion currently available woul~ increase, helping to develop intellectual skills
such as decisionmaking, proOlem solving, knowledge synthesis, and ethical
judgment. The teacher's role would be altered to be that of an active par-
ticipant in examining societal concerns from the multiple dimensions of the
three components of STS (Science, Technology, and Society) and from a
wide array of issue perspectives.
Obviously, as Yager (1990) pointed out, there is much of value in STS,
but its purposes give rise to many questions. Societal issues by their very
nature encompass beliefs, values, aspects of aesthetics, economics, and so
forth (Ramsey, Hungerford, and Yolk, 1990). When looking at STS from
this perspective one could wonder about its relationship to social studies
(and history) and technology education, and about the background and
skills of teachers dealing with such diverse content. Teachers are expected
to approach an issue from the vantage point of the field in which they
were trained and socialized. Thus, it should be noted that content empha-
sis in STS education would, to some degree, be a reflection of teacher
specialization.
Given that the purposes STS are broad and provide considerable lat-
itude for interpretation and implementation, subtle shifts in meaning or
purpose potentially will occur. For example, Heath (1990) emphasized the
idea that the goal of STS would be for students to apply their science and
technological skills to the making of decisions, both personal and public.
Wraga and Hlebowitsch (1990), and Remy (1990) echo similar perceptions
of STS.
In a slightly different vein, although Rubba (1990), a science educa-
tor, identified ways in which social studies and science teachers could col-
laborate, he also noted that STS allowed students to apply their learning
(presumably in science) to real life problems. Following this line of thought,
some science educators might see STS as a way to enhance the relevance
of the science curriculum to make science more related to forces and events
that shape students' lives.
Interestingly, Wiesenmayer (1988, as reported in Rubba) conducted a
study of a middle school STS program for 7th grade life science courses.
The STS classes achieved significant pre to post-test gains for the three
dependent variables, and their results were also significantly better on two
of the three variables as compared to those of students in traditional life
science courses. However, the traditional classes did somewhat better on
life science concepts.
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 125

This finding is striking for it reveals different ways of thinking about

STS outcomes. Is achievement in STS relationships and interdependencies
an indication of understanding of science and technology implications for
society? Is it to enhance the quality of science learning? Is STS possibly dis-
placing some of the time devoted to science instruction for a related but
somewhat different subject matter? If so, would the possible gain in rele-
vance offset the differential in science content learning for the traditional
classes, particularly at the upper secondary levels with their even heavier
emphasis on science content? Therefore, should there be greater stress on
STS in grades K-8 (or 9)?
Another question here deals with how STS might be affected by an
emerging problem in science education. Based on international science test
results, the United States does not fare well when compared to a number
of other countries (u. S. Department of Education, 1997). One postulated
reason is that the science curriculum is a "mile wide and an inch deep."
(Note: Other reasons, such as the fit of test content to varying curriculums,
teaching to the test, and better science education programs elsewhere, could
also account for the results. Or as others point out, perhaps the notion of
comparative thinking may not make as much sense as obtaining agreement
on a criterion or domain referenced set of standards of what is important
for U. S. students to learn.)
A mile wide and an inch deep refers to the many topics taught at a
surface level in the United States whereas other countries teach a notice-
ably smaller set of topics across the grades which are studied in much
greater depth. If a dramatic shift in the organization and teaching of science
education takes place, how will the STS reform factor into it? If STS and
certain aspects of issue exploration are part of the development of a new
curriculum, will it be possible to embed STS type test items into interna-
tional tests so that fair comparisons can be made?

Nature of STS
It could be argued that even the terms in the title of STS are in an
arbitrary order that is open to challenge. The concept could easily be con-
veyed by society, science, and technology or by the words in some other
order. This may seem trivial but on close inspection it may not be.
Science by its very nature and stance demands a neutrality. Tradi-
tionally, scientists are taught to steer away from political and societal forces.
Did the United States of America enter the scientific exploration of space
in the late 1950s because of pressure and public clamor from the scientific
community? Or perhaps was it more due to national political and security
concerns about Sputnik? Does a long-term emphasis on heart research
126 Science, Technology, and Society

result from the pristine views of medical researchers or did it arise because
President Johnson had heart problems? Even with all of the heartfelt
concern for those who suffer from AIDS and the terrible sadness of the
disease and with all of the clamor for more research on AIDS, heart disease
is still the number one health problem in the country. This fact often gets
minimized in the political battle for funding.
According to May (1992), to comprehend and teach about such issues
requires sociological understandings, aesthetic appreciations, historical per-
spectives, and the like. Further, she observed that there will be problems
associated with the placement of STS instruction including:

• the "swamp" or what May referred to as the misperceptions and

misunderstandings of other fields
• "turf" in which she questioned why does Science head the STS
triumvirate especially when "the STS agenda is more visibly
sociopolitical in character." (May, 1992, p. 76)

It seems doubtful that anyone educator will be able to attain all the skills
necessary to teach STS, and to implement and lead STS programs.
This is not to imply that many science educators: are not socially con-
cerned individuals; do not see the necessity and importance of placing an
issue orientation into science classrooms; and would not be able to imple-
ment and do a good job with STS programs. Nor does this deny or deni-
grate the importance of stressing the role of science and technology in
modern life and understanding how they relate to change, political and eco-
nomic forces. Modern science is acutely aware of how it must fight to make
its case for support clear and cogent in the public forum and at the top
decisionmaking levels in the administrative and legislative branches of
government.
A sizeable portion of STS content and instructional approach may
well reside in the social studies domain. A logical position could be taken
in this regard. For example, some time ago an article appeared in the
Scientific American about the characteristics of the Kiwi. The article con-
cluded with a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that the Kiwi, based upon an
examination of its peculiar traits, was "a mammal not a bird." By analogy
and for the sake of argument, might not the same type of suggestion be
extended to STS? And further, if STS lies more in the domain of social
studies than science or technology, would the outcomes and expected
results be different? Considering the interdisciplinary nature of STS,
whether STS instruction occurs via the careful coordination of comple-
mentary content and activities in different subject matter areas or by teams
of teachers is fraught with issues.
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 127

An example of just how difficult this seemingly straightforward idea

can be in practice was observed in Project Symbiosis. The rationale of the
project (Rossetti, 1992) was that the teaching of science within agricultural
science classes would be enhanced by forming interdisciplinary teams of
vocational agriculture teachers with teachers of science (physics, chemistry,
biology, etc.). The project was conducted for two years with teams of teach-
ers recruited from throughout the state of Ohio. The teams received train-
ing in teaming activities as well in regard to science materials that could
easily be adapted for high school classrooms. The project was thoroughly
evaluated during the period by means of survey data collected prior to the
start of the project, during its implementation, and after its completion
(Altschuld, 1993). Summaries prepared by the teachers describing their
joint instructional ventures were also collected. In addition, each school site
was visited at the end of the project and in depth interviews were conducted
with participants.
An intent of this project was to place teaming at a natural nexus
between two areas of the high school curriculum that appeared to be made
for each other. To work in modern agriculture entails the use of many
aspects of a highly advanced and rapidly changing scientific base (and for
that matter a constantly evolving technological base). Unfortunately
numerous problems were encountered that made teaming much harder to
put into operation than project staff had anticipated.
Observations from the evaluation of the project as well as from its
facilitation indicated that scheduling, a seemingly mundane consideration,
was a major obstacle. Teachers are on fixed schedules, which are set long
before the beginning of the school year. Thus it was mandatory that the
project staff begin working with schools and administrators as early as the
spring of the prior academic year for a project starting in the fall. Schedul-
ing problems were encountered on two separate levels: teachers' planning
periods and class periods for students who might benefit from new materi-
als, methods, and interdisciplinary activities.
Obviously, it is advantageous to have common planning periods for
involved teachers and additional released time. In Project Symbiosis it
became immediately apparent that interdisciplinary work would require a
serious and regular commitment of teacher time (jointly and individually)
if it were to be successful. To go beyond anything other than surface types
of activities (short superficial units that are not meaningful) necessitated
that teachers: examine each other's syllabus; visit each other's classroom to
get a first-hand sense of another person's teaching style; discuss their
approaches to instruction; reflect on the types of students they are teach-
ing; consider what content would best lend itself to working together,
and so forth. Teachers ordinarily do not have opportunities to do so,
128 Science, Technology, and Society

particularly at the high school level. Many school environments are simply
not set up to support team endeavors.
It is logical that the lessons learned about scheduling and the envi-
ronment from Project Symbiosis apply to STS. Without a supportive context
and strong administrative backing for the teaming effort, interdisciplinary
programs will fall considerably short of achieving their outcomes. Since
teachers have numerous preparations and serve different groups of stu-
dents, thought must also be given to which students might benefit most
from STS teaming. In some cases, the teachers in Project Symbiosis cited
decisions related to combining classes and students as causing them
difficulty.
Some other major problems in the project related to the physical
proximity of teachers to each other (the closer in the building their class-
rooms were the better), prior experience with teaming (it turned out to be
limited despite the average experience level of Symbiosis teachers, which
was more than 12 years), and, surprisingly, by the lack of interest expressed
by teachers (on questionnaires) to those parts of training dealing spe-
cifically with teaming as compared to those that focused on science con-
cepts and hands-on activities that they could take directly back to their
classrooms.
In regard to STS, interdisciplinary work could be exciting and has the
potential for generating excitement in blending complex and diverse ele-
ments of instruction and content. In practice, as noted from Project Sym-
biosis, it may be hard to overcome the artifacts that reside in the details.

Implementation of STS
Overall. How are STS programs implemented? Kumar and Berlin
(1996) in a nationwide telephone survey of state science supervisors
reported the following implementation status of STS in K-12 education in
the United States. Eight states required, nine recommended, and 20 states
encouraged the use of STS in science eduction. Eight states reported some
nebulous combination of required, recommended, and encouraged STS
themes in their science curricula. While implementation of STS seems
encouraging, there are still many unanswered questions.

In the Curriculum. In the wake of renewed national interest in science

and technology one might expect an increased share of STS in science cur-
ricula. Kumar and Berlin (1998), in an analysis of 25 state science curricu-
lum frameworks using 15 STS standards from the National Science
Education Standards (National Research Council, 1996), found that 88
percent emphasized the standard science and technology in society. Three
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 129

standards-environmental quality, science as a human endeavor, and nature

of science and scientific knowledge-were stressed in nearly 50 percent of
the state curriculum frameworks. The remaining 11 standards, such as
history of science and historical perspectives, natural and human-induced
hazards, were scarcely mentioned in the curriculum frameworks.
Although it is appealing to have STS mandated via state science cur-
riculum frameworks, it may not be an effective curriculum strategy, because
teachers are skilled professionals who have to tailor and adapt programs
for their own classrooms and students. Rigid guidelines tend to fail. In
regard to how STS content might enter the curriculum and classroom,
Heath (1990) and Remy (1990) described three main mechanisms by which
STS programs and content might be delivered: infusion into existing
courses; extending existing aspects of a course or unit; and creation of a
separate or specialized STS course.
An advantage of infusion is that learning in science, technology, and
social studies courses can be enhanced by introducing and analyzing an
STS oriented issue. Aspects of physics that focus on atomic energy can be
examined from viewpoints such as: the demand for electric power; nuclear-
generated power and its relationship to the current and projected overall
energy requirements in a country such as the United States; the economics
of nuclear energy; gaseous emissions; NIMBY (not in my back yard) con-
cerns; and nuclear plant accidents such as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
When these types of topics are injected into physics courses, they could
immeasurably enhance the relevance of the study of atomic power and gen-
erate a great deal of enthusiasm.
Another option is to add an STS unit at the end of a course or after
concluding a non-STS unit. Students might apply prior learning in the
context of using information and knowledge to examine the complexity of
decision-making and competing viewpoints. In the sense of the extended
unit, the classroom becomes a microcosm of societal debates that surround
STS issues.
The third choice would be to offer a separate STS course so that issues
could be studied in depth. Remy noted several disadvantages of this
approach, including the demands to develop and teach content that is drawn
from three separate areas and the displacement of student time from other
classes. A note of caution: New courses might not be well received in what
are, at times, already extensive and crowded lists of course offerings in
American schools. Remy also discussed the idea of interdisciplinary instruc-
tion, cautioning against its use.
Clearly there are many ways of implementing STS instruction and
combinations of curriculum strategies. Taking infusion as an example, which
could be done in a superficial or an indepth manner, how would these
130 Science, Technology, and Society

variations within approach affect learning and what types of learning

would be affected? When the permutations of delivery style are taken into
consideration, the evaluation of STS becomes even more complicated.
Results could not be easily interpreted without a solid understanding of
program implementation. Without a description of the subtleties of imple-
mentation, results lose much in the way of meaning.

Levels. STS could be implemented at different levels within the edu-

cational system. It is unlikely that it would start earlier than 4th grade since
it calls for integrating concepts across its three components. Students prob-
ably should be beyond the concrete level of development before getting
into STS learning. However, Kumar and Berlin (1996) reported that STS
education is implemented in 29 states (eg., Arkansas, Florida, North
Carolina, Ohio) in grades K-12, in five states (eg., Iowa, Louisiana) in
grades 6-12, and in six states (eg., Nebraska, Utah) in grades 9-12 or 7-12.
According to Kumar and Fritzer (1998), in Florida, 16 percent of STS imple-
mentation is at the elementary school level, 47 percent is at the middle
school level, and 35 percent is at the secondary school level.
Elementary grade teachers tend to have greater experience with the
integration of concepts given that they routinely teach more than one
subject matter. Integration may be more related to what they do everyday
than for secondary level teachers who are specialized and departmental-
ized. In some aspects of STS programs, no matter how well-intentioned the
teacher in science, technology, or social studies is, the complexity of topics
might require the input of teachers from other disciplines. Moreover, when
levels are taken into account, the question arises: What is the articulation
of STS across the grades, and what should it be?
This question becomes paramount when looked at from the perspec-
tive of less is more and a science curriculum that could evolve into a mile
deep and perhaps a few inches wide. Would evaluations change with an
articulated STS program that focused on fewer topics and that was coordi-
nated across levels? Would 11th and 12th grade teachers be aware of what
was taught in STS at lower grade levels, how it was tied into curriculums
and instruction at those levels, and how it would relate to what they would
be doing?
Another problem is how teachers themselves feel about what is the
appropriate placement for STS programs. Rhoton (1990) conducted a study
of 7th-12th grade teachers in the state of Tennessee. Not surprisingly, very
few of them felt that STS should be taught at the elementary school level,
with the bulk of the responses loading on the middle and secondary grades.
Some of the other findings of this study were that, in the current STS
curriculum, students were neither independently investigating STS issues,
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 131

evaluating alternatives to the problems inherent in the issues, nor acting on

alternatives. In addition, seven questions on the survey dealt with difficul-
ties the teachers perceived in integrating STS into the curriculum. All seven
areas were rated as being major problems affecting implementation. Clearly
the environment in which STS programs exist would be an important
feature affecting their implementation.

Teacher Education

Inservice and preservice teacher education should equip teachers to

handle the diverse body of content and the instructional needs of STS. The
demands would vary according to whether a science, social studies, or tech-
nology teacher is implementing an STS program singly or in a group. How
much preservice training is required? And how much inservice training
would be required? In a national survey of state science supervisors in the
United States, Kumar and Berlin (1996) found that 34 states have given
inservice workshops addressing STS education. In a follow-up study of STS
implementation in Florida, Kumar and Fritzer (1998) found that 31 percent
of school districts provided training in STS for teachers. While inservice
training in STS looks promising, overall information about preservice train-
ing in STS is lacking. The following are a few critical issues that teacher edu-
cators should bear in mind while addressing STS education.
Keeping the focus on science teachers (but recognizing that many of
these same questions in modified form would apply to social studies or tech-
nology teachers), have they been socialized in their pre service training to
teach in such an issue-oriented fashion? (Ramsey, Hungerford, and Yolk,
1990, described an "Issue Analysis Technique" that would seem to be a crit-
ical and central element in STS programs.) Are science teachers trained to
systematically teach students how to analyze what are often very complex
issues? Are these teachers familiar with STS issues and do they understand
that many issues are framed by concerns outside of science? How, for
example, would they tactfully address problems in forestry in states such as
Washington and Oregon where conservationists are warning about envi-
ronmental dangers and resource problems at the same time as jobs and
livelihoods are on the line?
Are pre service teachers trained to handle the values that could arise
in regard to cloning, evolution (vs. creation arguments), the role that science
played in the Holocaust, the use of gene technology to alter (and improve)
plants and animals, the economic and political forces that are leading to
reduction in the size of the South American rain forests, the dependence
of the United States on fossil fuels for transportation, and the dispropor-
tionate use of energy in developed vs. underdeveloped nations? Are they
132 Science, Technology, and Society

prepared to help students analyze the nature of misperceptions and

pseudoscience in relation to how they influence decisions made on an
everyday basis and those made at legislative and higher levels affecting vir-
tually all aspects of society? Do they reflect on their own perceptions of
issues and why they hold them? Are they aware of ethical considerations
in the use of scientific principles? Are they aware of career opportunities
in STS, and are they trained to help students explore such careers? (One
could even question whether teachers are aware of careers in science, let
alone STS, with its complex union of three distinct areas.)
Although a handful of teacher preparation programs (e.g., the non-
state-mandated Iowa Chautauqua Project at the University of Iowa) have
stressed STS, there is very little generalizable evaluation data available to
understand to what extent preservice science education programs stress
STS nationwide. How would STS pre service training fit with the press
of science teachers at the upper secondary level to gain more fundamental
training in their specialized area of science? What supportive factors
should be available to enhance the delivery of STS programs? Clearly,
teacher training is an essential part of the successful delivery of STS. Con-
siderations about teacher training and background along with knowledge
of supportive, contextual factors would playa large role in STS programs,
and, in turn, have dramatic effects on large scale evaluations of STS
programs.
How is the school or school system encouraging and supporting inser-
vice STS training/workshops? Are adequate resources allocated for teacher
training? For example, Kumar and Fritzer (1998) found in a survey of STS
in Florida, only a minute percentage of the districts responding provided
any funding for STS materials. A serious concern here is that "although 31
percent of the 49 districts responding had provided teacher and/or super-
visor training in STS, only 4 percent provided special funding, and only 8
percent made training available for supervisors. The obvious question this
brings to mind is how so many were trained with so little availability of
support" (Kumar and Fritzer, 1998, p. 16).

Extant Evaluation Strategies

Cheek (1992) developed a thoughtful overview of the state of STS

evaluation. He noted that, as of the early 1990s, most standardized testing
approaches did not include items designed to assess STS curricula and
learning. As a set of general evaluation considerations, Cheek proposed that
districts or schools evaluate their STS efforts by means of a rich array of
strategies for determining student outcomes. The strategies might include:
written reports, presentations, interviews, self evaluations, and so forth.
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 133

Cheek correctly pointed out that STS calls for students to integrate content
and ideas and to view an issue from many perspectives, even those in oppo-
sition to each other. Such integration is the very essence of the concept of
STS and is similar to how evaluation is approached at the graduate level
via qualifying or general examinations.
The implication is not that STS programs in K-12 education are the
equivalent of those at the graduate school level. Instead, the argument here
is that a consistent process of integration is at the heart of the matter. By
analogy, on a general examination in education a student might be asked
to deal with the pros and cons of an issue, the rationale behind it, and the
nature of why some power groups are fighting for the topic whereas others
oppose it. The individual might even be asked to articulate a personal stance
on the issue and to defend it in light of current understandings. Examples
of issues could be charter schools, statewide funding and control of schools,
national certification of teachers, national educational tests, the STS move-
ment, and other current and contentious concerns facing the educational
establishment.
Certainly, students are expected to have command of a wealth of facts
and resources about an issue and to be able to demonstrate that their dis-
cussion is based upon a serious exploration of it. While such knowledge is
necessary, is it sufficient for integration? If it were, then simply test or look
for evidence of knowledge. In STS, the learner is required to go beyond
factual knowledge to understand the values and beliefs that drive decisions
related to scientific and technological development. The learner must be
able to comprehend the advantages and disadvantages (economic and oth-
erwise) of conflicting positions, and to pull together pro and con arguments
that are derived from multiple sets of highly varied information. These are
not easy tasks.
The suggestions offered by Cheek (1992) are helpful in thinking about
the integration required by STS. At the same time that he described exam-
ples of multiple choice items designed to test STS content, Cheek also sug-
gested that there was dissatisfaction with the limitations of such items
for determining the extent of STS learning. Other ways to approach
measuring STS include open-ended assessment items, essay examinations,
performance-based assessments, and the use of portfolios. Cheek concluded
his review of evaluation by briefly mentioning new instruments under
development at the time of his article and by urging educators to consider
an "integrated STS assessment" derived from a range of assessment
techniques.
In principle, there are a number of problems beyond those explained
by Cheek. Multiple measures are desirable in a generic sense but there
are difficulties in implementing them and, in turn, in analyzing and
134 Science, Technology, and Society

interpreting results. This would be especially true when evaluating an

overall STS program in a school district. Analogously, Altschuld and Witkin
(2000) have looked at the use of multiple measures in assessing educational
and social needs. In many instances, it was apparent that the results simply
did not agree, and in one case, they actually disagreed. These authors also
observed that costs and the skills of the evaluators who must be proficient
in a series of methods posed another problem.
A final major problem would be describing what is evaluated. STS pro-
grams will vary in duration, strength, emphasis, style of implementation,
content, and in many other dimensions. So even if tests were employed as
the main evaluation technique, one would have difficulties in saying
what STS was and what in it potentially led or contributed to the observed
outcomes.
A fundamental premise of program evaluation is that the evaluators
are able to describe the entity being evaluated. It is the sine qua non
condition of evaluation. If science education in the United States has been
criticized for being a mile wide and an inch deep (a finding partially based
on an indepth description of the curriculum), then the STS component of
science education must also be depicted in detail.

SUGGESTIONS FOR EVALUATION

Obviously, the evaluation of STS will neither be an easy nor simple under-
taking. When looked at collectively the issues raised in previous sections
might lead to questions of how STS should be evaluated. Some educational
efforts and programs are inherently difficult to evaluate (e.g., sending chil-
dren to summer camp), although it is clear they have value. Conversely, STS
could drastically alter instruction and content wherever it is taught. It could
(and indeed it probably WOUld) displace some content due to the insertion
of STS content into a course. One argument in support of doing this is that
STS will make the science, technology, and social studies content more
meaningful and relevant. Yet, others would argue (as put to one of the coau-
thors by his wife, a prominent heart cell researcher) that the call for rele-
vance is good, but it comes at the sacrifice of the precious little time and
opportunity needed for the study of science. What are the gains to be real-
ized and what are possible losses that might result from moving toward an
STS stance? If the funds and resources expended for STS become sizeable,
the concern regarding evaluation and overall accountability will become
more pronounced.
In Table 2, four suggestions for STS evaluation are shown. They are:
description of STS implementation; evaluation of the context; a general
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 135

Table 2. Four Approaches to Evaluating STS Programs

Evaluation Approach General Comments

Description of STS Programs Rich description of STS programs is needed. It is suspected

that programs would fall into classes or groups that would
enable evaluators to better interpret STS results.
Evaluation of Context The context could be a major determiner of the success or
failure of STS programs. The context, particularly as it
relates to the acceptance of a change such as STS, is
important.
General Meta Analysis If enough studies had been completed and data for
calculating effect sizes were available; it would be possible
to obtain an overall sense of the impact of STS programs.
The analysis would most likely be based on standardized
tests or other similar measures.
Specified Meta Analysis If the above meta analyses were computed from studies
that also contained descriptors about program types, then it
would be informative to look at results and outcomes by
types of programs or other descriptors of programs.

meta analysis; and a specified meta analysis. They are explained in some
detail below.

Description of STS Programs

A first step for evaluation would be to conduct a descriptive analysis

of a sampling of STS programs throughout the country. The goal would be
to derive a typology of how STS is being implemented (subject matter focus,
length of treatment, style of implementation, team teaching and interdis-
ciplinary focus, displacement within the curriculum, eta.). In other words,
what does STS mean when it is not framed from a ~'theoretical" perspec-
tive, but instead operationalized in real world settings?
This is not a new idea. In 1970, Cohen examined federal programs
and suggested that because so many variations could comprise a single
program, then a description of program implementation and type would be
an imperative aspect of evaluation. Warmbrod (1977), and Altschuld and
Downhower (1980), though working in different contexts, came to the
same conclusion. The evaluation of federal programs for drug-free com-
munities also ran into the need to describe program types. A suspicion is
that, in STS, natural groupings of how programs are implemented would be
evident. Having descriptions of these groupings would be extremely infor-
mative for understanding what STS is in practice and how types of imple-
mentation strategies might eventually relate to outcomes achieved.
136 Science, Technology, and Society

Evaluation of Context

In 1995, Altschuld and Kumar proposed a model for the evaluation of

science education programs. This model's main feature was its emphasis on
the evaluation of the context surrounding a program from the beginning of
conceptualization, through development of the program, to its full-scale,long
term installation in a school system. In an application of this model to eval-
uate an NSF-funded, innovative technology-based science teacher education
project, Kumar and Altschuld (1997) found that the degree to which the
context supports innovation and change, in general, and a specific innova-
tion, in particular, were critical factors leading to success or failure of change.
Smith and others (1993) and Goodway-Shiebler (1994) have come to similar
conclusions regarding change in health education programs.
This kind of thinking would seem to apply equally well to STS. If, for
example, a group of teachers wanted to implement an interdisciplinary STS
program, the nature of the environment would play a key role. Adminis-
trators could help to arrange schedules so that adequate planning could
occur, or they could provide time and funding for teacher training. Com-
munity resources might have to be located and solicited to help in program
delivery. Local university faculty might be asked to provide inservice
training for STS and to assist with the facilitation and evaluation of the
endeavor.
Context information is frequently obtained through time-consuming
and costly qualitative procedures. Despite the time and cost, the collection
of context information during the process of describing STS programs is
strongly encouraged.

General Meta Analysis

In essence, a meta analysis seeks to determine the average effect size
across studies of a type of treatment or program. If sufficient studies were
available it might be worthwhile to conduct a meta analysis of STS pro-
grams. Is there an overall effect, what is its size, in what direction is it, and
how stable is the result (i.e., how many studies led to the meta analytic
finding)?
Meta analyses are not without their own difficulties. In the case of
STS, most of the data would be from studies using well established, stan-
dardized tests or promising STS testing procedures that have been devel-
oped in the 1990s such as some of those described by Cheek. The richness
of the integration of concepts that is so central and important to STS may
not be measured as well by tests and mUltiple choice items as it is by
other techniques previously referred mentioned. Undoubtedly, qualitative
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 137

outcome data would be useful and should be collected. Even so, meta analy-
ses provide science educators with evidence and an indication of the impact
of STS programming.
In conducting meta analyses or other types of studies, it would be
wise for evaluators to look not just for STS-specific outcomes, but also
for different outcomes. STS could (not necessarily) come at the
expense of other learning. STS results may have been achieved, but at the
same time how did science or technology outcomes compare to non-STS
classes?
One more consideration is that meta analyses, and probably most
other studies of STS, are fairly current or present-time oriented. Current
learning is critical and serves as the basis for subsequent, years-later action
and decisionmaking. (While it would be problematic to collect information
about how those individuals trained in STS courses make STS decisions
five, ten, fifteen years into the future, a long term study of the effectiveness
and impact of STS instruction will eventually be needed.) Will they be more
reflective as decisionmakers about STS issues? Will STS learners try to
understand alternative value positions and beliefs as they relate to how
others view the issues? Will they be able to identify misperceptions that
they perhaps might hold?

Specified Meta Analysis

Ideally, it seems that if STS program descriptors and context data had
been collected, then the meta analysis would be greatly enhanced. These
variables could be entered into the analysis so that it would help us to
understand effect size in terms of environmental support and program type.
This information would permit STS proponents to make recommendations
about how to implement STS programs. What works? What doesn't? How
much support does it take? Do team efforts work better than those of indi-
vidual teachers? Clearly, description of STS programs, evaluation of the
context, and general meta analysis all contribute to this more probing,
specified meta analysis.

SUMMARY

If the issues and concerns raised in this chapter foster debate about STS
and its evaluation, then the chapter has been successful. There are many
good ideas in STS. Certainly as a reform it has engenderd much enthu-
siasm in a number of fields. However, this enthusiasm must be tempered by
the questioning attitude that STS itself strives to produce.
138 Science, Technology, and Society

Approaches to evaluating STS programs may include gaining a rich

description of the program and its context, and general as well as specified
meta-analyses. Contextual factors include an environment conducive to
innovation and development in STS instruction, strong administrative inter-
est and commitment to further the cause of STS; and faculty interest and
commitment to be actively involved in STS activities and to integrate STS
themes into their own teaching practices.
The purposes of STS education must be clearly identified to devise
focused evaluation strategies. Clearly delineated information about the
nature of STS programs and their implementation by grade levels is criti-
cal to fully understanding and evaluating the effectiveness of STS educa-
tion. The issue-oriented interdisciplinary nature of STS makes designing
structured evaluation strategies a challenge.
Teacher education is similarly critical to the successful implementa-
tion as well as evaluation of STS programs. As Brinckerhoff (1985) pointed
out, teachers often show reluctance to use STS instruction due to "( a) a lack
of class time in an already overcrowded syllabus, (b) inadequate knowledge
of the facts surrounding debatable issues, and a lack of usable materials in
print ..." (p. 4). In a review of STS literature Kumar and Berlin (1993) sug-
gested that "studies to investigate the role of STS themes and issues in pre-
service science teacher education programs should be conducted to help
educators redesign preservice science teacher education programs and
prepare STS literate teachers" (p. 79).
Whether STS is a valid approach to teaching and learning science,
technology, and society depends upon what STS has accomplished so far in
education. Over two decades of debate has brought some visibility to it as
a curriculum reform. STS themes are slowly permeating state and school
district science and social studies curriculum frameworks. However, hard
core evaluation data is needed to argue that STS will continue to be an
important part of education in the next millennium. The STS community of
scholars shoul!;! consider focusing a portion of their efforts on designing and
conducting valid evaluation strategies that would shed light on where STS
is now, where it should be in the future, and how policies are to be devel-
oped to guide the course of STS education in the next century.

REFERENCES

Altschuld, J. W., and Witkin, B. R. (2000). From Needs Assessment to Action: Transforming
Needs into Solution Strategies. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Altschuld, 1. W, and Kumar, D. D. (1995). Program evaluation in science education: The model
perspective. In O'Sullivan, R. G. (ed.), Emerging Roles of Evaluation in Science
Education Reform, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 65, 5-17.
Thoughts about the Evaluation of STS 139

Altschuld, 1. W. (1993). Evaluation of project symbiosis: An interdisciplinary science education

project. Cognosos 2(3):4-5.
Altschuld, 1. w., and Downhower, S. G. (1980). Issues in evaluating the implementation of
public law 94-142. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2(4):31-38.
Brinkerhoff, R. F. (1985). New techniques for teaching societal issues in school science course:
Abridged versions. SSTS Reporter 1:4.
Cheek, D. W. (1992). Evaluating learning in STS education. Theory into Practice XXXI
(1):64-72.
Cohen, D. K. (1970). Politics and research: Evaluation of social action programs. Review of
Educational Research 40(2):213-238.
Goodway-Shiebler,1. D. (1994). The effect of a motor skill intervention on the fundamental
motor skills and sustained activity of African-American preschoolers who are at-risk.
Dissertation Abstracts International 55:378l.
Harms, N. C. (1977). Project Synthesis: An interpretive consolidation of research identifying
needs in natural science education. A proposal prepared for the National Science
Foundation, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO p. 434.
Heath, P. A. (1990). Integrating science and technology instruction into the social studies: Basic
elements. Social Education 54:207-209.
Hurd, P. D. (1985). A rationale for a science, technology, and society theme in science educa-
tion. In Bybee, R. W. (ed.), Science Technology Society. 1985 Yearbook of the National
Science Teachers Association, National Science Teachers Association, Washington, D.C.,
pp.94-1Ol.
Kumar, D. D., and Berlin, D. F. (1998). A study of STS themes in state science curriculum
frameworks in the United States. Journal of Science Education and Technology
7(2):191-197.
Kumar, D. D., and Altschuld, 1. W. (April). Contextual variables in technology-based science
teacher education. A paper presented at the International Conference of the Society
for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Association for the Advancement
of Computing in Education, Orlando, FL, April, 1997.
Kumar, 0. D., and Berlin, D. F. (1996). A study of STS curriculum implementation in the United
States. Science Educator 5(1):12-19.
Kumar, D. D., and Berlin, D. F. (1993). Science-technology-society policy implementation in
the USA: A literature review. The Review of Education 15:73-83.
Kumar, D. D., and Fritzer, P. 1. (1998). A study of science-technology-society education imple-
mentation in the state of Florida. Journal of Social Studies Research 22(1 ):16-20.
May, W. (1992). What are the subjects of STS-really? Theory into Practice XXXI (1):73-83.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education standards, National Academy
Press, Washington, o.c. p. 262.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Workshop presentation. Aannual spring workshop of the Ohio Program
Evaluators Group, Columbus, OH, May 1990.
Ramsey, 1. M., Hungerford, H. R., and Volk, T. L. (1990). Analyzing the issues of STS. The
Science Teacher 57:61-63.
Remy, R. C. (1990). The need for science/technology/society in the social studies. Social
Education 54:203-207.
Rhoton, 1. (1990). An investigation of science-technology-society perceptions of secondary
science teachers in Tennessee. School Science and Mathematics 90(5):383-395.
Rossetti, R. (1992). Improving teachers' ability to teach science. A proposal to the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. p. 23.
Rubba, P. A. (1990). STS education in action: What researchers say to teachers. Social
Education 54:201-203.
140 Science, Technology, and Society

Scriven, M. (1973). The methodology of evaluation. In Worthen, B. R. and Sanders, 1. R. (eds.).

Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Wodsworth Publishing Company
Belmont, CA, 60-104.
Smith, D. w., Steckler, A. B., McCormick, L. K., and McLeroy, K. R. (1993). Teacher's use of
health curricula: Implementation of growing healthy. Project SMART and the teenage
health teaching modules. Journal of School Health 63(8):349-354.
U. S. Department of Education (1997). Attaining excellence: TIMSS as a starting point to
examine U. S. Education (introduction to TIMSS). Pittsburgh, PA: U. S. Government,
Superintendent of Documents (p. 74).
Warmbrod,1. R. (1977). Evaluation research in vocational education. Beacon: The Newsletter
of the American Vocational Evaluation Association 6(1):1-11.
Wiesenmayer, R. (1988). The effects of three levels of sts instruction and traditional life science
instruction on the overt citizenship behavior of seventh grade students. (Doctoral dis-
sertation, The Pennsylvania State University), p. 312.
Wraga, W. G., Hlebowitsh, P. S. (1990). Science, technology, and the social studies. Social
Education 54:194-195.
Yager, R. E. (1990). STS: Thinking over the years. The Science Teacher 57:52-55.
 CHAPTER 6

Science, Technology, Society,

and the Environment
Scientific Literacy for the Future
Kathleen B. deBettencourt

INTRODUCTION

Environmental education and the science-technology-society movement

came into being at about the same time and in response to a similar concern:
Education must do more to develop an informed citizenry capable of
making decisions about current problems, particularly issues involving
science and technology.
In 1970, several universities, including Cornell, Pennsylvania State,
and Stanford, began programs on what is now referred to as science-
technology-society (STS) (Yager, 1993). In 1977, the Project Synthesis,
National Science Foundation-funded science curriculum research effort,
made STS one of its five focuses. They identified several goals, including
preparing students to "use science for improving their own lives and for
coping in an increasingly technological world" and to "deal responsibly with

Kathleen B. deBettencourt, Environmental Literacy Council George Marshall Institute,

Washington, D.C. 20006.
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

141
142 Science, Technology, and Society

technology-society issues" (Harms, 1977 cited in Yager and Roy, 1993, p. 8).
Following the work of Project Synthesis, the National Science Teachers
Association (NSTA) began its Search for Excellence, identifying STS as one
of the search areas. In 1984, NSTA unanimously adopted a statement
recommending that all students in American high schools receive exposure
to STS topics.
The environmental education movement also had its beginnings in
the early 1970s. It grew, as one of the founders of the field reports, "out of
growing discontent with how we (esp[ecially] Americans) were treating the
air, water, plants, soil, and animals, and how schools were preparing future
citizens to make intelligent decisions about the environment" (Knapp, 1996,
p. 12). In 1969, William Stapp provided a definition of environmental edu-
cation that is the basis for many subsequent statements of the purpose of
the field:

Environmental education is aimed at producing a citizenry that is knowledge-

able concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware
of how to help solve those problems, and motivated to work toward their solu-
tion. (Stapp, 1969, pp. 30-31)

This definition is echoed in the NSTA's 1990 position statement that "Basic
to STS efforts is the production of an informed citizenry capable of making
crucial decisions about current problems and issues and taking personal
actions as a result of these decisions" (cited in Yager, 1993, p. 3).
STS and environmental education share more than purpose; they
share subject matter. Peruse any middle school or high school science
textbook and you will see "science-technology-society" sidebars on global
warming, pollution, and other environmental topics. Of the eight specific
areas of concern that Project Synthesis identified as characterizing STS, five
relate to the environment: energy, population, environmental quality, use
of natural resources, and effects of technological development.! Indeed,
Chiang-Soong's study of American textbooks indicates that issues con-
cerning environmental quality and natural resources predominate as STS
topics (Chiang-Soong, 1993). Because of STS' many linkages, some envi-
ronmental educators argue that it is environmental education (Rubba and
Wiesenmayer, 1998; Disinger, 1986; Volk, 1984).
Environmental issues predominate as STS topics for the same reason
that schools are flooded with environmental education resources. Environ-
mental issues are pervasive in the media and are increasingly the subject of

I The other areas are human genetic engineering. national defense, space, as well as sociology
of science. Many environmental educators would also include these topics as concerns of
environmental education.
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 143

public concern, especially among students. If one of STS' goals is to help

students understand the relevance of science to their everyday lives, then
environmental issues are useful areas to explore. Environmental studies,
moreover, hold great promise for drawing students to study science further.
And, of course, decisions about the natural resources and environment will
be on the public agenda for generations to come. It is critical that students
be prepared to participate knowledgeably in these discussions.
There is evidence, however, that after 25 years of incorporating envi-
ronmental issues in the curriculum, students understand very little about
the environment. Surveys of environmental knowledge among students are
sobering. A 1992 Roper poll, for example, tested teens' knowledge on issues
such as air and water pollution, solid waste, and conservation (Roper, 1992).
Roper had previously administered a similar quiz to adults; the report
noted, "Our expectations, frankly, were that teens would do better [than the
adults] in this exercise, but these expectations proved to be optimistic"
(p. i). Teens, in fact, scored slightly lower than adults on the quiz, even on
topics frequently covered in environmental education curricula, such as
waste management, acid rain, pollution, and biodiversity.
A 1990-1991 study of over 3,000 students in 30 secondary schools
in New York State identified a similar lack of knowledge. Remarkably,
students who reported studying environmental science tended to score
lower on the knowledge test than those who had not (Hausbeck, Milbrath,
and Enright, 1992).
A national survey of high school students' environmental knowl-
edge (based on responses to environment-related questions designed for
National Assessment of Education Progress testing in science and mathe-
matics) found that, although a majority of students could identify sources
of environmental problems (e.g., fossil fuels, smokestacks emitting sulfur
dioxide), relatively few could identify the consequences (Gambro and
Switzky, 1996). For example, only 43.5 percent of the high school seniors
in the sample could identify three consequences of the greenhouse effect.
The study concluded "most high school seniors possess an elementary
comprehension of environmental problems and lack the necessary under-
standing to go beyond the common recognition of an issue and use their
knowledge to grasp the consequences of environmental problems or offer
solutions for those problems" (Hausbeck, Milbrath, and Enright, 1992,
p.22).
Despite all our efforts, how well we are preparing students to under-
stand environmental issues? To address that question, the Independent
Commission on Environmental Education, a project of the George C.
Marshall Institute, brought together a panel of scientists, economists, and
educators to perform an extensive study of commonly used textbooks and
144 Science, Technology, and Society

environmental education resources. 2 Commission members came from

diverse fields and viewpoints. Members included one of the founders of the
field of environmental education, as well as eminent ecologists, economists,
and other experts in environmental science. The commission's report, Are
We Building Environmental Literacy?, was published in April 1997.
The commission found textbooks and teacher's guides available at all
levels that provided a challenging and thorough introduction to environ-
mental topics. Many of the texts reviewed, however, were flawed with
factual inaccuracies and dated scientific theories, or gave only superficial
explanations of complex environmental issues.
Certainly, factual errors in textbooks are not a new problem. The
National Research Council's 1990 study of biology education in American
schools, noted that, "this fundamental criterion [factual accuracy] is often
violated" (National Research Council, 1990, p. 57). Coverage of environ-
mental issues, however, present special challenges. Environmental science
is a complex multidisciplinary study that draws from the natural and
the social sciences, including biology, chemistry, economics, and political
science. This is a field in which knowledge is growing rapidly, and in which
there are competing theories and interests.
Yet these same aspects make environmental issues particularly inter-
esting for students. The environment permits students to integrate geo-
graphy, science, social science, history, and other courses in an investigation
of issues of immediate relevance. Unfortunately, most texts miss this oppor-
tunity. The following is a summary of some of the topic areas reviewed by
the commission and its findings.

TOPICS REVIEWED BY THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION

AND FINDINGS

A Hot Issue: Global Warming

Global warming is frequently featured as an STS issue and is a sig-
nificant subject in environmental education materials. Climate change pre-
sents an excellent opportunity to combine science concepts, such as climate
and weather, with a discussion of political and economic considerations. It
is apparent, though, that authors of many textbooks do not themselves have
a clear grasp of the science involved.

2 The George C. Marshall Institute is a nonprofit research group interested in education,

science, and technology and their impact on public policy, particularly environmental policy
and national security. The institution receives its funding from private foundations. It receives
no industry or corporate support.
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 145

One common problem in many textbooks stems from confusing the

terms "global warming" and the "greenhouse effect." In part, this is under-
standable, because in the late 1980s when concerns were first raised, these
terms were often used interchangeably. The greenhouse effect, though, is a
well understood phenomenon, an important part of earth's systems. The
greenhouse layer retains enough of the sun's heat to warm the atmosphere
to a temperature sufficient to sustain life. Global warming, on the other
hand, refers to the theory that increased greenhouse gases produced by
human activity will enhance the natural greenhouse effect and raise global
temperatures. 3
Only some texts explain the greenhouse effect. Yet without this con-
cept, students will have a hard time understanding global warming. Often
texts fail to explain the greenhouse effect is the result of naturally-occurring
gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
ozone, and particularly, water vapor. Much of the uncertainty in predicting
future climate relates to scientists' currently limited understanding of the
role of water vapor and clouds in atmospheric dynamics. It is not helpful to
discuss, as many texts do, only carbon dioxide. And an unfortunate number
of textbooks and teacher's guides confuse key terms and mislead by over-
simplification. Only a few global warming discussions in the texts reviewed
mention that projections are based on computer models or even discuss the
uncertainties inherent in predicting climate change, in light of so many vari-
ables that are poorly understood by professionals working in this field.
For example, Holt's Science Plus, explains the greenhouse effect in its
chapter on climate, but then refers students to an STS sidebar which begins,
"No one knows whether there is a greenhouse effect or whether there will
be global warming" (emphasis added) (Morrison et al., 1993, pp. 408-409).
This statement will baffle those students who were paying attention to the
previous chapter which explained the greenhouse effect's important role in
earth's atmosphere.
Addison-Wesley's environmental science textbook (among others)
refers to carbon dioxide as a "pollutant," although carbon dioxide gener-
ated from human sources is indistinguishable from the vast amount pro-
duced by natural sources (Bernstein, Winkler, and Zierdt-Warshaw, 1996,
p. 366). As Kempton, Boster, and Hartley (1996) note in their study of
environmental values in America, viewing greenhouse gas emissions as a
pollution problem is misleading, because the solution is assumed to be
pollution control technology, such as scrubbers, yet no such technology
exists for "filtering" carbon dioxide.

3 Indeed, because changes predicted by global climate models effect weather and other
systems, scientists use the term global climate change.
146 Science, Technology, and Society

Prentice Hall's General Science includes a vignette which describes

(with illustration) a tour by glass boat of a submerged city through tower-
ing skyscrapers. After explaining this is probably an effect of global
warming, the text asks:
Can anything be done to reverse the earth's greenhouse effect? Not much, say
scientists. We depend too much on fossil fuels for our energy needs. Then what
can we do? Get ready is the answer. Make plans to hold back the sea. (Hurd
etal.,1992,p.403)

This dramatic presentation will no doubt get students' attention, but what
does it teach them about the role of science in society? The accuracy one
must expect in a science textbook is lost in the attempt to stress a point. We
do not want to "reverse the greenhouse effect"; without it earth would be
a cold place. The presentation considerably overstates the rise in sea levels
predicted by even the most pessimistic global climate models, and attribute
to scientists an omniscience that mischaracterizes the state of current
knowledge about climate impacts.
Textbooks often emphasize personal actions that students can take to
conserve energy. LeBel's Environmental Science: How the World Works and
Your Place In It, for example, lists measures that should be taken to reduce
carbon emissions, ranging from using mass transportation, to recycling, to
planting trees (Person, 1995). These suggestions are salutary and teach good
citizenship. However, students will not understand the scope of the issue
unless they also consider that considerable costs will be incurred in trans-
forming a transportation system that relies on fossil fuels for approximately
90 percent of its energy, or that any efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emis-
sions in the industrialized countries will be overtaken in the next few
decades by greenhouse gas emissions arising from rapidly industrializing
nations, especially in Southeast Asia. Particularly in upper level texts and
materials, students ought to be introduced to economic considerations.
Global climate change is one of the most interesting and important
science-based social issues of our time. Students will be called upon to con-
sider public policies and, perhaps, to make personal sacrifices. More sub-
stantive and accurate coverage of this important topic should be developed
for students, particularly those in upper level courses.

