Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T05:43:59.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rethinking the Conceptual Space for Science in Society after the VFI

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2023

T. Y. Branch*
Affiliation:
University of Cologne, Koeln, Germany
Heather Douglas
Affiliation:
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
*
Corresponding author: T. Y. Branch; Email: contact@tybranch.com

Abstract

Replacing the value-free ideal (VFI) for science requires attention to the broader understanding of how science in society should function. In public spaces, science needed to project the VFI in norms for science advising, science education, and science communication. This resulted in the independent science advisor model and a focus on science literacy for science education and communication. Attending to these broader implications of the VFI that structure science and society relationships is crucial if we are to properly replace the VFI with a better ideal.

Type
Symposia Paper
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad. 2005. “Developing Deeper Understandings of Nature of Science: The Impact of a Philosophy of Science Course on Preservice Science Teachers? Views and Instructional Planning.” International Journal of Science Education 27 (1):1542. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690410001673810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad. 2006. “Over and Over and Over Again: College Students’ Views of Nature of Science.” In Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science; Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education, edited by Lawrence, B. Flick and Norman, G. Lederman, 389425. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_18 Google Scholar
Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad. 2014. “The Evolving Landscape Related to Assessment of Nature of Science.” In Handbook of Research on Science Education, Volume II, edited by Norman, G. Lederman and Sandra, K. Abell, 621–50. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097267-36 Google Scholar
Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad, and Lederman, Norman G.. 2000. “Improving Science Teachers Conceptions of the Nature of Science: A Critical Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Science Education 22 (7):665701. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690050044044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad, Bell, Randy L., and Lederman, Norman G.. 1998. “The Nature of Science and Instructional Practice: Making the Unnatural Natural.” Science Education 82 (4):417–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199807)82:4<417::AID-SCE1>3.0.CO;2-E 3.0.CO;2-E>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allchin, Douglas. 2017. “Beyond the Consensus View: Whole Science.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 17 (1):1826. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271921 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alters, Brian J. 1997. “Whose Nature of Science?Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (1):3955. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199701)34:1<39::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-P 3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Martin W. 2008. “Survey Research and the Public Understanding of Science.” In Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology, edited by Bucchi, Massimiano and Trench, Brian, 111–30. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203928240-14 Google Scholar
Bauer, Martin W. 2016. “Results of the Essay Competition on the Deficit Concept.” Public Understanding of Science 25 (4):398–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516640650 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, Randy L. 2006. “Perusing Pandora’s Box: Exploring the What, When, and How of Nature of Science Instruction.” In Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science; Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education, edited by Lawrence, B. Flick and Norman, G. Lederman, 427–46. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_1 Google Scholar
Branch-Smith, Teresa Yolande. 2019. “Contextualizing Science for Value-Conscious Communication.” PhD diss., University of Waterloo. http://hdl.handle.net/10012/14801 Google Scholar
Broks, Peter. 2014. “Science Communication: A History and Review.” In All about Science: Philosophy, History, Sociology and Communication 34 (1):307–29. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814472937_0014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, Terry W., John O’Connor, D., and Stocklmayer, Sue M.. 2003. “Science Communication: A Contemporary Definition.” Public Understanding of Science 12 (2):183202. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625030122004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claxton, Guy L. 1997. “Science of the Times: A 20-20 Vision of Education.” In Science Today: Problem or Crisis?, edited by Levinson, Jeff and Thomas, Ralph, 7186. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cobern, William W., and Loving, Cathleen C.. 2001. “Defining ‘Science’ in a Multicultural World: Implications for Science Education.” Science Education 85 (1):5067. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200101)85:1<50::AID-SCE5>3.0.CO;2-G 3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on Education and Labor. 1958. “The National Defense Education Act (NDEA).” In Bills and Resolutions Originating in the House (1789–1974). 85th Congress (1957–1959).Google Scholar
Dickson, David. 2005. “The Case for a ‘Deficit Model’ of Science Communication.” SciDev.net, 24/06/05. https://www.scidev.net/global/editorials/the-case-for-a-deficit-model-of-science-communic/ Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2014. “Pure Science and the Problem of Progress.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A (46):5563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.02.001 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douglas, Heather. 2021a. “The Rightful Place of Science: Science, Values, and