Acid Rain
Coverage of other topiCS is also flawed by incomplete or misleading
presentations. Acid deposition, for example, is another example of an
environmental issue that permits students to see how the chemistry they
are learning in science classes has relevance to real world concerns.
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 147

However, in many texts the policy aspects are covered in more detail than
the science.
These discussions are seldom linked to an explanation of the chemi-
cal process that results in acidic deposition. Units on acid rain are typically
accompanied by an "experiment," although these activities are designed
more to illustrate a point than for scientific inquiry. For example, Science
Insights, a middle school general science text, concludes its brief presenta-
tion of acid precipitation with an experiment using two sets of seeds, one
of which is watered with "normal" water and one which is watered with
water mixed with vinegar (DiSpezio et at., 1996, p. 619). The text does not
instruct students in testing the pH of the normal water nor does it say
whether the "normal" water should be tap water, distilled water, or col-
lected rain water. The text also does not explain that rain water is naturally
acidic, much less describe what a pH scale is and how it is derived.
The results of this missed opportunity are evidenced by American
students' performance on the Third International Mathematics and Science
Study (TIMSS). Only 32 percent of American students could correctly
answer a multiple choice question that asked them to identify one of the
principal causes of acid rain, despite the widespread coverage of this issue
in texts for a number of years (TIMSS, 1997, chapter 3, table 3.5). Students'
failure to comprehend the source of an environmental problem means they
will be less capable of understanding the costs and benefits of proposed
solutions.
Acid rain is also an area in which scientific theories have changed
since the issue was widely reported. Serious concerns were raised in the
1980s about the impact of acid rain on forests in the United States and
Europe. A major scientific study of the problem, the National Acidic
Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), was undertaken to test
the effects of acidification of soil, water, and forests (NAPAP, 1990).
NAPAP and subsequent studies have shown there are more complex
relationships between acidic precipitation and plant life than previously
thought.
The NAPAP study discovered that, although acid rain did cause the
acidification of some lakes in the northeastern United States and Canada,
land use practices were implicated as a major contributing cause. Damage
to forests was found to be less than originally feared. Forests in both the
United States and Europe have made a remarkable recovery in recent years
(Kuusela, 1994). Forests in Europe have experienced their most rapid
recorded growth during the decade of the 1980s, growing at a rate of 35
percent higher than in earlier decades. This increased growth has occurred
throughout Europe, including the regions thought to have been adversely
affected by acid rain (Kandler, 1994; Skelly and Innes, 1994).
148 Science, Technology, and Society

Textbooks, however, have not been revised to include current scien-

tific theories about this issue. Many discussions of the topic are illustrated
with a picture of a dead or dying forest stand, even though further studies
have indicated that die back of some forests is due to causes other than acid
rain, particularly climate stress.
Often textbooks do not mention other serious threats from acid pre-
cipitation, including health effects. Some texts describe threat to aquatic life
but do not explain the poor land management practices that exacerbate the
problem.
One text, Lebel's Environmental Science: How the World Works and
Your Place in It, explains the chemistry of acid rain and includes a discus-
sion of the NAPAP report (Person, 1995). This text, however, is an excep-
tion. Holt's Environmental Science textbook, published in 1996, discusses
impacts of acid precipitation in detail without explaining the natural science
or noting that scientific theories have been revised (Arms, 1996). In many
biology texts, the discussion of this topic is limited to one or two sentences,
often without context. Addison Wesley's Biology, for example, states:
"Burning coal produces chemicals that form acids when they join with
water in the atmosphere. These acids then fall to earth as acid rain, killing
trees and fish and disrupting soil chemistry" (Essenfield, Gontang, and
Moore, 1994, p. 880). There is no mention here that nitrogen from automo-
bile emissions also contributes to acidification of rainfall and may pose a
more serious problem than coal burning plants, because new technology has
reduced emissions from that source.
Coverage of acid rain presents an example of a common flaw in the
texts. It is inevitable that, particularly in the area of environmental science
where the science is new and changing, materials will become dated. Yet
most of the discussions in these texts treat the damages presumed to be
associated with acid rain as scientific fact. As in other topic areas reviewed
by the commission, scientific theorizing on this issue is often presented as
settled, although scientists were and are still engaged in speculation and
investigation.
This is a troubling tendency. Public policy is, and sometimes must be,
made on the basis of incomplete scientific information. However, students
should not be misled about the nature of science and the scientific enterprise.
In these discussions of science and public policy issues, scientists are often
portrayed as omniscient. In the attempt to simplify the discussion (and to fit
it into a sidebar), the limits of scientific knowledge are ignored. The impli-
cation, therefore, is that scientists know all the answers and that the solutions
are obvious. With many-perhaps most-of the environmental issues dis-
cussed in these texts, this is not the case. And even on issues where knowl-
edge is reliably certain, science alone cannot provide a remedy. This is one
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 149

of the most important lessons students should learn from science-

technology-society debates. It is critical, therefore, that the role and limita-
tions of science be reflected with more clarity than is now done.

Energy
Coverage of energy and natural resources typifies another common
flaw in treatment of environmental issues: Technology is presented simplis-
tically as either the source of all our problems or the cure to all our ills. As
Living Lightly, a teacher's guide for grades four to six, explains:
Approximately half of the oil consumed in the United States is used to power
automobiles. This consumption takes its toll on people and the environment in
many ways. Oil spills degrade coastal ecosystems killing wildlife and destroying
fisheries. Burning fuel pollutes the air and contributes to acid rain. Our depen-
dence on foreign oil can also lead to loss of lives and outpouring of billions of
dollars in defense. (McGlauftin and O'Connor, 1992, p. 183)

Renewable energy sources, by contrast, are offered as the answer, if only

we have sufficient political will.
Without diminishing the challenges of protecting the environment,
students should also understand energy in historical context. We have, for
example, enjoyed considerable benefits from the availability of relatively
cheap, plentiful energy, such as a high standard of living, with accompanying
improvements in health and welfare. It will not be easy or without cost to
replace the source upon which we rely for 90 percent of our energy needs.
Decisions about energy policy ought to be based on accurate infor-
mation. One central theme in many textbooks is the rapid depletion of fossil
fuels and other natural resources. The CLASS Project, a joint effort of the
National Wildlife Federation and the California Department of Education,
states that "experts believe that by the year 2000, most of the world's oil
may be depleted" (California Department of Education, 1992, p. 39). The
Globe Fearon's STS text, Impacts of Technology, predicts that "supplies of
oil will grow scarce in the early 2000s" (Harkness and Helgren, 1993, p. 29).
Environmental Science: Working with the Earth, published by Wadsworth,
states that "at the current rate of consumption, known world oil reserves
will last for 42 years" (Miller, 1995, p. 519).
These predictions are based on a misunderstanding of the difference
between oil reserves and oil resources. Reserves are the supply of oil
exploitable at current prices using available technology. As prices rise, and
technology improves, reserves increase. According to the World Resources
Institute, "proven recoverable reserves of petroleum rose 60 percent
between 1973 and 1993" (World Resources Institute, 1996, p. 275). Reserves
increase, despite increasing consumption.
150 Science, Technology, and Society

Resources, however, include many sources that are not currently

being exploited because it is not cost-effective to do so. Known resources
for the production of fossil fuels, including oil, natural gas, coal, tar sands,
oil shale, are vast. The extent to which we will continue to rely on fossil fuels
for energy use will be determined by technology and the costs of extract-
ing fuels from these resources, compared to the availability and costs of
alternative energy sources.
Most textbooks appropriately emphasize the need to develop eco-
nomically viable renewable technologies such as energy recovery from
biomass, wind-energy systems, solar photovoltaic systems, solar thermal
energy-conversion systems. Students should also learn that this has been a
goal since the early 1970s, but has met with only limited success to date
because these technologies are not yet cost-competitive with fossil-fuel
technologies. Alternative energy sources will be an important element of
future energy policy. Many of the texts reviewed by the commission are dis-
appointing in their coverage of these technologies. Students cannot judge
the comparative advantages of solar power if they have had no intro-
duction to technological hurdles, such as problems of transportation and
storage, that have to be addressed before solar energy is used widely and
reliably.
For example, Living Lightly on the City for 4th--6th grades says there
are "more than 1 million active solar systems and 250,000 passive solar
homes" in the United States (McGlauflin, 1992, p. 183). Indeed, solar tech-
nologies for passive space heating and for the production of hot water are
being used successfully in many areas. Students will wonder why solar
energy is not more widely used if they have no further information about
the relative costs and benefits of solar energy.
There are costs to be considered in evaluating the relative advantages
of various energy sources. Wind-generators are noisy, and present a threat
to birds. Large tracts of land have to be converted for generators, reducing
habitats. Lebel's Environmental Science is one of few that mentions these
aspects; it includes a case study about a California wind field near Alamont
Pass that is in a major migration corridor and has created a danger for
migrating birds, including golden eagles (Person, 1995). Prentice Hall's
Environmental Science dismisses this concern about wind turbines by claim-
ing that 300,000 birds were destroyed by the Exxon Valdez oil spill (Nebel
and Wright, 1998). One commission member noted in response to this argu-
ment, "Is it justifiable to kill birds on a continuing basis with wind machines
because there was an accident involving fossil fuels?" (p. 595). These con-
siderations make environmental issues a useful tool for eliciting thoughtful
analysis, yet too many textbooks miss this opportunity.
Electric-powered vehicles sound promising, but few texts point out
the environmental impacts that have to be considered in any comparison.
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 151

Wadsworth's Environmental Science, for example, challenges the current

wisdom that "fuel efficient cars will takes years to develop and will be slug-
gish, small, and unsafe," and suggests that all major American car com-
panies will have prototype electric cars, some by 1995, that are "extremely
quiet, need little maintenance, can accelerate rapidly with adequate power
supplies" (Miller, 1995, p. 488). Holt's Environmental Science provides a
more realistic analysis. It asks students to consider that electric car batter-
ies have to be replaced frequently, and reminds that they contain lead and
acid that could leach into groundwater (Arms, 1996). Electricity to run the
car has to be generated; the environmental impact of the original source of
energy has to be included in a comparative analysis. And because electric
cars are expensive, they will likely replace the newest (and therefore clean-
est) cars on the roads, rather than older cars that have higher levels of emis-
sions. All these factors need to be considered in assessing relative impacts
of various technologies.

Waste Not, Want Not

Waste management issues are also frequent science-technology-
society topics and are widely covered in most environmental education
resources. Unfortunately, many discussions oversimplify the issues, for
example, implying that recycling is a panacea for waste.
Recycling is a cost-effective, efficient use of resources for some, but
not all materials. Recycling aluminum cans requires ten percent less energy
than producing them from virgin materials. Automobile tires are also
successfully recycled, reducing the energy required to produce new tires.
Students should understand, though, that recycling is not new. Some form
of recycling has been done for over 100 years. For example, since the begin-
ning of the century, waste paper has been recycled to make paper when
wood pulp was scarce or too expensive. Recycling of scrap metal began
during World War II.
But not all materials are recycled economically or without having an
environmental impact. De-inking of newsprint requires using toxics, creat-
ing another waste stream that must be safely disposed. Recycling does save
trees; however, most new paper is made from trees grown in plantations
specifically for that purpose. Recycling other materials, such as glass, can
require more energy than is required for production of virgin material,
depending on the process used. Students ought to be challenged to look
at all these factors in analyzing the role of recycling in waste management
policies and, indeed, this type of quantitative analysis provides an excellent
opportunity for applying knowledge.
Biology Today, a high school text published by Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, states, "Eighty percent of our household trash could be recycled,"
152 Science, Technology, and Society

a statement with which no knowledgeable expert would agree (Goodman,

Graham, Emmel, and Schecter, 1991, p. 880).4 Other texts have useful exer-
cises which engage students in analyzing various products for environ-
mental impact. For example, Discover the Wonder, a 5th grade general
science text published by ScottForesman, tells students to compare paper
and plastic product use based on convenience and reusability (Heil et al.,
1994). Plastics in Our Lives, by Lawrence Hall of Science, University of
California at Berkeley, includes an exercise which asks students to perform
a quantitative analysis of the various costs associated with using paper
and plastic cups (Chemical Education for Public Understanding Program,
1992). Such an exercise helps students understand that these and other
issues are not always as simple as they first appear.
Other waste management issues are covered in a facile manner. Waste
incinerators, used widely in Europe to convert trash to energy, are treated as
a major source of concern. Waste incinerators are used as the introductory
exercise in Globe Fearon's science-technology-society textbook for middle
school, Impacts of Technology (Harkness and Helgren, 1993). Students are
instructed to read an article about a community'S debate over a waste incin-
erator and are asked to weigh evidence given for and against the construc-
tion. The only scientific evidence offered is by the local pollution control
agency, which has tested and found that ash is not a hazardous waste. Envi-
ronmentalists and others in the community have expressed concern. The
students are asked to decide their position on the issue. However, all the
activities following their analysis include methods the students can take to
lobby against the incinerator. Regardless of one's position on the relative
safety of waste incineration, we can ask if we are effectively teaching deci-
sionmaking skills if we presuppose the "right" answer.s

Forests
Forest management and the disappearance of rain forests is a common
theme in environmental materials and STS exercises. Coverage of forestry
issues varies considerably in accuracy among the materials reviewed. Esti-
mated rates of deforestation, for example, differ widely from one text to

4 Keep America Beautiful's comprehensive study, The Role of Recycling in Integrated Solid
Waste Management to the Year 2000, predicts that the most optimistic projection for recov-
ery for recycling and composting is 35 percent.
, This is a surprisingly common flaw in many of the texts reviewed by the commission. The
text itself will accurately discuss the various positions on a controversial topic. The questions
or activities accompanying the unit, however, will assume one "correct" position, and stu-
dents are instructed to defend it. For many issues, even environmentalists disagree about the
best approach. What if the student disagrees with the answer chosen?
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 153

another, without citation or reference to the source of the data. The causes
of rapid deforestation, where it is a problem, are usually not defined.
Discussions of temperate forests often do not note the remarkable
recovery that has occurred in the United States and Europe in recent
decades. High efficiency farming, which is depicted in other chapters as the
source of many environmental problems, has permitted large tracts of land,
particularly in the eastern United States, to revert to forests. Most com-
merciallogging in the United States occurs in tree plantations or second-
growth forests and almost all old-growth stands are now under protection
in national parks or protected by policies not to harvest old-growth remain-
ing in public forests. Similar recovery of temperate forests has occurred in
most western nations. Globally, the FAO estimates that there has been a
net increase in temperate forests from 1980 to 1990 (U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization, 1992).
Causes for deforestation are often poorly identified. Living Lightly on
the Planet, for example, tells students, "rich nations around the world enter
the lumbering business in the rain forest and lay waste to vast areas"
(O'Connor, 1995, p. 22). Clearing land for agriculture, not commercial
logging, is the major cause for deforestation in many developing countries.
Prentice Hall's Exploring Life Science, includes a sidebar that informs
students "many people in the United States as well as other countries are
trying to find ways to save the rain forest," and asks, "Do you think the rain
forest should be saved?" (Maton, 1995, p. 733). What information do the
students have that would allow them to address such a question in a
thoughtful way? The students have learned nothing in the chapter about
the economic incentives in some developing countries that have led to
accelerated clearing of forests, such as insecure tenure to land or govern-
ment subsidies for forest conversion. A better presentation of this issue is
found in Prentice Hall's Environmental Science, which includes a discussion
of the economic pressures that has led to severe forest loss in some devel-
oping countries. Students are asked to consider "What incentives and assis-
tance could the United States offer Brazil or Guyana to keep their tropical
rain forests from further harmful development?" (p. 506). This approach
calls upon students to move beyond expressing opinions to thinking criti-
cally about real problems and possible solutions.

Ecology
Central to the study of the environment is an understanding of
ecology and biodiversity. The commission found some of the best materials
on ecology and biodiversity in the texts reviewed. Biological Science: An
Ecological Approach, published by Kendall/Hunt, presents college-level
154 Science, Technology, and Society

ecology at the high school level (Milani et al., 1995). Eco-Inquiry, devel-
oped by the Institute of Ecosystem Studies and published in 1994 by
Kendall/Hunt, takes a few fundamental ecological problems and makes
them understandable and interesting to young students. This text, unlike
most others reviewed by the commission, engages students in the process
of scientific discovery and helps them to learn about the methods underly-
ing the work. 6
However, there are certain problem areas. For example, rates of species
extinction are often stated as fact, without acknowledging the uncertainties
surrounding the current state of scientific knowledge with respect to species
extinction (e.g., Maton, p. 101). Environmental Science, published by Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, provides a dated estimate of the number of species
(Arms, 1996). The most commonly accepted figure, not counting microor-
ganisms, is around 10 million, not between 10 and 100 million (Dobson, 1996;
Reaka-Kudla, Wilson, and Wilson, 1997). The same text explains only the
role of habitat destruction in species extinctions, when other causes, such as
introduced species and harvest, should be covered as well.

Population and Hunger

Population and hunger are also issues in which oversimplified expla-
nations can be misleading. The field of "population studies" encompasses
an array of separate and distinct disciplines, including biology, applied
mathematics, economics, sociology, and history. Because these questions
bring together the natural and social sciences, they can be particularly chal-
lenging. As the commission notes:
Whereas relationships examined in the physical sciences are typically universal
and immutable (e.g., the conservation of energy), relationships in the social
sciences depend critically upon human behavior, which can differ fundamentally
in separate settings and over time. If the distinction between natural science and
social science components within population studies is not effectively outlined
and explained, there is the risk that students will come away applying inappro-
priate scientific paradigms to modern population questions. (IeEE, 1997, p. 23)

In some of these texts, "overpopulation" is asserted as a major cause

of environmental problems. Addison-Wesley's environmental science text-
book, for example, begins its discussion of the topic with the statement:
"Scientists argue that overpopulation threatens the continued existence of

6 The commission noted (as have others) that science textbooks far too often present a dry
set of facts. Students are engaged in little of the process of science: observation, analysis,
hypothesis, prediction, and test of prediction, the results of which are then incorporated into
the body of science or abandoned.
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 155

humans on earth" (Bernstein, 1996, p. 204). In fact, "overpopulation" is

not a scientific concept used in either demography or population studies
because of its ambiguity. Many of the problems raised in discussions of
population stem from poverty rather than population growth.
Population trends are usually presented as fixed. Yet demographers
face considerable uncertainties in their attempt to project future popula-
tion trends. Only a few materials under review mention that the population
growth rate is declining throughout the world, even in developing coun-
tries, with the exception of sub-Saharan Africa. A number of texts, such as
LeBel's environmental science textbook (p. 253), have students calculate
the "doubling time" of population as a math exercise. This exercise, though,
assumes that population will grow at a constant rate for decades or gen-
erations. In historical experience, this has almost never happened. De-
mographers must constantly revise their estimates to reflect demographic
transitions as countries develop. As a country or region's economy im-
proves, human fertility levels eventually tend to decline. In Europe, North
America, and parts of the Caribbean and high-income East Asia,
fertility levels today (if maintained indefinitely) are lower than would be
necessary for long-term net population replacement.
While population growth has presented unparalleled pressures on
natural resources, discussions of the issues often neglect to mention why
global population has increased so rapidly in recent history. Population is
growing around the world because of worldwide improvements in health,
not because of fertility trends. Between 1950 and 1990, fertility levels
declined in almost every region of the world. With the exception of a few
current problem areas in the former Soviet Union and sub-Saharan Africa,
longevity is increasing and infant mortality is decreasing. Global life
expectancy has more than doubled since 1900, and the infant mortality rate
has declined by over 50 percent between the early 1950s and the early
1990s.
Famine is simplistically attributed to overpopUlation in many of the
materials, without an explanation of the role of the governments involved.
Prentice Hall's Biology: The Study of Life illustrates its section on popula-
tion with a picture of swollen-bellied child, victim of famine in Africa
(Schraer and Stolze, 1991, p. 865). The text states famines result because
food production has not increased as fast as population. Students are asked
to write a letter to the editor discussing "how to end world hunger." To write
such a letter, though, students would need a better explanation of the causes
of world hunger, which has less to do with population growth than with
political conditions. Recent famines in Africa were not caused or exacer-
bated by overpopUlation, adverse weather, or crop failure. Specific political
factors, such as civil wars in which food has been used as a weapon and
156 Science, Technology, and Society

which interrupted food distribution and agriculture. Since the goal of envi-
ronmental education is to help students understand how human actions
affect the environment, it would seem particularly appropriate to help them
understand the political context of modern famines.
Poverty, not simply population growth, is responsible for many envi-
ronmental problems faced by underdeveloped nations. Deforestation in
many underdeveloped countries continues because people have access
to no fuel other than wood. Insecure property rights in many nations
have led to careless land management, deforestation, and soil erosion.
The relationship between economic development, political stability, and a
nation's willingness or ability to address environmental concerns is often
not well explained. Studying population growth as a simple numerical
equation (more people equals less food) does little to help students
comprehend the serious environmental problems faced by developing
nations.
One text, Globe Fearon's, Environmental Science: Changing Popula-
tions, provides a thoughtful introduction to current scientific and economic
thinking on population change (Falk, 1995). The text correctly informs the
student, for example, of the problems inherent in making long-term popu-
lation predictions. A number of activities require students to consider the
tradeoffs and interactions involved in both environmental policies and eco-
nomic development or population change.

Understanding Risk
Difficult decisions, such as how to protect endangered species or what
to do about abandoned hazardous waste sites, capture students' interest.
Many of these issues, moreover, have immediate impact on students'
daily lives. Students need some knowledge of risk analysis to prepare
them to participate as policy makers and informed citizens in public
decisionmaking.
Risk analysis is the process by which scientific information is distilled
so that it becomes useful for making decisions. Few of the materials
reviewed convey key concepts that would help students understand the
nature of risk. For example, central to risk analysis is the dose-response (or
exposure-effect) relationship. The likelihood of harm, or the severity of
harm, from any substance rises when the amount of exposure increases. Vir-
tually any substance or activity can produce adverse effects if the exposure
reaches high enough levels.
Instead of introducing students to this critical concept, the materials
under review focus on enumerating hazards without discussing likelihood
or size of the danger. For example, the Prentice Hall's environmental
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 157

science text presents a table of the known health effects, including muta-
genicity, teratogenicity and carcinogenicity, of synthetic organic chemicals
(Nebel and Wright, 1998, Table 11-1, p. 349). Each chemical has a box that
is checked if exposure to that chemical presents a health threat. The table
contains no information about the dose (or exposure) that might be nec-
essary to achieve this harm. Students are not told, for example, that aspirin
would be considered a health hazard in this analysis.
Considerable attention is paid to the harm chemicals can cause,
without addressing the amount of exposure necessary to cause the harm.
Biology: The Dynamics of Life, a high school text published by Glencoe,
includes as a "Thinking Lab" a discussion of a report by an environmental
group that examined fruits and vegetables for pesticide residue (Biggs,
Kapicka, and Lundgren, 1995). Most of the fruits and vegetables tested were
found to have some residue. Students were asked to conclude which of the
fruits and vegetables (including most common fruits and vegetables such as
bananas, apples, celery, and broccoli) shown were most likely to present a
danger. The assumption here is a prime example of focusing on a potential
hazard and ignoring the size of the risk. A recent National Research Council
report found that toxic chemicals occuring naturally in foods may pose a
greater health threat than pesticide residues, and that the greatest threat to
human health is a poor diet, particularly a diet poor in fruits and vegeta-
bles (National Research Council, 1996). It would be unfortunate if this
sidebar persuades students to reduce the amount of fruits and vegetables
in their diet.
Discussions of pesticides rarely consider the relative costs and effects
of alternatives to using pesticides. A few well-known cases, such as DDT,
are used to predict that other (or aU) human-made compounds, even where
the risk is not yet known or is not indicated by epidemiological evidence,
are dangerous.
The Wadsworth environmental science textbook is one of the few that
includes comparative risk information, listing high risk health problems,
such as indoor air pollution, and pollutants in water (Miller, 1995, Table
8-1, p. 205). However, students are never told that these risks are small
compared to the health risks from smoking or car accidents.
Risk Comparison, published by Addison-Wesley and developed by
the Chemical Education for Public Understanding Program, Lawrence Hall
of Science, University of California, Berkeley, provides an intelligent and
understandable introduction to risk (CEPUP, 1900). Students are intro-
duced to the nature of risks through exercises that ask them to consider
some of the risks they take in their lives, such as vaccinations. Some exer-
cises, however, rely more on students' perceptions to assess relative risks
than on actual data indicating probability of harm.
158 Science, Technology, and Society

Environmental Decisionmaking: Trade-offs

Over 25 years of experience in managing environmental risks have

demonstrated that trade-offs are inevitable. Environmental problems often
are not easy to mitigate and solutions are often expensive. Trade-offs arise
when an action taken to reduce a risk actually creates risks of its own. For
example, to comply with regulatory requirements for fuel economy, man-
dated under the Clean Air Act, automobile manufacturers began to build
lighter and smaller cars. As a result, fatalities and serious injuries from auto-
mobile accidents increased. To improve safety, air bags were installed in most
cars and were mandated for all cars manufactured after 1996. Air bags,
however, have been responsible for a number of serious injuries and fatali-
ties in low speed crashes, particularly in small children and elderly women.
Many environmental teaching materials fail to convey the trade-off
of one risk for another that pervades environmental management efforts.
Instead, in descriptions of actions to reduce environmental damage, text-
books often suggest that the solution is obvious and that people are simply
not taking action. The commission stated, "this has the unfortunate result
of making adults look either inept or irresponsible because they refuse to
take the actions necessary to save the environment or to protect public
health" (ICEE, p. 39). Students should understand that virtually every envi-
ronmental management question presents difficult scientific issues, uncer-
tainties, competing social values, and trade-offs.
For example, LeBel's environmental science textbook titles its
chapter about alternatives to pesticides, "Integrated Pest Management-
A Better Way to Control Pests" (p. 287). The discussion on agricultural
pesticide use suggests that biological controls, such as predator species for
pests, are a ready solution to the problem of "toxic" pesticides. However, the
presentation does not cover the risks of using biological controls. Predator
species may control pests in some circumstances, but if the predator is not
effective (and only a small fraction is effective) a farmer may suffer signifi-
cant crop losses. Another potential risk may occur from introducing a preda-
tor species that becomes a pest in its own right and damages other wildlife
in the area. Such has been the case with the small Indian mongoose, which
caused the extinction of some reptiles in the West Indies.
Virtually every environmental issue presents an opportunity to engage
students in analyzing trade-offs. If the trade-offs are not considered, students
may develop simplistic and misleading perceptions of issues. For example,
high per capita energy use in affluent nations permits a higher standard of
living in terms of health, comfort, and leisure. Where should sacrifices be
made if we want to reduce our level of energy use? As noted previously,
topics such as recycling or alternative sources of energy are best understood
if students have some understanding of the costs and benefits involved.
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 159

A few teaching materials do a good job of introducing students to the

trade-offs inherent in environmental decisions. Plastics in Our Lives, from
Lawrence Hall of Science, as previously noted, has students consider alter-
native ways to carry groceries: paper bags, plastic bags, and mesh or cloth
bags. Students learn about the different energy requirements for making
each type of bag, how each is recycled, and the durability and capacity of
the bags. They create a matrix of the scientific evidence and then discuss
which factors might be important and deserve greater weight in a decision.
From this simple exercise students learn that few decisions are straightfor-
ward, that quantitative scientific information is necessary, and that social
values are key to making good decisions.

Critical Thinking?
Environmental topics can be used to challenge students to think crit-
ically about controversial issues. However, texts too often fail to provide
enough information to allow students to understand and discuss environ-
mental controversies thoughtfully.
Science-technology-society and environmental science courses tend
to be more prevalent at the middle school level. The STS series of texts pub-
lished by Globe Fearon, for example, targets middle school classes. So are
environmental science textbooks, or they are aimed at students who will
not be taking biology, chemistry, or physics. 7 Science-technology-society
sidebars are more prevalent in middle school textbooks than in upper level
textbooks. This appears to reflect trends in educational theory and practice:
It is easier to study multidisciplinary topics at the middle school level
because the disciplines are not so clearly delineated as they are in secondary
courses. This trend is unfortunate. In these lower level texts there is a ten-
dency to oversimplify what are usually complex issues. The National
Research Council, in its study of biology education, finds:

We are concerned that courses offered as "science-technology-society" (STS)

do not follow a study of the basic sciences. Instead, they typically replace basic-
science courses, and that results in both a dilution of fundamental knowledge of
.basic sciences and a lack of the scientific breadth need to study interdisciplinary
topics more than superficially. (NRC, 1990, p. 57)

7 See, for example, National Science Teachers Association's Science Teacher 64 (December
1997), 11. Advertisement for LeBel's environmental science text claims it is "designed to
introduce STS and environmental issues. Ideal for students not taking chemistry or physics."
Also see, Singletary, T. (1992). Case studies of selected high school environmental education
classes. Journal of Environmental Education 23 (4): 35-40,48. Teachers interviewed reported
that environmental science courses were typically offered as a general science course for stu-
dents who did not plan to take more science classes.
160 Science, Technology, and Society

Environmental science and STS offer a wonderful opportunity for

multidisciplinary investigation of real problems. Students who have not yet
begun to study science and other disciplines in depth will have only limited
background to inform their investigation of these issues. The National
Research Council concludes, "the contribution of science to the solution of
social problems can be understood only when there is considerable under-
standing of science itself."
If we are to succeed in creating a generation of well-informed citizens,
we must prepare. students to make responsible environmental decisions.
This requires that students understand the science involved, the compara-
tive risks, the economic and social trade-offs inherent in any environmen-
tal policy.
The goal of science-technology-society is that students will under-
stand the relevance of science-based issues to their everyday lives. But many
science-technology-society exercises included in textbooks fail to encour-
age student to use scientific skills in analyzing the issue. Many of these issues
have been studied by thoughtful people for years but uncertainties and dis-
agreements remain about the scope of the problem and the most effective
solutions. STS issues, though, are often presented in a sidebar, with a brief
description of the problem and questions that elicit opinions from students
about appropriate solutions. Rarely are references provided to the source
from which the data is derived, or references for further study, nor is the
student encouraged to test the validity of the information or the assump-
tions made in presenting the dilemma. At best the student can only offer a
glib response based on incomplete information and faith in the validity of
the data used as evidence.
For example, following is an entire STS sidebar in LeBel's Environ-
mental Science:
The consensus in the scientific community is that assessing environmental health
risks is imprecise. The "baby boomer" generation for example suffers a cancer
rate three times that of their grandparents. However the EPA continues to cal-
culate and regulate industry according to 'acceptable' levels of human exposure
to toxins. Do you think there is "acceptable" levels of risk for humans and other
organisms? (Person, 1995, p. 139).

A scientist would immediately ask many questions. First, is the data accu-
rate? What is the source of the data?8 If the data is accurate, what does it

8 It is exceedingly rare for a textbook to furnish citations for even the most astounding sta-
tistics. For example, Wadsworth' environmental science textbooks includes a thought-
provoking "fact" at the bottom of each page, without reference or explanation. On page 291,
the text asks, "How many cancer deaths in the United States are caused by exposure to
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 161

explain, and not explain? For example, cancer is a disease of old age. Does
an increase in the rate of cancer have any relation to increased longevity?
Are people living long enough to die of cancer, rather than from tubercu-
losis, influenza, and other insidious diseases which were once the major
causes of mortality? Are all cancers on the rise? What percentage of the
increase could be due to lifestyle factors, such as smoking and lung cancer?
What evidence is there that low-levels of toxins are correlated to cancer?
As noted above, evidence indicates that lifestyle factors are a greater threat
to health than residue toxins on food. No reference is made to the fact that
not all toxins are human-made, or that naturally-occurring toxins as well as
human-made toxins may be carcinogenic, nor that scientists and govern-
ment agencies have studied these questions for many years without
resolution.
Such an exercise does not help students analyze issues thoughtfully.
This is a serious failing. There are long-term consequences for rational deci-
sionmaking when citizens and policymakers are prey to misinformation and
susceptible to those who would capitalize on scientific uncertainties for pur-
poses of persuasion. Allocating large amounts of scarce resources to chase
"phantom" risks means that those resources are unavailable to address other
risks that may have more serious impact on human health.
Students would be much better prepared to participate in debates
about public policy if they are trained in methods of scientific inquiry.
STS exercises offer an excellent opportunity to challenge students to analyze
data critically. The National Science Standards and Benchmarks for Scien-
tific Literacy call for all students to understand concepts such as probability,
random sampling, and the difference between correlation and causation. This
latter concept is particularly important. One of the most common misuses of
statistics in public policy is the confusion of correlation with causation. The
previous example shows a typical way in which these concepts are confused.
Simply observing that two phenomena occur at roughly the same time does
not demonstrate, without other evidence, that one phenomenon is caused by
the other. Examples of this error abound in the media and everyday life, and
form the basis for many interesting conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, this
error is not infrequent in discussions of environmental issues, as the previ-
ous example demonstrates. Decisionmaking exercises in science textbooks
should be used to help students learn to critically assess the validity of sta-
tistical evidence.

pesticide residues in food? Answer: 4,000 to 20,000." There is no explanation of what this
means, where the data come from, or even an acknowledgement that there is much that is
not yet understood in this area. This does not present a good example for young scientists
or informed citizens.
162 Science, Technology, and Society

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is clear from the commission's review of commonly used science text-

books that science-technology-society and environmental issues are not
well integrated into the discussion of science concepts in the curriculum.
These issues are usually "add-ons," sidebars labeled "science-technology-
society" or "thinking labs" and are not edited with the same attention given
to the remainder of the text. Presenting complex issues in such a superfi-
cial way inevitably leads to misleading oversimplifications that do not facil-
itate critical thinking. Teaching materials that encourage students to defend
uninformed opinions are not educational.
The commission has made several recommendations that it believes
will help to improve teaching in this area:

Experts in environmental science should review textbooks and other educa-

tional materials on environmental issues. Environmental issues integrate a
number of scientific disciplines. Scientific reviewers from all relevant disci-
plines should review textbooks to help insure their accuracy, and publish-
ers should take their reviews seriously. In view of the importance of
providing a quality education for the next generation, professional scien-
tists, particularly research scientists, have a duty to become more involved
in reviewing resources for the K-12 classroom than they are now.
Publishers should also make sure that qualified experts review text-
books after they have been edited and that sidebars, science-technology-
society exercises, and other ancillary materials receive the same level of
review.

Discussion of environmental issues should help students understand the

underlying scientific concepts and should be linked to the science curricu-
lum. More substantive analysis of environmental issues should be included
in middle school and upper-level science texts. Science activities should be
consistent with the criteria for scientific inquiry as set out in the National
Science Education Standards, and should motivate students to acquire a
deeper understanding of the science.
Environmental science high school textbooks should be revised to
introduce students to environmental science in the same way that biology
or chemistry textbooks introduce high school students to those sciences.
These textbooks should provide a rigorous, substantive introduction to
environmental science rather than, as many now do, simply a catalog of
environmental facts and issues.

Schools should consider adding a multidisciplinary capstone course on

science-technology-society issues, including environmental topics. While it is
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 163

useful to introduce students in lower level classes to these issues, students

will not be able to study them with the same depth of understanding as
upper-level students who have had more background in both the natural
and social sciences. The National Research Council proposed that courses
that integrate science and social issues be taught as an upper-level capstone
course. An upper-level course would permit students to apply knowledge
acquired in biology, chemistry, and physics courses, with input from social
studies, economics, and political science courses for an indepth and thought-
ful investigation of an environmental issue. This approach is ideal, but it
may be difficult to incorporate into the curriculum. However, because of
the interest that many students have in the environment, an upper-level cap-
stone course would likely be well subscribed and could possibly motivate
students to study science in college.

CONCLUSION

Ours is increasingly a technological world. Students in classrooms today can

scarcely imagine a world without computers, televisions, or satellite com-
munications, yet these technologies were unknown a hundred years ago. In
1943, Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, could make the statement, "I think
there is a world market for about five computers." There are limits to our
prescience. We will not be able to teach students today everything they will
need to know in the next millenium.
But we can prepare them. There are few public policy debates, par-
ticularly about health and natural resources, that do not resort to evidence
derived from the sciences-epidemiology, climatology, or ecology, for
example. Technology is a pervasive part of our lives, but technological
advances often entail unexpected costs and risks in addition to benefits. A
clear grasp of the interrelationships between science, technology, and
society is essential to basic science literacy. Students need to be able to crit-
ically evaluate evidence, to distinguish between scientific knowledge and
knowledge obtained by other means, and to understand that the scientific
enterprise must be governed by societal values.
Environmental-related STS issues have risen to the top of the public
agenda, and will continue to dominate public debate for the foreseeable
future. Although particular environmental issues may change, the skills and
knowledge students build in the classroom today will prepare them to face
the challenges of tomorrow. The current approach of adding environmen-
tal study to the curriculum as supplemental activities or sidebar exercises
is inadequate, because it encourages students to base opinions on superfi-
cial study rather than true scientific inquiry. Educators should give further
thought to incorporating study of the environment as a rigorous, substan-
tive, and integral element of the science curriculum.
164 Science, Technology, and Society

REFERENCES

Arms, K (1996). Environmental Science, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Boston.

Bernstein, L., Winkler,A., and Zierdt-Warshaw, L. (1996). Environmental Science: Ecology and
Human Impact,Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA.
Biggs, A., Kapicka, c., and Lundgren, L. (1995). Biology: The Dynamics of Life, Glencoe/
McGraw-Hill, New York.
California CLASS Project (1992). California Department of Education/National Wildlife
Federation, Sacramento.
Chemical Education for Public Understanding Program (1992). Plastics in Our Lives,
Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA.
Chiang-Soong, B. (1993). STS in most frequently used textbooks in U.S. secondary schools. In
Yager, R. (ed.), What Research Says to the Science Teacher. Vol. VII, National Science
Teachers Association, Washington, D.C., pp. 43-47.
Disinger,1. (1986). Locating the "E" in SIT/So ERIC Information Bulletin 3:1-3.
DiSpezio,M., Lisowski, M., Skoog, G., Linner-Luebe, M., and Sparks, B. (1995). Science Insights,
Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA.
Dobson, A. P. (1996). Conservation and Biodiversity, Scientific American Library, New York.
Essenfield, B., Gontang, c., and Moore, R. (1994). Biology, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, CA.
Falk, D. (ed.) (1995). Environmental Science: Changing Populations, Globe Fearon, Paramus,
N1.
Gambro, 1., and Switzky, H. A. (1996). National survey of high school students' environmen-
tal knowledge. Journal of Environmental Education 27(3):28-33.
Goodman, H., Shecter, Y., Graham, L., and Emmel, T. (1991). Biology Today, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Chicago.
Harkness, 1., and Helgren, D. (1993). Technology and Society: Impacts of Technology, Globe
Fearon, Paramus, NJ.
Hausbeck, K., Milbrath, L., and Enright, S. M. (1992). Environmental knowledge awareness
and concern among 11th-grade students: New York state. Journal of Environmental
Education 24(1 ):27-34.
Heil, D. (1994). Discover the Wonder-Grade 5, ScottForesman, Oakland.
Hurd, D., Matthias, G., Johnson, S., Snyder, E., and Wright, J. (1992). Science: A Voyage of
Exploration, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
lEA TIMSS International Mathematics and Science Study. Performance on Items Within Each
Science Content Area, http://www.ustimss.msu.edu/frame.htm.
Independent Commission on Environmental Education. (1997). Are We Building Environ-
mental Literacy? George C. Marshall Institute, Washington, D.C.
Kandler, O. (1993). The air pollution/forest decline connection: The "Waldsterben" theory
refuted. Unisylva 44:173.
Kempton, w., Boster, 1., and Hartley, 1. (1996). Environmental Values in American Culture, The
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Knapp, C. (1996). A response to Bora Simmons's recent president's message. Environmental
Communicator 12:21-22.
Kuusela, K (1994). Forest Resources in Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Maton, A. (1995). Prentice Hall Science: Exploring Life Science, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Maton, A. (1994). Prentice Hall Science: Ecology: Earth's Living Resources, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McGlauflin, K, and O'Connor, M. (1992). Living Lightly in the City, Schlitz Audubon Center,
Milwaukee.
Science, Technology, Society, and the Environment 165

Milani, 1., Leonard, W, Manney, T., Rainis, K., Uno, G., and Winternitz, K. (1992). Biological
Science: An Ecological Approach, Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
Miller, G. T. (1995). Environmental Science: Working with the Earth, Wadsworth Publishing Co.,
Belmont, CA.
McFadden, C, and Yager, R. (1993). Science Plus: Technology and Society, Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Chicago.
National Research Council (1996). Carcinogens and Anticarcinogens in the Human Diet: A
Comparison of Naturally Occurring and Synthetic Substances, National Academy Press,
Washington.
National Research Council (1990). FUlfilling the Promise: Biology Education in the Nation's
Schools, National Academy Press, Washington.
Nebel, B., and Wright, R. (1998). Environmental Science, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
N1.
O'Connor, M. (1995). Living Lightly on the Planet, Schlitz Audubon Center, Milwaukee, WI.
Person, 1. (1995). Environmental Science: How the World Works and Your Place In It, 1. M.
Lebel, New York.
Reaka-Kudla, M., Wilson, D., and Wilson, E. O. (eds.) (1997). Biodiversity II: Understanding
and Protecting our Biological Resources, Joseph Henry Press, Washington.
The Roper Organization (1992). Teen America's Environmental GPA. A survey commissioned
by S.C Johnson, Inc.
Rubba, P., and Wiesenmayer, R. (1998). Goals and competencies for precollege STS educa-
tion: Recommendations based upon recent literature in environmental education.
In Hungerford, H., Bluhm, W, Yolk, T., and Ramsey,1. (eds.), Essential Readings in
Environmental Education, Stipes Publishing L.L.C, Champaign IL, pp. 327-336.
Schraer, W, and Stolze, H. (1991). Biology: The Study of Life, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) (1990). The Causes and Effects of
Acidic Deposition, Vol. IV, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C
Skelly, 1., and Innes, 1. (1994). Waldsterben in the forest of central Europe and eastern North
America: Fantasy or Reality? Plant Disease 78(11):1021-1032.
Stapp, W (1969). Environmental encounters. Environmental Education 1(1):30-31.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UN-ECElFood and Agriculture Organi-
zation of the United Nations FAO (1992). The Forest Resources of the Temperate Zone:
Main Findings of the UN-ECEIFAO 1990 Forest Resource Assessment, Report No. E.
92. II. E. 27, United National, New York.
World Resources Institute (1996). World Resources 1996-1997, Oxford University Press, New
York.
Yager, R. (ed.) (1993). What Research Says to the Science Teacher Vol. VII: The Science Tech-
nology Society Movement, National Science Teachers Association, Washington, D.C
 CHAPTER 7

Marginalization of Technology
within the STS Movement in
American K-12 Education
Dennis W. Cheek

A MATTER OF DEFINITION

We live in a pervasive, technological world. Technologies of all types are

part of the fabric of everyday life. They extend human capabilities, aid in
the prevention of disease, facilitate human interaction, structure commerce,
and provide endless hours of entertainment. They also provide means and
methods for social control and realization of the worst in human behaviors.
Yet technology as a major arena of human activity and engagement scarcely
enters the consciousness of most Americans, despite the fact we interact
with technological systems and artifacts virtually all of our waking moments
and even when we sleep (McGinn, 1991; Melzer, Weinberger, and Zimman,
1993; Latour, 1996).
The STS movement in the United States within K-12 education rec-
ognizes the need to "develop scientifically literate individuals who under-

Dennis W. Cheek, Rhode Island Department of Education, Providence, RI 02903.

Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

167
168 Science, Technology, and Society

stand how science, technology, and society influence one another and who
are able to use this knowledge in their everyday decision-making," as the
1982 position paper on STS from the National Science Teachers Associa-
tion framed it (National Science Teachers Association, 1982). Technology
has been viewed from the outset of the movement in American K-12
education as one of three critical legs of the STS stool.
Yet considerable confusion arises in K-12 education circles when one
mentions the word "technology." To many K-12 teachers and administra-
tors, technology refers absolutely and circumspectly to computers, com-
puter networks, software, and related devices that are part of the
Information Age. Most schools, by this definition, are not only explicitly
aware of technology but they consciously use it on a daily basis and stu-
dents are frequently instructed in its use.
Technology, as we will employ the term in this paper, is of much older
vintage than modern information technologies. Although technology
includes computers and related devices, it also embraces the entire human-
constructed world of artifacts and systems (Webster, 1991; Volti, 1995).
Professor Stephen 1. Kline (1985) suggested technology is a complex set of
concepts, artifacts, and systems, that can be discussed in four major ways:

1. As artifacts or hardware, e.g., pencils, microscopes, antiballistic

missiles
2. As sociotechnical systems of production, e.g., an automobile
assembly line
3. As technique or methodology, e.g., the skills, knowledge, and
general know-how to rebuild an engine or to engage in oil
painting
4. As sociotechnical systems of use, e.g., an airplane presupposes
a much wider system of rules and regulations, licenses and
trained pilots, passengers and cargo, maintenance, airports,
manufacturing facilities, air control, etc.

Technology is the oldest of human endeavors. Early tools, art, produc-

tion of clothing, human language, and symbolic communication all are exam-
ples of technologies in use since the dawn of time. Technology predates by
thousands of years the advent of other fields of human endeavor such as
science, history, and the social sciences. Technologies evolve in response to
changing human needs or environments. Developments in technologies are
influenced by a variety of factors including available materials, time, cre-
ativity, market demand, and prevalent ideas and beliefs within human cul-
tures in terms of religion, philosophy, and social mores. For these reasons,
human beings have often created very different technologies to meet the
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 169

same basic human needs. Ancient cultures that depended on rivers for their
existence, for example, evolved a variety of river artifacts and systems to aid
transportation and commerce, exploitation of the river's resources, and man-
agement of the river's course (McAdams, 1996; Westrum, 1991).
All technologies embody the explicit and implicit values of their cre-
ators (Ellul, 1990; Green, Owen, and Pain, 1993; Morgall, 1993). A chair, for
example, in a modern manufacturing plant embodies the concept of "nor-
mality" or "average" in terms of its dimensions. It presumes certain things
about the unknown user including the length of their limbs, the amount of
sustained time they might spend in the chair, and varied uses for the chair.
It also reflects views of its creators with regard to style, color, and "feel." A
handmade chair created by a colonial craftsman, on the other hand, while
often more individually tailored for a particular user, also unavoidably
embodies certain values of its maker (Pound, 1989).
Another key concept for all technologies is the idea of "trade-offs."
Each technological artifact, system, or methodology conveys certain bene-
fits while imposing certain burdens or costs associated with its use or im-
plementation. For example, a statewide testing system enables central
policymakers, the public, and other interested individuals and organizations
to get a read on how well the system is doing relative to certain valued ends
as measured by the testing instruments. On the other hand, such a system
also involves direct financial and other costs because of its creation, dis-
semination, administration, and its reporting of the results. Some users
benefit from the technology, others suffer at its hand, while still others
neither benefit nor suffer (Wenk, 1995; Winner, 1986).
Every technology also results in unanticipated consequences for users
and others affected by it (Rothenburg, 1993; Sarewitz, 1996). These conse-
quences cannot be forecast in advance by the designers of the technology
but come to the fore as particular technologies are implemented in situa-
tions not within the purview of the original design work (MacKenzie, 1996).
For example, the first paved roads in American cities came into being
because of the huge amounts of horse droppings that had to be collected
from city thoroughfares and because carriages were getting stuck on muddy
avenues. This network of paved streets became an ideal means of con-
veyance for the first "horseless carriages" and promoted their rapid adop-
tion by affluent city dwellers. Developers of the "peaceful uses of atomic
energy" in the United States in the fifties did not foresee the present prob-
lems of low level radioactive waste disposal, nuclear power plant failures
and decommissioning, and public opposition to expansion of power plant
sites (Bauer, 1997; Marcus and Segal, 1989; Segal, 1994).
Within modern science and technology, the boundary between these
two fields of endeavor is becoming increasingly blurred. Largescale
170 Science, Technology, and Society

research and development projects, such as the Human Genome Project,

global change research, or Intelligent Transportation Systems, involve thou-
sands of scientists, engineers, and technicians. At any given point, on any
given day, a freeze frame of activity would lead to an unresolvable debate
among purists as to whether science or technology were being utilized.
Despite these convergences, science is fundamentally engaged in explain-
ing the workings of the natural world while technology is fundamentally
concerned with taking raw materials in the natural world and blending them
with human expertise and creativity to create products, goods, and services
that meet human needs. Many people, especially those in science education,
erroneously define technology as "applied science." While in some specific
cases such a designation holds true, in many other instances technology is
employed with little or any explicit use of scientific knowledge or under-
standing (Marcus and Segal, 1989; Segal, 1994; Mitcham, 1994).
Design and design constraints playa major role in technology devel-
opment and evolution. The very tools used in the design process (e.g., CAD,
CAM) are themselves technologies, and therefore subject to trade-offs
inherent in all technologies. Each tool has certain advantages and disad-
vantages. The goal of all design activities is to optimize the design. This
value-laden process is vital to market success, health and safety, and cus-
tomer satisfaction. Optimization involves a complex balancing of compet-
ing desires from those commissioning the design work. The optimization
process also requires a seemingly endless round of tests, redesigns, and
retests, until a desired balance is achieved in the overall design and its per-
formance. There is rarely, if ever, an example of a design process where
no failures or redesigns were called for on the basis of initial test results
(Billington, 1996; DeVries, Cross, and Grant, 1993).
Not all technologies are developed explicitly with human "needs" in
view. Market pull is often a key factor in the development of many tech-
nologies, but companies also use market "push" to bring new products to
market. Sometimes a new product is developed on the basis of an individ-
ual's or group's perception of a "neat idea." The company conducts some
preliminary market analysis and then advertises to create market demand
for the new technology. You see this market push most clear in the world
of children's toys where each season brings a new raft of consumer prod-
ucts that a child "just has to have." (Pursell, 1995; Nye, 1994).
Appropriate uses for varied technologies and the impact of techno-
logical systems have to be constantly monitored by an alert citizenry to
ensure that democratic ideals are upheld and that values implicit in civic
life are promoted or at least not stifled by technological advances (Sclove,
1995; Simpson, 1995). This includes attention to the differential impacts
of various technologies on subcultures or on gender (Wajcman, 1991). The
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 171

historical evolution of a particular technology frequently serves as a useful

analogue or predictor for the potential future impact of a technology
through changing culture, modifying social behavior, or having an impact
on political and religious life (Stevens, 1995).

TECHNOLOGICAL LITERACY

Clearly, technology of the kind discussed in this chapter, embraces a wide

variety of concepts and principles. Current educational parlance suggests
that we need to help all students attain "technological literacy" or what
sometimes has alternatively been called "technological fluency." The first
national Technological Literacy Conference was held in Baltimore, Mary-
land in 1986. A year later, the second conference sought to better define
what "technological literacy" was desired by students leaving secondary
schools and students graduating from colleges and universities (Waks,
1987). An Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation (1996)
issued a report on undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engi-
neering, and technology that echoed this earlier call for technological liter-
acy. It noted their review of the research literature and current initiatives
suggested "All students have access to supportive, excellent undergraduate
education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, and all
students learn these subjects by direct experience with the methods and
processes of inquiry" (p. ii).
Out of the Baltimore meeting came the realization of the need
to establish a National Association for Science, Technology and Society
(NASTS) to promote STS education. NASTS was organized by a collection
of collegiate and precollege STS enthusiasts and was officially incorporated
in 1988 and headquartered within the STS Program at The Pennsylvania
State University (Cutciiffe, 1996). While STS proponents found sufficient
reasons to unite in a common cause, their understandings of exactly what
constitutes "STS" still vary widely.

THE K-12 STS MOVEMENT IN AMERICA

The K-12 STS movement in America began in the 1960s and picked up
speed in the 1970s. It spread from epicenters in private schools in New York
City (via the Teachers Clearinghouse for Science Education under the
direction of Irma Jarcho, John Roeder, and Nancy Van Vranken and states
like Wisconsin) to become a mainstream movement in science education
and technology education. To a much lesser degree, it has influenced social
172 Science, Technology, and Society

studies and language arts instruction. By the early 1980s STS themes were
in the standard middle-level science syllabi of New York State's Regents
system and in the curriculum frameworks and standards documents of oth~r
states and larger school districts.
In the United States this movement was considerably helped by the
Science through Science, Technology and Society Project, which was head-
quartered at the Pennsylvania State University. In the 1980s it was funded
by the National Science Foundation. Conferences, Curriculum modules,
resource support, and a regular newsletter were provided to teachers and
school systems across the United States. Papers from the annual Techno-
logical Literacy Conferences were edited and placed within the Education
Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC) system for interested edu-
cators across the nation (Cheek and Cheek, 1996). A subsequent NSF
award to Penn State established a National STS Network that created state
leadership cadres of K-12 educators in 39 states using nine regional uni-
versity partners across the country. These cadres, in turn, held local work-
shops for their peers in school systems throughout America, drawing
support for their efforts from this national resource network. In K-12 edu-
cation, the movement's success can be gauged by the regular appearance
of STS topics in presentations and symposia at major national and regional
educational conferences annually in the United States sponsored by orga-
nizations such as the National Science Teachers Association, Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Association for the Educa-
tion of Teachers in Science, National Council for the Social Studies, National
Council of Teachers of English, and the International Technology Educa-
tion Association.
A deeper research question centers on the degree of STS implemen-
tation within the K-12 classrooms. The only national survey to consider this
question took place in 1993. Kumar and Berlin (1996) surveyed all 50 state
science supervisors regarding their perceptions of STS emphases and imple-
mentation within their respective states. They found only 17 states either
required or recommended STS education as part of their science curricula.
However, only three states had no STS education or what the researchers
defined as "STS-Surrogate implementation." These findings are limited
solely to science as a content area and rely on the perspectives of only one
state education department official per state. However they do clearly signal
the pervasive impact that concerns about STS education have created in
K-12 American educational systems.
The K-12 STS movement recognizes the existence of technology, but
it also emphasizes science content and context, while giving less time and
emphasis to the technology and society aspects of the interrelationships.
The isoceles triangle with "science," "technology," and "society" at each
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 173

respective apex is used to symbolize STS education. In American educa-

tion, that triangle 'has been heavily slanted toward "science."
STS in precollege education has enjoyed perhaps even more visibil-
ity and impact outside of the United States. Major curriculum reform
movements in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the
Netherlands, to name a few, have featured STS as prominent themes
in science and technology education (Aikenhead and Solomon, 1994;
Calhoun, Panwar, and Shrum, 1996; Yager, 1996). The International
Network for Information in Science and Technology Education of
UNESCO, UNESCO's Project 2000+, World Council on Technology Edu-
cation (WCOTE), and the STS Network of the International Organization
for Science and Technology Education all have STS themes and concepts
in their official platforms and activities.
It is less clear what exactly constitutes STS education. Cheek (1992)
surveyed a variety of influential documents and curriculum materials prin-
cipally produced within the United States to ascertain commonalities
among them. Out of the 30 descriptors used to discuss STS education, only
six features of STS education found widespread agreement:

1. Emphasize the general interactions among science, technology

and society
2. Raise levels of awareness regarding STS issues
3. Incorporate ethics and values considerations
4. Increase student understanding of the applications of
technology
5. Promote decision making skills
6. Involve students in local community action.

Glen Aikenhead and Joan Solomon, influential figures in the international

STS movement, have attempted to clearly define elements for STS educa-
tion. (See for example, Aikenhead, 1993; Aikenhead and Solomon, 1994;
Solomon, 1993.) How many United States participants would subscribe to
their taxonomy remains unclear.
A national study of STS themes in state science curriculum frame-
works in the United States by Kumar and Berlin (1998) suggests at least
some points on which United States advocates of STS education within the
science curriculum would agree with Aikenhead and Solomon's taxonomy.
A total of 25 state science frameworks were examined, the majority
dating to the late 1980s or early 1990s. The percentages of frameworks
which addressed each of the 15 descriptors that Kumar and Berlin used to
categorize STS categories within the content standards ranged from a low
of 8 percent (abilities to distinguish between natural objects and objects
174 Science, Technology, and Society

made by humans) to a high of 88 percent (science and technology within

society).
A consolation for K-12 participants is that the STS movement within
American colleges and universities is also very diverse. Differing ap-
proaches and beliefs resident in college-wide STS programs target under-
graduates and graduate students through specialized units that offer
degrees up through the doctorate for STS studies (e.g., MIT, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, Penn State, Stanford).

Past Efforts at Promoting Technological Literacy

Technology, as a distinct education focus of K-12 curriculum and

instruction in American schools, has had a long and checkered history. Text-
books from the 19th century contained considerable portions devoted to
man's [sic] achievements in the arena of technology, often within the guise
of "applied science" courses (DeBoer, 1991; Montgomery, 1994). Technolog-
ical artifacts, complete with diagrams, graced many textbooks and schools
engaged students in observing demonstrations and constructing simple
machines and technological devices. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, public
education largely turned its back on technology, and school subjects, such as
science and social studies, began to be dominated by a conceptually-driven,
content rich focus on disciplines as known by skilled practitioners (Welch,
1979). This was the era of the so-called "alphabet soup" science curricula
with a heavy emphasis on science as known by, although not necessarily as
practiced by, working scientists. Social and cultural dimensions of science
were downplayed with a few notable exceptions, such as Project Physics, and
technology was presented as secondary to science.
Two notable exceptions to these general trends emerged in the 1960s
and 1970s. The Jackson's Mill Industrial Arts Curriculum, developed by a
team of faculty centered at The Ohio State University, moved industrial arts
with their emphasis on materials, construction, manufacturing, and design.
Sociocultural contexts and the interrelatedness of technological systems
also received attention. The history of technology per se was not in this
innovative curriculum for secondary schools. Key elements of the Jackson's
Mill curriculum remain embodied in materials developed by contemporary
organizations in technology-vocational education such as the International
Technology Education Association and from publishers such as Goodheart-
Willcox, Delmar, and South-Western Publishing.
The second notable exception was Man-Made World a textbook by E.
Joseph Piel and colleagues at the State University of New York at Stony
Brook, published by McGraw-Hill (Engineering Concepts Curriculum
Project, 1971). This was the first serious 20th century venture to blend
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 175

science and technology in a serious manner for secondary education. It was

adopted by some schools on the forefront of educational innovation, but
largely ignored by most school systems in the United States. The book and
its accompanying laboratory materials were influential, however, in the bur-
geoning STS movement in K-12 schools. It provided some of the first
extended treatments of technology as a field of study for secondary schools.
Man-Made World moved technology as a venue for student learning out of
the industrial arts-vocational education wing of the high school and into
the science wing-a notable achievement in itself.

STS AND K-12 SCIENCE EDUCATION

STS in K-12 American science education has taken two somewhat differ-
ent paths. Some of the most vocal early advocates of STS education for the
K-12 science classroom, e.g., Yager (1996; 1993) and Bybee, Carlson, and
McCormack (1984), have emphasized STS as a way to teach science. In this
approach, STS can stimulate student interest in science through the use of
local and community STS issues, which lead students into an indepth inves-
tigation of scientific ways of understanding the world as they attempt to
solve, or take informed positions on, these issues. This particular view of
STS education in science education is reflected in the official position state-
ment on STS education of the National Science Teachers Association
(Yager, 1993). Even a cursory reading of contributions from this school of
thought reveals a paucity of attention to the substance of technology or the
substance of society (as reflected by rigorous social studies content).
A second path, which has yet to gain many adherents in the United
States, has been to strongly couple technology and science as two distinct
but interrelated ways of knowing and doing. The goal is to involve students
in activities that demand both technological adaptation and innovation and
the explicit use of scientific concepts and principles. This path was advo-
cated by STS proponents such as Liao (1994), Roy (1990), Cheek (1992),
Kumar (1998), Hurd (1997). Hurd coined the term "technoscience" to both
reflect the realities of science and technology in the modern world and the
need to better balance education about technology with traditional sciences
in K-12 instruction and curriculum. One example of an approach in
American curriculum which tries to reflect this more balanced treatment is
the Chemistry in the Community (CHEMCOM) Project of the American
Chemical Society which is now in its second edition by Kendall/Hunt Pub-
lishing. However, CHEMCOM continues to be plagued by image problems
among the nation's high school chemistry teachers and thus has captured
only a small part of the high school chemistry textbook market (Black and
176 Science, Technology, and Society

Atkin, 1996). This path is the predominant path taken by STS in primary
and secondary schools throughout most of the world, including Canada
(Calhoun, Panwar, and Shrum, 1996; Weeks, 1997). Even in this arena,
however, there is considerable room for improvement in the equal treat-
ment of technology and society within the STS triangle as only cursory
attention is paid to the history of technology. An indepth study of the socio-
cultural contexts of technological development is absent from precollege
STS materials.
Today in American education, there is an ascendancy of standards-
based approaches to curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional
development. Alignment of these four key elements of K-12 education is
not only anticipated, but also required in many states, and actively pro-
moted across a wide range of educational reform movements. There remain
important tensions among national, state, and local control of the school
curriculum. Many times implementation of standards within the nation's
classrooms often bears only a fleeting resemblance to the new realities envi-
sioned by the creators of standards in various content areas (Black and
Atkin, 1996).
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
launched Project 2061 in the mid 1980s with a series of blue-ribbon panels.
The project's name came from the fact that a student in today's elementary
school will be alive to see the return of Halley's Comet in the year 2061.
Panels were charged to produce white papers on what an American high
school graduate should know, value, and be able to do across a wide spec-
trum of human endeavor that is represented within the membership of
AAAS. This includes not only the traditional science disciplines but
also engineering and allied fields, social sciences, history and philosophy,
education, and the arts. Science for All Americans, published in 1989 by
AAAS, and republished with minor revisions a year later by Oxford
University Press (Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990), summarized the key find-
ings of the blue-ribbon panels into a succinct narrative portrait of what a
student should know, value, and be able to do to be considered "scientifi-
cally literate."
The history of technology and the nature of technology are treated
within Science for All Americans (Rutherford and Ahlgren, 1990). These
areas also receive considerable attention in the companion, Benchmarks
for Science Literacy (American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1997). The Benchmarks, as they are known colloquially, contain
numerous curriculum standards (benchmarks) at grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12,
which address technology in its varied dimensions, in a substantive and sub-
stantial manner. Twelve chapters in the Benchmarks document consider
these topics:
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 177

1. Nature of science
2. Nature of mathematics
3. Nature of technology
4. Physical setting
5. Living environment
6. Human organism
7. Human society
8. Designed world
9. Mathematical world
10. Historical perspectives
11. Common themes (systems, models, constancy and change,
scale)
12. Habits of mind
Technology was defined very broadly with the Benchmarks (AAAS,
1997) with the commentary noting:
Technology is an overworked term. It once meant knowing how to do things-
the practical arts or the study of the practical arts. But it has also come to mean
innovations such as pencils, television, aspirin, microscopes, etc., that people use
for specific purposes and refers to human activities such as agriculture or man-
ufacturing and even to processes such as animal breeding or voting or war that
change certain aspects of the world. Further, technology sometimes refers to the
industrial and military institutions dedicated to producing and using inventions
and know-how. In any of these senses, technology has economic, social, ethical,
and aesthetic ramifications that depend on where it is used and on people's atti-
tudes toward its use. (p. 43)

Chapter 3 of the Benchmarks focuses on "The Nature of Technology"

distributed among three major areas: technology and science, design and
systems, and issues in technology. A total of 47 benchmarks spanning four
different grades (K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12) provide a focus for curriculum and
instruction about the nature of technology within schools. A sample bench-
mark for students in grades 3-5 is: "Technology enables scientists and others
to observe things that are too small or too far away to be seen without them
and to study the motion of objects that are moving very rapidly or are
hardly moving at all (AAAS, 1997, p. 45). There are 84 benchmarks,
spanning four different grades, that deal with "The Designed World"
(Chapter 8) in the Benchmarks. This chapter is organized into six sections:
agriculture, materials and manufacturing, energy sources and use, com-
munication, information processing, and health technology. A series of
other technology-related benchmarks are scattered across the various other
chapters within the document.
The Benchmarks are probably the most extensive national attempt to
create a set of curriculum content standards that cut across numerous fields
178 Science, Technology, and Society

of human endeavor. They provide wonderful challenges for school districts

and schools to creatively weave different traditional subjects within schools
in interesting and interdisciplinary ways. Unfortunately, the project has such
a strong connection with "science education," due to its sponsor, that it has
made little headway in school subjects outside of science education. There
is little evidence that several other national curriculum standards docu-
ments in geography, history, civics, language arts, etc., created subsequent to
the Benchmarks document even took account of its pioneering work in
these varied school curriculum areas. A second problem has been the lack
of clear agreements of respective responsibilities between the Project 2061
national staff and the three school districts with whom it has intensely
worked on creating curriculum materials linked explicitly to the
Benchmarks (Black and Atkin, 1996). Thus, there remains a huge gulf
between the standards advocated within the document and extant curricu-
lum materials in science or other curriculum areas.
National science standards, emanating from the National Research
Council (1996) and produced by a consortium, which included AAAS and
the National Science Teachers Association, were issued in 1996. Eight
categories of content standards were created:

1. Unifying concepts and processes in science

2. Science as inquiry
3. Physical science
4. Life science
5. Earth and space science
6. Science and technology
7. Science in personal and social perspectives
8. History and nature of science

Considerable debate ensued over how "technology" should be treated

within the standards as they were being created. Some favored simply
featuring educational technology (computer hardware and software) in
the science standards; others argued for a comprehensive treatment of
technology similar to that seen within Project 2061. The compromise was
to downplay the importance of technology as a major field of human
endeavor, though it has more working practitioners by far than practicing
scientists. Technology is mentioned within the document almost exclusively
in connection with science and in relation to contemporary societal issues
and concerns. Content Standard E (Science and Technology) within the
K-4 standards states:
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 179

As a result of activities in grades K-4, all students should develop

• Abilities of technological design

• Understanding about science and technology
• Abilities to distinguish between natural objects and objects
made by humans

A further standard (F: Science in Personal and Social Perspectives) includes

a substatement that students should understand "science and technology
in local challenges." The first two substatements of Standard E for K-4
are repeated for Standard E in grades 5-8. Standard F's substatement on
STS reads "science and technology in society," Standard E for grades
9-12 repeats verbatim Standard E for grades 5-8, and the Standard F sub-
statement now reads "science and technology in local, national, and global
challenges." Many STS proponents are dissatisfied with how STS is gener-
ally treated within this important national standards document (Koch, 1996).
It is clear that technology is receiving greater attention in K-12
science education than it has since the early 1950s (DeBoer, 1991). Yet
much of this attention to technology focused only on superficial aspects.
Only two out of 25 state science frameworks examined by Kumar and
Berlin (1998) had content standards that focused on abilities of technolog-
ical design. The history of science and historical perspectives was similarly
poorly represented within these framework documents. Recent framework
documents from states such as Rhode Island (Rhode Island Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education, 1995) and Massachusetts (Massa-
chusetts Department of Education, 1997), however, provide more attention
to technology than do many of the earlier state science frameworks. Rhode
Island's emphasis on technology was a byproduct of its adoption in full of
the Project 2061 Benchmarks for Science Literacy. Massachusett's attention
to technology was due to the sustained advocacy and involvement of the
Technology Education Association of Massachusetts, Inc. and its national
organization, the International Technology Education Association.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has had an abiding interest in
the history of science and history of technology as fields of scholarly research
(Jasanoff, Markle, Peterson, and Pinch, 1995). The NSF has funded projects
that use the history of science as a vehicle to increase student understanding
of the processes of science. More recently, the foundation has turned increas-
ing attention to technology education, thanks to the advocacy efforts of
Gerhard Salinger, a physicist from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy,
NY. Through its Advanced Technological Education and Instructional
Materials Development programs, NSF has been a primary funder of the
180 Science, Technology, and Society

Technology for All Americans Project (see below) and a series of projects
designed to target either Technology Education (TE), Science and Technol-
ogy Education (STE), or Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
(MSTE). The NSF undertook a comprehensive study of middle school
science materials they funded. Their review was released in February 1997.
They found that the materials reviewed lacked enough focus on the history
and nature of science (National Science Foundation, 1997). This same
comment certainly applies to technology, which was not even considered by
the review panel as a criterion for evaluation!

STS in K-12 Social Studies

The STS movement in social studies as taught in American schools
can generally be characterized as much talk but very little action. There
have been several attempts to promote STS education in social studies
through the efforts of a now dissolved Science and Society Committee
within the National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). Committee
members for the past decade or more have organized and facilitated pre-
sentations and symposia at annual national and state meetings of NCSS
(Splittgerber, 1996). Social Education, the flagship publication of NCSS,
carried substantial articles from time to time about STS education in social
studies.
The explicit mention of STS as one of the ten essential themes in
social studies in the Curriculum Standards for the Social Studies promul-
gated by NCSS (1994) was a clarion call to focus on this important arena
of human societies within social studies programs. STS takes its place along-
side the following key social studies themes:

1. Culture
2. Time, continuity and change
3. People, places, and environment
4. Individual development and identity
5. Individuals, groups, and institutions
6. Power, authority, and governance
7. Production, distribution and consumption
8. Global connections
9. Civic ideals and practice

The strand is explained as follows

Technology is as old as the first crude tool invented by prehistoric humans. but
today's technology forms the basis for some of our most difficult social choices.
Modern life as we know it would be impossible without technology and the
Marginalization ofTechnology within the STS Movement 181

science that supports it. But technology brings with it many questions: Is new
technology always better than that which it will replace? What can we learn from
the past about how new technologies result in broader social change, some of
which is unanticipated? How can we cope with the ever-increasing pace of
change, perhaps even with the feeling that technology has gotten out of control?
How can we manage technology so that the greatest number of people benefit
from it? How can we preserve our fundamental values and beliefs in a world
that is rapidly becoming one technology-linked village? This theme appears in
units or courses dealing with history, geography, economics, and civics and gov-
ernment.1t draws upon several scholarly fields from the natural and physical sci-
ences, social sciences, and the humanities for specific examples of issues and the
knowledge base for considering responses to the societal issues related to science
and technology.
Young children can learn how technologies form systems and how their daily
lives are intertwined with a host of technologies. They can study how basic tech-
nologies such as ships, automobiles, and airplanes have evolved and how we have
employed technology such as air conditioning, dams, and irrigation to modify
our physical environment. From history (their own and others), they can con-
struct examples of how technologies such as the wheel, the stirrup, and the tran-
sistor radio altered the course of history. By the middle grades, students can
begin to explore the complex relationships among technology, human values, and
behavior. They will find that science and technology bring changes that surprise
us and even challenge our beliefs, as is the case of discoveries and their appli-
cations related to our universe, the genetic basis of life, atomic physics, and
others. As they move from the middle grades to high school, students will need
to think more deeply about how we can manage technology so that we control
it rather than the other way around. There should be opportunities to confront
such issues as the consequences of using robots to produce goods, the protec-
tion of privacy in the age of computers and electronic surveillance, and the
opportunities and challenges of genetic engineering, test-tube life, and medical
technology with all their implications for longevity and quality of life and
religious beliefs. (NeSS, 1994, p. 28)

Sixteen different performance expectations related to student knowl-

edge of STS were delineated to accompany the general description of the
theme: five for the early grades, five for the middle grades, and six for high
school. Science and technology are inextricably coupled in the phraseology
within these expectations, with the exception of three that treat only one
or the other arena. Thus we see in this document an important emphasis
on "reclaiming science [and technology] for social knowledge" as Fleury
(1997) characterizes it, but considerably less attention to defining and con-
sidering technology as distinct from science.
The Social Studies Development Center and ERIC Clearinghouse for
Social Studies and Social Education at Indiana University under John
Patrick and associates, have worked hard to solicit STS manuscripts and
curriculum materials in social studies and place them within the ERIC
system. A series of STS education products from the Social Sciences
182 Science, Technology, and Society

Education Consortium in Boulder, CO (SSEC) has provided teachers with

lessons that could be adopted or adapted. For additional background mate-
rials to increase teacher knowledge and awareness of STS issues in the
social studies, see Singleton (1995) and Biological Sciences Curriculum
Study, Social Sciences Education Consortium (1992).
NSF funded the Lemelson Center of the Smithsonian Institution and
the Society for the History of Technology to develop jointly materials on
Discovering Science and Technology through History (The website for the
project is http://www.si.edu/lemelson).
This project, directed by historian of technology Susan Smulyan of
Brown University, is a curriculum for secondary classes, principally in social
studies. Its central theme of textiles, dyeing, and industrialization was
chosen for three principal reasons:
1. Industrialization is central in United States history and the
textile industry was a key component of United States
industrialization.
2. Clothing appeals to teenagers as a subject, while providing
ample opportunities to bridge history, social studies, technol-
ogy, and science.
3. Such a topic might especially interest young women and minor-
ity students.
The project has eight curriculum units, which include hands-on activ-
ities. These were released in a field-test version in 1998. In one unit, stu-
dents learn about economics and industrialization by focusing on the Civil
War era. Students layout patterns for uniforms and calculate the cost of
mass production. There are primary documents to interpret, graphs and
charts to create and understand, and ideas for games, debates, and class dis-
cussions. Scholarly articles, historical essays, a bibliography, and a videotape
on textile machinery complete the package. It remains to be seen what type
of following these materials will attract among the nation's high school
social studies teachers. Despite the worth of these particular materials,
anyone sensitive to the history of technology in its sociocultural contexts
would be disappointed with the cursory treatment technology gets in these
materials promulgated for the social studies classroom.

STS IN TECHNOLOGY EDUCATION

Technology education is the final major arena within K-12 American edu-
cation where attention to technology has thrived. The modern technology
education movement, as represented by the International Technology
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 183

Education Association (ITEA) headquartered in Reston, VA, emerged

from the American Vocational Education Association. ITEA has commis-
sioned, published, and distributed a variety of publications focused explic-
itly on technology education for K-12 schools, including their flagship
publication, The Technology Teacher. Research findings related to technol-
ogy education have appeared in the Journal of Technology Education, a ref-
ereed journal published in conjunction with the Council on Technology
Teacher Education.
Technology education continues to have a marginalized existence in
the American secondary school curriculum. This is due to its long and his-
toric association with vocational education and a divide that opened up
between academic and career education in the early 20 century, much to
the chagrin of John Dewey and the progressives (Wirth, 1972). Today's tech-
nology education in high schools usually resides in the career-vocational
wing of the building. Courses are often taught by traditional "shop" teach-
ers who now have proclaimed themselves as "technology educators." Yet
they lack sufficient professional development and course preparation to
make the needed transitions in subject matter knowledge and skills.
The place of technology within the American school curriculum is at
variance with its position in the curricula of other industrialized nations.
The Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United
Kingdom are representative examples where technology has a much larger
niche within primary and secondary education than it possesses within
America (DeVries, Cross, and Grant, 1993; Gordon, Hacker, and DeVries,
1993; Eggleston, 1996). In England, for example, design and technology is
a key component within the national curriculum, separate and distinct from
science education (Eggleston, 1996; Kimbell, Stables, and Green, 1996).
David Layton (1993) professor emeritus of Science Education at Leeds
University in England has been instrumental in the ascendancy of technol-
ogy within the national curriculum. He argues that technology education
poses significant challenges to science education to overhaul its approach
in the primary and secondary curriculum.
A host of curriculum materials for technology education in America
is produced, principally by small publishers who have a market niche in this
arena. Only a flavor of these materials can be provided here. Traditionally,
American technology education features four or five main topics in its
textbooks: manufacturing, communications, transportation, construction,
biotechnology, and energy (Gallo, Somon, and Swernofsky, 1993 Gradwell,
Welch, and Martin, 1996; Lister, 1987; Pierce and Karwartka, 1993;
Williams, Badrhkan, and Daggett, 1985; Wright, 1996). Student activities
include building simple or increasingly sophisticated technological devices.
Students sometimes create time lines or brief summaries of the history of a
184 Science, Technology, and Society

particular invention, generally centered on a particular artifact rather than

an entire technological system. There is no indepth look at the evolution of
a particular technology, or even a move beyond the internalist tradition
within the history of technology. Technology education still has a long way
to go in America to realize the dream of STS as a bridge to solidify fairly
equal attention to both science and technology (Zuga, 1991; 1996).
One positive development in this arena has been the growth and
improvement in recent years of "Tech Prep" programs. The Perkins Voca-
tional Education Act, enacted by Congress in the late 1980s, stimulated the
development of programs for the last two years of high school that would
directly connect with subsequent two year associate degree programs in tech-
nical areas at community colleges. Many of these courses in the early days
were developed by a consortium of states through the Curriculum Occupa-
tional Research and Development Center in Texas (CORD) headed by Dan
Hull (1993; Hull and Purnell, 1991). CORD materials were the first wave of
curriculum materials to teach physics,chemistry, communications (Language
arts), and mathematics in an applied manner targeted to students whose
career goals might center on skills developed via a two year technical college
degree. Recently, there has been a widening of the Tech Prep concept at both
federal and state levels to embrace students from a wider variety of prospec-
tive future careers. Connections between Tech Prep and the newly ascendant
School-to-Work movement funded by various federal agencies to substan-
tially overhaul career and vocational education in the nation are still being
worked out in each individual state. Unfortunately, most of the Tech Prep
materials to date focus on representative technologies of importance to par-
ticular career paths. There is insufficient attention to the social and cultural
contexts of the technologies in question.
This cursory survey of extant materials in technology education
reveals once again a consistent picture of inattention to the sociocultural
history of technology in America and modern life (Pursell, 1995; Hays,
1995). An article by McGee and Wickie in (1997) in The Technology Teacher
recognized that technology education in K-12 schools largely ignored the
history of technology. A middle school teacher, Nancy Matheny, is quoted
as saying, "Teaching technology education without a historical component
is kind of like teaching art without delving into art history. Art, like tech-
nology, is more than three times as old as writing and contains, in its chang-
ing styles and themes, a 15,OOO-year-old record of the physical and social
evolution of man" (p. 18). The authors conclude, "To truly educate our stu-
dents within our field, the concept of technology's history must be integral
in the technology education curriculum" (McGee and Wicklein, 1997, p.18).
It remains to be seen whether curriculum developers of technology educa-
tion can, or will, rise to this challenge.
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 185

Notably, Project 2061 interacted little with ITEA organizationally in

the creation of Science for All Americans or the Benchmarks for Science
Literacy. Project 2061's minimal interaction, along with each professional
subject matter group in education trying to create its own "national" stan-
dards, forced ITEA to obtain funding from the National Science Founda-
tion and NASA to produce a set of curriculum standards for technology
education. This was appropriately titled, "Technology for All Americans."
A national advisory board consists of representatives from other organiza-
tions who have produced national standards documents in science and
mathematics as well as members from business and industry and federal
and state government.
A historian of technology from the Henry Ford Museum chaired the
committee that produced the initial guiding document for the project, Tech-
nology for All Americans: A Rationale for Technology Education (Interna-
tional Technology Education Association, 1996). The document defines
"technological literacy" as "the ability to use, manage, and understand tech-
nology." Each of the verbs is then further defined as follows:
The ability to use technology involves the successful operation of the key systems
of the time. This includes knowing the components of existing macro-systems, or
human adaptive systems, and how the systems behave.
The ability to manage technology involves insuring that all technological activ-
ities are efficient and appropriate.
Understanding technology involves more than facts and information, but also
the ability to synthesize the information into new insights. (p. 6)

The universals of technology are defined as centering on processes,

knowledge, and contexts. Processes include the design, development, use,
control, assessment and consequences of technological systems. Knowledge
involves the nature and evolution of technology, linkages with other arenas
of human activity and knowledge, and technological concepts and princi-
ples. Contexts are segmented into informational systems, physical systems,
and biological systems. An instrumentalist and internalist approach to tech-
nology is apparent within the document.
A decision was made within the ITEA project that all members of the
writing committee for the guide document should not serve on the stan-
dards committee that would actually draft what every student in America
should know, value, and be able to do in the area of technology. The project
released its second draft of technology standards for K-12 education for
public review, hearings, and focus groups in spring 1998. A third draft
became available in fall 1998 with an expectation that a final revision will
occur in light of field testing in the fall. A fourth draft was produced in
the summer of 1999 and selectively distributed. A panel of experts was
186 Science, Technology, and Society

convened in August, 1999, under the auspices of the National Academy of

Engineering within the National Research Council to review the draft. A
final revision of the standards is projected to be released in the spring
of 2000. The writing team for the standards is composed of teachers of
technology education in K-12 schools, district and state technology educa-
tion supervisors, university faculty in technology education, and a limited
number of business and industry representatives. Unfortunately there is no
representation on the writing team of experts in the fields of philosophy,
history, anthropology, or sociology of technology.
Beyond the creation of "national" standards for technology education
and curriculum materials linked to those standards lies the daunting hurdle
of implementation of these materials in the K-12 school systems of this
nation. Certainly the experience of curriculum developers is insightful, and
it is to this perspective that we now turn.

THE PERENNIAL CHALLENGES OF EDUCATIONAL REFORM

Philip W. Jackson (1983) reported that, in the period 1954-1975, the NSF
funded 53 projects to the tune of $117 million. Wayne Welch (1979) using
a slightly different method of tabulation, reported a total of $130 million
for course content improvement projects and another $565 million for
teacher training activities during that same period. While these numbers
appear large, it is important to realize that federal funding varied greatly
within that time, and the relative size of these figures is small compared
with the over $100 billion spent annually on K-12 education during study
the period. Despite, or maybe in part because of, these moderate invest-
ments, these curricula had only limited impact in changing classroom
instruction and student achievement. Welch (1979) noted that "Curriculum
does not seem to have much impact on student learning no matter what
curriculum variations were used .... we at Project Physics eventually con-
cluded that 5 percent [variance in student achievement of old versus new
curriculum] was an acceptable return on our investment since we could
seldom find greater curricular impact on the students" (p. 301).
Welch was deeply involved in Project Physics efforts centered at
Harvard University to teach physics with a heavy historical flavor. A series
of central factors mitigated change including:
• The unwillingness of course developers (usually university
faculty) to listen to teacher suggestions for revisions of the
materials
• The narrow federal funding timetable that demanded com-
pleted projects within a three to four year timespan
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 187

• An attempt to produce "teacher-proof" curricula

• An overemphasis on the discipline as known by the skilled prac-
titioner rather than the entering novice (d. DeBoer, 1991)

In addition Welch observed:

From the beginning, there were the known challenges of unprepared and inse-
cure science teachers, the inherent difficulty of change, the lack of federal policy
for innovations, the natural conservatism of schools, and the threat of a national
curriculum. But in the second decade were added the unforeseen problems of
declining enrollments at the secondary level, inflation, student unrest, a fading
public image of science, environmental concerns, competing demands such as
integration, the back-to-basics movement, social concerns, and school reform
movement. (Welch, 1979, p. 292)

CONCLUSION

Technology is a pervasive influence in the modern world. We still have not

reached a point in K-12 education, even within the STS paradigm, where
technology as a subject for study, investigation, and thought has received
its due place. As an NSF (1996) report reminds us: "In an increasingly tech-
nical and competitive world with information as its common currency, a
society without a properly educated citizenry will be at great risk and its
people denied the opportunity for a fulfilling life" (p. ii).
Education policymakers must exert fuller efforts to ensure that the
divide between science and technology is bridged and that technology
begins to occupy its rightful place in both the K-12 curriculum and the
learning experience of students. This requires an end to the hegemony of
science educators and scientists who control the technology discourse
within K-12 education circles. A greater involvement of engineers and tech-
nology educators is needed to remedy the deficiencies outlined in this
chapter. A second major barrier to increased attention to technology within
STS education is the continuing inadequacy of teacher preparation pro-
grams in science, social studies, and the language arts which continue
to produce graduates who lack substantive coursework or experience
with technology beyond computing. This will require changes to the teacher
certification course requirements within all 50 states and substantial
upgrading of college faculty's own knowledge about technology and its mul-
tifaceted nature. Further success depends on research into the ways science
and technology education can cooperate together in the interests of better
educating all students about the pervasive technological world which we
inhabit. Much of this research needs to take the form of action research
with open-ended, exploratory questions being posed, attempted, analyzed,
188 Science, Technology, and Society

refined etc. in continuous iterations concerning relationships between

science and technology and potential synergy arising from the use of con-
cepts and methods within these respective fields of human endeavor.
Several research journals are partially devoted to exploring these relation-
ships: Journal of Technology Education, Journal of Design and Technology,
Research in Science and Technological Education, and the Journal of Science
Education and Technology. We owe it to our children and future genera-
tions to broaden and deepen attention to technology within K-12 educa-
tion in the United States and around the globe.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several key ideas in this chapter were originally presented in the Sympo-
sium "New Ideas, Audiences, and Venues for Teaching the History of Tech-
nology," at the Society for the History of Technology Annual Meeting in
Pasadena, CA, October 15-17, 1997. The author gratefully acknowledges
the efforts of Ed Pershing (coordinator), Steve Cutcliffe (chair), fellow
presenters, and participants.

REFERENCES

Aikenhead, G. (1993). Logical Reasoning in Science and Technology, John Wiley and Sons of
Canada, Toronto.
Aikenhead, G., and Solomon, J. (eds.) (1994). STS Education: International Perspectives on
Reform, Teachers College Press, New York.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1997). Benchmarks for Science Liter-
acy, Oxford University Press, New York.
Bauer, M. (ed.) (1997). Resistance to New Technology. Nuclear Power, Information Technology
and Biotechnology, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Billington, D. P. (1996). The Innovators: The Engineering Pioneers Who Made America Modern,
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Social Sciences Education Consortium (1992). Teach-
ing about the History and Nature of Science and Technology: A Curriculum Framework,
Boulder, CO.
Black, P. 1., and Atkin, M. (eds.) (1996). Changing the Subject: Innovations in Science, Mathe-
matics, and Technology Education, Routledge, New York.
Bybee, R. w., Carlson, 1., and McCormack, A. 1. (eds.) (1984). NSTA Yearbook: Redesigning
Science and Technology Education, National Science Teachers Association, Washington,
ne.
Calhoun, K., Panwar, R., and Shrum, S. (eds.) (1996). International Organization for Science
and Technology Education (IOSTE) 8th Symposium Proceedings. Four volumes, Faculty
of Education, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Cheek, n w. (1992). Thinking Constructively about Science, Technology and Society Educa-
tion, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 189

Cheek, D. w., and Cheek, K. A. (eds.) (1996). Proceedings of the Eleventh National Techno-
logical Literacy Conferences, February 8-11, 1996, Arlington, VA. ERIC Clearinghouse
for Social Sciences and Social Studies Education, Bloomington, IN.
Cutcliffe, S. H. (1996). National Association for Science, Technology, and Society. In Yager,
R. E. (ed.), Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, State Univer-
sity of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 291-297.
DeBoer, G. E. (1991). A History of Ideas in Science Education: Implications for Practice, Teach-
ers College Press, New York.
DeVries, M. 1., Cross, N., and Grant, D. P. (eds.) (1993). Design Methodology and Relationships
with Science, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Eggleston, 1. (1996). Teaching Design and Technology (Second Edition), Open University Press,
Philadelphia.
Ellul, 1. (1990). The Technological Bluff, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI.
Engineering Concepts Curriculum Project (1971). The Man-Made World, McGraw-Hill, New
York, NY.
Fleury, S. C. (1997). Science in social studies: Reclaiming science for social knowledge. In Ross,
E. W. (ed.), The Social Studies Curriculum: Purposes, Problems, and Possibilities, State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 165-182.
Gallo, D., Somon, S., and Swernofsky, N. R (1993). Experience Technology, Glencoe Publish-
ers, New York.
Gordon, A., Hacker, M., and DeVries, M. (eds.) (1993). Advanced Educational Technology in
Technology Education, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Gradwell, 1., Welch, M., and Martin, E. (1996). Technology Shaping Our World, Goodheart-
Wilcox Company, Inc., South Holland, IL.
Green, E., Owen, 1., and Pain, 0. (1993). Gendered by Design? Information Technology and
Office Systems, Taylor and Francis, Washington, D.C.
Hays, S. P. (1995). The Response to Industrialism, 1885-1914 (Second Edition), University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hull, D. (1993). Opening Minds, Opening Doors: The Rebirth of American Education, Center
for Occupational Research and Development, Waco, TX.
Hull, D., and Parnell, D. (1991). Tech/Prep/Associate Degree: A WinlWin Experience, Center
for Occupational Research and Development, Waco, TX.
Hurd, P. D. (1997). Inventing Science Education for the New Millennium, Teachers College
Press, New York.
International Technology Education Association (1996). Technology for All Americans: A
Rationale for Technology Education, Reston, VA.
Jackson, P. W. (1983). The reform of science education: A cautionary tale. Daedalus.
112(2):143-166.
Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Peterson, 1. c., and Pinch, T. (eds.) (1995). Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Kimbell, R, Stables, K., and Green, R (1996). Understanding Practice in Design and Technol-
ogy, Open University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Kline, S. 1. (1985). What is technology? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
5(3):215-218.
Koch, 1. (1996). National science education standards: A turkey, a valentine, or a lemon? In
Yager, R. E. (ed.), Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, State
University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 306-315.
Kumar, 0. D. (1998). Chemical education in an era of information technology. The Chemist
75(1):3-4.
Kumar,D. D., and Berlin, 0. F. (1998).A study of STS themes in state science curriculum frame-
works in the United States. Journal of Science Education and Technology 7(2):191-197.
190 Science, Technology, and Society

Kumar, D. D., and Berlin. 0. F. (1996). A study of STS curriculum implementation in the United
States. Science Educator 4(1):12-19.
Latour, B. (1996). ARAM IS or the Love of Technology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Layton, D. (1993). Technology's Challenge to Science Education, Open University Press,
Philadelphia, PA.
Liao, T. (1994). Principles of engineering course: School and industrial collaboration. In
Blandow, D. and Dyrenfurth, M. 1. (eds.) Technology Education in School and Industry:
Emerging Didactics for Human Resource Development, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp.
197-207.
Listar, G. (1987). Technology Activity Guide 1, Delmar Publishers, Albany, NY.
MacKenzie, 0. (1996). Knowing Machines: Essays on Technical Change, MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA.
Marcus, A. I., and Segal, H. P. (1989). Technology in America: A Brief History, Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich, San Diego, CA.
Massachusetts Department of Education (1997). Science and Technology Curriculum Frame-
work. Owning the Questions through Science and Technology, Malden, MA.
McAdams, R. (1996). Path of Fire: An Anthropologist's Inquiry into Western Technology, Prince-
ton University Press, Princeton, N1.
McGee, L., and Wicklein, R. C (1997). Technology education in perspective: Clearer visions
necessary. The Technology Teacher October:17-20.
McGinn, R. E. (1991). Science, Technology and Society, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N1.
Melzer, A. M., Weinberger, 1., and Zinman, M. R. (1993). Technology in the Western Political
Tradition, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Mitcham, C (1994). Thinking through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philos-
ophy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Montgomery, S. L. (1994). Minds for the Making: The Role of Science in American Education,
1750-1990, The Guilford Press, New York.
Morgall,1. M. (1993). Technology Assessment: A Feminist Perspective, Temple University Press,
Philadelphia, PA.
National Council for the Social Studies (1994). Curriculum Standards for Social Studies: Expec-
tations of Excellence, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards, Washington,
D.C.
National Science Foundation (1996). Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergradu-
ate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, NSF96-139,Arling-
ton, VA, p. ii.
National Science Foundation (1997). Review of Instructional Materials for Middle School
Science, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Arlington, VA.
National Science Teachers Association (1982). Science- Technology-Society: Science Education
for the 1980s, Washington, o.c.
Nye, 0. E. (1994). American Technological Sublime, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pierce, A., and Karwatka, D. (1993). Introduction to Technology, West Publishing Company,
St.Paul,MN.
Pound, N. 1. G. (1989). Hearth and Home: A History of Material Culture, University of Indiana
Press, Bloomington, IN.
Pursell, C. (1995). The Machine in America: A Social History of Technology, The Johns Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (1995). Science Literacy
for All Students: The K-12 Science Framework, Providence, RI.
Marginalization of Technology within the STS Movement 191

Rothenberg, D. (1993). Hand's End: Technology and the Limits of Nature, University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Roy, R. (1990). The relationship of technology to science and teaching of technology. Journal
of Technology Education 1(2):5-19.
Rutherford, J., and Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for All Americans, Oxford University Press,
New York.
Sarewitz, D. (1996). Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology and the Politics of Progress,
Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Sc1ove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and Technology, Guilford Press, New York.
Segal, H. P. (1994). Future Imperfect: The Mixed Blessings of Technology in America, Univer-
sity of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.
Simpson, L. C. (1995). Technology, Time, and the Conversations of Modernity, Routledge, New
York.
Singleton, L. R. (1995). Science/Technology/Society: Activities and Resources for Secondary
Science and Social Studies, Social Sciences Education Consortium, Boulder, co.
Solomon,J. (1993). Teaching Science, Technology and Society, Open University Press, Philadel-
phia.
Splittgerber, E (1996). Science-technology-society themes in social studies. Theory into Prac-
tice 30(4):242-250.
Stevens, E. W. Jr. (1995). The Grammar of the Machine: Technical Literacy and Early Indus-
trial Expansion in the United States, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Volti, R. (1995). Society and Technological Change (Second Edition), St. Martin's Press, New
York.
Wajcman, J. (1991). Feminism Confronts Technology, The Pennsylvania State University
Press, University Park, PA.
Waks, L. J. (ed.) (1987). Technological Literacy: Proceedings of the Second National Confer-
ence, Washington, D.C., February 6-8, 1987. Special Issue of the Bulletin of Science, Tech-
nology and Society 7(1, 2):1-366.
Webster, A. (1991). Science, Technology and Society, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
NJ.
Weeks, R. C. (1997). The Child's World of Science and Technology: A Book for Teachers, Pren-
tice Hall Allyn and Bacon, Scarborough, Ontario.
Welch, W. W. (1979). Twenty years of science curriculum development: A look back. In Berliner,
D. C. (ed.), Review of Research in Education, Volume 7, American Educational
Research Association, Washington, D.C.
Wenk, E. Jr. (1995). Making Waves: Engineering, Politics, and the Social Management ofTech-
nology, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
Westrum, R. (1991). Technologies and Society: The Shaping of People and Things, Wadsworth
Publishing, Belmont, CA.
Williams, C. E, Badrhkan, K. S., and Daggett, W. R. (1985). Technology for Tomorrow,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Winner, L. (1986). The Whale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Tech-
nology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Wirth, A. G. (1972). Education in the Technological Society: The Vocational-Liberal Studies
Controversy in the Early Twentieth Century, Intext Educational Publishers, Scranton,
PA.
Wright, T. R. (1996). Technology Systems, Goodheart-Wilcox Company, Inc., South Holland,
IL.
Yager, R. (ed.) (1993). What Research Says to the Science Teacher. Volume Seven: The Science,
Technology, Society Movement, National Science Teachers Association, Washington,D.C.
192 Science, Technology, and Society

Yager, R. E. (ed.) (1996). Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, State

University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Zuga, K. F. (1991). The technology education experience and what it can contribute to STS.
Theory into Practice 30(4):260-266.
Zuga, K. F. (1996). STS promotes the rejoining of technology and science. In Yager, R. E. (ed.),
Science/Technology/Society as Reform in Science Education, State University of New
York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 227-240.
 CHAPTER 8

Student Understanding of
Global Warming
Impl ications for STS Education
beyond 2000 1
James A. Rye and Peter A. Rubba

Many experts believe humans are imperiling the ecology of the earth by
enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which may result in global
warming. Others suggest, however, that we do not yet fully understand all
the factors operating in the earth's system and their complex interactions, so
it is possible that the warming observed during the past century may be due
to natural variation. Whether or not there is a discernible human influence

1 This chapter is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant
no. TEP-9150232. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in
this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National
Science Foundation.

James A. Rye, Department of Educational Theory and Practice, West Virginia University, Mor-
gantown, WV 26506-6122. Peter A. Rubba, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802.
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

193
194 Science, Technology, and Society

on global climate, global warming is an STS issue that will continue to be

debated far into the next century. The potential significance of global
warming makes it the STS issue that will shape STS education as STS enters
the new millennium.
Separating the effects of natural variation in climate from the possi-
ble impact of human influences is an extremely complex problem. Still, with
each passing year the evidence mounts that the enhanced greenhouse effect
is a serious threat to our biosphere and to the human economies responsi-
ble for the consequent global warming. Nations around the world have
industrialized power provided by the burning of fossil fuels. In the process,
carbon dioxide and water vapor (the major bypro ducts of fossil fuel
burning), and other gases related to industrial activity, such as methane,
nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), are vented into the
atmosphere where they can trap heat and enhance the earth's natural
greenhouse effect.
The sharp increases in these "greenhouse" gases, particularly carbon
dioxide, over the past 150 years have corresponded to increases in global
temperatures. The year 1997 was the hottest year on record, with the nine
hottest years on record occurring within the last 11, according to data col-
lected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
(Warrick, 1998). Now, global and regional changes which may result from an
enhanced greenhouse effect are being identified. These include, for example,
retreating glaciers and melting ice caps, increases in the number and sever-
ity of storms, diminished growth in coral reefs, marked seasonal changes in
the northern latitudes (spring occurring earlier and fall later), and changes
in climate-related disease distribution-unprecedented malaria, hantavirus
and cholera outbreaks in climates where these diseases usually do not occur
(O'Meara, 1997). More dramatic and potentially catastrophic signs of cli-
matic change, such as a loss in biodiversity, the flooding of coastal areas,
regional changes in soil moisture content and food production (Ennis and
Marcus, 1994; Mackenzie and Mackenzie, 1995; Schneider, 1989), are less
easily separated from natural variability (Houghton, Callen dar, and Varney,
1992). New data continue to strengthen the convictions of scientists who
believe that increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are con-
tributing to global warming, and to sway other scientists. In an Associated
Press interview, Elbert Friday, a meteorologist and a research chief at NOAA
said, "I wouldn't have been willing to say this two years ago. I believe we are
seeing evidence of global warming at least some of which is attributable to
human activities" (Schmid, 1998, p. AS).
Accordingly, global climate change has received considerable interna-
tional attention from scientists and policymakers. Profound examples of
such attention include the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Student Understanding of Global Warming 195

Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization

and the United Nations Environment Program, the 1992 United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the December 1997 Kyoto
Climate Summit. There has been a corresponding interest in educating youth
through college students about global climate change (e.g.,Activities for the
Changing Earth System, 1993; Mackenzie, 1998; Roleff, 1997; Science for
Understanding Tomorrow's World: Global Change, 1994; see also University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research on-line at http://www.ucar.edu).
Moreover, this interest is likely to gain momentum in light of the IPCC fore-
casts (Houghton, Filho, Callander, Harris, Kattenberg, and Maskell, 1996) for
future climate warming and the projected impact of such on the environment
and society, as described subsequently.
The IPCC predicts an increase in global mean temperature of about
2°C by the year 2100; the range of predicted increases is 1-3SC, which
reflects low to high greenhouse gas emission and climate sensitivity scenar-
ios (Kattenberg, Giorgi, Grassl, Meehl, Mitchell, Stouffer, Tokioka, Weaver,
and Wigley, 1996). The "best estimate" of corresponding sea level rise by the
year 2100-the majority due to thermal expansion of the oceans as opposed
to the melting of glaciers and ice caps-is about 50cm (Warrick, Provost,
Meier, Oerlemans, and Woodworth, 1996). Considerable scientific uncer-
tainty surrounds these estimates of future rise in sea level: The range is 20
cm to 86cm for the previously cited "best estimate." Indeed, scientific uncer-
tainties are inherent in all predictions of climate change and its impact. Nev-
ertheless, a sea level rise of about 50cm will "lead to inundation of low-lying
areas around the world" (Mackenzie, 1998, p. 396) and double the number
of people who currently are at risk for flooding (IPCC, 1995, Metzger, 1996);
rises of 1OOcm, a value close to the highest IPCC Working Group I estimate,
will have a profound impact on the lives of the 20 percent of the world's
inhabitants who populate these areas. Such an impact would include reduc-
ing land surface area, tourism and fresh water supplies, the latter already at
a premium for some islands and low-lying coastal areas (Mackenzie, 1998,
IPCC, 1995).
Kotlyakov (1996) describes the varying impact by geographic region
that is expected to accompany global warming, e.g., maximum warming will
occur at high latitudes and result in relative losses of permafrost and the
Greenland ice sheet whereas the midlatitudes of the northern hemisphere
may reap benefits from increased agricultural production. The IPCC (1995)
also acknowledges that climate warming likely will benefit some geographic
regions; however, they summarize the social costs of anthropogenically
induced warming by stating that such beneficial impacts are "domi-
nated by the damage costs" (p. 50). For example, human health generally
will be adversely impacted by these results of climate warming: increased
196 Science, Technology, and Society

morbidity and mortality due to heat stress, vector-borne infectious diseases

(malaria, viral encephalitis, etc.), and nonvector-borne diseases such as
cholera and giardiasis. Kotlyakov (1996) predicts climate warming will
result in an increased frequency of extreme phenomena (such as drought)
and believes "society is about to enter a period of environmental and
economic adjustment to rapidly changing conditions" (p. 522).
The observed and predicted impacts of increased greenhouse gas
emissions, such as those described above, make global climate change
issues particularly appropriate themes for STS education. Such themes are
timely and of interest to students; they are of global significance yet have
local implications, so the possibility of taking action exists. Additionally,
they are linked to science concepts typically studied in middle and sec-
ondary school science courses, and the diversity of these concepts-such as
photosynthesis, electromagnetic spectrum, and the earth surface reservoirs
of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere, and biosphere-provides an
excellent opportunity to integrate instruction on the life, physical, earth, and
space sciences. STS themes on global climate change issues also provide a
rich context for exploring "the conflict" that exists between the human-
made "technosphere" (p. 6) and the natural earth surface reservoirs
(Mackenzie, 1998).
Yet another factor that makes climate change issues, specifically
global warming, especially suited for STS themes is that "the reality ques-
tion [of global warming] is still under some debate" (Kerr, 1997, p. 1917).
Further, Mackenzie (1998) reports that "there is substantial disagreement
in the scientific community concerning the environmental problems of an
enhanced greenhouse effect ... " (p. 416). Whereas such disagreement
among scientists results in a quandary and debate among economists, pol-
icymakers, journalists-society in general-it also provides an opportunity
for students to consider and think critically about opposing viewpoints
(Roleff, 1997). Metzger (1996) contends that such controversy taken
together with the potential dramatic effects of global climate change
uniquely positions this topic for "exploring the dynamic nature of science
and its importance to society" (p. 327).
Over the past five years, we have had the privilege of working with
colleagues, middle-junior high school science teachers and their students to
develop STS curricula on the science, technology, and societal issues related
to certain critical aspects of global climate change, and to study both stu-
dents and teachers during the development and implementation of the cur-
ricula. This work focused mainly on the concepts and STS issues of global
warming and ozone layer depletion, and to a lesser degree on ground level
ozone pollution. In this chapter, we draw upon the literature and our pub-
lished work, together and with others as cited herein, to discuss students'
Student Understanding of Global Warming 197

pre- and post-instructional alternative concepts of global warming, and the

implications the findings have for STS education.
A Leadership Institute in Science-Technology-Society (STS) Educa-
tion, funded by the National Science Foundation, served as the mechanism
for our work with two dozen mainly middle-junior high school science
teachers from rural central Pennsylvania and northern West Virginia and
their students. The institute's program was based on a research foundation
that connects it to the long acknowledged scientific literacy goal of K-12
science education.

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY AS A FOUNDATION FOR STS EDUCATION

The term "scientific literacy" was coined after World War II. Although our
concepts of scientific literacy have changed over time, our preparation of
citizens to deal with science and technology as these enterprises touch their
lives has been a generally acknowledged goal for a school science educa-
tion since Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson's advocacy for the
inclusion of science and technology in the school curriculum. The most
recent efforts at explicating our conceptions of scientific literacy can be
found in the standards and benchmarks work of Project 2061 (American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990, 1993) and the National
Research Council (1996).
The authors' conception of scientific literacy follows from a social
responsibility perspective (Waks and Prakash, 1985), that citizens in a global
society have an obligation to help resolve the myriad of science- and
technology-related societal issues (STS issues for short) that humankind
has created through the short-sighted use of science and technology. These
include STS issues such as acid rain, enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone
layer depletion, ground level ozone pollution, overpopulation, species
extinction, water quality and quantity, and waste management. Consistent
with this social responsibility perspective and the primacy of scientific lit-
eracy as a goal of a school science education, we hold that a scientifically
literate citizen is able and willing to take responsible and informed action
on STS issues (Rubba and Wiesenmayer, 1997).
The model of instruction we have endorsed for helping learners-
citizens gain the knowledge, skills, and willingness to take responsible action
on STS issues is known as "STS issue investigation and action instruction."
STS issue investigation and action instruction originates from work in envi-
ronmental education on teaching for responsible citizenship action. That
research and more recent research in STS issue investigation and action
strategy itself, both of which are summarized elsewhere (Rubba and
198 Science, Technology, and Society

Wiesenmayer, 1993), shows that students-citizens continue to take action

on societal issues when the instruction helps them develop: (a) an aware-
ness of societal issues, (b) knowledge about actions that might be taken to
resolve the issues, (c) the ability to carry out or take informed action on the
issues, and (d) certain personality and affective characteristics that dispose
one to act (e.g., a somewhat questioning attitude toward technology, an
internal locus of control, efficacy perception). STS issue investigation and
action instruction incorporates these four critical factors in an integrated
four phase structure: foundations, awareness, investigations, and actions.
A unit typically begins with STS issue foundations activities in which
learners examine the nature of science and technology as well as charac-
teristic interactions among science and technology within society. It is crit-
ical that learners understand these interrelationships if they are to take
action on an STS issue. Next, in the STS issue awareness phase, significant
issues facing humankind are identified and analyzed to determine which are
"issues" (as opposed to problems) and which are "STS issues" (as opposed
to societal issues that might not directly involve science or technology), and
to identify related science concepts, technological aspects, social science
concepts, and prominent value positions associated with different sides of
the STS issue. Case studies delivered in text or video form can be used to
develop the next critical understanding: STS issues can and will continue to
develop, but will be resolved only through responsible and informed action
by citizens.
An STS issue relevant to the community and learners is identified
toward the end of the STS issue awareness phase by the class (or a number
of STS issues can be selected each by a different group of learners within
the class) under the teacher's guidance. This issue should be a derivative of
a STS issue with global implications, e.g., acid rain, waste management. It
is crucial that learners identify with the issue and that the issue hold poten-
tial for learners taking action toward its resolution. The aspect of the issue
to be investigated is typically expressed as an STS focusing question (e.g.,
Does our use of landscape have an impact on global warming?) to provide
direction for learners throughout the STS issue investigations and actions
phases. A deep understanding of certain science and social science concepts
and technological aspects of the issue may need to be developed to help
learners clearly define the STS issue. Hence, we encourage a conceptual
change approach to teaching in STS.
In the STS issue investigations phase, learners develop skills for thor-
oughly exploring STS issues as they apply those skills in investigating the
STS focusing question. These might include learning other science or
social studies concepts or aspects of technology that are the foundation
for understanding the STS issue through library research using primary and
Student Understanding of Global Warming 199

secondary sources, securing data and information from outside agencies,

hands-on inquiry activities, collecting natural science data on site, and
using social science research techniques such as questionnaires and inter-
views to collect data within the community. At the close of this phase, the
information and data are consolidated by learners to answer the focusing
question.
Last, in the STS actions phase, learners develop an understanding of
various types of action that might be taken in support of the answer for-
mulated to the STS focusing question. A tentative action plan is composed
and the pros and cons associated with each action examined from a number
of perspectives. Finally, learners decide which action(s) they are willing to
take as individuals or as members of a group. They then implement those
actions, evaluate the results, and report them to the class.

THE STS LEADERSHIP INSTITUTE

The Leadership Institute in STS Education was funded by a three-year

award from the National Science Foundation to develop and cultivate
a cadre of science teacher-leaders in STS among the rural middle
school-junior high schools within central Pennsylvania and northern West
Virginia and to investigate the effectiveness of project-initiated science
teacher development activities, as described in greater detail elsewhere
(Rubba, Wiesenmayer, Rye and Ditty, 1996). About 24 middle school-junior
high school science teachers participated in the institute.
Consistent with its goals, the institute's program of professional devel-
opment activities was comprised of three summer workshops with follow-
up and support activities during the academic years. Global warming was
chosen as the STS theme of the project mainly because it is a highly visible
STS issue of interest to middle school-junior high school students and lends
itself to instruction on science concepts dealt with in life, earth, general, and
physical science courses taught at the middle school level, as well as student
action. The development and implementation of an STS issue investigation
and action unit on three global climate change-related STS issues of
enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion, and ground level ozone
pollution served as the focus for the institute.
As part of an initial summer workshop, six teams of participating teach-
ers developed STS issue investigation and action units on "global warming."
Each unit was 60 pages long and included detailed lesson plans for four to
five weeks of instruction and had resource materials (e.g., videos, booklets,
journal articles, data sheets) referenced or included in appendices. The foun-
dations, awareness, and actions sections of these six units were similar given
200 Science, Technology, and Society

they were based on a common set of STS outcomes and concepts (Rubba
and Wiesenmayer, 1997). However, the investigations lessons were unique
to the six units given these included global warming-related science concepts
linked to the science course in which the unit was to be integrated.
The results from teacher and student interviews conducted by the
authors following implementation of these initial STS units were used by
the participating teachers to revise the units during the second summer's
workshop. During the third summer and following a second year of imple-
mentation, teachers from each of the unit teams and institute staff members
met in two writing conferences to merge the individual STS issue investi-
gation and action units into a single unit. The single unit more fully
addressed middle school students' alternative conceptions about global
warming and ozone depletion, as revealed in the student interviews, and
was designed to be used in 6th-9th grade science courses. The unit, "Global
Atmospheric Change: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer Deple-
tion and Ground Level Ozone Pollution" (Rubba, Wiesenmayer, Rye,
McLaren, Sillman, Yorks, Yukish, Ditty, Morphew, Bradford, Dorough, and
Borza, 1995) can be found on-line at http://www.ed.psu.edulCIIPapers/sts/
gac-main.html.

THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING

The IPCC is considered the world's foremost scientific program on the

assessment of climate change (Kerr, 1997). IPCC Working Groups I, II, and
III are charged with assessing, respectively, the underlying science, impacts
and response options, and economic and social ramifications relative to
climate change. The reports emanated from these working groups provide
a thorough and timely account of the science that underlies climate change
(IPCC publications are listed at http://www.ipcc.ch; summaries of reports
can be viewed on-line). The first report of IPCC Working Group I,
Climate Change: The [PCC Scientific Assessment (Houghton, Jenkins, and
Ephraums, 1990), was published in 1990. It was followed by two interim
reports in 1992 (Houghton, Callander, and Varney) and 1994 (Houghton,
Meira, Filho, Bruce, Lee, Callander, Haites, Harris, and Maskell), the former
coinciding with the 1992 "Earth Summit" in Rio de Janeiro and both adding
to our understanding about the role of atmospheric aerosols and, more
broadly, the driving phenomenon of radiative forcing, in climate change.
The most recent IPCC Working Group I report is Climate Change 1995: The
Science of Climate Change (Houghton et al., 1996).
Much of "the science" of global warming, as set forth in this section,
is based on this latest IPCC report as well as the second edition of Our
Student Understanding of Global Warming 201

Changing Planet by Mackenzie (1998). What is provided herein only sum-

marizes some basic information from this extensive body of knowledge.
Consider this excerpt from the preface of Climate Change 1995, which
speaks to the validity and serious nature of the first IPCC scientific assess-
ment as published eight years ago (Houghton et al., 1990):

We believe the essential message of this report continues to be that the basic
understanding of climate change and the human role therein, as expressed in the
1990 report, still holds: Carbon dioxide remains the most important contributor
to anthropogenic forcing of climate change; projections of future global mean
temperature change and sea level rise confirm the potential for human activities
to alter the Earth's c1imzate to an extent unprecedented in human history; and
the long time-scales governing both the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and the response of the climate system to those accumulations
means that many important aspects of climate change are effectively irreversible.
(Houghton et al., 1996, p. xi)

While the mechanisms and feedback loops that underlie global

warming are multiple, interrelated, and sophisticated (Houghton et al., 1992,
1996; Mackenzie and Mackenzie, 1995; Mackenzie, 1998; National Academy
of Sciences, 1992), global warming ultimately is a natural phenomenon
involving sunlight, or more precisely, solar radiation incident upon the earth
and the atmosphere. Without some degree of global warming-what has
been more commonly referred to as the "greenhouse effect" (even though
the mechanism is not congruent with the way greenhouses are heated by
solar radiation)-the earth would be a frozen planet, or at the very least,
temperatures at earth's surface would not be the average 15°C (excludes
Antarctica) we know and the diurnal variance in temperature would be
considerably greater (Mackenzie, 1998). The mechanism involves energy
from the sun-ultraviolet, visible, and infrared wavelengths of radiation in
the electromagnetic spectrum-being absorbed by the earth's surface. This
energy is re-emitted by the earth's surface as infrared radiation, which
is trapped and re-radiated by "greenhouse" gases present in the lower
atmosphere (troposphere). Accordingly, the "greenhouse effect" (necessar-
ily) warms earth's surface temperature and is a major factor in making life
possible.
Foremost among these gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, and water vapor, all of which have natural origins, along with CFCs
(chlorofluorocarbons), which were recently introduced by humans (CFCs
are exclusively of anthropogenic origin). Changes in the atmospheric level
of these greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, over the past 160,000
years have corresponded to changes in global temperatures (O'Meara,
1997).
202 Science, Technology, and Society

The natural greenhouse effect is being "enhanced" from anthro-

pogenic sources of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, and
tropospheric ozone: Atmospheric levels of these gases are increasing due
to industrialization of the world. This is producing a positive radiative
forcing (the "enhanced" greenhouse effect) in the earth's atmosphere
system and giving rise to global warming. Among all greenhouse gases, the
accumulation of carbon dioxide makes the largest contribution to global
warming. However, CFCs add further to the accumulation of greenhouse
gases in our atmosphere, and as such, to this positive forcing. CFCs were
developed for use as aerosol propellants, cleaners, foam-blowing agents,
refrigerants, and coolants. CFCs are powerful greenhouse gases that
have long atmospheric lifetimes (50-100 years), during which they not only
act as greenhouse gases, but also are responsible for ozone layer deple-
tion-two different environmental problems that can be easily confused.
Pursuant to the international agreements set forth in the Montreal
Protocol and subsequent amendments (Mackenzie, 1998), the atmospheric
growth rates of CFCs are slowing (World Meteorological Organization,
1995). However, at the same time, levels of CFC substitutes (e.g., hydrochlo-
rofluorocarbons [HCFCs] and hydrofluorocarbons [HFCs)) are increasing
in our atmosphere. Although the atmospheric lifetimes and ozone deple-
tion potentials of these CFC substitutes generally are much less than CFCs,
they are still "notable" greenhouse gases (World Meteorological Organiza-
tion, 1995).
Metzger (1996) acknowledges the "daunting" task of pulling together
some basic information on global atmospheric change for precollege teach-
ers. She suggests related student projects, including one that engages stu-
dents in learning about CFCs and their role in global warming and ozone
layer depletion. The interrelationship between ozone layer depletion and
global warming is one of the best examples of the complex nature of global
atmospheric change (Mackenzie, 1998). The material that follows attempts
to illustrate that complexity.
The most recent IPCC report (Houghton et al., 1996) explains that
CFCs, as a greenhouse gas in the troposphere, provide a positive feedback
(radiative forcing) to potential global warming. However, because CFCs
provide a negative feedback to global warming through stratospheric
ozone destruction, their net radiative forcing (or global warming potential)
is reduced. Mackenzie (1998) defines a negative feedback as "a moderating
effect on an initial disturbance" (p. 369)-that disturbance in this case is
a reduced ability of the earth-atmosphere system to "cool to space"
(Houghton, 1996, p. 14) because of the accumulation of heat-absorbing
greenhouse gases in the troposphere. The 1995 IPCC report reaffirms
and extends the understanding about CFCs' dual and opposing contributions
Student Understanding of Global Warming 203

to global warming that was set forth previously by the IPCC (Houghton
et aZ., 1992; Houghton et aZ., 1994; World Meteorological Organization, 1995).
With the forecasted decline in stratospheric CFC levels early in the
next century, it follows that "the [resulting] ozone recovery constitutes a
positive radiative forcing that acts to enhance the effect of the well-mixed
greenhouse gases" (Sanhueza and Zhou, 1996, p. 110). A knowledge of the
"greenhouse" properties of ozone and the vertical location in the
stratosphere of ozone depletion and recovery (e.g., depletion in lower
stratosphere gives rise to a negative feedback to global warming) is impor-
tant to understanding feedbacks to global warming consequent to changes
in the quantity of stratospheric ozone (Houghton et al., 1992; Solomon and
Srinivasan, 1996).
The complexity of this issue is magnified by other scientific and media
reports the public, including teachers and students, encounter that do not
mention these opposing actions of CFCs in global warming and instead
state that ozone layer depletion may magnify global warming. For example:
"Ozone absorbs most of the sun's harmful rays; its loss intensifies the green-
house effect" ("U.N.: Ozone thinner than ever," 4/9/97, p. SA). Some of these
reports, such as "Stratospheric ozone depletion" (United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 1995), attribute this intensification to potential
reductions in photosynthesis due to increases in ultraviolet-B radiation
(UV-B). UV-B may decrease phytoplankton and green plants, which will
reduce the biosphere's sink capacity for carbon dioxide, thereby further
increasing the atmospheric level of this greenhouse gas.
Others (e.g., Denman, Hofmann, and Marchant, 1996) believe there
is considerable uncertainty about the effect of phytoplankton reductions on
global warming and note a need for further research. Another factor related
to the biological activity of phytoplankton is that it produces dimethylsul-
fide (DMS) gas, which is subsequently released to the atmosphere from the
ocean surface (Mackenzie, 1998). DMS leads to the formation of sulfate
aerosols, which in turn (as cloud condensation nuclei) give rise to clouds.
Both sulfate aerosols and clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back to
space, and accordingly, provide a negative feedback to global warming.
Therefore, reductions in phytoplankton could lead to less reflection of solar
radiation, which would add to global warming. Additionally, there is spec-
ulation that global warming will contribute a positive feedback to ozone
layer depletion. The mechanism of action here is that global warming traps
heat in the troposphere and creates a colder stratosphere. Colder temper-
atures catalyze chlorine-induced destruction of the ozone layer (Austin,
Butchart, and Shine, 1992).
Accordingly, teaching about the role of CFCs in global climate change
and related STS issues can be very challenging to the science teacher.
204 Science, Technology, and Society

Adding to this task, as is clearly noted below, upper elementary through

secondary level students may bring to or formulate during instruction the
alternative concept that the ozone hole causes or enhances the greenhouse
effect because it lets through more sunlight or UV-B, warming the planet
(Boyes and Stanisstreet, 1993; Dorough, Rubba, and Rye, 1995; Christidou
and Koulaidis, 1996).

Studies on Student Pre-Instructional Understanding of Global Warming

Several studies (Boyes and Stanisstreet, 1993; Christidou, 1994;
Christidou and Koulaidis, 1996; Dorough et al., 1995; Francis, Boyes,
Qualter, and Stanisstreet, 1993; Koulaidis and Christidou, 1993; Plunkett
and Skamp, 1994; Potts, Stanisstreet, and Boyes, 1996; Rye, 1995) referred
to below have investigated upper elementary and secondary school stu-
dents' understandings of concepts related to global warming and (stratos-
ph eric) ozone layer depletion. These studies either state explicitly that they
are pre-instructional in nature or they lack any specific instruction.
Christidou (1994) conducted a series of three interviews with 41
5th-6th grade students to investigate how they processed information about
ozone layer depletion and the greenhouse effect. Approximately 63 percent
of the students believed that increased UV consequent to ozone layer
depletion would warm up the earth and melt polar ice caps. Some students
referred to ozone layer depletion as the primary cause of the greenhouse
effect. Overall, the findings suggested that students had greater familiarity
with ozone layer depletion than the greenhouse effect and that students
often conceptualized these two phenomena as one.
Francis et at. (1993) administered a questionnaire about the green-
house effect to 565 children aged 8-11 years, and interviewed a small subset
(15) of these individuals. In these interviews, many students introduced the
phenomenon of ozone layer depletion. Various students' responses sug-
gested that they fused, and as such confused, the ideas of global warming
and ozone layer depletion. The authors conclude that such may be "embed-
ded in an apparently logical conceptual framework: the idea that damage
to the ozone layer allows the 'sunshine' to penetrate and so warm the earth"
(p.390).
Boyes and Stannisstreet (1993) reached conclusions similar to those
of Francis et at. (1993) from their study that investigated understandings
about the greenhouse effect in 861 students aged 11-16 years. They con-
cluded that students link CFCs primarily to ozone layer depletion and that
they blend the ideas of global warming and ozone layer depletion: "[T]here
is a likelihood of pupils reaching the correct conclusion via an erroneous
Student Understanding of Global Warming 205

pathway, in that an affirmation that CFCs affect global warming may arise
from a knowledge of the CFC-ozone connection and a confusion between
the two global environmental effects" (p. 550).
Plunkett and Skamp (1994) interviewed 45 4th-8th grade students
about the ozone layer and ozone hole. They found that about 20 percent of
students believed that aerosol sprays destroyed the ozone layer and over
25 percent believed the ozone layer hole would lead to climatic changes
that included the melting of polar ice caps. These authors state as the main
conclusion of their study that students have a conceptual framework that
confuses ozone layer depletion and the greenhouse effect.
Dorough et al. (1995) investigated the pre-instructional understand-
ings about global warming and ozone among 22 5th-6th grade students.
About 40 percent of the students introduced the concept of ozone or
ozone layer in response to the query: "When you think about global
warming, what thoughts come to mind?" Several of the students gave evi-
dence of believing that ozone layer depletion is a major contributor to
global warming. Few students gave evidence of knowing about CFCs or the
greenhouse effect.
Rye (1995,1998) interviewed 38 grade eight physical science students
about CFCs and their role in global atmospheric change prior to instruc-
tion from lessons (Rubba, Wiesenmayer, Rye et at., 1995) that investigated
the "science" of global atmospheric change. Over half of the students were
unfamiliar with CFCs. Of those who did appear to hold scientific under-
standings about CFCs, some acknowledged that they were only guessing
and others gave evidence of holding alternative conceptions about the
sources of CFCs or interrelationships between ozone layer depletion and
global warming. For example, approximately 30 percent of the students did
(appropriately) connect CFCs to destruction of the ozone layer. However,
some of these students believed that CFCs came from the combustion of
fossil fuels or that they were a problem because they would allow more of
the sun's rays (UV rays specifically) to hit earth, melting glaciers and ice
caps, causing flooding, and so on. Additionally, some of these students
inferred that ozone depletion caused an elevation in temperature on earth
(however few actually labeled the latter as "global warming"). Rye's find-
ings about ultraviolet rays heating up earth and melting ice caps also sur-
faced in the studies of 11-13-year-old students by Christidou and Koulaidis
(1996) and Potts et al. (1996). For example, the former report that "[Q]uite
often children attributed thermal properties to ultraviolet rays" (Christidou
and Koulaidis, 1996, p. 434).
A common finding to each of these studies is that prior to instruction
students may hold, to an appreciable degree, alternative conceptions (Wan-
dersee, Mintzes, and Novak, 1994) about global warming and its association
206 Science, Technology, and Society

with ozone layer depletion. These alternative conceptions, of course, differ

from expert scientific knowledge (Abimbola, 1988; Houghton et at., 1992,
1995), as revealed through the previous section of this chapter on the
science of global warming: "[T]heir [CFCs and HCFCs] net radiative
forcing is reduced because they have caused stratospheric ozone depletion
which gives rise to a negative radiative forcing." (Houghton et at., 1996,
p. 3). Indeed, Mackenzie (1998) reveals that depletion of ozone in the
stratosphere offset approximately 20 percent of the total greenhouse
warming between 1980 and 1990. These conclusions are based on radiative
balance calculations and account for the fact that, "Ozone is an effective
greenhouse gas both in the troposphere and the stratosphere" (Houghton
et at., 1992, p. 8). Accordingly, a decrease in the amount of stratospheric
ozone means that less (as opposed to more) infrared radiation will be
radiated back toward earth.

Student Post-Instructional Understanding of Global Warming

Procedures. As was noted previously, during the first academic
year of the project, six STS issue investigation and action units on
global warming were developed, each by a team of the teacher-participants.
These units shared a core of content on the nature, cause, and resolution
of global warming. The six STS global warming units were field-tested
by each of the teachers on the respective teams during the first aca-
demic year. To inform the unit revision, the project staff interviewed
the teachers and a sample of their students approximately two weeks
following the end of each STS global warming unit. The unique purpose
of the student interviews was to investigate their understandings relative
to STS global warming unit content, ascertain what citizenship actions
they had taken toward the resolution of global warming, and learn their
perceptions of the importance as well as the strengths and limitations of
the STS global warming unit. We report herein only on findings related
to the understanding of global warming held by a sample of 24 6th-8th
grade students who had completed one of four STS global warming
units. Relevant, select findings from the teacher interviews are included
here. Details on the research procedures used in interviewing the students
and teachers are provided elsewhere (Rye, Rubba, and Wiesenmayer,
1997).
A open-ended interview protocol (Patton, 1987) was developed by the
authors and field-tested (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985; Novak and Gowin,
1984). As can be implied, the sample for this study was one of convenience,
predominantly white and drawn from students in four middle level grade
Student Understanding of Global Warming 207

classrooms (two from 6th grade and one each from 7th and 8th grades).
These students collectively represented instruction from four of the six STS
global warming units. (The other two units were not included in this study
due to the high school level focus of one unit and teacher-participant attri-
tion associated with the other unit.) The interview questions focused on
eliciting, sequentially, students' understandings and views in the following
areas: (a) the nature and cause of global warming; (b) what global warming
unit content was "important"; (c) why global warming is an STS issue; (d)
possible citizenship actions to resolve global warming; (e) actions actually
taken to help resolve global warming; (f) likes and dislikes about the global
warming unit; and (g) connections between global warming and ozone. The
questions to elicit connections students perceived between global warming
and ozone were placed at the end of the interview.
Transcripts of student interviews were examined to reveal evidence
of understanding of global warming using an "expert" concept map as a
template. Figure 1 presents the "expert" concept map, which sets forth in a
hierarchical conceptual network (Heinze-Fry and Novak, 1990; Jonassen,
Beissner, and Yacci, 1993; Lomask, Baron, and Grieg, 1993; Novak and
Gowin, 1984) core content on the nature, causation, and resolution of global
warming that was shared by the STS global warming units. The concept map
was used to assess the degree to which students gave evidence during the
interview of holding scientifically appropriate concepts and concept rela-
tionships present in the units.
Analysis of the interview data was guided by these two questions:

• What post-instructional alternative conceptions do students

hold of the nature, cause, and resolution of global warming?
• In what ways and to what extent do these alternative concep-
tions incorporate connections with ozone layer depletion?

Assertions were formulated and validated in regards to alternative

concepts students held about the nature, cause, and resolution of global
warming. Specifically, researcher assertions of the presence of such con-
ceptions, based on single or multiple instances in the transcript, were veri-
fied by studying the entire transcript for the presence of responses that
would validate further or invalidate the assertions. Principles of inductive
and logical analyses (Patton, 1990) were employed to a limited extent in
order to label and combine into broader categories the emergent alterna-
tive conceptions. Fictitious names have been assigned to all students and
teachers for whom transcript excerpts have been included.
 N
IGlobal wannID;] o
00

'---S-T-S-I-SS-U-e---',
/ ,
hrt-"
~~~:rature ,

caust by

(example: (example:
plant trees) encourage purchase write
parents to products in legislator)
carpool) recyclable or
th returnable
containers)

V>
("l
is·
:::l
("l
,<"0
;oi
("l
;J
:::l
o
~
-::<
III
:::l
c..
V>

Figure 1. Expert concept map of global warming. Note: From "An investigation of middle school students' alternative conceptions of global 8.
warming," by 1. Rye, P. Rubba, and R. Wiesenmayer, 1997 ,International Journal of Science Education 19:532. Copyright 1997 by Taylor and Francis ~
Ltd. Reprinted with permission.
Student Understanding of Global Warming 209

Findings and Discussion

Tammy: Yeah, I think it's basically, that everything works against the
ozone and when the ozone breaks, that's when the global
warming is going to come.!
Candy: [We should] start buying things that like don't have those
kind of gases in them. Like instead of buying hair spray with
CFCs, you can buy some like in a pump or something.
Billy: ... CFCs cause destruction of the ozone layer to let the sun,
the ultraviolet rays, get in and heat up the earth.
Evert: ... And all those oil wells [on fire in the Middle East] gave
off tons and tons of carbon dioxide. Which made the ozone
layer just come apart and that's where the biggest hole
came from.
Sally: It [carbon dioxide] comes out of the exhaust. And as it goes
up to the ozone past the stratosphere. Then after it hits the
ozone it like eats it up and then UV come and hit earth.
These transcript excerpts, taken from interviews with several students,
speak to the principal alternative conceptions found to be held by the stu-
dents. These alternative conceptions, each connecting ozone layer depletion
and global warming in some way, were as follows:

• Ozone layer depletion is a principal cause of global warming

(Tammy)
• Aerosol sprays contain CFCs and damage the ozone layer
(Candy)
• CFCs cause global warming exclusively through destroying the
ozone layer (Billy)
• Carbon dioxide destroys the ozone layer (Evert)
• Carbon dioxide causes global warming exclusively by destroy-
ing the ozone layer (Sally)

Even though they are limited by the small sample sizes and a volun-
teer sample (Roberts, 1992), no statistically significant correlations (phi
coefficients) were found between overall academic ability level or gender
and the degree to which any of these alternative conceptions were held
among the 24 students interviewed. Additionally, we did not find significant
correlations (point biserial) between the degree to which students held a

1 This and all subsequent transcript excerpts used in this chapter are from "An investigation
of middle school students' alternative conceptions of global warming," by 1. Rye, P. Rubba,
and R. Wiesenmayer, 1997, International Journal of Science Education, 19, p. 536, 538-544,
and 546-547. Copyright 1997 by Taylor & Francis Ltd. Reprinted with permission.
210 Science, Technology, and Society

specific scientific understanding about global warming-the score derived

by assessing their interview transcript against the expert concept map
(Fig. i)-and the prevalence of these alternative conceptions.
The prevalence in students of these alternative conceptions did not
appear to differ appreciably across the STS global warming units, although
students who were the recipients of instruction from one of the units gave
little evidence of believing that carbon dioxide destroyed the ozone and did
not appear to believe that the exclusive role of CFCs in global warming was
via ozone layer destruction. However, this study was not designed to ferret
out differences between students according to the unit of instruction com-
pleted. Below we examine in some detail our findings relative to each of
the five alternative conceptions. However, this separation is somewhat arti-
ficial given these alternative conceptions are interwoven in students' cog-
nitive structures and the idea that "ozone layer depletion is a major cause
of global warming" surfaces continuously.

Ozone Layer Depletion as Principal Cause of Global Warming.

Seventy-five percent (n = 18) of the students and the majority within each
academic ability level believed that ozone layer depletion or increased UV
radiation helped cause global warming. More important, 54 percent (n = 13)
of all students gave evidence of believing that ozone layer depletion, or con-
sequent increases in UV or the sun's rays, was a major or predominant cause
of global warming. Students' supporting reasons frequently were related to
natural phenomena; for example, the heat from the increased sunlight heats
up the planet. Example transcript excerpts follow that illustrate how stu-
dents connected ozone and global warming.
Julie suggested that ozone depletion allows sunlight to penetrate the
atmosphere, warming the earth.
Interviewer: Okay, is there anything else that comes to mind when
you think about global warming?
Julie: Heat.
Interviewer: Heat. How does heat come to mind?
Julie: Umm ... Well, destroying the ozone layer and the sun
making it warmer.
Sally had this to say, when asked what ideas came to mind when she
"thought about global warming":
Sally: Ah, the ozone and how it is being affected by CFCs,
umm, carbon dioxide, and stuff that can cause the
ozone to deteriorate....
Interviewer: Okay, what makes you think about ozone?
Student Understanding of Global Warming 211

Sally: Umm, mainly stuff that can harm the ozone layer. Like
the CFCs and the air conditioners in cars and when the
cars become old they leak ....
Interviewer: Okay, and how does it harm the ozone?
Sally: Well, there's like chloro-ftuoro-carbons that go up and
eats the like ozone up. Afid causes the ozone hole to
get bigger and bigger and then UV rays from the sun
enter and hit earth....
Interviewer: Umm, and how is that, how is that related to global
warming though?
Sally: Well, the UV, umm, rays hit earth and earth will get
warmer. And that's what causes global warming.
Later in the interview, the researcher again queried Sally about the
ozone hole and global warming:
Interviewer: How is that [ozone] hole related to global warming?
Sally: Well, what it does is, like I said, the Sun's UV rays come
through the ozone. And then when it hits earth, the
earth will warm. And that's how you basically get
global warming.
Questions were placed at the end of the interview about global
warming to further elucidate students' conceptions about connections
between global warming and ozone layer depletion. Most students who
believed ozone layer depletion was a major cause of global warming had
already provided substantial evidence of this alternative conception by the
time these questions were introduced. Still, student responses were useful
in confirming this and other researcher-held assertions. The following
transcript excerpts for Charles, Evert, and Barton illustrate these student
responses to the initial general query made by the interviewer, "When you
think about ozone, do you also think about global warming?"
Charles: Well, a little bit because CFCs destroy the ozone....
UV rays are basically what global warming is when they
come in, you know.... And it worries me that they
could come in faster and faster and then they could
bounce off faster and get hotter and hotter and hotter.
Evert: Well, yeah because the ozone is what, I think, is going
to keep global warming out.
Interviewer: And why do you think about global warming when you
think about ozone?
Barton: Because the global warming affects the ozone, it'll burn
a hole in it.
212 Science, Technology, and Society

As evidenced by the last transcript excerpt, Barton also believed that

global warming causes ozone depletion. Candy believed the greenhouse
effect causes ozone depletion:
Candy: ... [T]he greenhouse effect is when the gases and that are
ruining, causing holes in the ozone which let off UV rays.
The idea that global warming or the greenhouse effect causes ozone layer
depletion may have been held by other students given a number of students
mentioned that ozone layer depletion (or increased UV radiation) "comes
to mind" when thinking about global warming, and carbon dioxide destroys
the ozone layer. This "construction" also could be the result of a surface
understanding and inappropriate logic regarding the role of CFCs in both
global warming and ozone layer depletion. That is, if CFCs cause global
warming and destroy the ozone layer, then global warming destroys the
ozone.
Barton suggests that aerosol sprays containing CFCs play a central
role in global warming mediated destruction of the ozone layer.
Barton: Global warming, ah, it burns holes in the ozone layer and
it can do that by using hair spray and stuff like that. Like
aerosol sprays and stuff like that. ... Hair spray has CFCs
in it. And if you use enough of that it will burn a hole in the
ozone layer....
This idea surfaced many times in his interview and is explored more fully
here.

Aerosol Sprays Contain CFCs and Destroy Ozone. The idea that
aerosol sprays contain CFCs and destroy the ozone layer was an alterna-
tive conception found to be prevalent in 54 percent (n = 13) of the students.
Globally, aerosol sprays account for some CFC use-about 15 percent in
1993 (Kurtis Productions, 1993). However, the sale of aerosol cans
containing CFCs was banned in the United States and Canada in 1979
(University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, 1992). Hence, aerosol
cans sold in the United States should not contain CFCs.
Mason: Ah, well when you use hair spray. Anything that's in a can-
ister like hair spray and cooking spray for your pans and
stuff has CFCs so it, umm ... will shoot out or compress air.
And then it's CFC. And that stands for chlorofluorocarbons,
and they eat away at the ozone.
The idea that, in the United States, aerosol cans-hair spray in par-
ticular-contain CFCs and, thereby, destroy the ozone layer is a prevalent
Student Understanding of Global Warming 213

and perhaps tenacious alternative conception (Kurtis Productions, 1993).

Barton's interview reveals the great extent to which he appeared to hold
this alternative conception:
Interviewer: ... What is an important thing you learned from the
unit on global warming?
Barton: The most important thing I learned is, how to prevent
global warming from happening by, like using filters
and stuff like that. And using hair sprays that are like
a pump.
Interviewer: Okay. What can be done about global warming?
Barton: ... You just have to kind of watch the products that you
use.... Hair spray ... Urn, I imagine some deodorants
would have CFCs in them.
This interview excerpt for Barton suggests that alternative concep-
tions can result in misdirected citizenship actions toward issue resolution.
In response to the interview questions about the resolution of global
warming, the majority of students holding the alternative conception that
aerosols contain CFCs and destroy the ozone stated actions targeted at
decreasing the use of aerosols. Examples of such actions can be found in
the transcript excerpt of the interviews with Candy and Barton (previously
presented).
This alternative conception may have been developed or reinforced
in some students by instruction from the units. Some STS global warming
units contained content stating that aerosol use has been a factor in ozone
layer depletion. This contention was supported when one of the institute
teacher-participants noted that she "stood corrected" on CFC use and had
been teaching students that aerosols sold in the United States at the present
time contained CFCs. However, this teacher was not one of the instructors
of the students who participated in this study.

Exclusive Role of CFCs in Global Warming. In response to interview

questions specifically targeting student understanding of the nature, cause,
and resolution of global warming,50 percent (n = 12) of the students pro-
vided evidence of the scientifically accurate understanding that CFCs are a
potential cause of global warming. However, approximately half of those
students ignored CFCs' central mechanism as a heat trap in global warming
(Mitchell, 1989) and, in fact, held the belief that the exclusive role of CFCs
in the causation of global warming was through depleting the ozone
layer. Several of the transcript excerpts presented previously suggested that
certain students may hold this alternative conception. As an example,
further questioning of Julie on the role of CFCs in global warming did not
214 Science, Technology, and Society

reveal an understanding of CFCs' "greenhouse gas" property. However, it

provided further evidence that her conception of CFCs' mechanism in
global warming was "ozone layer depletion."
Interviewer: Are they [CFCs] connected to global warming?
Julie: Yes, I think .... Umm ... Well, CFCs destroy the ozone
layer and that, I think, that's what happened that there
is a hole in it from the CFCs.
Interviewer: Okay. Is there another important thing you learned
from the unit?
Julie: Umm, that CFCs are extremely harmful. Like before
no one really worried about them and never thought
about them. But now as soon as like you spray some-
thing it is in the air and ...
Interviewer: Okay. And why is it important for you to know about
the CFCs?
Julie: Well, like I said before, it eats the ozone layer and the
sun gets much hotter and everyone will be so hot.
Students who held the alternative conception that CFCs cause global
warming exclusively via ozone layer depletion also were likely to believe
that carbon dioxide (or exhaust, smoke, or car pollution) causes global
warming exclusively by destroying the ozone layer. A significant correla-
tion (phi coefficient of r = .41, p < .05) was found between students holding
these two alternative conceptions. The idea that carbon dioxide causes
global warming exclusively through ozone layer depletion was a subset of
the more widely held alternative conception that carbon dioxide destroys
the ozone layer.

Carbon Dioxide Destroys the Ozone Layer. Over 70 percent (n = 17)

of the students provided evidence of understanding that carbon dioxide is
a potential cause of global warming when they were asked about the nature,
cause, and resolution of global warming. However, "ozone layer destruc-
tion" was sometimes cited as one possible or the mechanism for how carbon
dioxide caused global warming, as is evident in Mason's response to a probe
by the researcher.
Interviewer: How are cars a cause of global warming?
Mason: When you use them a lot. The gas-I think it's carbon
monoxide and dioxide from your exhaust-form what's
called a bad ozone, and that's smog around the lower
part of the earth, or make holes in the good ozone that
surrounds the earth.
Student Understanding of Global Warming 215

Students sometimes referred to "exhaust," "smoke," or "car pollution,"

rather than "carbon dioxide" destroying the ozone layer. When such in-
stances were collapsed, 50 percent (n = 12) of the students were found to
hold the belief that carbon dioxide (or exhaust, etc.) destroys the ozone
layer. Students who spoke of exhaust (etc.) as an ozone destroyer may
have been thinking about an ingredient in exhaust (etc.) other than, or
in addition to, carbon dioxide. For example, one student stated she thought
car pollution "contains CFCs and things that help destroy the ozone
layer."
Still, some of the students holding the alternative conception that
carbon dioxide (or exhaust, etc.) destroyed the ozone layer, also provided
a "scientifically acceptable" mechanism of action of carbon dioxide in global
warming. As Samuel did, they noted that carbon dioxide traps heat in the
lower atmosphere (Mitchell, 1989).
Interviewer: ... Any other causes [of global warming] come to
mind?
Samuel: Umm. Methane, carbon dioxide are some of the gases
that break down the ozone layer. And there's a bad
ozone and, ah, nitric oxide.
Interviewer: Okay, is there anything else about carbon dioxide and
methane that make them a cause of global warming?
Samuel: They keep the heat in.
A third of all students gave evidence of believing that the exclusive
role of carbon dioxide (or exhaust, etc.) in the causation of global warming
was via destroying the ozone layer, as is exemplified here by an interview
excerpt from Andrew.
Interviewer: Okay, carbon dioxide. Whatever you see as being the
causes [of global warming], that's what I'd be interested
in knowing about.
Andrew: That's like, when the carbon dioxide is let off and it
breaks down the ozone layer, it lets more sunlight in
and then that makes it get warmer. That's what I think
is causing it.
Interviewer: Are there other ways that carbon dioxide would be
related to global warming?
Andrew: Umm ... No, I don't think there is.
Some of the students may have held this alternative conception
because they perceived carbon dioxide as being similar to CFCs in that both
CFCs and carbon dioxide contain the word carbon, both are greenhouse
gases, and both are cited as components of pollution. Further, several
216 Science, Technology, and Society

students lumped together various greenhouse gases as agents that deplete

the ozone layer, and they spoke collectively about carbons and pollution.
One student put it this way: "It's sort of like the gases that trap the sun rays
also eat the ozone layer away." Other examples of this thinking can be
found in excerpts shown previously from the interviews with Sally and
Samuel.
Most (75 percent) of the students who believed carbon dioxide (or
exhaust, etc.) destroys the ozone layer, and all of the students who believed
this was the exclusive roieby which it caused global warming also held the
alternative conception that ozone layer depletion is a major cause of global
warming. A significant correlation (phi coefficient of r = .65, p < .01) was
found between students holding the latter two alternative conceptions.
These findings warrant further investigation. The STS global warming units
emphasized that carbon dioxide could be a major cause of global warming.
Perhaps these students concluded that, since carbon dioxide destroys the
ozone layer, it follows that ozone layer depletion must be a major cause of
global warming.
Few students provided a scientifically complete (relative to the
expert concept map presented in Figure 1) understanding of the radiative
mechanism of greenhouse gases in the causation of global warming.
Students were more likely to note that various gases (or pollutants or
car exhaust) trapped UV or the sun's rays, thereby causing global warming,
as opposed to trapping or absorbing infrared radiation given off by
the earth.
The former belief is relative to the cause of global warming and may
reflect an unclear understanding of the role of the different types of
radiation in global warming. Nonetheless, it apparently is also related to the
students' conceptions of the connections between global warming and
ozone layer depletion. For, in our study, even the students who gave evi-
dence of a relatively sound understanding of the radiative mechanisms
underlying global warming (greenhouse gases absorb infrared or long wave
radiation emitted by earth that originated from shorter wavelength radia-
tion from the sun, thereby trapping heat) were likely to see the conse-
quences of both global warming and ozone layer depletion as warming the
earth. Mollie's thoughts, as verbalized in the interview, provide an example
of this:

Interviewer: Okay, when you think about ozone do you think about
global warming?
Mollie: Yeah. Because sometimes I do ... And it [earth] also
gets like warmer because of there's a hole in the ozone.
Student Understanding of Global Warming 217

Then the rays are going to come in at like a hotter

temperature.
Interviewer: Okay. What is it about ozone that makes you think
about global warming?
Mollie: Like the, how the sun rays come in and make the earth
like warmer and like hotter. That like happens in boto,
so that's what makes it, I think.
To facilitate the focus and clarity of instruction (Wise and'Okey, 1983),
our teacher-participants were advised to not include instruction on ozone
in their initial STS global warming unit. However, an inspection of these
units suggested that three of the four teacher-participants (of students who
participated in this study) did address ozone layer depletion during STS
global warming instruction. This instruction may have helped develop or
reinforce the alternative conceptions that surfaced in this study. Post-
instructional interviews with these four teachers revealed that they believed
some degree of confusion between global warming and ozone layer might
exist among the students. The following are select responses from the four
teachers to the related interview question: "Because we are going to ask
your students, or we have asked your students, about ozone, we need to
know how you dealt with ozone?"
Sue: Good or bad ozone? ... We talked about both and that was
a hard thing for them to understand .... I used the diagram,
two different diagrams, that I had in the units to show them,
ah, greenhouse effect, and what part the ozone played as well.
Mort: And I hope they know the fact is that it's [ozone depletion is]
not related to global warming. I don't know if all of them will
know that.
Jack: As a separate problem that really had no connection with
global warming .... There was one other problem I had. And
it was separating in their minds, ah, the problem with ozone
depletion and the problem with global warming.... And then
there were other articles [that the librarian put together] that
actually drew a connection and it was the first time I had
heard that the fact that the ozone is being depleted also is a
negative feedback for global warming. Is that right? ... That
... confused me.
Mary: ... I don't feel we did a good job at that .... [A]nd I could not
avoid the ozone issue so I'm sure I don't know what your
questions are for the students, but they might have some
confusion .... [W]e just said try to keep them separate.
218 Science, Technology, and Society

DISCUSSION

These interview findings suggest that middle school students may hold spe-
cific alternative conceptions about global warming that limit and confound
their understanding of its nature, causation, and potential resolution. The
studies by Boyes and Stanisstreet (1993), Christidou (1994), Dorough et al.
(1995), Francis et al. (1993), Plunkett and Skamp (1994) and Rye (1995,
1998) reviewed earlier on students' understandings related to global atmos-
pheric change suggest that students likely entered instruction with a greater
awareness of the ozone layer than of global warming, and that some stu-
dents may begin instruction with the alternative conception that the "hole"
in the ozone layer causes global warming. Given that over half of the stu-
dents in our (post-instructional) study believed that ozone layer depletion
was a major cause of global warming, this alternative conception may be
tenacious.
Knowing the pre-instructional conceptions of the students inter-
viewed in this study likely would have proven useful in determining alter-
native conceptions that appear to develop in students as a result of formal
instruction, and what pre-instructional understandings appear to interact
with formal instruction to yield those unintended learning outcomes
(Wandersee et at., 1994). However, limitations in working with the schools
and teachers did not allow that. Still, the investigation of pre-instructional
understandings about global warming and ozone among 5th and 6th grade
students conducted by Dorough et al. (1995) involved students from schools
similar to those in which the data reported here were collected.
Dorough's interviews revealed that "ozone layer" came to mind in
more than a third of the students as they "thought about global warming."
Francis et al. (1993) also reported that students often introduced, during
interviews about the greenhouse effect, the concept of the ozone layer.
Initial exposure to the concept of global warming may evoke thoughts in
students about the ozone layer.
Even though global warming is a sophisticated concept (Houghton
et aI., 1992; Mackenzie and Mackenzie, 1995; National Academy of Sciences,
1992), learners will bring to global warming instruction the intuitive knowl-
edge (West and Pines, 1985) that the sun feels warm and that a sunburn
makes us hot. Such intuitive knowledge can interact with new information
to yield unintended learning outcomes, e.g., the alternative conception that
the extra sunlight or ultraviolet radiation coming through the "hole" in the
ozone layer heats up the planet.
Additionally, the "greenhouse effect" is part of the public vocabulary
(Ennis and Marcus, 1994; Pomerance, 1989). Many students likely have
heard the term prior to related formal instruction (Hocking et at., 1990). We
Student Understanding of Global Warming 219

speculate that concepts such as "ozone hole," "UV rays," "CFCs," and
"greenhouse effect" may be "loose" in many students' cognitive structures
and connected inappropriately to make sense of formal instruction on
global warming. Furthermore, there is real potential for student confusion
and construction of alternative conceptions when they are confronted with
multiple phenomena that are explained through some of the same concepts.
Transcript excerpts from the interview with Candy are illustrative:
Interviewer: Okay. Let's say you were to explain global warming to
someone else. What exactly is global warming? How
would you explain it?
Candy: It's, well, I don't know. Let me think ... Umm ... It's
when like CFCs and things. Or it's like greenhouse.
Well, I kind of get, I kind of mix them together cause
that's what you think about them. They're kind of,
people like talk about them as the same thing. But
they're not.
Interviewer: Sounds like you're unsure of something.
Candy: Yeah, I'm getting confused.
Interviewer: Tell me what you're unsure of.
Candy: I guess, it must be when I speak about global warming
or greenhouse effect. You get the idea that they're
exactly the same thing. But they're two different sub-
jects and then I get confused ... cause I know green-
house effect is ozone depletion like.... Because both
things [global warming and ozone] are like more heat
or something getting into the earth, which kind of con-
fuses you sometimes when you try to think of which is
which.
In the design and delivery of global warming instruction, concepts and
propositions embedded in our findings of alternative conceptions need
greater attention. When instruction attempts to present both global
warming and ozone layer depletion within the same instructional unit
(Koulaidis and Christidou, 1993), learners may formulate the erroneous
idea that ozone layer depletion is the principal cause of global warming due
to the involvement of incoming solar radiation and CFC greenhouse gases
in both environmental problems (Hocking, Sneider, Erickson, and Golden,
1990; Monastersky, 1992; Pomerance, 1989). Worrest, Smythe, and Tait
(1989) recommend addressing ozone layer depletion and global climate
change together. However, because the interrelationships between changes
in atmospheric ozone and global warming are so complex, many researchers
(Ashmore and Bell, 1991; Fishman, 1991; Houghton et al., 1992; Lacis,
220 Science, Technology, and Society

Wuebbles, and Logan, 1990) believe the development of scientifically

appropriate conceptions of global warming may be confounded by inte-
grating the study of both topics. Conversely, because global warming and
ozone depletion have received considerable attention by the media, a
superficial coverage (or no coverage) of ozone depletion may result in the
development of alternative conceptions about global warming.
Our current position is that it is likely impractical to avoid the topic
of ozone when teaching about global warming. This may not be conducive
to helping students restructure related alternative conceptions. As the few
transcript excerpts show, it appears difficult not to include content on ozone
layer depletion while teaching about global warming. Perhaps most impor-
tant is an instructional emphasis on clarifying the causes of and differences
between ozone layer depletion and global warming and that neither the
ozone "hole" nor consequent increases in UV rays are established causes
of global warming. Our findings suggest such clarification should pay par-
ticular attention to the following: (a) the differences between incoming
(solar) and outgoing (as emitted by earth) radiation; (b) the absorption by
greenhouse gases of the latter (but not the former) as the mechanism that
underlies the greenhouse effect; (c) enhancement of the greenhouse effect
due to atmospheric increases in greenhouse gases as the cause of global
warming; (d) that CFCs, but not carbon dioxide, have two undesirable
effects on our atmosphere (i.e., action as a greenhouse gas and action in the
destruction of stratospheric ozone), but that each of these effects cause a
different environmental problem (enhanced greenhouse effect and ozone
layer depletion, respectively); and (e) household aerosol "spray" cans in the
United States do not contain CFCs.
These clarifications were incorporated into the STS unit, Global
Atmospheric Change: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer Depletion
and Ground Level Ozone Pollution (Rubba, Wiesenmayer, Rye, McLaren,
Sillman, Yorks, Yukish, Ditty, Morphew, Bradford, Dorough, and Borza,
1995, http://www.ed.psu.edulCIlPapers/sts/gac-main.html).The unit actually
is a teacher resource that includes the plans for 32 lessons, each lasting for
from one to four 40 minute class periods (over 50 days of instruction in
total). These are organized into foundations and awareness, investigations,
and actions sections (see Table 1).
There are 11 foundations-awareness lessons in which learners examine
the nature of science and technology, and characteristic interactions among
them that'sometimes result in STS issues. Learners build on their under-
standing about science, technology and society as they develop effective
action strategies later in the actions lessons. Significant issues facing
humankind are explored, and the STS issue of global atmospheric change
(GAC) as it relates to enhanced greenhouse effect, ozone layer depletion,
 Table 1. GAC STS Unit Table of Contents

Introduction viii

To the Teacher ix
Background and Development of the Unit xiv
FoundationslAwareness Lessons

1. What Are Science, Technology and Society 2

2. How Society Affects Science and Technology 12
3. Technology Over TIme 20
4. An Example of Technology Impacting Society: The AtIati 29
5. Designing Your Own Technology 38
6. Designing Your Own Technology Revisited 42
7. Examining STS Issues 44
8. First World Issues Often Are Not Third World Concerns 48
9. I Could Live Like That 54
10. Do You Really, I Mean REALLY, Need a Thneed? 59
11. Identification of an STS Issue for Study and Initiating
Our Investigation 70
Investigations Lessons 79

1. The Atmosphere 80
2. EMS: Visible and Invisible Light 89
3. Ozone Layer Depletion 96
4. The Impact of Tropospheric Ozone Pollution
on Plants 116
5. Reflection and Absorption of EM Energy 120
6. The Greenhouse Effect 129
7. Atmospheric Composition and Temperature Regulation 133
8. Human Produced Greenhouse Gases and the Enhanced
Greenhouse Effect 145
9. Ozone and the Green House Effect-Getting It Straight 155
10. Carbon Dioxide Detection and Analysis 160
11. Sinks for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide 167
12. Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperature Through TIme 191
13. Lifestyles and Global Warming-Any Connection? 202
14. Earth Out of Balance 221
15. Where Do You Stand? 226
Actions Lessons 230

1. Identifying Actions 231

2. What's In the Mail? 235
3. Classifying Actions 239
4. Actions: Pros and Cons 242
5. Action Feasibility 245
6. Committing to Action 247
Appendices 250

A. Concept Maps and Concept Mapping-James A. Rye 251

B. Excerpts from ... An Investigation of Middle School Students'
Alternative Conceptions of Global Warming as Formative
Evaluation of Teacher-Developed STS Units-James A. Rye,
Peter A. Rubba, and Randall L. Wiesenmayer 275
C. Excerpts from ... Taking Actions on Global Atmospheric Change-
Martha G. McLaren, Kathy A. Yorks, Dorothy A. Yukish,
Tom Ditty, Peter A. Rubba and Randall L. Wiesenmayer 299
D. The Story Board and Low-Tech Serendipity-Dorothy 1 Yukish 309
E. Portfolio Assessment of STS Outcomes-Kathleen Sillman 311
222 Science, Technology, and Society

and ground level ozone pollution is identified and expressed as an STS

focusing question by learners in the latter lessons of this section.
Learners use the 15 investigations lessons to develop a wide range of
inquiry skills for thoroughly exploring STS issues as they apply those skills
in investigating GAC. This includes exploring science and social studies con-
cepts and aspects of technology that are foundational to understanding
GAC, including, among other topics: the structure, composition and tem-
perature regulation in the atmosphere, the electromagnetic spectrum and
energy, ozone layer chemistry and depletion, ground level ozone pollution,
reflection and absorption of electromagnetic energy including albedo, the
greenhouse effect, human-produced greenhouse gases and the enhanced
greenhouse effect, ozone and the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide detec-
tion and analysis, natural sinks for atmospheric carbon dioxide, carbon
dioxide and global temperature through time, and the possible impact of
lifestyles on global warming. The investigations lessons were designed to
present concepts in a specific order within and across these lessons to facil-
itate conceptual change with regard to misconceptions on enhanced global
warming and ozone layer depletion. Information and data from the inves-
tigations that involved science and social science methodologies are con-
solidated by learners in the last investigations lesson to answer the STS
focusing question on GAC.
There are six actions lessons. This section is geared toward helping
learners develop an understanding of various types of actions that might be
taken in support of the answer they formulated to the STS focusing ques-
tion on GAC. A tentative action plan is composed and the pros and cons
associated with each action examined from a number of perspectives.
Learners decide which action(s) they are willing to take as individuals or
as members of a group. They implement those actions, evaluate the results,
and report them to the class.
Each lesson plan includes: overview and outcomes, background notes
for the teachers, materials, preparation, instructional procedures, and assess-
ment-portfolio items. Each lesson also includes a concept map, which shows
model relationships among concepts the lesson seeks to develop. Also in
each lesson, are "background notes" on science, technology, and social
aspects of GAC. Teacher-relevant references frequently are noted at the
end of the lesson. Five appendices provide resource information for teach-
ers. An overview of concept maps and concept mapping as an instructional
tool is among them.
Anecdotal evidence we have from institute teacher-participants is that
this unit is effective in helping students clarify the causes of and differences
between ozone layer depletion and global warming. There is a need for
studies that investigate in what ways students' understandings about global
Student Understanding of Global Warming 223

warming change as a result of formal instruction, especially studies that

examine the impact of instruction in global climate change on students' con-
ceptions of global warming and ozone layer depletion.
The degree to which learners are able to construct scientific under-
standings about global warming during instruction may be influenced by,
among other things: (a) the tenacity of alternative conceptions held prior
to formal instruction about global warming; (b) the instructional model
employed by the teacher; (c) alternative conceptions they develop during
classroom instruction to help instruction "make sense;" and (d) their level
of cognitive development relative to the capacity for formal or abstract
thinking (Benson, Wittrock, and Baur, 1993; Driver, Guesne, and
Tiberghien, 1985; Eylon and Linn, 1988; Osborne and Freyberg, 1985;
Wandersee et al., 1994). According to Piage's theory of cognitive develop-
ment, middle level students (ages 12-14 years) are making the transition
from being concrete operational to formal operational thinkers (Eylon and
Linn, 1988; Hassard, 1992).
As previously presented in this chapter, the coverage of the ozone
layer "hole" by the media is another potential influence on the construc-
tion by learners of alternative conceptions surrounding global warming
(Hanif, 1995). Consider the following excerpt from The New York Times
entitled "Can Capitalism Save the Ozone" (Nasar, 1992):

But it [eliminating energy subsidies] would also cut emissions of carbon, the sub-
stance whose buildup, scientists fear, could eventually destroy the ozone layer,
resulting in higher average temperature and harmful climate changes around the
world. (p. D2)

This excerpt is perhaps an extreme example of the media's potential

to facilitate inappropriate understandings about scientific phenomena. The
paper's next edition "corrected" this error ("Corrections," 1992). However,
it speaks directly to principal alternative conceptions found to be prevalent
amongst students in our study-that carbon dioxide or exhaust causes
ozone layer destruction and that ozone layer depletion is a major cause
of global warming. Outside the classroom of one of the institute teacher-
participants was a poster, intended to inform high school students about
the need to use sunscreen, which precipitated the alternative conception
that ozone layer depletion was the cause of enhanced global warming. We
have observed other similar incidents in TV commercials and magazine ads.
CFC-induced ozone layer destruction (and consequent increases in ultra-
violet radiation) have received considerable attention from the popular
media (Haniff, 1995; Pomerance, 1989).
Global warming is a complex phenomenon: An accurate understand-
ing of the causation of global warming involves abstract concepts about the
224 Science, Technology, and Society

electromagnetic spectrum, such as the absorption and re-emission of elec-

tromagnetic energy of different wavelengths, the inverse proportionality
that underlies electromagnetic wavelength and energy level, and the rela-
tionship of "long-wave" infrared energy to heat and the "greenhouse
effect." The science that underlies global warming and ozone layer deple-
tion is complex and still unfolding (Houghton et at., 1992, 1995; Mackenzie
and Mackenzie, 1995; Mackenzie, 1998; Thiemens, Jackson, Zipf, Erdman,
and Egmond, 1995). Although it is important for science teachers to keep
current on global warming and ozone layer depletion and to reflect major
scientific thinking and consensus in related classroom instruction, we
believe the teachers' efforts to present "all the details" may be counter-
productive to students' construction of a clear understanding of global
warming. It is more important for teachers to help students realize the
science and technology that underlies our understanding of complex phe-
nomena and STS issues, such as global warming and its interrelationships
with ozone layer depletion, are somewhat tenuous and may change as sci-
entific studies reveal new data, and explanations are refined (Horner and
Rubba, 1978, 1979).
We recommend classroom instruction on global warming be preceded
by efforts to disclose student understanding of the aforementioned and
involve the use of conceptual change instructional strategies (Smith,
Blakeslee, and Anderson, 1993; Wandersee, et at., 1994) to facilitate the
restructuring of alternative conceptions found to be prevalent among the
students in this study. Accordingly, aspects of the Generative Learning
Model (Osborne and Freyberg, 1985) and concept mapping (Novak
and Gowin, 1984) have considerable application in curriculum design and
instruction on global warming, as well as research (Rye, 1995; Rye and
Rubba, 1998).
Despite the challenges associated with providing global climate change
instruction, the topic is among those global environmental change issues that
is and will continue to be "high profile" (Potts et al., 1996, p. 57). The second
(and most recent) IPCC assessment on climate change contends that, and
for the first time, "[T]he balance of evidence suggests that there is a dis-
cernible human influence on global climate" (IPCC, 1995, p. 22), and that
climate change likely will continue. Many (but not all) scientists endorse the
IPCC reports and call for action, observing that: "[T]he further accumula-
tion of greenhouse gases commits the earth irreversibly to further global cli-
matic change and consequent ecological, economic and social disruption"
("Scientists' Statement of Global Climatic Disruption," June 18, 1997).
Instruction on STS issues associated with global climate change can
reveal to students the integrated nature of the science disciplines and an
understanding of related cross-disciplinary concepts (e.g., systems, models,
Student Understanding of Global Warming 225

and change) critical to citizenship scientific literacy (Rutherford, 1989).

Such instruction facilitates critical thinking and debate about opposing
viewpoints (Roleff, 1997), and provides opportunities for citizenship action.
Further, such education can make a crucial contribution to global scientific
literacy and from an earth systems perspective-a much needed emphasis
according to Mayer (1997): "Science is our attempt to understand our
planet. It would be difficult to discern this purpose from most of the world's
typical secondary-school science curricula" (p. 102).

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM

Although the specific consequences of human activity remain ambiguous,

our ability to alter the atmosphere is incontestable. Along with many
experts, we believe the gaseous byproducts of modern civilization (e.g.,
carbon dioxide, CFCs, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor) that were
dumped in the atmosphere have trapped heat, and so are responsible for
the increase in average surface air temperature observed over the past
century. While not unknown in intensity over earth's history, this increase
has been more rapid than what has occurred in the past 100,000 years, as
indicated by natural records. Still, it is possible that this century's temper-
ature increase may be due to natural variation. Admittedly, the supercom-
puter models used to make predictions have limitations and are based on
limited data.
Whether or not there is a discernible human influence on global
climate in the form of global warming will continue to be debated by
experts and laypeople alike into the next century, even while research pro-
vides more data and computer technology provides better modeling capa-
bility, but more so as various technical and social resolution paths and
coping strategies are proposed and implemented. Global warming poten-
tially may be the most serious problem humankind has ever faced. Our
ability to deal responsibly with this issue will test the science, technology
and social structures of the global community. Global warming will be the
paramount STS issue beyond 2000. It will be the STS issue that shapes STS
education as STS enters the next millennium.

REFERENCES

Abimbola, I. (1988). The problem of terminology in the study of student conceptions in science.
Science Education 72:175-184.
Activities for the Changing Earth System (1993). Ohio State University Research Foundation,
Columbus, OR.
226 Science, Technology, and Society

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1990). Science for All Americans,
Oxford University Press, New York.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for Science Liter-
acy, Oxford University Press, New York.
Ashmore, M. R., and Bell, 1. N. B. (1991). The role of ozone in global change. Annals of Botany
67:39-48.
Austin, 1., Butchart, N., and Shine, K. (1992). Possibility of an Arctic ozone hole in a doubled-
CO2 climate: Nature 360:221-225.
Benson, D. L., Wittrock, M. C, and Baur, M. E. (1993). Students' preconceptions of the nature
of gases. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 30:587-597.
Boyes, E., and Stanisstreet, M. (1993). The greenhouse effect: Children's perceptions of
causes, consequences, and cures: International Journal of Science Education 15:531-
552.
Christidou, V. (1994). An exploration of children's models and their use of cognitive strategies
in regard to the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer depletion. Paper presented
at the 2nd European Summer School-Research in Science Education. Leptocaria.
Greece.
Christidou, v., and Koulaidis, V. (1996). Children's models of the ozone layer and ozone deple-
tion. Research in Science Education 26:421-436.
Corrections (1992). The New York Times, February 8, 1992, p. A3.
Denman, K., Hofmann, E., and Marchant, H. (1996). Marine biotic responses to environmen-
tal change and feedbacks to climate. In Houghton, 1., Filho, L., Callander, 8., Harris, N.,
Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K. (eds.), Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate
Change, Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, New York.
Dorough, D., Rubba, P., and Rye, 1. (1995). Fifth and sixth grade students' explanations of
global warming. Paper presented at the 1995 Annual National Association for Research
in Science Teaching Meeting, San Francisco, CA, April, 1995.
Driver, R., Guesne, E., and Tiberghien, A. (1985). Children's Ideas in Science, Open Univer-
sity Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Ennis, C, and Marcus, N, (1994). Biological Consequences of Global Climate Change, Univer-
sity Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO.
Eylon, 8., and Linn, M. C (1988). Learning and instruction: An examination of four research
perspectives in science education. Review of Educational Research 58:251-301.
Francis, C, Boyes, E., Qualter, A., and Stanisstreet, M. (1993). Ideas of elementary students
about reducing the "greenhouse effect." Science Education 77:375-392.
Fishman, 1. (1991). The global consequences of increasing tropospheric ozone concentrations.
Chemosphere 22:685--695.
Hanif, M. (1995). Understanding ozone. The Science Teacher 62:20--23.
Hassard,1. (1992). Minds on Science: Middle and Secondary School Methods, Harper Collins,
New York.
Heinze-Fry, 1., and Novak, 1. (1990). Concept mapping brings long-term movement toward
meaningful learning. Science Education 74:461-472.
Hocking, C, Sneider, C, Erickson, 1., and Golden, R. (1990). Global Warming and the Green-
house Effect (A curriculum guide for grades 7-10). The Regents of the University of
California, Berkeley.
Horner, J., and Rubba, P. (1978). The myth of ahsolute truth. The Science Teacher 45(1 ):29-30.
Horner, 1., and Rubba, P. (1979). The laws-are-mature-theories fable. The Science Teacher
46(2):31.
Houghton, 1., Jenkins, G., and Ephraums,1. (eds.). Climate Change: The I PCC Scientific Assess-
ment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Student Understanding of Global Warming 227

Houghton, 1., Callander, B., and Varney, S. (eds.) (1992). Climate Change 1992. The Supple-
mentary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge, New York. pp. 1-22.
Houghton, 1., Filho, L., Callander, B., Harris, N., Kattenberg,A., and Maskell, K. (eds.) (1996).
Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change, Press Syndicate of the Univer-
sity of Cambridge, New York.
Houghton, 1., Filho, M., Bruce, 1., Lee, H., Callander, B., Haites, E., Harris, N., and Maskell, K.
(1994). Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation
of the 1PCC 1992 Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Houghton, 1. T., Callander, B. A., and Varney, S. K. (eds.) (1992). Climate Change 1992. The
Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Press Syndicate of the
University of Cambridge, New York. pp. 1-22.
IPCC (1995). Climate Change 1995: 1PCC Second Assessment Report, World Meterological
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jonassen, 0. H., Beissner, K., and Yacci, M. (1993). Structural Knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Hillsdale, N1.
Kattenberg, A., Giorgi, H., Grassl, H., Meehl, G., Mitchell, 1., Stouffer, R., Tokioka, T., Weaver,
A., and Wigley, T. (1996). Climate models-Projections of future climate. In Houghton,
1., Filho, L., Callander, B., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K. (eds.), Climate
Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change, Press Syndicate of the University of
Cambridge, New York. pp. 285-357.
Kerr, R. (1997). The right climate for assessment. Science 277:1916-1918.
Kotlyakov, V. (1996). Climatic change and the future of the human environment. International
Social Science Journal 150:511-523.
Koulaidis, V., and Christidou, I. (1993). Children's misconceptions and cognitive strategies
regarding the understanding of the ozone layer depletion. Abstract of paper presented
at the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in
Science and Mathematics, Ithaca, NY, August, 1993.
Kurtis Productions. (1993). Ozone: The hole story. (Teaching unit and videocassette.) Kurtis
Productions, St. Petersburg, FL.
Lacis, A., Wuebbles, D., and Logan, 1. (1990). Radiative forcing of climate by changes in the
vertical distribution of ozone. Journal of Geophysical Research 95(D7):9971-9981.
Lomask, M., Baron, 1., and Grieg,1. (1993). Assessing conceptual understanding in science
through the use of two- and three-dimensional maps. A paper presented at the Third
International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and
Mathematics, Ithaca, NY, August, 1993.
Mayer, V. (1997). Global science literacy: An earth system view. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching 34:101-105.
Mackenzie, E, and Mackenzie, 1. (1995). Our Changing planet: An Introduction to Earth System
Science and Global Environmental Change. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N1.
Mackenzie, F. (1998). Our Changing Planet-An Introduction to Earth System Science and
Global Environmental Change (2nd ed.). Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, N1.
Metzger, E. (1996). The STRATegy column for precollege science teachers-Charting global
climate change. Journal of Geoscience Education 44:327-333.
Mitchell, 1. E (1989). The "greenhouse" effect and climate change. Reviews of Geophysics
27:115-139.
Monastersky, R. (1992). Up, up and fading away. Science World 48:6-9.
Nasar, S. (1992). Can capitalism save the ozone? The New York Times, February 7,1992, p. D2.
National Academy of Sciences (1992). Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.c.
228 Science, Technology, and Society

National Research Council (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington,

National Academy Press.
Novak 1., and Gowin, D. (1984). Learning How to Learn. Cambridge University Press, New
York.
O'Meara, M. (1997). The risks of disrupting climate. World Watch 10(6):10-24.
Osborne, R., and Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in Science. Heinemann Education, Auckland.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Sage Publications, Beverly
Hills.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications, London.
Plunkett, S., and Skamp, K. (1994). The ozone layer and hole: Children's misconceptions. A
paper presented at the Australian Science Education Research Association Conference,
Hobart, Tasmania, July, 1994.
Potts, A., Stanisstreet, M., and Boyes, E. (1996). Children's ideas about the ozone layer and
opportunities for physics teaching. School Science Review 78:57...fJ2.
Pomerance, R (1989). The dangers from climate warming: a public awakening. In
Abrahamson (ed.), The Challenge of Global Warming, Island Press, Covelo, CA, pp.
259-269.
Roberts, D. (1992). Statistical Analysis for the Social Sciences. Kendall-Hunt Publishers,
Dubuque.
Roleff, T. (1997). Global Warming. Greenhaven Press, San Diego.
Rubba, P., and Wiesenmayer, R (1988). Goals and competencies for precollege STS educa-
tion: Recommendations based upon recent literature in environmental education. The
Journal of Environmental Education 19:38-44.
Rubba, P., Rye, 1., and Wiesenmayer, R (1994). Integrating STS units into middle/junior
high school science: Insights gained from teacher-developers. A paper presented
at the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science Annual Meeting, El Paso,
TX, January, 1994.
Rubba, P., and Wiesenmayer, R (1985). A goal structure for precollege STS education: A pro-
posal based upon recent literature in environmental education. Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society 5:573-580.
Rubba, P., and Wiesenmayer, R (1993). Increased actions by students. In Yager, R E. (ed.),
The Science, Technology, Society Movement, National Science Teachers Association.
Washington, D.C, pp. 169-175.
Rubba, P., and Wiesenmayer, R (1997). Goals and competencies for precollege STS educa-
tion: Recommendations based upon recent literature in environmental education. In
Essential Research in Environmental Education, Stipes Publishing L.L.C, Champaign,
IL, pp. 327-336. (Reprinted from: Journal of Environmental Education 19(4):38-44,
1988 with permission.)
Rubba, P., Wiesenmayer, R, Rye, 1., and Ditty, T. (1996). The leadership institute in STS edu-
cation: A collaborative teacher enhancement, curriculum development and research
project of Penn State University and West Virginia University with rural middle/junior
high school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education 7:1-10.
Rubba, P., Wiesenmayer, R, Rye, 1., McLaren, M., Sillman, K., Yorks, K., Yukish, D., Ditty, T.,
Morphew, V., Bradford, C, Dorough, D., and Borza, K. (1995). Global Atmospheric
Change: Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer Depletion and Ground Level
Ozone Pollution, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Rye, 1. (1995). An Exploratory Study of the Concept Map as an Interview Tool to Facilitate
Externalization of Conceptual Understandings Associated with Global Atmospheric
Change by Eighth Grade Physical Science Students. (Doctoral dissertation, The Penn-
sylvania State University, University Park).
Student Understanding of Global Warming 229

Rye, 1. (1998). Understanding the role of chlorofluorocarbons in global atmospheric change.

Journal of Geoscience Education 46:48~93.
Rye, 1., Rubba, P., and Wiesenmayer, R. (1997). An investigation of middle school students'
alternative conceptions of global warming. International Journal of Science Education
19:527-55l.
Rye, 1., and Rubba, P. (1998). An exploratory study of the concept map as a tool to facilitate
the externaIization of students' understandings about global atmospheric change in the
interview setting. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 35:521-546.
Rutherford, 1. (1989). Science for All Americans, Oxford University Press, New York.
Sanhueza, E., and Zhou, X. (1996). Radiative forcing of climate change (section 2.2). In
Houghton, 1. et al. (ed.), Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change, Press
Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, New York.
Schmid, R. (1998). 1997 was hottest year on record. The wire: the global gamble,
http://wire.ap.org/APnews/center?FRONTID=PACJAGE&EXTRA-global warming.
Schneider, S. H. (1989). The changing climate. Scientific American 261:70-79.
Science for Understanding Tomorrow's World: Global Change (1994). Paris, France: Interna-
tional Council of Scientific Unions.
Scientists' statement on global climatic disruption (1997). Ozone Action, Washington, D.C
http://www.ozone.org/stateii.html.
Smith, E. L., Blakeslee, T. D., and Anderson, C W. (1993). Teaching strategies associated with
conceptual change learning in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching
30:111-126.
Solomon, S., and Srinivasan, 1. (1996). Radiative forcing of climate change (section 2.4). In
Houghton, 1., Filho, L., Callander, B., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K. (eds.),
Climate Change 1995, The Science of Climate Change, Press Syndicate of the Univer-
sity of Cambridge, New York.
Thiemens, M., Jackson, T., Zipf, E., Erdman, P., and Egmond, C (1995). Carbon dioxide and
oxygen isotope anomalies in the mesosphere and stratosphere. Science 270:969-972.
u.N.: Ozone thinner than ever, 1997 June 6: The Dominion Post, p. Sa. (Quoting Scientific
American Library, Ultimate Visual Dictionary, AP Research).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995 (March), Stratospheric ozone deple-
tion: Washington, D.C, Office of Research and Development, 24 p. (EPA/640/K-95/004).
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (1992). Our ozone shield. (Reports to the
Nation on Our Changing Planet, No.2). Boulder: Office of Interdisciplinary Earth
Studies.
Waks, L., and Prakash, M. (1985). STS education and its three step-sisters. Bulletin of Science,
Technology and Society 5:105-116.
Wandersee, 1., Mintzes, 1., and Novak, 1. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in
science. In Gabel, D. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning,
MacMillan Publishing Company, New York pp. 177-210.
Warrick, 1. (1998, January 9). Scientists see weather trend as powerful proof of global warming.
The Washington Post, A8.
Warrick, R., Provost, C, Meier, M., Oerlemans, 1., and Woodworth, P. (1996). Changes in sea
level. In Houghton, 1., Filho, L., Callander, B., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and Maskell,
K. (eds.), Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change, Press Syndicate of the
University of Cambridge. New York pp. 359-405.
West, L. H., and Pines, A. L. (eds.) (1985). Cognitive Structure and Conceptual Change,
Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, FL.
Wise, K., and Okey,1. R. (1983). A meta-analysis of the effects of various science teaching
strategies on achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 20:419-435.
230 Science, Technology, and Society

World Meteorological Organization (1995). Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1994

Executive Summary, World Meteorological Organization (Report No. 37), Geneva,
Switzerland.
Worrest, R. c., Smythe, K. D., and Tait, A M. (1989). Linkages Between Climate Change and
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion. (Report No. EPA/600/D-89/127) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, o.c.
 CHAPTER 9

STS Education for Knowledge

Professionals
J. Scott Hauger

This chapter considers the value of an education in science, technology,

and society studies (STS) for managers or analysts in knowledge-based
industries, government, and other professions who are concerned with
managing the course of technological change. By technological change, 1
mean intentional social innovation in the form of new tools and new
ways of using them. The term "knowledge professional" is appropriate to
describe these workers, because the kinds of social innovation they analyze
or manage intimately involves the creation, synthesis, dissemination and
application of new, science-based knowledge. (I wavered between the term
"knowledge professional" and "innovation professional" to describe the
workers I am discussing here. Knowledge professional seemed too broad,
perhaps too closely related to the common term "knowledge worker." It
might be taken to include data entry specialists or anyone else whose occu-
pational use of "knowledge" is passive or routine. Innovation professional
seemed too narrowly focused on those who work specifically to adopt a
new technology, thus omitting, for example, research program managers,

J.
Scott Hauger, Research Competitiveness Program, American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science, Washington, D.C. 20005.
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

231
232 Science, Technology, and Society

research administrators and science policy analysts, all of whom I would

intend to include.)

THE EMERGENCE OF KNOWLEDGE PROFESSIONALS

I first became aware of the emerging group of knowledge professionals,

about twenty-five years ago, not through study, but on the job. By this time,
a small industry had developed around the Washington beltway to provide
technology assessment, systems development, and systems integration ser-
vices, primarily to the Department of Defense. The Defense Department
had adopted a strategy for global competition with the Soviet Union that
relied on technological innovation to achieve a strategic superiority over an
opponent which was thought to have an advantage in terms of numbers,
material, and initiative. The military services and the various component
agencies of the Department of Defense sought to stimulate, promote, and
adopt new technologies in many areas-from weapons to support services,
from health care to logistics-that would provide a competitive advantage.
More than most institutions, the Defense Department was aware that
technological innovation entailed social innovation, from the structure of
military organizations, to the training of personnel, to planning for the inter-
operability of adjacent technologies.
The industry that emerged to meet the demand for strategically
planned innovation was eclectic in the disciplinary background of its prac-
titioners. The problems it was called upon to address were complex in scope.
Their solution required both specialists in many disciplines and team
leaders who could not only provide a conceptual framework for problem
solving but also synthesize knowledge across disciplines. The new industry
may have centered on engineers, but it included economists, physicists, mod-
elers, managers, even historians-anyone who by some combination of their
education and prior professional experience could embrace both the tech-
nical and social, usually organizational, elements of innovation.
By the 1970s, the talent assembled in "professional services firms,"
more informally known as "think tanks," or derisively as "beltway bandits,"
was being applied to the solution of problems well beyond the defense sector.
Great Society programs led to the pursuit of innovation in education, trans-
portation, and disability fields. The Arab oil embargo and the creation of the
Department of Energy led to programs in conservation and alternative
energy. Certain bureaus and divisions in most federal government agencies
were charged with or created for the management of innovation. Congress
created the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to be an inhouse think
tank concerned with innovation. OTA was staffed with knowledge profes-
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 233

sionals. Meanwhile, the firms which provided new products and processes in
response to such government-sponsored innovation were also hiring or cre-
ating new knowledge professionals who could respond to the opportunities
by writing winning proposals and managing the resulting projects.
During the last 15 years, two important factors have broadened the
range of the knowledge professional. At the same time, they contributed
to a convergence of interests among the government-oriented professionals,
with whom I worked in the 1970s and 1980s, and private sector managers
concerned with innovation as a business strategy. One is the development of
the desktop computer, beginning about 1980, and all the subsequent inno-
vations which are currently manifest in the availability and use of spread-
sheets, flow charts, e-mail, databases and information available on the
worldwide web. These new tools enabled knowledge professions to be prac-
ticed at any desk in any office or home, in collaboration with other profes-
sionals in any other location, without requiring a large support staff to gather
data, make computer runs, type and print reports, produce slides, and dis-
seminate findings. Every firm, every division of a firm or agency now has the
ability to support or hire a knowledge professional, and in an interesting case
of reflexivity, many firms and agencies have hired knowledge professionals
to help them adopt and manage the new computer-based technologies.
The other important factor in the spread of knowledge professionals
is the end of the Cold War and the relative decline of the federal govern-
ment as the motive force for competitive innovation, a role which has been
shifting toward the private sector. A strategy of economic competition
through technological innovation has long characterized many American
businesses which have sought to implement new, science-based production
technologies to overcome the advantage of inexpensive labor in other coun-
tries. The rise of Japanese competitors, among others, in the sale of new
technology products has provided new incentives to institutionalize busi-
ness strategies which depend upon continuous innovation. Daily advances
in a number of science-based technologies from microprocessors to mate-
rials to tailored genes make such a strategy feasible at a time when the end
of the Cold War is supporting a return to the proposition that the business
of America is business. This trend is reinforced by the growth of the infor-
mation technologies sector which supports a general speed up in the
product innovation cycle.
Strategic planning for innovation has become a major concern for the
private sector, both as producers and consumers of innovation. Firms believe
they cannot remain competitive merely by responding to the market. Like
the Defense Department in the Cold War, business firms in many sectors
seek to lead the market into a new technological context as a strategy to
remain competitive on a global level. Moreover, dramatic failures in the
234 Science, Technology, and Society

innovation of otherwise successful technologies, from beta-format video

recordings to nuclear fission power plants, have provided industry with clear
reasons to believe that the success of innovation strategies depends on much
more than engineering knowledge. Disciplinary experts or practitioners who
rely on traditional, specialized practices are not sufficient to ensure success
in the current business environment. Business firms are creating or hiring
their own knowledge professionals, sometimes importing them from the
institutions created during the Cold War. The employment of knowledge pro-
fessionals also appears to be increasing within state government agencies
and institutions, such as land grant universities, as the states assume such
expanded roles as promoting economic development through innovation
and cost-sharing of federally-sponsored research.

WHO ARE KNOWLEDGE PROFESSIONALS?

My personal experiences and observations of the emergence of knowledge

professional are in no way privileged or unique. Social scientists and com-
mentators focusing on business and labor have been writing about the
changing structure of the workforce for many years. In The Work of
Nations, Robert Reich (1991) devotes six chapters to "the rise of the sym-
bolic analyst." According to Reich, this job category, includes
... all the problem-solving, problem-identifying, and strategic-brokering activi-
ties.... of many people who call themselves research scientists, design engineers,
software engineers, civil engineers, biotechnology engineers, sound engineers,
public relations executives, invcstment bankers, lawyers, real estate developers,
and even a few creative accountants. Also included is much of the work done by
management consultants, financial consultants, tax consultants, agricultural con-
sultants, armaments consultants, architectural consultants, management infor-
mation specialists, organization development specialists, strategic planners,
corporate headquarters and systems analysts. Also: advertising executives and
marketing strategists, art directors, architects, cinematographers, film editors,
production designers, publishers. writers and editors, journalists, musicians, tele-
vision and film producers, and even university professors. (177)

Reich describes symbolic analysts as those who "solve, identify, and

broker problems by manipulating symbols.... The tools may be mathemat-
ical algorithms, legal arguments, financial gimmicks, scientific principles, psy-
chological insights about how to persuade or amuse, systems of induction or
deduction, or any other set of techniques for doing conceptual puzzles" (178).
He states that in the 1980s, about 20 percent of American workers fell under
this category up from about eight percent in the 1950s (179). "As the value
placed on new designs and concepts continues to grow relative to the value
placed on standard products," Reich claims, "the demand for symbolic ana-
lysts will continue to surge" (225). In separate chapters, Reich discusses the
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 235

education of symbolic analysts, and asks, " ... how the considerable skills and
insights of symbolic analysts can be harnessed for the public good" (185). His
consideration of the education of symbolic analysts is largely descriptive
rather than normative. He notes that symbolic analysts are being taught four
basic skills: abstraction of a problem, system thinking, experimentation, and
collaboration with other symbolic analysts (225-233). Reich also notes the
importance of on-the-job training of symbolic analysts working in common
problem areas, often located in sub-communities which he calls "symbolic
analysis zones" (235).
It is clear that Reich's job category of symbolic analyst is a much
larger one than that of knowledge professional, as considered here. Based
upon his examples and descriptions, however, it seems reasonable to
identify knowledge professionals as a subset of symbolic analysts. Specifi-
cally, knowledge professionals are those who identify, solve and broker
problems of science-based technological innovation. In Reich's terms, the
Washington beltway in the 1970s and 1980s, comprised a symbolic analysis
zone for knowledge professionals, providing innovation services to federal
government agencies, while providing on-the-job training for careers in
identifying, solving, and broke ring problems of government-sponsored
technological innovation.
In 1959, Peter Drucker coined the phrase, "knowledge worker" to
describe a "newly emerging dominant group," displacing the importance of
industrial workers in the post-industrial age (1994, 6). Like Reich's sym-
bolic analysts, Drucker's knowledge workers comprise a larger category
than the knowledge professionals considered here. Knowledge workers,
whom Drucker characterizes but leaves undefined, employ knowledge as a
tool to solve a problem at hand. They function as employees but control
their own tools of production. The value of their knowledge to the market
depends upon the task at hand. They gain access to jobs and social position
only through formal education, a fact that, according to Drucker, has imp or-
tant social implications: "Education will become the center of the knowl-
edge society, and the school its key institution," although " ... more and
more knowledge, and especially advanced knowledge, will be acquired well
past the age of formal schooling and increasingly, perhaps, through educa-
tional processes that do not center on the traditional school" (9).
Drucker holds to the reductionist notion that knowledge must be spe-
cialized. He believes knowledge workers are, by definition, specialists. He
says the term "generalist" will have no professional meaning other than
" ... people who have learned to acquire additional specialties rapidly in
order to move from one kind of job to another-for example, from market
research into management, or from nursing into hospital administration.
But 'generalists' in the sense in which we used to talk of them are coming
to be seen as dilettantes rather than educated people" (10).
236 Science, Technology, and Society

This characterization of knowledge workers might seem antithetical

to an STS education which is grounded in the liberal arts and seeks to
produce a certain kind of generalist. We need not accept Drucker's asser-
tion at face value, however. As anticipated by his examples of specialists in
market research and nursing who acquire additional knowledge to assume
managerial roles, Drucker goes on to describe a new kind of generalist: the
manager, who must orchestrate the performance of knowledge specialists
to make their knowledges productive. STS scholars might well understand
Drucker's manager as a meta-knowledge worker, one who uses a knowledge
of knowledge work as the basis of his or her professional practice.
Drucker's argument runs something like this: Because of the need for
specialization in discipline or practice, knowledge workers must work in
multidisciplinary teams to solve societal problems and perform tasks which
cut across knowledge disciplines: "With knowledge work growing increas-
ingly effective as it is increasingly specialized, teams become the work unit
rather than the individual himself" (11). For Drucker, this situation
enhances and makes visible the importance of management, which can be
understood as the practice of bringing people possessing different knowl-
edge together for a joint performance (13). He concludes "Management is
still taught in most business schools as a bundle of techniques, such as bud-
geting and personal relations. To be sure, management, like any other work
has its own tools and techniques. But just as the essence of medicine is not
urinalysis (important though that is), the essence of management is not
techniques and procedures. The essence of management is to make knowl-
edges productive. Management in other words is a social function. And in
its practice, management is truly a liberal art" (13-14).
Drucker's phrase, "managers who make knowledges productive," is a
good description of knowledge professionals, as I have observed them. Thus,
knowledge professionals are a subset of knowledge workers, as discussed
by Drucker, and of symbolic analysts as discussed by Reich. They are pro-
fessionals whose social function is to identify, solve, and broker problems
of science-based technological innovation, by leading or otherwise com-
bining the knowledges of multidisciplinary team members to make knowl-
edge productive with respect to the problem at hand.
It is a bit difficult to further specify or define this group. Indeed, they
lack many of the characteristics that typically define a group of profes-
sionals. They come to their area of common interest from a variety of direc-
tions. They do not as yet identify themselves with a common set of social
institutions. They have undertaken their college educations in a variety of
disciplines and fields. They work in many different settings. Their job titles
vary. They do not belong to a single set of professional organizations.
Society has yet to develop a common label for them. Nonetheless, I meet
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 237

them every day, both in my job at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) and in the classes I teach at Virginia
Tech's Northern Virginia Center (NVC). They may also be found in a broad,
but overlapping variety of organizations, conferences and meetings devoted
to aspects of innovation. They tend to be mobile within a common set of
firms and institutional employers. The common characteristic of these
knowledge professionals is that their jobs and careers are largely concerned
with the integration of new, science and technology-based knowledge into
the workplace.!

AT WORK WITH KNOWLEDGE PROFESSIONALS

If it were not for my work with AAAS, I would believe the knowledge pro-
fessional is a particular denizen of the Washington symbolic analysis zone.
There are, in Washington, many professionals concerned with governmen-
tal aspects of scientific research and technological change. Because Wash-
ington is the national center for science and technology policy, it is also the
center for science and technology policy-related professions. The Washing-
ton-area positions are labeled as science policy jobs, but they have much in
common with jobs around the country which do not share the label.
My position as director of AAAS's Research Competitiveness
Program is explicitly labeled a science policy job. It is, however, a job that
is concerned with activities far from the halls of the federal government.
The program works with states that are least engaged in federally-spon-
sored scientific research and technology development, to enhance the
states' "research competitiveness." The program, sponsored by the National
Science Foundation's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (EPSCoR) has taken me such places as Jackson, Mississippi,
Burlington, Vermont, and Laramie, Wyoming. At each location, I found a
variety of professionals concerned with issues and problems of science-
based technological and social change, although the label of science and
technology policy is rarely applied. They include, for example, university
administrators concerned with issues of industry-sponsored research, public
interest group staff members working on environmental problems, busi-
nessmen dealing with technology issues related to the global marketplace,
local government officials concerned about the creation of high-paying jobs,
and educators concerned with issues such as distance education. Like their
colleagues within the Washington beltway, these knowledge professionals

1 I use the term workplace broadly to include any place people work, be it the office, military
headquarters, classroom, home, or laboratory.
238 Science, Technology, and Society

are working daily to integrate new, science and technology-based know-

ledge into the workplace. Although these integrative jobs are sometimes an
additional task for a teacher, manager, or professional, because of their
increasing scope and importance, they often become full-time positions.
The professional positions I am describing may be distinguished from
others which are characterized by specialization, either by discipline or by
application. Many new knowledge professionals were trained, or started
their careers, as specialists, but forces in the social environment caused them
to pursue careers outside the boundaries of their disciplinary education-
careers which may not even have existed when they received their college
degrees or entered the job market. By pursuing the best available oppor-
tunities through a series of generally progressive job changes, a growing
number of professionals-each following his or her own path-came to
establish careers wherein the relationships between successive jobs was
defined not by a body of technical knowledge to be mastered by the indi-
vidual, but by a process of managing, analyzing, and planning for the adop-
tion of new, science-based, technological knowledge into the workplace.
From this perspective, many of the science and technology policy jobs
found in Washington can be seen to comprise part of a broader domain of
professional positions concerned with technological and therefore social
innovation. Such jobs are labeled "policy" jobs when they seek to serve or
inform government decision making. They may bear other labels, such as
"strategic planning," when they are in the service of business or education.
They share a concern for planning or managing the course of science-based
technological innovation.
The emergence of a knowledge profession is perhaps more readily dis-
cerned in careers than in individual jobs. For example, my own career over
the last 20 years, has included employment as a chemist, a military officer,
a technology analyst in a think tank, a small business owner, a consultant,
an academic research manager, a university professor, and, most recently,
by a nonprofit organization. During that time, I was involved in innovation
projects in areas including cruise missile defense, large-scale simulation
modeling, solar thermal power plants, technologies for persons with dis-
abilities, design for the environment, and bio-based materials, among others.
From a traditional perspective such a seeming hodge podge may not look
like a career at all. There is no common theme of employing institution,
scientifi~ discipline, or technology application area. But there has been a
continuity of practice, and my responsibilities have been continuously pro-
gressive around a theme of managing the course of research, development
and innovation. Similar patterns may be found in the careers of a number
of my acquaintances who are in the second half of their professional lives.
They have built careers which cut across industry, academia, and govern-
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 239

ment, in a series of progressive jobs which deal with issues and problems
of innovation. Responding individually to the common environment of a
workplace which has rewarded science-based technological innovation, a
significant number of individuals have built careers which might be said to
represent a new paradigm for knowledge professionals. Judging from the
younger professionals I have met on the job and in the classroom, this has
been a growing trend over the last 20 years, extending to more junior levels
in organizations, and becoming visible earlier in a professional career.

KNOWLEDGE PROFESSIONALS AND STS

The knowledge professional was created by the workplace and the job
market, not by our educational institutions which are, I think, inherently
conservative. They will react to changes in the workplace over time, but they
have no incentive to lead the way, and harbor insufficient knowledge of
nonacademic professions to provide the leading edge of change. The emerg-
ing academic field of science, technology and society studies did not set out
to educate knowledge professionals. Nor, for the most part, are knowledge
professionals the product of an STS education. Nonetheless, STS provides
a potential academic base for knowledge professionals who wish to better
understand their practices.
Steve Fuller (1997) characterized the STS community as consisting of
a high church and a low church:
In High Church terms, "STS" means "Science & Technology Studies," an emerg-
ing academic discipline that uses the methods of the humanities and the social
sciences to study mainly the natural sciences but increasingly technology. In Low
Church terms, "STS" means "Science, Technology & Society," a nascent social
movement that has been historically promoted by science and engineering
teachers concerned with the social implications of mainly technology but
increasingly science. There is probably a broad political consensus between the
High and Low Churches regarding a generally critical attitude toward the role
of science and technology in society today. However the High Church stresses
the need for more research to understand the complexities of that role, whereas
the Low Church wishes to reduce some of those complexities by reorienting
science and engineering education. Consequently, the two Churches of STS
inhabit rather different professional societies and represent themselves in rather
different ways, though often drawing from many of the same intellectual tradi-
tions. (no page number)

Fuller, of course, is writing from the academy, rather than the work
place, so he misses a Broad Church perspective which would embrace the
concerns of the working congregation as well as those of the academic
priesthood. Like the Low Church academic reformer, knowledge
240 Science, Technology, and Society

professionals are concerned with the social implications of" ... mainly tech-
nology, but increasingly science."The social groups they are concerned with
are more likely to be offices, firms, agencies, or professional practices than
nations or civilizations. But academic STS has also had an interest in
microlevel organizations. The social implications of technologies that
knowledge professionals would like to understand are often focused on
issues of the marketplace and on relations between people in the workplace
who employ a new technology, including changes in the way they interact
with their neighbors. These issues also fall within the boundaries of schol-
arly research in STS. Although most knowledge professionals may never
participate in the High Church ritual of scholarly research, they are eager
for research results that can inform their practices. They comprise poten-
tial consumers for STS research products in a way analogous to engineers'
consumption of the results of research in the natural sciences. Moreover,
some knowledge professionals are both competent and interested in par-
ticipating in research, and can bring to that enterprise a knowledge of and
access to some excellent research sites.
In short, knowledge professionals whose daily practices are concerned
with managing the course of science-based technological innovation have
a broad interest in the same issues as high and low church academic STS
programs. If "critical" be understood to mean "exercising or involving
careful judgment or judicious evaluation," rather than "inclined to criticize
severely and unfavorably" (Webster, 1985, p. 307), then these potential
students typically share " ... a generally critical attitude toward the role of
science and technology in society today." They are paid to exercise their
critical skills and judgment on a daily basis.
Most knowledge professionals have not yet heard of academic STS,
or are only vaguely aware of the field. I base this assertion on the experi-
ence of hundreds of conversations with potential students who inquire
about the Virginia Tech graduate program at the Northern Virginia Center.
Yet, these inquirers quickly grasp the nature of the program when it is
explained, and some fraction of them find it more interesting than com-
peting opportunities to earn a master's degree in such fields as business
administration, information technology, engineering, engineering adminis-
tration, or public affairs and policy administration, even though the STS
diploma is a lesser known degree without a clearly associated career path.
Lacking their own common academic base, knowledge professionals
may be attracted to the field as an alma mater. This happened to me in mid-
career, when I learned, 15 years out of the university, of STS as a field of
study. It is happening to my students at a much earlier point in their careers.
All of these master's-level students have a bachelor's degree in a field other
than STS. (About 50 students have taken courses in the first five semesters
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 241

of the program.) Between a third and a half have another master's degree.
Four people with doctorates have enrolled in these STS courses. Nearly all
the students are working professionals-in fields as diverse as nursing,
systems engineering, the military, librarianship, telecommunications, project
management, and technology assessment, as well as a few students in civil
service positions with a science and technology policy dimension. How well
can the field of science, technology and society studies provide what these
practitioners need, and how will the experience of meeting such a need
influence the direction of STS?
At the M.S. level, I will argue, STS can meet the needs of knowledge
professionals very well. At the B.S. level there is less opportunity. There are
few entry-level positions for knowledge professionals. In Reich's terms, the
brokerage of problems in science-based technological innovation requires
more experience and a higher level of education than a fresh bachelor's
degree can provide. Drucker identifies knowledge professionals with man-
agers, which indicates that we should not expect to find many knowledge
professionals in entry-level positions. Combining Reich and Drucker's
ideas, we might state that in the contemporary workplace, most entry-level
symbolic analysts work to solve problems across one field of knowledge.
Later in their careers, symbolic analysts, who are successful at solving prob-
lems of a more limited scope and who show a talent for leading teams of
specialists, are promoted into positions that require them to work across
several fields of knowledge. Students who wish to follow a career of knowl-
edge professional, therefore, would probably be well advised to earn a
bachelor's degree in a more specialized field of interest before pursuing
graduate education in STS.
This does not mean there is no role for STS in the education of the
knowledge professional at the bachelor's level. There is, after all, a differ-
ence between a student who pursues a degree, for example in chemistry, to
prepare for a career as a chemist and a student who seeks the same degree
as a step toward a career in managing technological change. It is debatable
whether or not STS courses will make a student a better chemist. But it
seems certain to me that STS courses will help a chemist be better at iden-
tifying, solving, and brokering problems that include chemistry as one of
several knowledges needed to address the problem. Undergraduates who
are sensitive to the nature of the workplace as described by Drucker and
Reich, and who see their career path as that of a knowledge professional
rather than that of a chemist, would be well advised to take elective courses
or to construct a minor in STS or its component fields.
There is another good reason for knowledge professionals to pursue
an undergraduate major and even an advanced degree in a specialized
field of knowledge: credibility. If, together with Steve Fuller, we are to
242 Science, Technology, and Society

understand STS as a critical field, then we must have sufficient mastery of

the disciplines and practices we critique to ensure credibility with ourselves,
our employers, and those whose work we wish to analyze and influence. In
academic STS, the principal audience for our work is found within the
boundary of our own knowledge community. Other STS scholars, as a com-
munity of peers, are responsible for evaluating our performance. The eval-
uation of our work by the scientists and engineers whom we study is
secondary at best. Their opinions, especially negative ones, may even be
suspect. In the nonacademic workplace, however, other knowledge com-
munities must benefit from our work and find value in it. Credibility is
needed for access to these communities, and also for effectiveness in nego-
tiating solutions to problems which they can accept.
The nonacademic workplace imposes different and, I think, difficult
standards of successful critical analysis. It favors pragmatic incrementalism
and compromise in comparison to a more paradigmatic form of STS. It
makes STS more a technology, where new knowledge is a matter of design
for the solution of problems presented by the society at large, and less a
science, where both problems and solutions are validated by the commu-
nity of peers. Just as in engineering and architecture, the work of STS-
trained knowledge professionals will be judged not only by the professional
community but also by the communities they seek to serve. Those commu-
nities are more likely to trust a critical approach to science and technology
when the critic is well-grounded and credentialed in both critical analysis
and in that which is being analyzed. STS-based knowledge professionals
can benefit from an undergraduate education in one of the scientific or
technological disciplines.
Some STS scholars may object to the compromises an STS-educated
knowledge professional must make in order to succeed as a nonacademic
practitioner. They may view scientific knowledge and the knowledge of the
STS community as comprising incommensurable paradigms or competing
ideologies. However, those who view STS as a metadiscipline concerned
with metaknowledge should have no conceptual problems with this con-
textual shift. The knowledge and practices of scientists and engineers is,
after all, what we study. There is reflexive validity in putting academic STS
at the service of knowledge professionals.
Why then should knowledge professionals take to STS? We have
already seen the answer to this question: There is a distinction to be made
between the disciplinary sciences and communities of knowledge workers.
The political and commercial worlds are in a period of transition from the
Cold War era. Their old ways of doing things are proving less and less suc-
cessful in a new, global political and economic context. As represented by
writers such as Reich and Drucker, they are looking for new paradigms for
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 243

the practice of innovation, new models of how to go on, of how to manage.

Even the academic science communities, which depend on economic and
political support from government and industry, are affected by these
broader societal changes. At a time when academic researchers, and even
federally-sponsored technology developers, are called to account for their
ability to respond to the needs and values of other, broader communities,
there is little to fear from ideological attacks from the Scylla of positivistic
science, as long as STS avoids the Charybdis of strong relativism. The work-
place, of course, has an antidote for this latter pathology, namely the mar-
ketplace, an arbiter for which all practices and all problem solutions are not
of equal value.
There will be STS scholars who believe providing academic services to
knowledge professionals is both conceptually and socially feasible, but who
object to the marketplace as arbiter on ethical or political grounds. The
market for professional services is a broad and complex one. It includes
public interest groups, political parties, religious institutions, charities, and
advocacy organizations as well as business firms, the Department of Defense,
state government agencies, and universities. Knowledge professionals work
in these sites and many more. The market for the professional services of
knowledge workers is broad but not monolithic in its values or ethics.
The model of the scholar speaking truth to power is one which STS
research itself calls into question. We believe truth to be elusive and in some
ways dependent on social context. We know that power must be obtained
in order to influence power. The informed participation in the workplace
by critical professionals working for different interests provides an excel-
lent and nonexclusive model for influencing the shape of society which may
be more effective than either lectures from the ivory tower or grass-roots
democracy. In the modern world, power is distributed across federal, state
and local government, large and small business firms, elite and land grant
academic institutions and a bewildering variety of nonprofit institutions, all
of which play many roles in planning for science-based innovation. Knowl-
edge professionals comprise a significant, widely-distributed, and growing
part of the public who is engaged in decisionmaking regarding technologi-
cal futures on a continuous basis. Their education should be of special
interest to the STS community.

STS GRADUATE EDUCATION FOR KNOWLEDGE PROFESSIONALS

What then, does an advanced degree in STS offer the knowledge professional
who aims to be a "manager who makes knowledges productive"? Our initial
direction may be taken from Drucker, when he said that the essence of
244 Science, Technology, and Society

management is not techniques and procedures, but a social function which

in its practice is truly a liberal art. If we are not primarily concerned with the
teaching of techniques and procedures, then what is our concern?
Most of the literature on STS education since the 1960s has been con-
cerned with the education of STS scholars, of scientists, or of the general
public (Edge, 1995, 8-15). The emergence of the knowledge professional
brings a new dimension to the discussion, but many of the issues are famil-
iar. In his overview of the field, "Reinventing the Wheel," David Edge notes
that one wellspring of STS in the 1970s was a concern within European uni-
versities to provide scientists with a broader education to compensate for
a curriculum that was too specialized and illiberal (p. 8). The goal was to
acquaint science, technology and engineering students with aspects of society
in which they would work. It is noteworthy, however, that Edge quotes Clive
Morphet's characterization of these reforms as "non-vocational elements"
of the scientist's education (p. 9). For knowledge workers, although they may
have been initially trained as scientists, a knowledge of the society in which
they work has become a definite vocational concern.
Edge identifies a second area of historical interest to STS educators:
the training of policy analysts and policymakers. Derek de Solla Price's
Little Science, Big Science (1986) is the icon for this strand of STS which
deals with themes familiar to those concerned with the efficiency of invest-
ments in research and development in the post-Cold War era. Although
hardly a mainstream element of STS education today, this approach, which
Edge labels technocratic (6-7, 12) can still be found in practice, for example
in the work of Francis N arin which seeks to discover the economic impacts
of investments in academic research through a bibliographic analysis of
patent citations. Edge places techniques such as cost-benefit analyses in the
same technocratic category. The application of such quantitative social
science methods to the analysis of science policy issues is a legitimate activ-
ity, but a specialized one. This kind of practice is one of the specialties that
a knowledge professional might manage, broker, and apply to problem
solving, but, like urinalysis to Drucker's physician, they are at most a tool
in the knowledge professional's black bag. 2
Knowledge professionals, as previously described, would not be well
served by a technocratic education. As Drucker pointed out, techniques and
procedures are not the essence of the profession. Rather, the knowledge
professional must orchestrate the performance of knowledge specialists to
make their knowledges productive. The knowledge professional performs
a social function which Reich has further characterized as the brokerage
of the solution of problems-problems concerned with science-based

2 Not to be confused with the infamous black box.

STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 245

innovation. Orchestraters and brokers are not well served by technocratic

methods. Rather, they are self conscious participants in the creation of new
knowledge whose integrative role requires a reflexive awareness of their
practice. They must adopt a critical perspective on the knowledge and prac-
tices of their specialist collaborators. Like a systems engineer, they must
seek to design a solution that "works" where the judgement of what works
is shared by an external community as well as an internal one.
What Edge describes as the "critical approach to science education"
is thus of greater relevance to the knowledge professional than is the
technocratic. 3
... the "critical" approach implies teaching material about science, its institu-
tionalization and social structure, its values and practices, so as to stress ideas
about its social nature and its relationship with other social institutions: these
ideas are taught in a reflexive manner. ... In other words, the educational goals
of teaching in this mode are essentially cognitive; the aim is understanding of the
social roles that the graduate might eventually assume, and of the institutional
pressures implied by those roles, linked with the self-awareness that will activate
these roles creatively. The status and credibility of technical expertise, and the
justification of those social roles are not taken for granted. (14)

My experience as a teacher supports this argument. The M.S. curricu-

lum offered to working knowledge professionals at the Northern Virginia
Center is the same as that offered to future Ph.D. students in Blacksburg. It
has a strong core emphasis on history, philosophy, and the social sciences,
which comprise 60 percent of the program. With 20 percent devoted to a
thesis, this leaves only 20 percent of the curriculum for elective courses which
can be interdisciplinary STS courses, or courses in a science, technology, man-
agement, or policy discipline. This curriculum has attracted and satisfied a
solid group of students who believe it to be relevant to their needs.
And why should this not be the case? The curriculum addresses the
nature of knowledge systems: It surveys epistemology and the philosophy
of science from the Vienna Circle to the present, with some attention to the
philosophy of experiment and of technology. There is an emphasis on post-
Kuhnian, historical-based philosophy of science and social epistemology. It
considers the sociology of scientific knowledge including the Strong Pro-
gramme, and questions scientific epistemological exceptionalism. It includes
the considerations of Staudenmaier and historians of technology regarding
the relationship between science and technology and the independent
status of technologies as knowledge systems. In short, the curriculum pro-
vides a sound, liberal education regarding contemporary understanding of

, Edge is writing of the education of scientists, but I think he has in mind the roles played by
scientists working as knowledge professionals.
246 Science, Technology, and Society

the nature of human knowledge. It shows how knowledge is resident in and

validated by knowledge communities, and provides an intellectual basis for
performing the social role of making knowledge productive.
The curriculum also gives examples of how the production of scien-
tific and technological knowledge has been influenced by social factors,
according to a variety of STS scholars and historians of science and tech-
nology. Students read canonical STS works by Shapin and Shaffer, Latour,
Constant, Cowan, Hughes, Pinch, Law, and Bijker among others. They
receive an introduction to archival research and are required to write a his-
torical study in science or technology, using archival sources, an exercise
that students seem to enjoy even though few, if any, will become historians.
In addition to providing an historical context for their work, this part of the
curriculum provides potent lessons on the values and limits of historical
case studies as well as firsthand experience of how historical studies selec-
tively depend on surviving documentation. It also provides a palette of crit-
ical methods for later use.
The study of historical examples of problems in innovation provides
vicarious experience to knowledge professionals. Reading critical analyses
by STS researchers can also suggest frames for critical analysis and help
identify potential problem areas. The curriculum is meant to engender a
healthy skepticism regarding positivistic or deterministic interpretations
or approaches that offer simplistic or monolithic solutions to complex prob-
lems. Students read the works and analyses of social scientists from across
the spectrum, from Merton to Bloor and from Winner to Rosenberg. They
are exposed to a variety of critical perspectives, and encouraged to consider
their own.
The graduate seminar is our classroom model, where students are
expected to read critically and make classroom presentations about their
reading, while preparing an analytic paper as a final product for the course.
Students may choose a work-related topic for their analytic papers. On a
few occasions, paper have served dual duty, and have been submitted both
for a grade and as a deliverable at work. More often, students use a seminar
to explore a research site or an analytical framework generally related to
their work or career interests. Thus, if they choose, students may write six
different papers which address related areas of technical or social interest
to fulfill the requirements of six core courses which emphasize the philos-
ophy of science and technology, the history of science and technology, and
social science approaches to the study of science, technology, and society.
They may then write a thesis which draws upon their prior work. Examples
include a student whose papers dealt with some issue or problem related
to the emerging field of nanotechnology and another student whose papers
dealt with issues of manned space exploration. Their theses, in preparation,
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 247

deal with an analytic comparison of centralized versus market-driven

models for the development of nanotechnologies, and a study of official and
public approaches to evaluating risk and in making decisions in the light
of such evaluations, in the launch of nuclear powered space probes. It is
worth mentioning that, in addition to STS majors, graduate students in
public administration and policy, education, computer science, and engi-
neering have found it worthwhile to take one or more of our core courses
as electives.
The faculty for this program which seeks to meet the needs of knowl-
edge professionals includes five working, knowledge professionals. Two
have doctoral degrees in STS (both history-oriented). Three are broad-base
social scientists. Their doctorates are in anthropology, economics, and soci-
ology. One is a distinguished STS scholar, the others have been attracted to
the field relatively recently. These faculty members work for the National
Science Foundation, the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Renewable
Energy Project, Battelle Pacific Laboratories, and the American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science. The sixth is a philosopher who splits
his time between Virginia Tech and George Washington University. In ad-
dition, we have experimented with teleconference technology and have
conducted courses linking classrooms in Northern Virginia and Blacksburg.
Two philosophy courses have originated from Blacksburg, and an advanced
course in science policy originated in Northern Virginia.
The Virginia Tech STS program in Northern Virginia is a new one; it
is now in its sixth semester. Four students have already expressed a strong
interest in continuing toward a Ph.D. Three of these students are not inter-
ested in preparing for an academic career, but in continuing study to
support their career as a knowledge professional. There is no question that,
at both the M.S. and Ph.D. level, earning the academic credential is seen to
be an important career step. In the three years of the program, several stu-
dents have changed jobs or secured promotions where, they report, their
progress toward an M.S. in STS has been an important factor in their suc-
cessful career move. Senior positions in the knowledge professions may
require a Ph.D. or are, at least, more accessible to Ph.D. holders. Two of our
faculty members have secured such positions based on their doctorates in
STS, and our students see this as a model for their own careers. As Drucker
(1994) predicted, formal education is important to the knowledge society,
and students are seeking to acquire advanced knowledge" ... well past the
age of formal schooling" and "through educational processes that do not
center on the traditional school" (p. 9). The only untraditional aspect of the
Virginia Tech program is that classes are all offered in the evening, meeting
once a week for three hours, so that working professionals are able to
attend. It is a tribute both to the values and the energy of the students that
248 Science, Technology, and Society

they faithfully pursue such a program. It is also a testimony to the value

of graduate education in science, technology and society studies to the
critically-inclined knowledge professional. It is worth mentioning that, as
part-time students, these working professionals are not eligible for fellow-
ships or assistantships. They either pay their tuition themselves, or persuade
their employers to do so.
An STS degree does not appeal to all knowledge professionals, of
course. More than five times as many students are enrolled in the M.B.A.
program and in the M.S. programs in computer science and engineering.
Three times as many are in the M.P.A. program. But these well-established
programs have the advantage of longevity and familiarity to potential stu-
dents. Much of my time with inquiring students is spent explaining what
STS is about. They all know or learn that, unlike an M.B.A., or an M.S.I.E.,
an STS degree does not carry with it a socialized career path. Those who
pursue the program are persuaded of its value which depends, in part, on
their ability to broker the degree in the marketplace. Nonetheless, with
apologies to Imre Lakatos, it is a progressive program. Each year sees more
students than the last. We have enrolled our first students who learned of
the program from other students. We have enrolled our first students who
were specifically looking for an STS program, and who found us by way of
our web site. It seems clear from our limited experience that the principal
barrier to increasing enrollments is a lack of contextual knowledge of STS
in the workplace. This is a barrier that is surmountable in individual cases
in the short term, and which is likely to be reduced over time as our stu-
dents spread throughout the workplace. Evangelism by the STS community
as it reaches out to potential students would also reduce that barrier. So
far, we have done very little in the way of outreach to promote the idea of
STS education for knowledge professionals, and our advertising budget is
limited to three small ads per year in the Washington Post.

FROM GLIMPSING ONE TREE TO SURVEYING A FOREST

I have tried, in this chapter, to build a general case for STS education of
knowledge professionals, based on a consideration of societal trends in the
workplace as described by Robert Reich and Peter Drucker, as interpreted
through my own experience-first, as a knowledge professional, and then
as director of an STS program aimed at working professionals. I have drawn
briefly upon Steve Fuller and David Edge's characterizations of the STS
community and the history of educational themes in STS. I have also drawn,
vicariously, upon the experience of other faculty members in the Northern
Virginia program. Missing here is a consideration of the experience of other
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 249

universities with the graduate education of knowledge professionals. It does

not appear to be a topic that has been widely considered. In the absence
of a developed literature, I conducted a brief survey of web-based infor-
mation, followed up, in some cases, by telephone conversations with faculty
or administrators. The following section is not at all definitive, but strictly
exploratory.
As an index to programs, I used the web sites at North Carolina State
University, entitled "Science, Technology, & Society Programs at Other Uni-
versities," (Hamlett, 1996), and the AAAS web site, "Guide to Graduate
Education in Science, Engineering and Public Policy" (1997). There are a
total of 32 United States colleges and universities offering programs in STS
or in science and technology policy listed at these web sites. Of ten found
only on the North Carolina State site, five appear to be strictly undergrad-
uate programs. None of the other five appear to offer terminal master's
degrees of the kind discussed in this essay. Of the ten found only on the
AAAS website, all but one, Eastern Michigan University, appear to be pre-
dominantly public policy programs with a science or technology option.
Several of these 19 universities' programs may warrant further investiga-
tion and characterization, but from a cursory examination, they do not
appear to have a primary concern with a graduate-level, multidisciplinary,
critical approach to science and technology in society.
Of the 12 universities found on both sites, two, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versity and the University of Pennsylvania, do not offer a terminal master's
degree. Georgia Tech and MIT each offer two programs, one of which is
policy oriented and one of which is liberal arts oriented, but the MIT
program in STS is a Ph.D. program that does not seek master's degree
candidates.
This winnowing of the web sites thus yields twelve interdisciplinary
programs which might offer master's degrees to science-based knowledge
professionals. Five of these are most readily categorized in the liberal arts
tradition:

1. Cornell University's M.A. in Science and Technology Studies

2. Eastern Michigan University's Master of Liberal Studies
(M.L.S.) in Technology
3. Georgia Institute of Technology's M.S. in History of Technology
4. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's M.S. in Science and Tech-
nology Studies
5. Virginia Tech's M.S. in Science and Technology Studies

Seven degree programs are more closely identified with public policy
approaches:
250 Science, Technology, and Society

l. Georgia Institute of Technology's M.S.P'P' program

2. The George Washington University's M.A. in Science, Tech-
nology and Public Policy
3. The University of Minnesota, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute's
M.S. in Science and Technology PoliCy
4. Princeton University's M.P.A. in Science, Technology, and
Environmental Policy
5. The University of California at Berkeley's joint M.P'P'-M.S.
program in the Goldman School of Public Policy
6. Syracuse University's M.P.A. (focus on technology) in the
Maxwell School of Public Affairs
7. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology's M.S. in Technol-
ogy and Policy4

There may, of course, be other programs not captured by these two web
sites.
Available material on the policy-oriented programs supports the idea
that science and technology policy practices are closely related to those of
a broader group of knowledge professionals. The George Washington Uni-
versity entry at the AAAS web site, for example, states, "Graduates of the
science, technology, and public policy program have had continuing success
in locating exciting policy-making, research and management positions
in both the public and private sectors" (no page number). The Georgia Tech
entry says, "About half of the M.S.P'P' graduates find work in government
agencies and half work in private or nonprofit sectors. Most find jobs as
policy analysts in government or consulting firms. Recent placements
include: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Council on Competitiveness, Southern
Technology Council, Georgia Power Company, the US. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, the Georgia Conservancy, Motorola, Intel, and the US.
Department of Energy" (no page number). M.LT. reports: "The Technol-
ogy and Policy Program equips its graduates with skills that may be applied
to careers in the public or private sectors. The graduates work about half
and half for the private sector and for government organizations" (no page
number). Other policy-oriented programs make a similar claim, except for
the program at Ue. Berkeley, which has only recently accepted students
(AAAS). The fact that a large number of graduates from science and tech-
nology policy programs are finding work in business firms and nonprofit
organizations provides evidence that the workplace is creating positions for

4 Preliminary information on all of these programs may be found at the cited AAAS web site.
which has links to program web pages for all programs. The AAAS site is maintained and
updated annually.
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 251

vocationally mobile knowledge professionals. Of the policy-based pro-

grams, it is clear from their web-based materials that Georgia Tech, the Uni-
versity of Minnesota, and George Washington University have a significant
number of part-time students who are working professionals. The other
programs do not mention part-time students.
The major difference between the policy-oriented programs and the
STS programs appears to be in the critical disciplines which they combine.
Policy programs have more of an applied-bent, that is to say a greater pre-
sumption that graduates may work in other than academic positions, but
this presumption is not of major significance for students seeking a termi-
nal or vocational master's degree, since that degree is not sufficient to
pursue an academic career. Policy programs typically include courses with
a disciplinary home in history, political science and, economics. STS pro-
grams typically include courses which have a disciplinary home in history,
philosophy, sociology, and political science. There are surely differences
in practice as well, which must be reflected in curriculum content. For
example, policy programs probably emphasize global and national issues
where STS programs probably pay more attention to smaller communities
of scientists and engineers. But the underlying critical approach and ana-
lytical skills are similar. I have found that students in the Public Adminis-
tration and Policy Analysis program who take STS courses at Virginia Tech
do as well in class as do the STS students.
Available material on the STS-oriented programs also supports the
idea that there is a market-driven demand for higher education of science-
based knowledge professionals. The Cornell program has had little experi-
ence with or demand for terminal master's degrees (Dear, 1998). At RPI,
on the other hand, as on the main campus of Virginia Tech, about half of
the students are pursuing a "terminal" master's degree in STS, although
some of these may go on to advanced degrees in other fields. RPI offers an
internship option to the thesis for M.S. students. Recent graduates have
found jobs in consulting, in public interest advocacy, and in science and en-
gineering management (Vumbacco, 1998). The Georgia Tech program in
History, Technology and Society also has a strong orientation to knowledge
professionals. Consider the following statements taken from the program's
home page (1996):

An HTS degree can provide a solid profession for almost any career. Historical
and sociological methods, skills, and data are used in virtually every profession,
including business, social services,journalism, and government .... Employment
analysts predict that today's college students will change careers-not just jobs-
three to four times in their working lives. And individuals with narrow pre-
professional degrees are likely to find that they do not have the intellectual
agility to achieve their professional goals. They find themselves passed over for
252 Science, Technology, and Society

promotion by colleagues who have broad knowledge, analytical skills, and the
ability to communicate their ideas forcefully in written and spoken form .... At
the recent Ivan Allen dinner at the Ritz-Carlton, an executive working with Tom
DuPree reflected on these facts in a discussion of his own career. He noted that
it was not his education as a mechanical engineer that prepared him for his work
with DuPree, but the general education courses in arts and sciences that he took
along the way. Indeed, he believed that the greatest challenge at Tech is to
encourage students to obtain a broad education, rather than one that is narrowly
vocational. That is what an HTS major is all about. (no page number)

Finally, two of the STS programs are specifically aimed at educating

working knowledge professionals. They offer evening classes, and their stu-
dents are primarily working professionals. They offer both thesis and
non thesis options. These are Virginia Tech's three-year-old, STS graduate
program at the Northern Virginia Center and Eastern Michigan Univer-
sity's well-established Master of Liberal Studies in Technology, in the
Department of Interdisciplinary Technology. Although Eastern Michigan's
program departs somewhat from the STS curriculum offered at the other
schools in its emphasis on technology and its large number of electives or
complementary concentrations (Eastern Michigan, undated), the program
includes both philosophy and sociology of science and technology, and is
designed to produce a critical perspective (Hanewicz, 1998a). The program
serves nearly 400 students, the large majority of whom are part-time,
working professionals in a large variety of fields. Wayne Hanewicz, the
Graduate Program Coordinator believes that the program, which has
tripled in size over the last six years, is serving an educational need which
is generally unrecognized and underserved nationally.

SOME CONCLUSIONS

The importance of science-based technological change to human societies

and civilization has been an accelerating characteristic of the 20th century.
It is a complex phenomenon that has attracted critical scholarship in a
number of disciplines and has provided an object of study for interdiscipli-
nary scholarship, leading to the establishment, in the last 30 years, of aca-
demic programs in science, technology, and society studies and science
policy. At the same time, the workplace has evolved in such a way as to
create a demand for science-based knowledge professionals. These people
manage the course of technological change and provide critical analyses in
support of planning for such change in all social sectors, including govern-
ment, industry, academia, and a variety of nonprofit institutions. Knowledge
professionals comprise an important and growing part of the workforce in
the post-industrial age. They are highly educated, technically-oriented
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 253

people, whose midcareer jobs require them to identify, solve, and broker
the solutions to problems of science-based innovation. Individually, they
make important decisions, and, collectively, they create the trajectory of our
technological and social future. .
The connections between those who practice the knowledge profes-
sions and those in the academy who study science and society are, with some
exceptions, weak. A few knowledge professionals have found their way into
STS graduate programs, but for the most part, graduate programs in STS
have not recognized this potential constituency, and most knowledge pro-
fessionals have never heard of STS. Science policy programs, with a weaker
bias toward academic careers, have attracted knowledge professionals with
an interest in government, but the federal government sector is only part
of the workplace for knowledge professionals, and one of declining relative
importance. As a consequence, perhaps, as many as half of the graduates
from science policy programs are finding work outside the government
sector, a fact which has important implications for their curricular content
and for the way such programs are conceived and marketed to potential
students.
The arguments of Drucker and Reich indicate that knowledge pro-
fessionals are in need of critical analytical skills and professional knowl-
edge which they can use to broker solutions to problems which involve both
technical and non-technical communities. As their job responsibilities
increase, from knowledge creation in an initial disciplinary or application's
task, to the management of more complex projects, they need to learn how
to assess and integrate the knowledge produced by multiple communities
of specialists and new technology users. Although most practitioners would
reject the term as esoteric, knowledge professionals must function as prac-
ticing social epistemologists.
Yet, the STS education of knowledge professionals has typically been
on-the-job training. They learn how to manage complex tasks by observing
others. They learn from experience that positivistic approaches to problem
solving and the generation of new technological knowledge do not work.
They engage in the social construction of new technologies as a form of
practice, tacitly acquired. Their higher education has typically focused on
technical knowledge or on the tools and procedures for decision making-
advanced degrees in science, engineering, or management, although,
according to Drucker, these are not the critical skills which knowledge pro-
fessionals need.
Science, technology, and society studies is the academic field con-
cerned with the critical analysis of the creation, development, dissemina-
tion, and validation of new scientific and technological knowledge. Other
than self replication, however, STS educators have been focused on the
254 Science, Technology, and Society

general, nonvocational education of scientists and engineers, on the

one hand, and on general education to empower the public in dealing
with science-based technological change, on the other. These are worthy
goals, but STS educators have largely missed the point that the public
does not deal with communities of scientists and engineers directly, but
through knowledge professionals-knowledge brokers, working in posi-
tions throughout the workplace-in government, in public interest organi-
zations, in business, in the media, and elsewhere. If Drucker is right, and if
the growing experience of urban schools like Eastern Michigan, George
Washington University, Georgia Tech, RPI, and Virginia Tech's Northern
Virginia Center are any indication, then there is a latent need and a current
opportunity for the STS community to provide graduate education aimed
at preparing knowledge workers for nonacademic careers. 5
Moreover, the emergence of the knowledge professionals, as docu-
mented and discussed by authors such as Drucker and Reich, is an aspect
of science and technology in society which has largely been overlooked by
researchers in the STS tradition. Their professional practices as knowledge
brokers concerned with managing technological innovation through the
integration of scientific and technical knowledge on the one hand and social
knowledge (managerial, institutional, cultural, and political) on the other,
can provide important research sites for scholars interested in understand-
ing the ways in which new knowledge is created, negotiated, and dissemi-
nated in our complex society.
We in the academic STS community should apply our considerable
analytic methods and critical insights to better understand the practices and
the social roles of knowledge professionals. We should examine the ways in
which our traditional curricula in epistemology and the social sciences
relate to their practices and professional needs. We should strongly consider
reforming our educational programs to attract their attention and to meet
their needs.

REFERENCES

American Association for the Advancement of Science (1997). Guide to Graduate

Education in Science, Engineering and Public Policy. http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/
sepp/index.html.

S I don't mean to exclude careers in academia. University positions in the office of sponsored
programs, in technology transfer and in research administration are among the jobs filled
by "nonacademic" knowledge workers. If the academy would lower the career barrier to
nontenure-track professors, the distinction could disappear.
STS Education for Knowledge Professionals 255

Dear, P. (1998). Telephone conversation. February 6, 1998.

Drucker, P. E (1994). The age of social transformation. As originally published in The Atlantic
Monthly (November), http://www.theatiantic.com/atiantic/election/connection/ecbigl
soctrans.html. [1998, January 6].
de Solla Price, D. 1. (1986). Little Science, Big Science . .. and Beyond. Columbia University
Press, New York.
Eastern Michigan University. Undated. Master of Liberal Studies in Technology.
http://emich.edu/public/emu_programs/grad/cot/idt/mls.html[1998, January 30].
Edge, D. (1995). Reinventing the wheel. In Sheila Jasanoff, et al. Handbook of Science and
Technology Studies, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California. pp. 3-23.
Fuller, S. (1997). Constructing the high church-low church distinctions in STS textbooks.
Technoscience 10:3 (Fall). hUp:llwww.cis.vt.cdu/technosciencc/97/faIl/97fall.htm. (1998,
January 18].
Georgia Tech. School of History, Technology and Society (1996). What Can I Do with and HTS
Degree'! http://www.gatech.edu/hts/general/what.htm [1998, January 30].
Hamlett, P. (1996). Science, Technology, & Society Programs at Other Universities.
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/chass/mds/stsprog.html[1998. January 30].
Hanewicz, W. B. (1998a). Graduate Program Coordinator, Eastern Michigan University.
Department of Interdisciplinary Technology. Telephone interview. February 4, 1998.
Hanewicz, W. (1998b). Telephone conversation. February 5, 1998.
Narin, E, Hamilton, K., and OIivastro, D. et al. (1995). Linkage between agency-supported
research and patented industrial technology. Research Evaluation 5,3: 83-187.
Reich, R. B. (1991). The Work of Nations, Vintage Books, New York.
Vumbaco, K. (1998). Telephone conversation. February 4, 1998.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1985). Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, MA.
 CHAPTER 10

Reculturing Science
Pol itics, Pol icy, and Promises
to Keep
Daryl E. Chubin

This is a blend of reminiscence, policy analysis, and political commentary. I

shall draw on my experience in and out of the federal government and try
to temper both self-righteousness and cynicism as I describe, and then
prescribe, what "science watchers" in Washington D.C. and its surrounding
reality, fear, loathe, and cope with daily. The epigram for my remarks might
be Daniel Bell's observation that an academic is one who wonders whether
something that works in practice will work in theory. The tension inherent
in Bell's remark captures the tension that Nicholas Mullins will always sym-
bolize in my mind: He was my competitor, colleague, and friend.
Our relationship was intertwined with 4S, the Society for Social Studies
of Science. Indeed, the chapter we coauthored for a 1985 collection on Man-
aging High Technology (Mullins and Chubin, 1985) was titled "Society for

Daryl E. Chubin, National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA
22230.
A version of this chapter appeared in Science and Public Policy, February 1996. Copyright
1996 by Beach Tree Publishing. Reprinted with permission.
Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

2S7
258 Science, Technology, and Society

social studies of science: perspectives on interdisciplinary research." In it,

we cite collaborations, respectively, between Latour and Woolar, Edge and
Mulkay, and Griffith and Small. Then we add "work on interdisciplinary
subjects such as the discovery and growth of reverse transcriptase (which
each of us has done independently and with divergent results ... )."
It was the future of 4S that brought us together. The society was
formed in response to the discipline bound constructions of the role of
science and technology in society. As co-founders Nick and I were part of
an alliance of scholars on both sides of the Atlantic who drafted a charter
asserting the need for new paradigms, syntheses, and expectations of pro-
fessional practice. Nearly 20 years later, and almost a decade after Nick's
challenging, even sullen, presidential address in Ghent, the 4S charter
remains largely unfulfilled.
One reason for this, I believe, is Nick's absence. Today, 4S is an
amalgam of mostly academic scholars who represent a research specializa-
tion that rivals disciplines but falls short of an "interdiscipline"; who are
more exclusive than inclusive in orientation (they discourse about gender,
ethnicity, nationality, and "difference" but are still self-referential and
mostly hierarchical in their claims); and who have yet to translate the value
of 4S into the education and mentoring of new cohorts who will enter
various sectors of national work forces to effect change.
If Nick were with us still, I think he would caution that "research is
not enough; careers in academe are but one choice; interacting with other
4S members is the easiest thing we do." Nick might even be practicing in
Washington, nodding in approval if I asserted the need to connect with
other constituencies-journalists, elementary and secondary educators,
those knowledgeable about industry, local and national policymakers-to
refocus 4S thinking and interests. As a society, 4S is as obligated to com-
municate with those who don't know and don't care about the problems
and solutions inherent in science and technology as to confer in structured
public fora with stakeholders already invested in the processes and out-
comes which they manage.
After 14 years as a university faculty member in which I, like most
4S members dissected the culture of science, I moved to the Office of
Technology Assessment (OTA) to do policy analysis and advise Congress.
That career lasted seven years, and now I am seven months into serving the
executive branch at the National Science Foundation (NSF), where I
oversee a portfolio of activities that, simply put, intervene in the status quo.
I am also responsible for evaluating the difference those activities are
making "in the field." I have the opportunity to act on the very advice I
gave NSF years before and to be accountable to various publics for the per-
formance of the portfolio.
Reculturing Science 259

Yet my experience and career path is not unusual. That, too, keeps me
mindful of Nick, for it was our mutual concern for kids, soccer, and "careers"
as a subject for social analysis that kept us together. Through our time at,
and affection for, Cornell University, our independent adoption of Derek
de Solla Price as an informal mentor, and our intrigue with policy, we
became what Nick called "trusted assessors." Today, I continue to teach
public policy part -time to impart an STS (science, technology, and society)
world view, to draw students to public service, and to develop, I hope, a new
generation of trusted assessors.

MAKING CHANGES

The title "Reculturing Science" derives from the oft heard phrase-at least
where I live-"reinventing government." Like many exhortations, it passes
the lips all too effortlessly. Making changes happen is another matter. But
happen they must. As a nation, a government, a citizenry, we cannot afford
to do otherwise. Besides, we are too smart not to reinvent, reorganize, and
reinvigorate ourselves. Our institutions demand it and our ingenuity as a
workforce is up to the task.
Habits, however, are hard to break. The force of tradition is potent
because it is familiar, reassuring, and predictable. Inertia, distrust, and risk-
aversion are our foes. As the Clinton administration is apt to point out, there
is a crisis of confidence in government. The level of cynicism, according to
the polls, is higher than after Watergate. The public, half of whom do not
vote, want change in their government to improve their lives.
In a series of surveys completed by the Americans Talk Issues Foun-
dation, pollsters tested 50 reform proposals by telephone for a lO-day period
in January 1994. The greatest consensus formed around term limits for
elected officials. However, the results in general suggested that the public
wants more direct access to the political decisionmaking process, including
the opportunity to define the government's spending priorities.
It also wants to evaluate government agencies by the results they
produce rather than the programs they initiate or the money they spend.
To quote the Washington Post article (20 April 1994, p. A19):

Objective scorecards would measure such indicators as how much students have
learned, whether the water and air are cleaner and how many people on welfare
have become self-sufficient.

As one of the pollsters concluded, there is a "real sense of the wisdom of

the people."
260 Science, Technology, and Society

To cap the thought: Our economy, and that with which we globally
commune, requires that we reduce government. Either we do it smart or we
do it dumb. Dumb has been tried: across-the-board cuts, paper work, regu-
lations, excessive hierarchy, lack of responsibility, diffuse accountability.
Reinvention is a better idea. Accountability for performance and outcomes,
doing more with less, harnessing technology, "delayering" or flattening the
bureaucracy, teamwork, identifying and serving the customer. This is not a
paid political announcement; it is a change of ethos. It is a reculturing of
government. It should be seen as a model, not an imposition.
Reculturing must occur from the inside of social institutions, other-
wise it is hardly transforming, enduring, or effective. We all know change
takes time, hurts a lot, and redefines boundaries, behaviors, incentives,
rewards. It is what science, too, must do.
I hear you saying to yourselves, "Isn't this politics?" Yes. "Isn't it
policy-driven?" Yes. "And just who has promises to keep?" We all do. The
sooner that science (scientists and engineers, their professional associations,
their lobby organizations, their rhetoric, and their sponsors) recognizes that
change is good and that it is better to embrace than repel, the sooner
universities will be happier places, students will be better served, and the
federal government will be seen as a partner and positive force in provid-
ing needed interventions in society. Enlightened self-interest is an incom-
parable motivator, and there are ways of aligning it with what is murkily
referred to as "national interest."
Let us move this interest closer and more concretely to our world of
research and higher learning. Consider this quote from The Lost Notebooks
of Loren Eiseley (Heuer, 1987): "A university is a place where people pay
high prices for goods which they then proceed to leave on the counter when
they go out the door." We hope not, yet we snicker knowingly because there
is something to it.
A recent inquiry received at NSF from Washington Post science jour-
nalist Boyce Rensberger puts Eiseley's wry observation in other terms.
Rensberger reports he is preparing a series to run in the paper and would
like "to hear from scientists, historians of science or other science watchers
who have data and/or insights on the health of American science." He poses
these questions, many of which have been on my agenda, in a sustained
policy sense, for the last five years:

• Is the funding squeeze really as bad as some say?

• Is it forcing good people out of science or just the marginal ones?
• Does stiffening competition for grants cause people to abandon
high-risk, high-payoff ideas in favor of safe-but-dull proposals?
• Is the competition causing scientists to cut corners, or steal
ideas, or do other things that are supposedly unprofessional?
Reculturing Science 261

• Are the pressures for more applied science and for quick
payoffs hurting basic science?
• Do we have a national science policy and, if not, do we need one?
• Who should devise such a policy?

Answering such questions is a promise I have tried to keep. Let me share

my attempt to address them.

Then and Now

The research community of the 1950s and 1960s enjoyed a funding
situation very different from that of today. Then the research environment
was characterized by:

•Fewer researchers, ample job opportunities, and a more homo-

geneous workforce of white males: This composition was
reflected in the student population
• Fewer research universities with a greater concentration of
federal resources
• Little international competition or concern about United States
research performance-the United States was dominant
• A compact that entrusted the judgment of scientific merit to
expert peers in return for scientific progress that would benefit
the nation (national security, productivity, and quality of life)
• Researchers' expectations of sustained federal funding, which
is now pejoratively called an "entitlement" mentality among
scientists

That was then and this is now. I would suggest that, when funding falls short
of expectations, when the number of deserving researchers is such as to
deprive some of the chance to pursue promising opportunities (or pursue
them as fast or as fully as they hoped), the result is a relative, not an
absolute, deprivation. "Relative deprivation" is a social science concept that
highlights the disjuncture between federal funding trends on the one hand,
and institutional and personal angst on the other. This is what numerous
speeches, surveys, and reports have captured in the last three years.
Does knowledge or this paradoxical disjuncture lessen the pain or
lift the morale? Not necessarily. But there is an implied corollary question:
Does the research community expect that the federal government will fund
every deserving researcher? Some adjustment in thinking in the research
community, in the government-university compact, is needed.
Put another way, we are in the midst of a "generation gap," a gap
not only of experiences, but also of perceptions and proposed solutions.
262 Science, Technology, and Society

Scientists and science educators today, all well-intentioned, may be deceiv-

ing themselves, but moreover, they may be misleading their students and
proteges. They are mistreating the future.
I wish to discuss careers first from the "bottom up" rather than from
the common policy perspective of the "top down." We need, of course, to
keep both in sight-the aggregate trends and the individual experiences-
when considering markets, recruitment, and images as factors in career
opportunities for scientists and would-be scientists.

FALLACY OF THE MARKET

Employment markets are never as rational as labor economists suggest.

Societies thus face mismatches in the labor force between people and jobs,
between opportunities and supply, between current skills and tomorrow's
demands, between specialists with great depth of understanding but little
breadth and the organizational need to hire specialists but to grow gener-
alists (e.g., Breneman and Youn, 1988).
Like all professions, especially medicine and law, that require post-
baccalaureate degrees, science pays in the long run (Chubin, 1990). Yet
salary is an overrated variable in predicting future supply and demand for
scientists. Salary taps only one consideration in the motivational inventory
of the student-cum-scientist.
Similarly, the award of Nobel Prizes to Americans is in no way indica-
tive of the strength of the United States research enterprise. It may have to
do with the sheer number of scientists working here. This, too, is a fallacy
of the market, the mistaken connection of motivations with outcomes, of
high positive correlation but to no known casual relationship.
In a dynamic economy, shortages and surpluses are expected, with
variations by sector, industry, and region of the country. Relative size of
one's birth cohort also contributes to competitive advantage and disad-
vantage. "Baby Boom" and "Baby Bust" describe significant demographic
realities that influence expectations as well as flows into and out of the work
force (Sargent and Pfteeger, 1990). The question is, how insulated from, or
vulnerable to, such market fluctuations are scientists?

CALLING VERSUS RECRUITING

Science can be a multiplicity of careers. Over the life course, movement

within the labor force (between sectors, organizations, and jobs) should be
expected. To speak, therefore, of science as a singular vocation is as much
a distortion as the notion of the "typical American." What does a scientist
Reculturing Science 263

"look" like? What does he or she do? In what field did he or she earn a
degree? These should be baseline questions, not limiting conditions.
Careers envelop people: They cause people to live them 24 hours
a day. Indeed, careers in science reveal the inescapable entanglements of
personal and professional lives: One informs and enriches the other. To
subordinate one to the other increases the tensions that individuals must
negotiate with social institutions and one another.
With the family and medical leave issue being a central part of the 1992
presidential campaign, we witnessed how American public policy lags behind
that of other nations and the value system of most American families. Women
have lived this tension for years. Now it is being redefined as a federal respon-
sibility as well. Thus, we are confronting not just symbolism, but something
very real to careers and very relevant to their study.
Aspirations are shaped not only by information of what a job entails,
but also by perceptions of "human qualities": how welcoming and support-
ive it may be compared to others. People choose careers, but society also
signals its choices through various formal education and training mecha-
nisms as well as an array of informal cues transmitted by the media.
Science is a laggard in its recruiting practices, and therefore in its recep-
tivity to students other than those who have exhibited either an aptitude for,
or a commitment (the "calling") to, science. The young uncommitted, the tra-
ditionally underrepresented (women, minorities, persons with disabilities),
and later, those who express an interest in something other than mainstream
research or teaching careers in institutions of higher education, are seen as
peripheral to what is valued by science as a profession. This is a mistake
repeated because there is a single prescribed model of who can do science,
and therefore, who should be encouraged to do it.
Few children feel the burning in the soul to become a scientist or
engineer. Yet children are what Carl Sagan has called" 'natural' scientists":
They have an innocent curiosity of the world around them. A subset of
these children will feel the urge and the satisfaction to tinker, to manipu-
late things, and to learn how they work. For most I suspect that some
positives reinforcement of these stirrings must come in the form of human
encouragement.
This confirms for the student that indeed he or she is being called, or
alternatively, this stirring is a gift. It is good to answer the call. Without this
intervention from a significant other-parent, close relative, or friend who
does science or engineering for a living-the calling remains detached from
ambition and the measures that must be taken to respond by choosing
science as a career.
The calling myth is a strong deterrent to recruiting students to science
because it perpetuates the idea that there is a critical period in which one
264 Science, Technology, and Society

is called and if it does not happen, then it never will. Furthermore, it denies
the role of information in helping students make choices, and the full play
of individual differences in the expression of those choices. Were no scien-
tists late bloomers? Did none lack confidence in their abilities? Did all have
clear conceptions of what lay ahead in their careers and what would provide
challenge and self-fulfillment?
The calling is a convenient code for early identification of the best and
brightest. For many future scientists, this stirring is a benchmark. For others,
it is irrelevant. For both categories, recruitment is essential, but when and
how it occurs is variable. An educational system that recognizes this will
maximize choices; it will forgive uncertainty and not penalize the "late-
bloomer" (Tobias, 1992). It will make the "science pipeline" a permeable
membrane. It will make school teachers, as an OTA report puts it, "talent
scouts" rather than "curricular traffic cops" (U.S. Congress, 1988).

IMAGES OF CAREERS

So on the public relations front, science is lagging. Accurate information has

yet to supplant stereotypes. Scientists recognize this. In a survey of members
of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, a major concern was a
lack of public understanding of what science is or what scientists do, a condition
that leads simultaneously to great expectations and great trepidations-a kind
of Dr. Schweitzer versus Dr. Strangelove split. (Sommer, 1987)

Most of all perhaps, the humanity of the scientist is yet to be associated with
his work. And that is another, more pervasive problem.
The scientist's image is marred in several ways: it is still more "his"
work than "hers"; of knowledge "products," not process; of the scientist as
specialist instead of citizen. Finally, the problem is usually phrased as the
public's "illiteracy" and lack of understanding, rather than the scientist's
role in creating and perpetuating the gulf between the few like themselves
and the rest of the population (Hazen and Trefil, 1991; Heilbron and Kevles,
1989; Langenberg, 1991; Prewitt, 1982).
The curse of the lagging image, of course, is the disservice it renders
to the next generation. Who wants to inherit an anachronism? If women
cannot identify with what the scientist is or does, then science suffers from
a built-in deterrent to recruitment. The best models may be the unspoken
ones, the ones that send visual messages instead of verbal ones. How can
we gauge the importance of having had an accomplished and articulate
female director at the National Institutes of Health, or an equally accom-
plished African-American Ph.D. physicist lead the National Science Foun-
dation (Angier, 1991)?
Reculturing Science 265

The "job" of scientist, in short, is displayed in the classroom and the

boardroom, in the dean's office and on the floor of the company's manu-
facturing plant, on the nonfiction bestseller list and in the keynote address.
The traditional portrait is changing (Latour, 1987).

THE NEW SCIENTIST

The emerging image of the scientist is prominently associated with a few pop-
ularizers. These well credentialed and proven performers seek a larger audi-
ence than fellow professionals. They communicate in magazine columns and
on public television, on talk shows and other fora that reach lay audiences.
Most of these scientists have considerable explanatory gifts. They are entre-
preneurial, and they put a human face on what is typically hidden in the
jargon of technical journals and annual research meetings.
Popularizers arouse great jealousy because they demystify the
guild secrets of a discipline, and they acquire an identity that makes
their words a saleable commodity. That is, scientists who find a nonspecial-
ist, or attentive, public are rewarded with the recognition of money and
credibility.
Popularizers exhibit an unswerving belief in knowledge as the key to
freedom and democracy in the game of citizenship. Everyone should play.
To privatize knowledge or concentrate it among a select few is to limit the
exercise of exploration and choice. Popularization thus becomes a compul-
sion that feeds both individual need and democratic ideals. It is the essence
of "tithing" the giving of oneself so others may know. It is also the height
of "community," a sharing of knowledge.
That is why science literacy is so often invoked as the foundation upon
which democracy must thrive. Without an informed citizenry, politicians can
thwart the "truths" of science. Science literacy is a testament to what all
citizens should know, or know how to find out. It is a learned skepticism
toward authority and believing something due to its source rather than its
demonstrable logic.
Popularizers want knowledge filtered through those who "know."
They do not want us to trust leaders, because political agendas can subvert
what we think about nature. In a nation of specialists, popularizers arc
audacious boundary-spanners. They do the work of journalists and com-
mentators. They link microscopic detail to macro ideas. They know how to
put things into context. They challenge us to challenge others, not to trust
our instincts, but to experiment with an alien idea and our own senses.
Popularizers are generalists in disguise. They ooze enthusiasm and
relate weighty principles to everyday experience. Above all, they are attrac-
tive in the way they look and the way they speak. They are in touch with
266 Science, Technology, and Society

various parts of the culture that seem to have nothing to do with science at
all (Pendlebury, 1991). That is why we need this "new" scientist.
The new scientist views careers as phases, finite and alluring, entail-
ing not "hurdles" but opportunities to exercise and develop professional
skills. To give expression to skills is a kind of self-fulfillment that cannot
accurately be valued by those outside: the analysts, the pundits, or the
power-brokers.

INSTITUTIONS THAT MATTER

So can we get new scientists from the same old places? Can we grow the
solid specialist who aspires to wider communication, a multidisciplinary
practitioner? As crucial as the individual is in science, the team, the orga-
nizational culture, informal networks, professional standards and norms-
the interpersonal dimension-is more crucial. Careers are embedded in,
and shaped by, these social forms. But they are more than markets, recruit-
ment' and image. Institutions matter. The institutions that matter have tra-
ditionally had education as their business: schools, families, media (Rigden
and Tobias, 1991; Pool, 1990; Oakes et at., 1990).
If ever a social institution required some soul-searching and stock-
taking it is the United States research university. Approximately 100-200
(depending on how one counts) universities face an uncertain future. Yet
the dependence of the nation on these institutions to produce Ph.D. scien-
tists makes the uncertainty a public issue. Who is their client? What are their
missions? How can their resource base be expanded without losing core
values? How can faculty adjust to a new world of new markets, a diversity
of incoming raw talent, and an array of career opportunities that they them-
selves never had to contemplate?
Recent evidence suggests that, at the graduate level, students who
try to emulate the career pattern of their mentor will foreclose oppor-
tunities and feel disappointed if not betrayed. (just ask a recent vintage
Ph.D. in physics.) A rededication to undergraduate education at research
universities must also become a higher priority (U.S. Congress, 1991).
Generally, universities must decide what they do well and what they are
willing to let other institutions do for them and the society (Schmitt, 1989;
Rhodes, 1991).
My policy bias, not surprisingly, is this: If institutions are underserv-
ing the aspirations of certain segments of the student population, the federal
government has a legitimate role to intervene. Intervention may mean
changing perceptions of science as a career, and refining expectations or
strategies to turn aspirations into realities.
Reculturing Science 267

At least since the passage of Public Law 85-864 the National Defense
Education Act of 1958, the federal government has been a key supporter
of pre- and postdoctoral students. The direct role of the federal agencies,
especially NSF, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration),
NIH (National Institutes of Health), and DOD (Department of Defense),
in expanding and sustaining the pool of talent headed for careers in
science, is an impressive legacy of programmatic intervention and the pro-
vision of institutional, faculty, curricular, and student support (U.S.
Congress, 1985). The federal government continues to influence career
choice by matching resources to policies implemented and overseen in the
national interest.
There are no benign actors in education. The future is too precious to
allow singlemindedness to dominate our treatment of children, or Ph.D.
projections to define career opportunities. If students are treated as human
resources and not as miniature images of ourselves, we will be creating
career choices-from the bottom up. Let me linger awhile longer on the
policy implications of what I have sketched.

MISSIONS AND DILEMMAS

The dilemmas facing American science today and for the foreseeable future
can be distilled as the following big question: How can we preserve what
have been the strengths of the "federal research system" while adapting to
changes in the system itself? Size, diversity, competition, and productivity
are at once assets and burdens. In other words: How large an research and
development enterprise (Washington Post, 1991).
As universities know, the missions in the 1990s are creation of intel-
lectual property, mission, and training. Education centers on changing
demographics, issues of finance, classroom culture, and institutional com-
mitment to student achievement. These mingle with a series of faculty and
governance issues: What is the proper balance between research and under-
graduate teaching? And, more directly, how can the rewards for excellence
in teaching and advising, that is, interventions both in and out of the class-
room, be structurally improved?
With respect to graduate training, universities and departments must
consider the preparation of Ph.D. students for careers beyond academic
research. The model whereby a productive mentor would reproduce himself
10, 20, or 30 times over may be dysfunctional for the 1990s and beyond if
the career path of the new Ph.D. is intended to duplicate that of the mentor.
This is not the same as saying there are too many researchers. It may mean
there are too many academic researchers, or researchers at Ph.D.-granting
268 Science, Technology, and Society

institutions, the cadre that relies on the federal government for research
support.
Chief among the factors affecting the fortunes of universities are the
perceptions and actions of the policymakers, particularly Congress. These
dilemmas center on the place of research and development in the discre-
tionary budget. The roots of the dilemma ensnare the political culture of
science advising, executive-legislative gamesmanship, and the congres-
sional budget process.
First is the conflict, under-appreciated by those outside Washington
D.C., between authorization and appropriations subcommittees. The former
provides oversight to the research agencies and their programs. But their
will is increasingly thwarted by appropriations subcommittees faced with
impossible trade-offs, such as, housing versus the superconducting super
collider (SSe), in the bigger budgetary picture. In the words of the
Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:
... scientists and politicians need to raise the level of debate about funding for
science programs. They must move beyond the absurdity of trading these pro-
grams against each other. Cutting science budgets to pay for low-rent public
housing or the job corps is a trap that ensnares the nation in deeper problems.

A related conflict is the growth, and growing contentiousness, of academic

earmarking. As universities turn to lobbyists to appeal directly to the
process of distributive politics, the perception of some is the undermining
of merit. The perception of others is that the building of research capacity
in those regions, states, and institutions with less tradition as (and smaller
concentration of) research performers is both wise and compensatory of
inequities in the federal allocation system. OTA found that both these posi-
tions lack empirical support (US. Congress, 1991).

PROFESSIONALIZED SCRUTINY OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Speaking of OTA evidence (now that the lOSth Congress has defunded it
out of existence): the cast of characters in the policy-making process has
changed. The post-World War II generation of science policy advisors trans-
ferred their experience and halos as scientists (mostly physicists) into the
political arena. They were "cold warriors," many of them participants in, or
direct descendants of, the Manhattan Project.
This is not to imply a single-mindedness, but instead an approach to
problem-solving shaped by living the wartime-to-peacetime transition. It
was an era for celebrating the fruits of democracy. An attenuation of the
influence of physicists in policymaking has been openly suggested; some
think that biologists will succeed them. This may be no better.
Reculturing Science 269

I am hopeful for more diverse participation that will change the char-
acter of the process. A new generation of professional policy analysts, some
with degrees in policy and social science, is succeeding the original science
policy architects and advisors. Some have migrated to policy careers. Their
expertise, in short, is different from their predecessors.
To some this signals less authority for science in politics. It certainly
suggests that the character of science policy will change in the current era.
This has already occurred: "Professionalized scrutiny" has been institution-
alized in the federal research and development apparatus at the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), NSF, NIH, and the congressional
support agencies (notably the Congressional Research Service). In addi-
tion, the nonprofit stakeholders, including the National Academy complex,
omnipresent think tanks and foundations, and oddities such as the Carnegie
Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, and the Howard
Hughes Medical Institute, constitute a reservoir of analysis and advice for
policymakers.
All of this has upped the ante for information, and underscored the
potential role for data in policymaking. It also shifts the discourse away
from the authority of credentialed scientists, many of whom have been
honored with Nobel Prizes and other trappings of impeccable judgment,
and toward data-laden criticisms of what is known versus what gaps and
uncertainties exist in the empirical baseline on the federal research and
development system. This can expose scientists as partisans who favor their
subjective experiences in the research trenches against national trend data
(Chubin, 1994).
There is the rub: it is the "outsider" policy analysts who act "scientif-
ically" in scrutinizing the scientists' support system, whereas the scientists
advocate increased federal support based on their privileged "insider"
status as participants in a research community. Such an appeal derives from
the expectations of the longstanding government-science compact. Instead
there are heightened calls for accountability (from both the White House
and Congress).
Another consequence of professionalized scrutiny of research and
development is that it tends to insulate policymaking from grassroots influ-
ences and vests it in a multitude of federal and nongovernmental organiza-
tions that function as a kind of "knowledge elite." Regardless of a conviction
that spokespersons of research communities or policy analysts either confirm
or disrupt the biases of policymakers, it is fairly obvious that ordinary citi-
zens have a difficult time participating in this democracy of credentialed
expertise. As I have already indicated the public is restive, science "popu-
larizers" are disparaged, and science journalists reviled by researchers who
nonetheless continue to lament an elusive "public understanding" of science.
270 Science, Technology, and Society

If science is to reculture itself, both watchers and critics of science will have
to flourish.
To recapitulate: money alone will not solve the problems of the
federal research system. But the federal government, the executive and leg-
islative branches alike, was never organized to monitor and manage the plu-
ralistic, decentralized R&D enterprise. If they cannot link R&D funding to
national goals, they will simply not look after the investments in a coordi-
nated and flexible manner. The portfolio will continue to resemble an ad
hoc collection of pet programs and projects that muster key support from
key participants at propitious points in the policy-making process. The
nation deserves better: a reinvented government-university compact.
For the federal partner, this issue is the maintenance of the science
base, which it is struggling to do, or a greater niche-filling role that recog-
nizes the preeminence of industry and the states to support research and
development with one eye on the economy and the other on education. The
agencies will need to clarify their missions instead of taking on new ones,
and acknowledge that resources will force choices. Taken together, such
tradeoffs would give the federal government a more specialized posture
toward research and development.
This posture will either reward research universities by concentrating
research and development funding in the top 10,20, and 50 that historically
have produced the most research and trained the lion's share of Ph.D.s,
or distribute federal resources more widely and according to criteria
that augment scientific merit. Because science and engineering are
capital-, instrument-, and labor-intensive pursuits, they are elitist. Not
every institution can provide the facilities and expertise to do cutting-
edge research.
The federal government then could be boldly interventionist or
laissez-faire in its support patterns. It could champion strategic planning
and priority-setting, both for itself and for the institutions that perform
research. For every research dollar awarded even more strings could be
attached.
Universities, too, have several choices to make. If they find the
federal government an overbearing patron, they could continue to wean
themselves from federal research funding. However, most research
universities' operating budgets are so dependent on federal monies that
weaning is unlikely. "Leveraging" federal monies with state, private, phil-
anthropic, and international contributions is routine, but the strings that
these patrons attach may be even more restrictive, short-term, and anything
but value-neutral.
So who is to lead the universities to a new relationship with the gov-
ernment? Few current or former university presidents and chancellors-
Reculturing Science 271

Frank Rhodes, Donald Kennedy, Derek Bok, Jim Duderstadt, Don

Lagenberg, and Harold Shapiro may be the exceptions-have asserted the
need to reinvent the university.

ENTERPRISE AS SYSTEM

Indeed, the most throughgoing challenges to conventional thinking about

the government-university compact, and science policy more broadly, have
emerged from a "systems" thinker who has experience in industry and gov-
ernment and who now directs an academic public-policy program, and a
chemist-cum-university vice president for research who is now a college
president. The former is Lewis Branscomb, the latter Linda Wilson. Here,
in capsule form, is the crux of their challenges.
In a 1989 hearing held by the U.S. Senate (1989) Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee (and chaired by then-Senator Gore)
Branscomb asserted that:
A lot of the way human society has used science and technology really derives
from a sort of tradition of linear Newtonian mechanical thinking ... [S]ome new
ideas ... come straight out of the study of ecology ... Ecological thinking is dif-
ferent from linear thinking ... And in the past whenever we have approached
the general subject of science and technology policy, we've done so within the
same intellectual framework that produced the scientific revolution [that led to]
many of the problems that we face today. If we could get our way of budgeting
R&D in the government defined in terms of principles that express where the
benefits are going to now, then we would redistribute our emphasis ... [T]he sci-
entific information system serves scientists very well. But they don't communi-
cate terribly effectively with the people who can use science."

To social scientists, Branscomb's thinking underscores the historical com-

pulsion to consult scientists about science policy and ignore specialists who
examine the structure of social institutions with which science, and policies
for promoting and governing it, must interact. This is where Wilson comes
in. Although she is not a social scientist, her sensibilities reflect acute
ecological thinking that unites the big picture with local interpersonal and
institutional needs.
Wilson (1992) states that the United States research university
enterprise
was designed when most of the players were males, wage earners living near
their workplaces, and supported physically, emotionally, and socially by their
families ... The design features of our academic research enterprise-from
tenure to research-support mechanisms, mentoring, and inforrriation-exchange
strategies-were built on assumption of a contest that permitted single-minded
devotion to task, rather than a context for persons with multiple competing
272 Science, Technology, and Society

responsibilities spanning work and home. What has changed is the diversity of
the roles of the players in the enterprise itself-where faculty are educators,
researchers, entrepreneurs, policy advisors, peer reviewers, public relations man-
agers, financial managers, and personnel managers-and in the diversity of roles
played outside the enterprise.
. . . We need to tap the entire pool of talent to strengthen, replenish, and renew
our science and engineering work force. But the new "immigrants" to the science
and engineering work force, women and minorities, bring some differences in
expectations, some of which are based on caregiving responsibilities that have
been traditionally assigned in a differentiated way. Redistribution of roles among
men and women will take place, but the cultural roots are very deep and the
stakes are very high.... Our near term decisions therefore will involve personal
attitudinal change, organizational change, and systemic change. These decisions
themselves are interdependent ... a set of human resources issues of a scope
larger than we have had to address for many years ...

Wilson's remarks, delivered in 1991 at the National Academy of Sci-

ences, aroused considerable ire. Some accused her of devaluing the com-
petitiveness of research, which in turn is equated with diluting quality as
detected, sorted, and rewarded through peer-review-based decisionmaking.
Wilson never proposed such a compromise. Rather, some of the problems
facing science "may be linked to the existing ground rules of competition."
"Macho" or "killer" science belongs to an earlier era when men were men,
scientists were men, and science was all about the mastery of nature instead
of harmony among parts of the natural universe. In short, Branscomb's
linear versus ecological thinking.
Wilson's emphases are not just semantic. The way we talk reflects the
way we think, and often shows how we are inclined to act. Holding the root
values of the research university enterprise up for inspection allows for its
entanglements-planned and unplanned-to be reconsidered. They are not
necessarily wrong, but may be maladaptive for the times, offering models
for behavior to a once homogeneous research community that has become
demographically, ethnically, and intellectually as heterogeneous as any of
us might have ever imagined was possible. We should glory in it and exploit
it, not ignore or suppress it.
To treat the United States government-science compact as the model
for all time (and all cultures) would continue to stigmatize changes as "prob-
lems," ~'anomalies," and departures from the good old days. As the context
has changed, so has the doing of science and the scientists themselves. The
idea of federally funded research is still sound; its expression (the terms of
discourse and the expectations of participants and interested observers) is
like speaking in tongues. Shared meanings, such as, what is a "partnership"?,
are lost, motives doubted, and disappointments abound.
Reculturing Science 273

PROSPECTS FOR A NEW COMPACT

I confess, to write about research and development as a system is to sound

alternately preachy, self-righteous, and cynical, or at least disgusted with the
system as it is and its portrayal by its dominant participants (Chubin, 1994).
This is a time of self-doubt and painful self-examination. It challenges sci-
entists matured by one system to contemplate another-one that is leaner,
practical, efficient, fair, and yet uncompromising in its recognition and
support of bedrock values: creativity, quality, and risk-taking.
At stake, according to researchers, is the integrity of the research
process and a unique national resource known as the university. Politics is
viewed as inimical to researchers' interests, with the participation of non-
specialists in either the direction or conduct of their research an unneces-
sary evil. The dichotomy, of course, is false. That is what is meant by a new
government-science compact. The need is for new habits of mind; new
expectations about federal research funding; new understanding of the
word "discretionary"; and a new responsiveness to questions raised by polit-
ical actors, as coached by their support agencies and policy analysts.
The Reagan '80s, cited as a watershed for research and development
funding, also exposed a growing sophistication (or disdain, depending on
your viewpoint) about scientists as "just another interest group." It is
payback time. The 1990s must demonstrate that the self-interest of scientists
is in the best interest of the nation, if not the world. Lurking behind all this
is what is quaintly called "the federal role." How should it change? As we
contemplate the size and purpose of the United States research and devel-
opment enterprise, the new compact must achieve these four goals:

Bring People in ...

The link between fiscal resources and human resources cannot be an
afterthought. This is a time to be inclusive, not exclusive. The proliferation
of set-aside programs at NSF stigmatizes both the recipients of these com-
petitive, merit-based funds and the rationale for awarding them. If these
programs are seen only as adjuncts to the core research funding in disci-
plines, then they will drive the wedge deeper between national goals and
the utilization of talent.
The "winning strategy" for the 1990s is one of participation, and
federal agencies must spearhead such affirmative action. Expanding the
education pipeline, however, will be wasted motion if career opportunities
do not exist or access to them is not vigilantly protected. Not only are
women, American minorities, and those with disabilities underrepresented
274 Science, Technology, and Society

in scientific careers, but they are also underparticipating in the networks of

high-level decisionmaking. Women in science advisory circles are particu-
larly scarce. Full participation will require more than adherence to the letter
of the law; it will mean fundamental change to the culture of science.

Disabuse Scientists and their Patrons That the University Can Be the
Panacea for All the Nation's Ills
We are in the midst of a "shakeout" of universities. Which models will
dominate and which values will prevail? Some will strengthen their toe-
holds on federal and industrial research resources and remain "research
universities." Others will specialize in undergraduate education and select
fields of research, development, and graduate training. Some will become
centers for statewide and regional technology innovation and economic
development.
All will rely on sizable and sustained support from multiple sources,
each with its own agenda and influence over administrations, faculty,
and students (that is, future workers). Universities will have to decide how
best to contribute to national goals-which functions to surrender and
which to consolidate. No longer will a single model of competitive research
blind universities to the other roles they can perform, and assuredly are
playing.

Think Globally: Connect R with D and S with T

All must be connected with other federal policies. The State Depart-
ment may be more vital to American research and development prospects
in the next 10-20 years than the NSF or any of the mission agencies.
Because science and technology will not be university-centered, greater
appreciation of the melange of sponsors and performers of research, espe-
cially the federal laboratories and agency intramural programs, will foster
a more balanced policy.
Universities will become more global entities, tied electronically and
through international collaborations, than national resources serving single
governments and "competitiveness" missions. What is economically com-
petitive will have to enrich many sectors and markets.
To go further, science policy-a small, esoteric specialty-may be an
anachronism. Its practitioners need to identify with prominent domestic
and international issues and "think bigger." Integrating science and tech-
nology policy to achieve national goals is something that policy analysts,
comfortable in their professional community niches, must learn to do,
indeed transcend.
Reculturing Science 275

Nurture Science Watchers and Critics

Arguably and ironically, the cause of public understanding, or at least
appreciation, of science has been advanced most strikingly through the
scandals and controversies (creationism, cold fusion, animal rights, fraud in
research) portrayed on the front pages o~ our daily newspapers. While neg-
ative in content, these reports demystify science and humanize the people
and institutions that are making news. This, too, is a form of "populariza-
tion," displaying both the integrity and the mischief which a public must
observe and criticize to get the whole picture of achievement and account-
ability in a participatory democracy.
Finally, my bias is that science watchers and critics will be social sci-
entists, by credentials or experience. They have a knack and seasoned eye
for translating science and technology. They have a trained capacity for
seeing science and technology in society and can relate their interactions to
social and economic progress. What the science watcher sees increasingly is
that the size the research and development enterprise should be will
increasingly depend on how much we know about research and develop-
ment investments and their performance, and how well we manage the port-
folio relative to other federal expenditures in any given year.
Yet will the scientific community commit to reinventing what it has
long taken for granted? How inclined will scientists be to enlarge their
concept of citizenship, play more active roles in the political system, forge
a compact with policymakers and the public that is transparent and bold?
The answer to the question "How large a research and development enter-
prise?" depends on a vision incorporating ecological systemic thinking.
Neither a breadth of budget (for none will be robust enough) nor the benev-
olence of an earlier era conjured by the name Vannevar Bush will rescue
American research and development. It is up to all of us scientists. It is our
promise to keep.

REFERENCES

Angier, N. (1991). Women swell ranks of science, but remain invisible at the top. New York
Times May, 211991, C1, C12.
Breneman, D. W, and Youn, T.1. K. (eds.) (1988). Academic Labor Markets and Careers, Palmer
Press, New York.
Chubin, D. E. (1990). Misinformation and the recruitment of students to science. BioScience
40:524--526.
Chubin, D. E. (1994). How Large an R&D Enterprise? In Guston, D. and Keniston, K. (eds.),
The Fragile Contract. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 118-144.
Hazen, R. M., and Trefil, 1. (1991). General science courses are the key to scientific literacy.
The Chronicle of Higher Education 10 April: A44.
276 Science, Technology, and Society

Heilbron,1. L., and Kevles, D. 1. (1989). By failing to discuss the "civics" of science and tech-
nology, history textbooks distort the past and endanger the future. The Chronicle of
Higher Education February 15, 1989, A48.
Heuer, K. (ed.) (1987). The Lost Notebooks of Loren Eiseley, Little, Brown, Boston.
How much science is enough? (1991). Washington Post, April 24, 1991, p. A20.
Langenberg, D. N. (1991). Science, slogans, and civic duty. Science 252:361-363.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Merida, K. (1994). Americans Want a Direct Say in Political Decision-making, Pollsters Find,
Washington Post, April 21, 1994, p. A19.
Mullins, N. c., and Chubin, D. E. (1985). Society for social studies of science: perspectives
on interdisciplinary research. In Mar, B. et aI., Managing High Technology, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, pp.175-178.
Oakes, 1., Omseth, T., Bell, R., and Camp, P. (1990). Multiplying Inequalities: The Effects of
Race, Social Class, and Tracking on Opportunities to Learn Mathematics and Science,
Rand Corp., Santa Monica, CA.
Pendlebury, S. (1991). From the lab to the tube: Surviving television appearances. The Scien-
tist 10 June: 19-20.
Pool, R. (1990). Freshman chemistry was never like this. Science 248:157-158.
Prewitt, K. (1982). The public and science policy. Science, Technology and Human Values 7:5-14.
Rhodes, F. H. T. (1991). Shaping the future: Science and technology 2030. Physics Today 44(5)
May 1991: 42-49.
Rigden,1. S., and Tobias, S. (1991). Too often, college-level science is dull as well as difficult.
The Chronicle of Higher Education March 27, 1991, A52.
Sargent, 1., and Pfieeger,1. (1990). The job outlook for college graduates in the year 2000: A
1990 update. Occupational Outlook Quarterly 34:3-8.
Schmitt, R. W. (1989). Universities of the future. Research-Technology Management 32(5),
September-October:18-22.
Sommer, 1. (1987). Big three, little four. American Scientist 75:103.
Tobias, S. (1992). Revitalizing Undergraduate Science: Why Some Things Work and Most Don't,
Research Corp., Tucson.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1985). Demographic Trends and the Scien-
tific and Engineering Work Force, U.S. Government Planning Office, Washington, D.c.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1988). Elementary and Secondary Education
for Science and Engineering, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1991). Federally Funded Research: Decisions
for a Decade, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.c.
Wilson, L. (1992). U.S. universities now confront fateful choices. The Scientist, March 16,
1992:11.
 CHAPTER 11

Trends and Opportunities

in Science and
Technology Studies
A View from the National
Science Foundation
Edward J. Hackett

The Science and Technology Studies (STS) Program at the National Science
Foundation (NSF) spends about $3 million per year to support research and
related activities in the history, philosophy, and social studies of science and
technology. In conjunction with its close cousin, the Societal Dimensions of
Engineering, Science and Technology Program (SDEST), STS supports and
guides the field. In this chapter I would like to comment on the field and
its future, drawing upon the perspective and experience I acquired during
a 2.5 year tour as program director.
In the reflective tradition of STS, I will first mention something about
my background and sketch the organization of the NSF and the place of

Edward J. Hackett, Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287.

Science, Technology, and Society: A Sourcebook on Research and Practice, edited by Kumar
and Chubin, Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York, 2000.

277
278 Science, Technology, and Society

the STS program in it. Then I will describe the organizational culture of the
NSF, introducing the motif of paradox (or tension between competing
values) that will continue throughout the chapter:An overview of ongoing
STS projects will follow, giving some impression of the range of work sup-
ported by the program. The chapter concludes with some comments about
the future of the field.

ORIENTATION

I entered the field of STS while a graduate student at Cornell, by joining

the Social Analysis of Science Systems Program and attending the 1976
meetings of the Society for Social Studies of Science on campus that
November. I have been in the field, more or less actively, through the inter-
vening decades. I joined the STS Department at Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute in September 1984, served on the advisory panel for the STS
program from 1990-1993 (as the first social scientist to advise the "History
and Philosophy of Science Program," as it was then called), and left for NSF
in the early days of 1996. My predecessor, Ron Overmann, had held the job
for some twenty years and deserves all the credit for building a vibrant and
diverse program. Ironically, Ron was one of the program officers who
funded the large-scale training and research program that supported me as
a graduate student.
I do not fit easily into anyone STS camp or faction. Most of what I
do is empirical, informed by constructivist work but with a healthy dose of
critical realism (Hackett, 1990; Chubin and Hackett, 1990). Some of my
work is qualitative, some theoretical, some concerned with policy issues.
I have never been postmodern.

THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent agency of the

federal government, which means it is a part of the government that is not
organized within one of the cabinet departments. The NSF spends about
$3.5 billion per year to support basic research, education, and related activ-
ities in science and engineering. It is organized into seven directorates, one
for education and human resources, one for engineering, and one for each
of five major fields of science (for example, biological sciences, mathemat-
ical and physical sciences). The STS program is located within the Direc-
torate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), in a division
of Social, Behavioral and Economic Research (SBER). With an annual
Trends and Opportunities in Science and Technology Studies 279

budget of about $120 million, the SBE is the smallest directorate-less than
half the size of the next largest directorate.
The STS program's neighbors within SBER are more than a dozen
programs which represent traditional academic disciplines (such as anthro-
pology, economics, geography, sociology, and the like) as well as interdisci-
plinary fields of research (such as decision, risk, and management science;
law and social science; or measurement, methods, and statistics). STS and
SDEST are at the less traditional, more interdisciplinary end of the program
continuum.
The STS community must remember that the NSF is a science
organization, meaning that it supports the conduct of science and promotes
the interests of science. While the field of STS has taken a critical stance
toward science and has questioned the epistemological warrants of scien-
tific knowledge-moves that have catalyzed new work in the field and
sharpened its intellectual edge-such perspectives are not always consis-
tent with the NSF's mission. At bottom, the activities the NSF supports must
contribute to systematic, scientific knowledge either directly (by producing
such knowledge) or indirectly (by improving the context for doing so).
This organizational mission constrains the sorts of activities the program
can support and complicates the interface between the STS program and
the field.
The division that houses the STS program takes the "science" aspect
of social science quite seriously and for an excellent reason. While STS may
justify its presence in the NSF and its expenditure of public science funds
either because the work we do is science or because the work we do concerns
science, other SBER programs may use only the first of those two justifica-
tions. After all, if these programs are not doing the social science of econ-
omics (or anthropology or geography or ... ), then why do they belong in
the National Science Foundation? If instead they are supporting a broader
intellectual enterprise-say, "humanistic scholarship"-then perhaps their
program belongs in the National Endowment for the Humanities.
As STS scholars gnaw at the special epistemological warrants of
science, they might think about the consequences of such actions for the
funding program that supports graduate training and research for the field.

ORIGINS OF STS

The NSF has supported research in the history and philosophy of science
for more than twenty years, chiefly through a program in the History and
Philosophy of Science located within the biological sciences directorate. In
1990, at the advice of a Committee of Visitors, the program was renamed
280 Science, Technology, and Society

"Science and Technology Studies" and its scope broadened to include

"social studies of science and technology." In 1992 the program was moved
from the biological sciences directorate to the newly-created social sciences
directorate. The new name and new home do not merely reflect organi-
zational changes at the NSF, but they also embody changes in the organi-
zation of university departments (Cornell, MIT, and Rensselaer have
departments of that name; the University of Pennsylvania has long had a
doctoral program in the history and sociology of science; see also Hauger,
this volume).
The new name is important in that it signifies fundamental changes
within each of the broad fields that intersect in STS. In history of science
and technology, the move toward STS was catalyzed by a change in ana-
lytic framework from internal studies of the sequence of scientific theories
or discoveries through external studies that took account of biography,
social context, and other influences to integrative work that views the
internal-external distinction as contrived and unnecessary (for examples
see Cowan, 1983; Hughes, 1983; Star, 1989).
In philosophy of science, the move toward a field of STS was catalyzed
by a departure from prescriptive philosophy, limited to justification
and divorced from practice, to a naturalized philosophy that takes account
of history and research practice that is willing to ask questions about the
origins of ideas and theories and addresses pressing social or scientific
issues (e.g., causation in behavioral genetics or the puzzles of quantum
physics). Some examples of such work include Giere (1988) and Longino
(1990).
In social studies of science and technology, the move into STS is
marked by the departure from narrowly structural studies of the roles or
careers of scientists or engineers into studies that address the content of
scientific or technical work, the social shaping of ideas, designs, and mater-
ial objects, and the interaction of content with context, organization, and
role (for example, Traweek, 1988; Bijker et al., 1987).
The field is young, so it is a bit early to expect an integrated body of
theory and research that explains the origin and development of knowl-
edge. The field needs to continue thematic work within the separate strands,
each informed by the others, and to try periodically to attain a higher level
of integration among strands of research.
Some STS work is provocative-even threatening-to scientists in
precisely the same way any systematic study of human social organization,
behavior, or cognition may be provocative or threatening. Indeed, it pro-
vokes and threatens in the same way that the Apollo missions took away
some of the moon's romantic mystery, or genetic research erodes some of
the mystery of life, or research on human origins brings with it a certain
Trends and Opportunities in Science and Technology Studies 281

disenchantment. This critical, questioning stance represents the best of what

STS can offer as an intellectual enterprise, but work in this .style must be
carefully crafted to fit within the framework and mission of the NSF.

THE ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE OF THE NATIONAL

SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The structural features of the STS program's organizational home-a social

science division within an agency which supports and promotes basic
research in science and engineering-is not the only force that constrains
and shapes the program's decisions. The NSF also has a distinctive
organizational culture that influences the way the program goes about
its work.
Social science texts traditionally define culture enumeratively as
"that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law,
custom ..." (Tylor, 1871), often summed up by noting that culture provides
"a blueprint for living." Within an organization, according to this view, the
culture provides a pattern for action, a template for planning, and a
vocabulary of legitimate actions. But such definitions-theories of culture,
really-overemphasize the common, shared, homogeneous aspect of
culture, while downplaying differences and dynamics.
An alternative view treats culture as a symbolic or moral space, cross-
cut by axes which represent the value dimensions along which a given culture
is positioned and which describe its potential for change (Erikson, 1976). This
view gives less weight to the average or central tendencies of a culture and
more weight to the variety of values present within a culture and to their
internal inconsistencies and capacity for change over time.
The organizational culture of the NSF exhibits several value tensions
or inconsistencies, some of which deserve mention here. At its core, NSF is
both an academic and a bureaucratic organization, meaning that it simulta-
neously honors the traditional academic values-pursue knowledge, reward
merit, think and act with originality, share ideas, and so forth-while func-
tioning as part of the federal bureaucracy, honoring all the traditional
bureaucratic values as well (such as pursue efficiency, reward behavior
that follows established rules, think and act and communicate within the
hierarchy).
This has consequences both profound and shallow for how the
program operates. Among the more profound consequences are limits on
a program officer's decisionmaking authority and constraints on the sorts
of documentation needed to support particular actions. There is also some
tension between the academic value placed on knowledge as an end in itself,
282 Science, Technology, and Society

and the bureaucratically-derived value of knowledge as a national resource

to be developed in service of other objectives (economic growth health, or
security). From an academic standpoint, one would wish to be agile in pur-
suing new ideas and opportunities, yet from the bureaucratic standpoint
accountability and aversion to risk are more salient. So while program offi-
cers are often encouraged to take risks, there are others who might later
view a risky grant that failed as a waste of tax money.
At the shallow end of the consequence pool are the misperceptions
raised when the uninformed read grant titles. One must be careful about
the words used when writing their (publicly-searchable) titles and abstracts
of funded projects, because one never knows which member of Congress
might have their intern search through the database for projects that, to
them, sound silly. When such projects are found and pilloried by a member
of Congress, NSF responds fully and rapidly, involving the director and
deputy director, the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, the assistant
director for the directorate that houses the project (and two or three
members of his or her staff), the relevant division director and deputy, and
the program officer for the afflicted program. For this reason there are
topics and titles and descriptions that may sound fine to the academic ear
but would not be suitable for NSF support. Review panels sometimes
debate this very point.
A second axis is defined by the differentiated character of the organi-
zation, with its partition into disciplines, bureaucratic positions, and func-
tions, in contrast to the integrative, interdisciplinary, synergistic character of
research and education that it tries to sustain. This means that centrifugal
and centripetal forces are simultaneously shaping actions and decisions.
Such forces arise most sharply in funding decisions or in the formulation
of interdisciplinary initiatives, where the shared commitment to the activ-
ity that rests at the intersection of fields comes into conflict with the urge
to secure as much money as possible for one's own field (an urge, inciden-
tally, that is often reinforced by visits from representatives of scientific
societies).
Third, the organization is characterized by both openness and secrecy.
NSF is open to advice about matters general and specific, ranging from the
best research opportunities for the next decade to the merits of a particu-
lar dissertation proposal. It is also a very permeable organization, with pan-
elists, committees of visitors (that periodically review the management of
entire programs), and scientific staff entering from government agencies or
academe, then returning home after a one- or two-year tour of duty. It is
an organization whose business is to communicate to the outside world
of scientists, decisionmakers, students and others. Yet there are also
strong rules of confidentiality controlling information about programs or
Trends and Opportunities in Science and Technology Studies 283

initiatives under development, about decisions that have been made but are
not yet ready for release, about reviews and reviewers, about the contents
of proposals, and about the very fact a proposal has been submitted.
Fourth, the organization is both responsive to new ideas that arise in
the scholarly community and proactive in creating and stimulating such
ideas. To be responsive means a program might collect and evaluate pro-
posals that arise from its research community, allowing the merit review
process to decide which proposals to support. Doing this requires little
activism on the program officer's part: He or she serves as an honest broker
and guide, connecting proposals to reviews and reviews to decisions, with
the minimum necessary guidance along the way. But NSF is proactive when
it creates an initiative that sets aside a pot of money for new proposals in
a new research area, assembling new panels of experts to advise on the deci-
sions. Initiatives are not tailored from whole cloth within the foundation,
but arise through an extended process of consultation and advisement. Yet
initiatives do draw the research community in new directions, set new chal-
lenges, and pose new risks. They originate outside the usual disciplinary
frameworks and operate outside the usual NSF programs, managed, for
example, by crossdirectorate committees.
Programs and program officers-indeed, the entire foundation-work
under the constraints of these normative and value tensions. Beneath the
surface language describing the organization's mission, goals and perfor-
mance objectives (and that implies a unity of purpose and common
framework for decisionmaking) is a tumultuous reality of crosscutting con-
siderations and commitments that bear upon any decision. All this, then,
forms the organizational stage for the work of the STS program.

HOW STS DECIDES WHAT TO FUND

The STS program provides support for investigator-initiated projects, which

means that the idea for a research effort arises from the scholarly commu-
nity. The STS program announcement, published every two or three years,
defines the field in broad terms, then describes several "modes of support,"
such as fellowships, dissertation improvement awards, training grants, and
research grants. Within this framework, specific proposals are written by
members of the community and submitted to one of the semi-annual
funding cycles.
A proposal arriving at NSF is logged in by the Proposal Processing
Unit and given a unique ID number. From there it passed along to the
program to be entered into a computer database and considered for possi-
ble support. The program officer reads the proposal and identifies six or so
284 Science, Technology, and Society

outside (or "ad hoc") reviewers, relying on memory, experience, files (e.g.,
my predecessor kept six card file boxes of potential reviewers, classified by
expertise), the literature, membership directories, the proposal's bibliogra-
phy, and the principal investigator's suggestions to do so.
A review package (consisting of a cover letter, instructions, a review
form, and a copy of the proposal) is generated by the program officer and
mailed out to each reviewer. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the proposal
using two general criteria: What is the intellectual merit of the proposed
work, and what is its likely impact? A central computer keeps track of all
reviews assigned and all received for at least the past decade. The STS
program traditionally uses two stages of review: ad hoc reviewers, who are
experts chosen specifically to evaluate a particular proposal; and an advi-
sory panel that is chosen to review an entire round of proposals, reading
the ad hoc reviews, writing reviews of their own, and meeting for a day or
two to discuss the proposals.
After the panel meets to advise the program about the merits of the
proposals, the program officer does a little housekeeping-for example,
ascertains each proposal has received at least three sound reviews-and
starts making decisions. Decisions are recorded in a brief document called
a "form 7" or "review analysis," which offers a brief justification for the deci-
sion to fund or not fund a proposal, drawing liberally from the raw mater-
ial of the proposal, the reviews (ad hoc and panel), and by the panel
discussion. This document becomes part of the permanent record of action
taken on the proposal (or "jacket").

Beyond the Mechanics: The Contributions of Peer Review

The STS program relies on reviewers to evaluate proposals and advise
decisions, but reviews also serve the STS community in a variety of other
ways. For example, reviews provide expert advice to the proposal writer,
who receives verbatim copies of reviewers comments. Sometimes such com-
ments can be a little hard to accept-NSF practice is to pass them along
verbatim, and no effort is made to resolve inconsistencies in the advice or
criticisms they contain. On the whole this practice allows researchers to
shape one another's work, and having resources at stake focuses and sharp-
ens the critique. The review process also serves as a flywheel, lending
stability and continuity to the research effort. It balances the drive for orig-
inality against the inertia of tradition, challenging whether ideas are truly
original and whether original ideas are worth pursuing (Chubin and
Hackett, 1990). Review also improves communication within the field,
sometimes averting duplication (and sometimes spurring competition),
and perhaps also preparing receptive ground for new ideas (as they are first
Trends and Opportunities in Science and Technology Studies 285

presented in a proposal, then substantiated with research and offered for

pUblication).

What's in the Portfolio?

The scope of the program is best seen in a small sampling of projects
supported, drawn from the online abstracts maintained by NSF. Anyone
wishing more information about these projects or who wants to see what
else is underway should visit the NSF web page: www.nsf.gov. The file of
project abstracts may be searched by keyword, among other ways. Further
information about research programs may be found on program pages.
STS has supported philosophical research on classical problems in the
philosophy of science, highly technical work in the philosophy of physics,
and more topical studies of problems of great current concern. For example,
Deborah Mayo is examining the foundations of statistical inference, devel-
oping a framework that views experiments as efforts to learn from error,
with statistical analysis conceived as a disciplined way to model patterns
of irregularity. By weaving together strategies and techniques for learning
from error that are employed in fields as diverse as statistics, engineering,
physics, biology, and psychology, she is uncovering strikingly similar ana-
lytic processes that have been overlooked in many philosophical accounts
of scientific inference. J. Richard Creath is examining the philosophical
foundations of what it means for a scientific assertion to be "empirically
supported." While it is easy to say that assertions gain credibility when they
have empirical confirmation, it is hard to explain precisely what such con-
firmation looks like without slipping into a circular argument. Drawing on
newly available works by Rudolf Carnap and W. V.a. Quine, Creath will first
develop their competing views on the question of empirical support, then
extend those arguments to bear on current issues in the philosophy of
science. His study will ultimately provide a reasoned basis for distinguish-
ing between science that rests on empirical justification and "science" that
originates from divine or received sources. Helen Longino is concerned
with a related problem: reconciling sharp differences between views of
science proposed by constructivist and their philosophical opponents. She
is developing an analysis that respects the social character of scientific
inquiry while leaving room for philosophers' traditional normative con-
cerns about science. Ronald Giere is addressing a similar problem, attempt-
ing to bridge the chasm between "scientific realists" and "humanistic
relativists" by developing a synthesis that rests on the idea of representa-
tion or map-making.
More technical, and far more difficult to describe in accessible terms,
are philosophical studies in the foundations of physics, by scholars such as
286 Science, Technology, and Society

Robert Batterman, T.Y. Cao, Richard Healey, Paul Teller, and others. Such
studies are generally concerned with the philosophical soundness and
implications of contemporary physical theories.
A final sort of philosophical work is represented by Kenneth
Schaffner's examination of behavioral genetics research in four organisms
(worm, fiy, mouse, and human). His main concern is to ask what it might
mean to claim that a particular gene is responsible for a particular behav-
ior, and to develop a standard for examining the evidence offered for such
claims in the scientific literature. With different theories of behavioral
genetics establishing different mechanisms and standards of evidence,
expert guidance becomes essential for nonscientists to understand and eval-
uate "discoveries" proclaimed in the media.
Historical research in STS concerns both science and technology, in
the ancient, medieval, early modern, modern, and contemporary periods.
Most of the work focuses on Europe and the United States, although a small
and increasing fraction addresses events occurring outside the western
world. History is by far the largest category of research supported by the
program, so it is difficult to give more than a superficial sampling of the
work underway.
In the history of technology, Jessica Riskin is examining the early 18th-
century origins of automation to explore how automatic devices become a
foil for our thinking about a range of artistic, biological and philosophical
ideas. In the early 20th century context, Emily Thompson is concerned with
the interplay of technology, art and business in the development of early
sound movies.
In the history of science, Richard Kremer and Michael Shank are
delineating how the work of Regiomontanus, the leading mathematical
astronomer of the 15th century, may have laid the foundation for Coperni-
cus' revolutionary work. Anita Guerrini is writing an account of "public
anatomy," the ceremonial dissection and examination of animals that
occurred at many European medical schools during the early modern
period. Such public events certainly taught the public some anatomy, but
they also entertained, enlightened, and offered moral education as well.
Public anatomy is a precursor of animal experimentation and reveals
aspects of the change in thinking from religious to secular modes of
thought. More difficult to classify is Maurice Finocchiaro's sweeping criti-
cal history of literature about the Galileo affair, from its inception in 1633
to the culmination of his "rehabilitation" by the church in 1992. In the 19th-
century history of science, Paul Lucier is concerned with geologists and
chemists who consulted for the coal and petroleum industries. He is using
these cases to consider the role of science and technology in industry, the
early development of the norms of scientific practice, and the emergence of
Trends and Opportunities in Science and Technology Studies 287

the scientific expert witness. In 20th-century science, Lillian Hoddeson is

leading an interdisciplinary research team concerned with the genesis and
demise of the Superconducting Super Collider as an instance of big science
in the contemporary United States. Spencer Weart is writing the history of
global climate change research, covering the period 1946-1978, which offers
a case where the intrinsic uncertainties of basic science intersect with com-
pelling public concerns.
Social research projects include Michael Fortun's study of the impact
of recombinant DNA methods in the field of human genetics and the result-
ing demand for a concerted effort to map and sequence the entire human
genome. Another facet of genetics research and biotechnology concerns
Woody Powell and Kenneth Koput, who are examining networks of
interorganizational relations among biotechnology firms and university
researchers. J. Rogers Hollingsworth and Jerald Hage are using historical
data to assess the organizational characteristics that give rise to major
discoveries in the life sciences. Other studies compare the politics of
biodiversity in Kenya and the United States, the comparative political
economy of telecommunications, and the social organization and dynamics
of research groups.
STS research uses a wide spectrum of methods, from philosophic
analysis that examines premises and the process of drawing inferences from
them, through archival and oral history techniques, to the ethnographic and
survey tools of social science. In this eclecticism the program serves as a
point of contact for disciplines that might otherwise have little to do with
one another and offers a strategic site for understanding the sort of inter-
disciplinary collaboration that may benefit other social sciences.

WHAT LIES AHEAD?

A goal of STS theory is to develop an integrated explanation of the origin,

development, shaping, and justification of new knowledge that takes
account of ideas, social forces, human behavior, historical dynamics, insti-
tutional arrangements, and the material dimensions of science and tech-
nology. Tighter integration among STS fields, and stronger links to other
disciplines in the social sciences and humanities, will contribute to this goal,
enriching all participating parties. Integrated theory is the grail, but it will
not come easily because strong institutional forces oppose it. Such forces
include the diverse memberships and cultures of professional societies,
along with the investments members and officers have in retaining so many
distinct associations. Also important are size and resource differences
among societies, which influence every effort to cooperate. Finally, it is in
288 Science, Technology, and Society

the nature of STS thinking to be skeptical of all efforts at intellectual lead-

ership and synthesis, for it is plainly more advantageous to enlist than be
enlisted, to synthesize the works of others rather than have one's own work
subsumed in another's grand synthesis. In all, reflexivity brings with it some
significant baggage.
Beyond integration, the future holds several more focused challenges
for the field:

1. It is very important to expand the STS research agenda into

other cultures and institutions, thereby broadening the foun-
dation for inference and widening the range for uncovering
new ideas. Studies and perspectives from outside the Western
context are essential for completeness and comparison. Active
encouragement, varied and risky investments of funds, and a
ground-up investment in skills through fellowships and train-
ing grants are needed to accomplish this. Among the studies
that would address this need is Lawrence Schneider's history
of experimental genetics in China that covers 1920-1980.
2. The intersection of science and law is an increasingly intense
but problematic nexus, which virtually guarantees that it is a
rich research site. Competing epistemologies, educational defi-
ciencies (on both sides of the professional divide), novel legal
circumstances, and institutional power struggles combine to
heighten the tensions between law and science. The stakes are
high and rising as more and more science- and technology-
based issues are brought to the courts and as judges and jurors
(with the assistance of attorneys and expert witnesses) are
asked to sort them out (Jasanoff, 1995). Paradoxically, however,
the legal system seems less and less prepared to use such evi-
dence in its deliberations: Lawyers deconstruct scientists' tes-
timony; experts battle to a standstill; and judges adjudicate as
best they can for the puzzled jury (or step in themselves to sort
out the matter).
3. There is an increasing role for STS in science education, which
offers a great opportunity for collaboration between STS and
the sciences. In the end, STS representation in science text-
books should move from the sidebar to the matrix in which
science education is embedded. Discovery and invention are
processes, not events, embedded in a continuing stream of
human activity and imagination. Students who do not learn this
become misled into thinking of science as an activity conducted
apart from society by lone heroes for unknown reasons. Not
Trends and Opportunities in Science and Technology Studies 289

only is this bad history, but it also sets a bad precedent or

pattern for the student's career. Through cooperative educa-
tional efforts and through studies of scientific and technical
careers, STS can help develop human resources for science,
math, and engineering. Of special importance is the possibility
that introducing STS issues into the K-12 and post-secondary
curricula will show the social relevance of a career in science
or engineering and will increase the attractiveness of such
careers for all students, but especially for women and mem-
bers of ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in those
fields.
4. The "activist turn" in STS is the logical next step for the field's
commitment to engage issues that are critical or controversial.
While this is certainly a valuable turn for the field that merits
encouragement, it does not always fit well with the mission
of a federal agency that supports science and engineering.
The tension between the STS program and its organizational
context will not likely abate soon. An imaginative program
manager can work with a cooperative investigator to support
those aspects of a project that advance STS without conflicting
with NSF's mission, and it is important that such collabor-
ations continue. Similarly, STS scholarship should continue to
examine the design, implementation, and consequences of
information technology (including the Internet) and biotech-
nology, even though doing so may appear hostile or threaten-
ing. With so much at stake, for STS and for society, these lines
of inquiry should continue.
5. Electronic media offer unparalleled access to materials and a
quantum jump in research possibilities. But this is an expensive
and risky route to travel. NSF-wide initiatives in Digital
Libraries and in Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence
may lead the way, providing cooperative funding with other
governmental agencies and "outside the envelope" budget
increase for the foundation. Especially noteworthy for STS are
program investments in Project Perseus, a web site offering
texts, pictures, and site plans of classical Greece; a new effort
to build a web site of historical data concerning public health
and the development of urban technology in New York City;
and the prospect of "digital Darwin," which would make his
edited letters available on CD or online. Each effort presents
professional research resources to a wider spectrum of users,
including remote researchers, students, and scholars engaged in
290 Science, Technology, and Society

comparative work. Further, each offers lessons in how to

accomplish such dissemination and how to do so more
effectively.
6. Finally, both the field and the program should continue to
experiment with innovative educational and outreach activi-
ties, for students at all levels as well as for the public at large.
At the graduate level, for example, the program has provided
Small Grants for Training and Research to seed new areas of
advanced education. A three-university-consortium used one
such award for innovative training at the intersection of history,
philosophy, and field work in ecology. Another university group
developed a training effort focused on United States science in
the Cold War era.

Conferences and workshops are often the seedbeds of new educa-

tional and research ideas, for these allow small groups of scholars to
work closely together for a brief period of time. One such conference will
bring policy makers, activists, scientists, and STS scholars together to
examine the research and teaching opportunities offered by a community
plagued by various environmental problems. Another will draw upon the
history of science to develop educational materials for students in the K-12
grades.
All such activities require risk and imagination in the STS commu-
nity, and collaboration with and within the foundation. Educational
activities are a particularly tender point for social science research pro-
grams, because the directorate's budget is dwarfed by that of the education
directorate.

CONCLUSION

STS, both field and program, is poised for vigorous growth and innovation.
New areas of compelling ignorance have been delineated, and bold schol-
ars are venturing forth. Connections are forming among the constituent
fields of STS, between STS and other social sciences, and between STS and
the sciences. Educational concerns permeate all of these interfaces; they
present opportunities for innovative instruction at all levels, and they offer
a more integrative education, which promises to improve dialogue and
advance the integration.
Despite such promising possibilities, there are also real and enduring
tensions between the field of STS and the STS program, and between the
STS program and other activities underway at NSF. The STS critique chal-
Trends and Opportunities in Science and Technology Studies 291

lenges received wisdom and creates discomfort for scientists and science
administrators. Such tensions are strong yet manageable, but are unlikely
to disappear soon.

REFERENCES

Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. 1., eds. (1987). The Social Construction of Technolog.
ical Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chubin, D. c., and Hackett, E. 1. (1990). Peerless Science: Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy,
State University of New York Press, Albany, N.Y.
Cowan, R. S. (1983). More Work for Mother, Basic Books, New York.
Erikson, K. T. (1976). Everything in Its Path, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Hackett, E. 1. (1990). Science as a vocation in the 1990s. Journal of Higher Education
61:241-278.
Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880-1930, Johns
Hopkins Press, Baltimore,
Jasanoff, S. S., Markle, G. E., and Petersen, 1. E. (1994). Handbook of Science and Technology
Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Jasanoff, S. S. (1995). Science at the Bar, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Star, S. L. (1989). Regions of the Mind: Brain Research and the Quest for Scientific Certainty,
Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Traweek, S. (1998). Beamtimes and Lifetimes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture, John Murray, London.
 Index

Academic degrees, knowledge professionals, Air bags, 111-117

240-242 debates, 115-116
Academic institutions, see also Colleges and efficacy, 113
universities; Research; Research & legislative history, 112-113
development mandating, 113-115
government-science-university compact, 261, Air pollution, 143, 145; see also Global warm-
269,270,271-272 ing
NSF as, 281-282 and acid rain, 148
STS knowledge professionals, 239-240 CAFE and, 107
Accountability Alberta, STS program, 65--{j6
curriculum reform design, 83 Alternative instruction methods, LoRST and,
evaluation, suggestions for, 134-137 80
research community, 269 American Association for the Advancement of
Achievement tests, grades 7-12 students, 32, Science (AAAS), 176
33 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 176--177
Acid rain, 146--149 K-12 standards, 178
Action/activism/advocacy American Chemical Society CHEMCOM Pro-
elements for STS education, 173 ject, 59, 175-176
employment of knowledge professionals, Analysis/analytical methods
243 critical analysis, 246, 253, 254
knowledge professional employment, 243 confirmatory factor, 27, 28
NSF role, 289 issue, teacher education, 131
science literacy for, 197-198 meta-analysis, STS, 135, 136--137
Action research, 72-73 policy
Adults, scientific literacy among, 30 knowledge professional employment, 244,
Advanced content, sequence of STS course 250
structure, 62 research and development, 268-271
Adverse effect levels, 156 risk analysis of chemical hazards, 156--157
Advocacy: see Action/activism/advocacy student skills, 133-134
Aerosol sprays, 204, 212-213 Analysts, research and development, 268-271
Aesthetics, societal issues, 124 Application of technology, technological liter-
Agricultural science, 17, 18, 127-128 acy, 185

293
294 Index

Applied science, 17 Biology (cont.)

basic science ~ applied science ~ technol- textbook treatment of issues. 148, 151-152.
ogy sequence, 11, 12, 13 153-154. 155. 157
courses in, 174 Biology (Addison Wesley). 148
technology-focused curriculum, 16 Biology: The Dynamics of Life, 157
Archival research, 246 Biology: The Study of Life. 155
Are We Building Environmental Literacy?, 144 Biology Today. 151-152
Arguments. student ability to manage. 133; see Biomass. 150
also Conflicting views/controversy Biomedical Literacy Study. NSF, 27
Artisans. 13 Biotechnology and genetic engineering. 22,
Asbestos mitigation. 93 142. 183
Assessment. 133 Bureaucracy. NSF as. 281-282
Canadian STS program, 49, 50. 77-80. 81 Business
grades 7-12 students. 32. 33 Canadian curriculum policy stakeholders.
standards-based approaches. 176 63
Associate degree programs. 184 STS program focuses. 2
Association for Supervision and Curriculum teacher support, 83
Development. 172
Association for the Education of Teachers in CAFE: see Corporate average fuel economy
Science. 172 standards
Attitude development strategies. 77 Canada. 49-83
Attitudes toward science. predictors of science classroom materials and research & develop-
literacy ment, 66--69
at age 22. 41. 42 curriculum policy and deliberation. 51--66
seven dimensions of. 64 content. 56--61
student achievement deliberation process, 62-66
ninth grade, 34, 35, 37 function. 52-56
twelfth grade, 39 sequence. 61-62
Australia. curriculum reform movements. 173 curriculum reform movements, 173
Authorization. stakeholder values. 66 Framework, 51
Automobiles processes and products in STS science edu-
and acid rain, 148 cation. 50
electric vehicles. 150-151 provincial independence. 50
Auto safety student learning and instruction-assessment.
air bags and, 115-117 73-80
CAFE and. 108-110 assessment. 77-80
instruction, 76-77
Basic science. technology-focused curriculum. Capstone course on environmental topics. 162-
16 163
Basic science ~ applied science ~ technology Carbon dioxide. 194. 202. 214-217
concept, 11, 12, 13 Careers. see also Knowledge professionals;
Behavioral genetics. 286 Reculturing science
Beliefs. societal issues. 124 knowledge professionals, 238-239
Benchmarksfor Science Literacy. 176-177, purposes of STS. 122-123
179.185 Case studies. 77, 246
Biodiversity. textbook treatment. 153-154 Causation,conceptoL 161
Biological Science: An Ecological Approach. Certification, Canadian students. 79
153-154 CFCs: see Chlorofluorocarbons
Biology. see also Physics+Chemistry+Biology Charities. knowledge professional employment.
approach 243
Canadian STS content. 59 Chautauqua Project, 132
Index 295

ChemCom course, 59 Colleges and universities (cant.)

Chemical Education for Public Understanding programs, 3, 4, 5
Program (CEPUP), 157 graduate degrees: see Graduate programs
Chemistry, see also Physics+Chemistry+Biol- knowledge professional degrees, 241-242,
ogy approach 248-252
Canadian STS content, 59 reculturing science, 266-267
risk analysis of chemical hazards, 156-157 research enterprise, 271-272
Chemistry in the Community (CHEMCOM) teacher support, 83
Project, 175-176 Commerce, need for scientific literacy, 22
Chlorination of municipal water, 92 Common Framework of Science Learning Out-
Chlorofluorocarbons, 201-203, 204, 208, 212- comes (Framework), 55-56, 80; see
214,219 also Canada, STS science in
Citizen action: see Action/activism/advocacy Communications, technology education, 183
Civic life, technology impact on, 170 Community action: see Action/activism/advocacy
Civic scientific literacy, 21-44 Community colleges and vocational education
conceptualization and measurement of, 23- programs, 127-128, 184
25 Comparative advantage, US loss of, 14-15
development of, 29, 31-42 Confirmatory factor analysis, 27, 28
model to predict ninth grade student Conflicting views/controversy
achievement, 32, 34, 35-37 "correct" positions, 152
model to predict student literacy at age 22, student understanding of, 133
40-42 teacher training, 131-132
model to predict twelfth grade student Conservation, 143
achievement, 38-39 Construction, technology education, 183
measurement of, 26-29, 30 Construction projects, K-12 programs, 183-184
public policy and need for, 22-23 Consumer society, need for science literacy, 23,
Classroom materials: see Curriculum materials 25
Classroom model, knowledge professional edu- Content, STS
cation, 246 Canadian programs, 58,60-61,62,82
Classroom teachers, 5 curriculum development, 50
Climate change, 145,200; see also Global science, 172
warming sequence of course structure, 62
Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Content specialists, 2
Change,200 Context
Climate Change: The IPSS Scientific Assess- evaluation of STS, 135, 136
ment, 200 STS emphasis, 172
Cognitive dimension, Snow system of science, STS programs, 2
57 technology universals, 185
Cold War, 233, 234 Context of assessment, critical-theoretic para-
College and university faculties digmand,79
Canadian curriculum policy stakeholders, Controversy: see Conflicting views/controversy
63 Convention on International Trade in Endan-
course development, amenability to sugges- gered Species of Wild Flora and
tion, 186 Fauna (CITES), 95
knowledge professional education, 247 Corporate average fuel economy standards
socialization of science teachers, 70-72 (CAFE), 104-111
Colleges and universities, 3, 4; see also Under- and auto safety, 108-1 10
graduate education conclusion, 11 0-111
Canadian, high school STS science programs and environment, 107-108
and,65 legislative history, 105-106
missions of, 267-268 and oil imports, 106
296 Index

Correlation, concept of, 161 Curriculum materials, see also Textbooks

Costs-benefits, see also Economic factors; Canadian, 49, 50, 66-69
Reculturing science; Trade-offs, risks, environmental education, evaluation of, 143-
and regulations 144
analyzing trade-offs, 158 K-12 technology education, 183
Endangered Species Act, 101-103 teacher investment in, 72-73
pesticide use, 157 textbook development, 66-69
student understanding of, 133 Curriculum Occupational Research and Devel-
as technocratic approach, 244 opment Center (CORD), 184
Council of Ministers of Education of Canada Curriculum policy, Canadian, 49, 50, 53-54,
(CMEC),51 62-63
Courses, see also Curriculum Curriculum reform, international, 173
policy-oriented versus liberal arts-oriented Curriculum Standards for the Social Studies,
STS programs, 248-252 180
predictors of scientific literacy
at age 22, 41, 42 Data sources, environmental science textbooks,
grade 12,38,39 161)..161
STS curricula, 2 Decisionmaking
Critical analysis, knowledge professionals, 246, attitude development strategies, 77
253,254 Canadian curriculum emphases, 54
Critical reasoning, Logical Reasoning in Science Canadian STS program goals, 53
and Technology (LoRSl), 67-69 elements for STS education, 173
Critical-theoretic paradigm of assessment and goals of STS, 124
evaluation, 78, 79, 80, 81 knowledge professionals, 238
Critical thinking, 159-161 science court, 25
Cross-disciplinary concepts, climate change Decision making tradeoffs, 158-159
studies, 224-225 Decision types, Logical Reasoning in Science
Cultural contexts of technological development, and Technology (LoRSl), 66-69
176 Deficit model, 24
Culture Deforestation
K-12 social studies themes, 180 poverty and, 156
organizational, NSF, 281-283 textbook treatment, review of, 152-153
socialization of teachers, 70, 124 Degrees, knowledge professionals, 241)..242
sociocultural contexts of technological devel- Deliberation
opment, 176 Canadian curriculum policy, 62-66
Culture of scientific disciplines, 70, 124; see Canadian model, 50
also Reculturing science LoRST project, 69
Curriculum, 2 textbook development, 66-69
Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 176-179 Democratic society
Canadian, 49; see also Canada Canadian STS program goals, 53
environmental issues, 143; see also Environ- need for scientific literacy, 22, 25
mental education technology impact on, 170
implementation of STS, 128-130 Design, technology development and evolution,
intended, translated, and learned, 82 170
international comparisons, 83 Designed world, Benchmarks for Science Liter-
knowledge professionals, 245 acy, 177
need to develop, 14 Disadvantaged children, scientific literacy pre-
standards-based approaches, 176 dictors,43
standards for K-12, 185-186 Discovering Science and Technology through
STS program issues, 2, 3 History, 182
technology-focused, 16 Discover the Wonder, 152
Index 297

Discussion of Issues in School Science (DISS) Employers, Canadian curriculum policy stake-
project, 77-79 holders, 63
Dogma, stakeholder values, 66 Employment, knowledge professionals, 250
Dose-response relationship, 156 Endangered Species Act, 93, 94-104
conclusions, 103-104
Earth science, 17, 18 cost, 101-103
Eco-Inquiry, 154 efficacy, 99-101
Ecology, 153-154 key provisions and problems, 95-96
Economic factors, see also Funding; property rights, 96-99
Reculturing science Endangered Species Conservation Act (ESCA),
alternative energy sources, 150 94-95
Canadian STS curriculum policy, 52 Energy, 149-151; see also Corporate average
climate change and, 195 fuel economy standards
conservation, 104 and deforestation, 156
environmental science, 146 need for scientific literacy, 22-23
forest conservation, 153 technology education, 183
government regulation Engineering, 17, 18
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) England, comparative study of national science
standards, 105 curricula, 83
Endangered Species Act, 102-103 Environment
need for scientific literacy, 22 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 177
regulatory costs, 93 electric vehicles and, 150-151
returns and impacts of investments in aca- STS program issues, 2, 3
demic research, 244 Environmental education, 141-163; see also
societal issues, 124 Global warming
supply/demand for scientists, 262 definition, 142
trade-offs, 158-159 recommendations, 162-163
Economics, environmental education capstone topics reviewed by independent commissions
course, 163 and findings, 144-162
Ecosystems acid rain, 146-149
Endangered Species Act, 97-98 critical thinking, 159-161
habitat conservation and fire hazards, 101- decision making tradeoffs, 158-159
102 ecology, 153-154
Education energy, 149-151
knowledge professionals, 240-242 forests, 152-153
parents, student achievement predictors, 34, global warming, 144-146
35,36,38,39 population and hunger, 154-156
of teachers, 70, 71,131-132 risk analysis, 156-157
inservice, 70, 72, 80, 132 waste management, 151-152
pre-service, 70, 71 Environmental Protection Agency, 92
technocratic, 244, 245 Environmental Science (Addison-Wesley),
Electric vehicles, 150-151 154-155
Electronic media, 289-290 Environmental Science: Changing Populations
Elementary schools, see also K-12 education (Holt, Rinehart and Winston), 148,
levels of implementation, 130 151, 154, 156
standards, 178-179 Environmental Science: How the World Works
Elites, stakeholder values, 66 and Your Place In It (LeBel), 146, 148
Empirical analytic paradigm of assessment and Environmental Science (LeBel), 150, 155, 158,
evaluation, 78, 79 160
Empirically verifiable science, II Environmental Science (Prentice Hall), ISO,
Empirical support of scientific findings, 285 153, 156-157
298 Index

Environmental Science (Wadsworth), 151, 157 Fuel: see Corporate average fuel economy stan-
Environmental Science: Working with the Earth dards
(Wadsworth), 149 Funding, see also Reculturing science
Epistemology graduate education, 267
Canadian program content, 56 NSF, 283-287
knowledge professional education, 245 peer review, contributions of, 284-285
law-science interface, 288 portfolio, 285-287
linear model of, 12-13 science programs, 125-126
ERIC Clearinghouse for Social Studies and So- entitlement mentality of scientists, 261
cial Education at Indiana University, government-science-university compact,
181 261.269.270.271-272
Erosion, 156 returns and impacts of investments in re-
Essay examinations, student evaluation, 133 search. 244
Ethics teacher training. 132
elements for STS education, 173
marketplace as arbiter, 243 Games. 77
STS program issues, 2, 3 Gender
teacher training issues, 132 Canadian STS policy, 64
Evaluation of STS, 121-138 predictors of scientific literacy. 37
issues affecting, 122-134' atage 22, 41. 42
extant strategies for evaluation, 123, 132- ninth grade. 34
134 twelfth grade achievement predictors. 39
implementation, 123, 128-131 technology impact on. 170
nature ofSTS, 123, 125-128 Generalists
purpose of STS, 122-125 knowledge workers, 235
teacher education, 123, 131-132 new scientists. 265-266
suggestions for, 134-137 General Science (Prentice Hall), 146
description of STS programs, 135-136 Genetic engineering. 22, 142. 183
evaluation of context, 135, 136 George C. Marshall Institute. 143-144
general meta-analysis, 135, 136-137 Gifted students. Canadian STS policy. 64
specific meta-analysis, 135, 137 Global Atmospheric Change: Enhanced Green-
Evaluation of students: see Student learning house Effect. Ozone Layer Depletion
Experimental logic, 28 and Ground Level Ozone Pollution.
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competi- 220
tive Research (EPSCoR), 237 Global atmospheric change (GAC). student
Expert concept map, 207,208,208 conceptions of global warming. 220-
Expert teachers, 72 222
Exploring Life Science, 153 Global climate change. 145
Exposure-effect relationship, 156 Global warming, 144-146. 145
Extinction of species, 96 CAFE and. 106
textbook treatment. confusion with green-
Faculty: see College and university faculty house effect. 145
Famines, 155-156 Global warming. student understanding of.
Fatima's rules, 74-76, 82 193-225
Fire hazard, habitat conservation and, 101-102 post-instruction concepts. 206-217
Fluency, technological, 171 aerosol sprays containing CFCs and ozone
Forests, 152-153 destruction. 212-213
Fossil fuels, see also Energy carbon dioxide and ozone destruction,
need for scientific literacy, ~3 214-217
resources, 150 CFCs and global warming. 213-214
Framework: see Canada, STS science in expert concept map. 208
Index 299

Global warming, student understanding of Health

(cant.) climate change and, 195
post-instruction concepts (cant.) research funding, 126
findings and discussion, 209-210 risk analysis, 156-157
Olone layer depletion as principal cause, Health sciences, 17, 18
210-212 Higher education, see also Colleges and univer-
procedure, 206-208 sities
pre-instruction concepts, 204-206 K-12 sector and, 3
science of global warming, 200-203 programs, 3, 4, 5
scientific literacy as foundation for STS edu- twelfth grade achievement predictors, 38, 39
cation, 197-199 High school
STS leadership institute, 199-200 achievement during, 29
Goals and objectives of Canadian STS teach- Canadian program, STS science stream in
ing, 53, 64 Alberta, 65
Golden-cheeked warbler, 102-103 environmental education, multidisciplinary
Government capstone course, 162-163
funding of research: see Funding environmental knowledge survey, 143
knowledge professional postgraduate em- levels of implementation, 130-131
ployment, 250 science literacy predictors, 29, 31-42
teacher support, 83 at age 22, 40-42
Government agencies and panels, climate ninth grade student achievement, 32, 34,
change, 194 35-37
Government regulation: see Trade-offs, risks, twelfth grade, 38-39
and.regulations High School and Beyond (HSB) study, 35
Government-science-university compact, 261, Historical case studies, 77, 246
269,270,271-272 History
Grades 7-12 student achievement tests, 32, 33; Benchmarks for Science. Literacy, 177
see also High school; K-12 education; Project Physics, 186
Secondary schools History of science and technology, 183-184
Graduate programs, 4 Canadian program content, 56
history and sociology of science, 280 K-12 education, 179-180, 182, 183-184
knowledge professionals, 243-252 knowledge professional education, 245
reculturing science, 267-268 NSF programs, 279-280, 286-287
STS program diversity, 174 Human activity, STS approach, 18
Grants: see Reculturing science Human Genome Project, 170
Grass-roots decisionrnaking, Canadian, 62~3, 73 Human organism, Benchmarks for Science Lit-
Great Britain, curriculum reform movements, eracy, 177
173
Great Society programs, 232 Ideology
Greenhouse effect, 201-202, 204, 205-206 knowledge professionals, science versus
student conceptions of global warming, 218, STS, 242
219 societal issues, 124
textbook treatment, confusion with global STS approach, 18
warming, 145 teacher training, 131-132
Greenhouse gases, 194, 196,201-202,206 Impacts of Technology, 149
Group discussion, attitude development strate- Implementation, Canadian model, 50
gies, 77 Incentives, conservation, 104
Endangered Species Act, 96, 98, 103
Habits of mind forest conservation, 153
Benchmarksfor Science Literacy, 177 Incineration of waste, 152
reasoned argument, 68-69 Incomplete versus wrong information, 148-149
300 Index

IndusUial~vocationaleducation, 174-175 IPCC program, 200-201

IndusUialization, 182 IQ testing, 25
Industry Issue analysis, teacher education, 131
Canadian curriculum policy stakeholders, 63 Issue awareness, elements for STS education,
teacher support, 83 173
Infant mortality, 155 Issue-oriented courses, scientific literacy pre-
Informal science education resources, 29 dictors,42
Infusion of STS into courses Item-response theory (lRT) techniques, 27, 30-
Canadian curricula, 58, 59, 60 31
implementation of STS, 129-130
Innovation, strategic planning for, 233-234 Jackson's Mill IndusUial Arts Curriculum, 174
INPUT (Increasing the Public Understanding of Journal of Design and Technology, 188
Technology), 10 Journal of Science Education and Technology,
Inservice training of teachers, 70, 72 188
assessment and evaluation, 80 Journal of Technology Education, 183, 188
evaluation of STS programs, 132 Journals and periodicals, 188
Institutions, reculturing science, 266-267
Instruction K-12 education, 3, 4
Canadian STS program, 76-77 global warming, understanding of issues,
standards-based approaches, 176 193-225; see also Global warming,
Instruction-assessment, Canadian model, 49, 50 student understanding of
Instruction methods, 72 levels of implementation, 130-131
alternative, LoRST and, 80 materials science approach, 9-19; see also
Instrumentation, use of, 64 Materials science approach
Integrated pest management, 158 technology marginalization in STS move-
Integrated STS assessment, 133 ment, 167-188
Intended curriculum, 49, 82 American movement, 171-175
Interdisciplinary programs, Project Symbiosis, challenges of educational reform, 186-
127-128 187
Interest groups, Canadian STS curriculum pol- definitions, 167-171
icy, 52 science education, 175-180
International comparisons, comparative study social studies, 180-182
of national science curricula, 83 technological literacy , 171
International curriculum reform movements, technology education, 182-186
173 K-12 professionals, 19
International Network for Information in Sci- Knowledge
ence and Technology Education of nature of, 12-14
UNESCO, 173 Snow system of science, 57
International Organization for Science and technology universals, 185
Technology Education, 173 Knowledge professionals, 231--254
International programs, climate change, 194 defined, 234-237
International Technology Education Associa- emergence of, 232-234
tion (lTEA), 172, 182-183, 185 graduate education for, 243-248
International trade in endangered species, 95 professionals and practitioners, 237-239
Interpretation of curriculum, teacher under- and STS, 239-243
standing, 69-73 university programs, policy-oriented versus
Interpretive paradigm of assessment and evalu- liberal arts-oriented, 248-252
ation, 78, 79 Knowledge workers, 3
Interview evaluation strategies, extant, 132 Kuhnian paradigm shifts, 70
Ionizing Radiation, 59-60 Kyoto Climate Summit, 194
Iowa Chautauqua Project, 132 Kyoto protocol, 106
Index 301

Laboratory science courses, predictors of scien- Marketplace (cont.)

tific literacy, 38, 39,41 STS definitions, 240
Labor movement, Canadian curriculum policy and technology development, 170
stakeholders, 63 Market solutions, endangered species, 104
Land tenure, 153 Materials science approach, 9-19
Land use practices nature of know ledge of technology and sci-
and acid rain, 147-148 ence, 12-14
poverty and, 156 neglect of technology education, 14
Language arts, K-12 STS effects, 172 old and new paradigms for learning science,
Law-science intersection, 288 10-14
Leadership Institute in STS Education, 196- real science approach based on S-STS para-
197, 199-200 digm, 14-19
Leamed curriculum, 49, 82 education of Americans in real science, 17
Leaming, superficial, 74-76, 82 new pedagogic strategy, STS -+ technol-
Legislation: see Trade-offs, risks, and regula- ogy -+ science, 16-17
tions opportunity and responsibility, 15
Levels of implementation, 130-131 special role for materials science, 17-19
Liberal arts-oriented programs, knowledge pro- strategy, pedagogy from the obvious, 15-
fessionals, 248-252 16
Life sciences, STS program effectiveness, 124 Mathematics, Benchmarks for Science Literacy,
Limited knowledge versus wrong information, 177
148-149 Mathematics, Science and Technology Educa-
Linear model of epistemology, 12-13 tion (MSTE), 180
LISREL program, 31 Meaning, scientific, 24
Literacy: see Civic scientific literacy; Science Median student, 13, 19
literacy Mental habits, 6~9, 177
Little Science, Big Science, 244 Mentors, 3
Living Lightly, 149 Meta-analysis, evaluation of STS, 135, 136-
Living Lightly on the City, 150 137
Living Lightly on the Planet, 153 Metadiscipline, STS as, 242
Logic, experimental, 28 Meta-knowledge worker, 236
Logical Reasoning in Science and Technology Metal recycling, lSI
(LoRST), 60, 66-69, 77, 80 Methods of scientific inquiry, need for training
Longevity, and overpopUlation, ISS in, 161
Longitudinal Study of American Youth Middle schools
(LSAY), 29, 31-32,40-42 achievement during, 29
environmental science courses, 159
Management, knowledge professional employ- STS program evaluation, 124
ment, 236, 250 student understanding of global warming
Management of technology, technological liter- processes and issues, 193-225; see
acy, 185 also Global warming, student under-
Managing High Technology, 257 standing of
Man-Made World, 174-175 Montreal Protocol, 202
Manufacturing, technology education, 183 Motivation, Canadian STS curricula, 58, 59
Marginalization oftechnology: see K-12 educa- Multicultural perspective, Canadian, 55
tion Multidisciplinary capstone course on environ-
Marginalized students, 52 mental topics, 162-163
Marketplace Multiscience emphasis, Canadian, 55
fuel efficiency and consumer choice, 109
knowledge professionals, 243 National Acidic Precipitation Program
reculturing science, 262 (NAPAP), 147
302 Index

National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Science Foundation (cont.)

(NASA),267 trends and opportunities on science and tech-
National Assessment of Educational Progress nology studies, 277-291
(NAEP) study, 30-31, 35 funding decisions, NSF, 283-287
National Association for Science, Technology future trends, 287-290
and Society (NASTS), 171 organizational culture of NSF, 281-283
National Board of Civic Information (Sweden) orientation, 278
study. 24 origins of STS, 279-281
National Council for the Teachers of English, National Science Standards and Benchmarks
172 for Scientific Literacy, 161
National Council for the Teachers of Social National Science Teachers Association
Studies, 172 (NSTA), 172, 175
National defense, 142 K-12 standards, 178
National Elementary Longitudinal Study of Search for Excellence, 142
1988,35 National standards: see Standards
National Institutes of Health (NIH), 267 Natural resources, teaching tnaterials and text-
National interest, 233, 234 books, 149-151
energy policy, 106 Nature Conservancy, 104
graduate education programs, 267 Need to know criterion, curriculum developers,
national defense, 142 59
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- Netherlands, curriculum reform movements,
tion (NOAA), 194 173
National Research Council New Zealand
biology education study, 159-160 comparative study of national science curric-
environmental education, multidisciplinary ula, 83
capstone course, 162-163 curriculum reform movements, 173
K-12 standards, 178-179, 186 Ninth grade science achievement predictors, 32,
National Science Education Standards, imple- 34,35-37,38,39
mentation of STS, 128-129 Nonprofit sector, knowledge professional post-
National Science Foundation, 278-279 graduate employment, 250
Experimental Program to Stimulate Competi- North Carolina State University program, 249
tive Research (EPSCoR), 237 Northern Virginia STS program, 248-249, 252,
funding decisioos, 283-287 254
peer review, contributions of. 284-285 Nova Scotia, 72
portfolio, 285-287 Nuclear power, 22
graduate education programs, 267
history of science and technology project, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), 232-
182 233
INPUT (Increasing the Public Understanding Ohio State University, Jackson's Mill Industrial
of Technology), 10 Arts Curriculum, 174
K-12 standards, 179-180 Oil supply, reserves versus resources, 149-
Leadership Institute in STS Education, 196- 150
197,199-200 Organizational culture, NSF, 281-283
organizational culture, 281-283 Outcomes
Project Synthesis, 141-142 evaluation strategies, extant, 123. 132-134
report on undergraduate education in science performance/accountability, suggestions for
and technology, 171 evaluation, 134-137
Science and Engineering Indicators, 25-26 STS program effectiveness, 124-125
Science through Science, Technology and Overpopulation, 154-155
Society Project, 172 Ozone. 196,203,204,205,207,208,210-217,
set-aside programs, 273 224
Index 303

Paper recycling, 151 Policy, public (cont.)

Paradigm shifts, 70, 77-79 STS program issues, 2, 3
Parents Policy, Canadian curricula, 51-66
Canadian curriculum policy stakeholders, 63 Policy analysis
predictors of scientific literacy, 33, 37, 43 knowledge professional employment, 244, 250
at age 22, 40-41 research and development, 268-271
ninth grade, 34, 35, 36 Policy-oriented graduate programs, knowledge
twelfth grade, 38, 39 professionals, 248-252
teacher support, 83 Political interests, Canadian STS curriculum
Path model, 32, 34 policy, 52
Pedagogical theory, practical knowledge ver- Political parties, knowledge professional em-
SUS, 70 ployment with, 243
Peer review, NSF funding, 284-285 Political power, teacher understanding and stu-
Peregrine Fund, 104 dent learning, 81
Performance-based assessments, 133; see also Political science, environmental education cap-
Student learning stone course, 163
Perkins Vocational Education Act, 184 Politics: see Policy; Reculturing science
Personal dimension, Snow system of science, 57 Population and hunger, 154-156
Perverse incentives Portfolios, student evaluation, 133
Endangered Species Act, %, 98, 103 Positivistic science, 243
forest conservation, 153 Poverty,156
Pesticides, 157 Practical knowledge, teacher, 70, 72-73
Philosophy of science Predictive models, scientific literacy, 29, 31-42
knowledge professional education, 245, 247 age 22, literacy at, 40-42
NSF program, 279-280 ninth grade achievement, 32, 34, 35-37
NSF support of, 285-286 twelfth grade achievement, 38-39
Physical setting, Benchmarks for Science Liter- Presentations, student evaluation strategies, 132
acy, 177 Price controls, 105
Physics Private sector
Canadian STS content, 59 knowledge professional postgraduate em-
philosophy of, 285-286 ployment, 250
Physics+Olemistry+Biologyapproach, 10, 13, 14 STS program stakeholders, 63
multidisciplinary capstone course, 162-163 Probability concepts, 28, 161
via real science, 17 Problem selection by students, 123-124
Planetary ecology Problems of Democracy course, 122
global warming: see Global warming, student Processes
understanding of Canadian model, 50
need for scientific literacy, 23 instruction-assessment, 73-80
Plastics in Our Lives, 152, 159 research & development, 66-69
PLON project, 61 technology universals, 185
Polar ice cap melting, 204 Process of instruction, interpretive paradigm
Policy, public, see also Reculturing science and,79
in Canada, 49 Product of instruction, empiric-analytic para-
Canadian STS program goals, 52, 53 digmand,79
climate change, 194 Products
and famine in Africa, 155-156 Canadian modeJ, 50
need for scientific literacy, 22-23, 24 classroom materials, 66-69
science, 260 curriculum policy, 51-66
"science for all" goal, 76 student learning, 73-80
science funding, 125-126 teacher understanding, 69-73
scientific literacy, need for, 25, 29 need for scientific literacy, 22
304 Index

Professional development, standards-based ap- Religious institutions, employment of knowl-

proaches, 176 edge professionals, 243
Project 2061,81,176,178,185 Reports, evaluation strategies, 132
Project Perseus, 289 Research
Project Physics, 186 returns and impacts of investments in, 244
Project Symbiosis, 127-128 STS definitions, 239-240
Project Synthesis, 122-124, 141-142 Research & development, see also Reculturing
Property rights science
Endangered Species Act and, 96-99 in Canada, 49
and land management, 156 Canadian model, 50
Property rights, Endangered Species Act and, STS science textbook development, 66-69
96-99 STS sequence, 61-62
Property values, endangered species and, 102-103 knowledge professional postgraduate em-
Public interest groups, employment with, 243 ployment, 250
Public knowledge, defining and measuring, 24 loss of comparative advantage, 14-15
Public policy: see Policy, public professionalized scrutinizing of R&D, 268-271
technology-science boundary, 169-170
Radiative forcing, 202, 205 Researchers, 3
Rain forest, 153 Research in Science and Technological Educa-
Random sampling, 161 tion, 188
Reading skills and student achievement, 35-36 Review process, NSF funding, 283-285
ninth grade, 34, 35, 36 Risk analysis, 156-157; see also Trade-offs,
twelfth grade, 38, 39 risks, and regulations
Reasoning Risk Comparison, 157
Canadian STS policy, 64 Role of. Recycling in Integrated Solid Waste
Logical Reasoning in Science and Technol- Management to the Year 2000, 152
ogy (LoRST), 66-69 Role playing, 77
Reculturing science, 257-275 Roy two tree theory of science, 12, 13
careers
images of, 264-265 Sampling, concepts of, 161
vocation versus recruitment, 262-263 Saskatchewan study, 4, 65, 66-69
enterprise as system, 271 Scholarly research, STS definitions, 239-240
institutions, 266-267 School officials, Canadian curriculum policy
making changes, 259-262 stakeholders, 63
market fallacy, 262 School performance: see Student leaming
missions and dilemmas, 267-268 School-to-work transition, 3
new compact, 273-275 Science
new scientist, 265-266 basic science ~ applied science ~ technol-
professionalized scrutinizing of R&D, 268-271 ogy sequence, 11, 12, 13
Recycling, 151-152 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 177
References, environmental science textbooks, boundary with technology, 169-170
160-161 Canadian curriculum emphases, 54
Regulation, government: see Policy, public; culture of, 70, 124
Trade-offs, risks, and regulations methods and processes
Regulatory commissions, scientific decision need for student participation in, 154
making, 25 need for training in, 161
Reinforcement, teacher, 72-73 understanding, 25, 27, 28
Religion, predictors of scientific literacy nature of knowledge of, 12-14
at age 22, 41 reculturing, 257-275; see also Reculturing
ninth grade, 34, 35, 36 science
twelfth grade, 38, 39 role and limitations of, 148-149
Index 305

Science (cont.) Self evaluations. students. 132

scientific literacy: see Science literacy Seven dimensions of scientific literacy. 64-65
sequence of STS course structure. 62 Seventh grade
STS ~ technology ~ science strategy. 16- STS program evaluation. 124
17 twelfth grade achievement predictors. 38. 39
technology-focused curriculum. 16 Simulations. 77
Science and Engineering Indicators. 25-26 Singular discipline through STS content. 58.
Science and Technology Education (STE). 180 59-60
Science and Technology Studies. NSF. 280 Skepticism. 2
Science: A Way of Knowing. 60 Smithsonian Institution. 182
Science court. 25 Snow system of science. 57
Science education Social. Behavioral and Economic Research
K-12.175-180 (SBER). 278. 279
mislabeling. 10 Social content. sequence of STS course struc-
NSF STS programs. 288-289 ture.62
Science for All Americans. 176. 185 Social Education. 122. 180
Science for all concept. 76. 81 Social epistemology. 245
Science Insights. 147 Social factors. science funding. 125-126
Science literacy. see also Environmental educa- Social issues. see also specific issues
tion Canadian program content. 56-57
Canadian approaches: see Canada learners approaching science via. 13
civic: see Civic scientific literacy Socialization of teachers
new scientists. 265-266 and approach to problems. 124
seven dimensions of. 64-65 into discipline. 70
student understanding of global warming. Social movement. STS as. 239-240
197-199 Social perspectives. K-12 standards. 179
Science Olympics. 54-55 Social research. NSF support of. 287
SciencePlus (Holt). 69. 73. 145 Social Sciences Educational Consortium. 181-
SciencePlus Technology and Society. 69 182
Science stream. STS. 65-66 Social studies
Science Teacher 64. 159 environmental education capstone course.
Science-technology-science-environment 163
(STSE) approach. Canadian. 51 K-12. 171-172. 180-182
Science through Science. Technology and Soci- of science and technology. 280
ety Project. 172 Social Studies Development Center. 181
Science watchers and critics. 275 Societal Dimensions of Engineering. Science
Scientific inquiry and Technology Program (SDEST).
scientific literacy concepts. 25 277.279
understanding nature of. 27. 28 Society
Scientific meaning. 24 Benchmarks for Science Literacy. 177
Scientific validity of evidence. 161 impact of science and technology on. 25
Scientists interaction of science with. 57
reculturing science Society for the History of Technology. 182
images of. 264-265 Sociocultural contexts of technological devel-
missions and dilemmas. 267-268 opment.176
new scientist. 265-266 Sociological dimension. Snow system of sci-
vocation versus recruitment. 262-263 ence.57
stakeholders in Canadian curriculum policy. Sociology of science. 56. 57. 142
63 Soil erosion. 156
Secondary schools: see High school; K-12 edu- Solar energy systems (alternative). 150
cation; Middle schools Space. 142
306 Index

Specialists Subcultures. technology impact on. 170

content. 2 Superficialleaming. 74-76. 82
knowledge professionals. 235. 238 Supervisor training programs. 132
Sports utility vehicles. 109-110 Survey. high school students' environmental
S-STS paradigm. 14-15 knowledge. 143
Stakeholders Swedish National Board of Civic Information
Canadian STS curriculum policy. 52. 63. 66 study. 24
conservation. 104 Symbolic analyst. 234-235; see also Knowl-
curriculum reform. 83 edge professionals
STS programs. 2 System of science. Snow. 57
teacher support. 83
Standardized tests. 78-79 Teacher-proof curricula. 83
Standards Teachers
implementation of STS. 128-129 Canadian STS. 49. 50
K-12 curriculum. 178-180. 185-186 Saskatchewan study. 65
Standards-based approaches to curriculum. stakeholders. 63
176 classroom. 3. 5
State science curriculum frameworks. 129. 173 course development input, 186
Statistics. student needs. 161 education. evaluation of STS. 123. 131-
Stephens kangaroo rat. 101-102 132
Stigmatization. 25 national and regional STS conferences.
Strategic planning. 233-234. 238 172
Structural equation models. 31. 32. 34.43 at age 22. 41-42
Structure of science. Canadian curriculum em- ninth grade. 34. 35. 36. 37
phases. 54 practical knowledge. 72-73
STS content, ~1 socialization of. 70. 124
STS ~ technology ~ science strategy. 16-17 training. 70. 72
Student-centered approaches to teaching. 77 assessment and evaluation. 80
Student learning evaluation of STS programs. 132
Canadian program. 49. 50.58. 64, 77-80 Teaching and Learning about Science and Soci-
evaluation strategies. extant, 123. 132-134 ety.77
predictors of scientific literacy 22. 40. 41. 65 Teaching Science, Technology and Society. 77
test performance. 124-125. 133. 134 Teaching Science through a Science-Techno!-
intenational surveys. 157 ogy-Society-Environment Approach:
meta analysis. 136 An Instructional Guide, 77
Students Teaming, Project Symbiosis, 127-128
Canadian STS program Technical colleges and vocational education,
assessment. 77-80 127-128, 184
instruction. 76-77 Technocratic education. 244, 245
stakeholders. 63 Technological fluency, 171
elements for STS education. 173 Technological literacy
international survey of math and science. US defined, 185
students. 147 K-12.17I
problem selection by. 123-124 Technology
scientific literacy predictors. 37 basic science ~ applied science ~ technol-
at age 22. 41. 42 ogy sequence. 11, 12, 13
seven dimensions of. 65 Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 177
ninth grade. 35. 36. 37 boundary with science. 169-170
twelfth grade. 38. 39 course structure. 62
superficialleaming. 74-76. 82 definitions and ways of discussing. 168
STS program effectiveness. 124-125 interaction of science with. 57
Index 307

Technology (cont.) Trade-offs, risks, and regulations, 91-118

K-12 education, 182-186 air bags, 111-117
marginalization within K-12 STS environ- debates, 115-116
ment: see K-12 education efficacy, 113
nature of knowledge of, 12-14 legislative history, 112-113
program issues, 2, 3 mandating, 113-115
STS -+- technology -+- science strategy, 16- corporate average fuel economy standards,
17 104-111
Technology-based economy, need for scientific and auto safety, 108-110
literacy, 22 conclusion, 11 0-111
Technology-driven science, 19 and environment, 107-108
Technology Education (TE), 180 legislative history, 105-106
Technology for All Americans: A Rationale for and oil imports, 106
Technology Education, 185 Endangered Species Act, 94-104
Technology for All Americans Project, 180 conclusions, 103-104
Technology Teacher, The, 183, 184 cost, 101-103
Technology transfer methods, teacher training, efficacy, 99-10 I
72 key provisions and problems, 95-96
Tennessee Valley Authority vs. Hill, 91 property rights, 96-99
Test performance environmental issues, textbook treatment of,
international survey of math and science, US 158-159
students, 147 implications for STS education, 118
STS program effectiveness, 124-125 Training, teacher: see Teachers, training
Tests, 79-80 Translated curriculum, 49, 82
essay, 133 Transportation
meta analysis, 136 corporate average fuel economy standards,
student evaluation, 134 104-111
Textbooks electric vehicles, 150-151
Canadian, 49, 53-54 technology education, 183
SciencePlus series, 69 Trends and opportunities in science and tech-
STS science textbook development, 66- nology studies, 277-291
69 funding decisions, NSF, 283-287
CHEMCOM market share, 175-176 peer review, contributions of, 284-285
environmental education, evaluation of, 143- portfolio, 285-287
161; see also Environmental educa- future trends, 287-290
tion National Science Foundation, 278-279
need for expert reviews, 162 organizational culture of NSF, 281-283
Theory orientation, 278
pedagogical, teacher practical knowledge origins of STS, 279-281
versus, 70, 72-73 Turf,I26
STS curriculum development, 50 Two-dimensional structure for scientific under-
Theory-building response, 28 standing, 25
Theory into Practice, 63 Two tree theory of science, 12, 13
Think tanks, 232
Third International Mathematics and Science Ultraviolet radiation, 203, 219
Study (TIMSS), 147 Unanticipitated consequences of technology, 169
Three-dimensional model of scientific under- Undergraduate education, see also Colleges and
standing, 25 universities
Top-down decisionmakinglimplementation, Ca- knowledge professionals, 241-242
nadian, 62"'{)3, 73 reculturing science, 266, 267
Trade in endangered species, 95 technicalandvocationalprogams,127-128,184
308 Index

UNESCO Values (com.)

International Network for Information in STS approach, 12, 18
Science and Technology Education, teacher training issues, 13 1-132
113 technologyand,I70
Project 2000+,173 Views on Science-Technology-Society
United States government (VOSTS),79
Department of Defense, 232, 233, 267 Virginia Tech, 251, 252
Department of Energy, 232 Virginia Tech STS program, 247-248, 249
funding of science: see Reculturing science Visions /-lIl, 65
government-science-university compact, Vocabulary, scientific constructs, 25, 27, 28
261,269,270,271-272 Vocational education and community colleges,
returns and impacts of investments in re- 127-128, 184
search,244
regulation by: see Trade-offs, risks, and reg- Wales, comparative study of national science
ulations curriCUla, 83
Use of technology, technological literacy, 185 Waste management, 143, 151-152
Water, chlorination of,92
Validity of evidence, 161 Water pollution, 143, 151
Values Wildlife, 93, 94-104, 150
elements for STS education, 173 Wind-energy systems, 150
scientific literacy, 64 Work of Nations, The, 234
Snow system of science, 57 World Council on Technology Education
societal issues, 124 (WCOTE), 173
stakeholder, 66 Written reports, evaluation strategies, 132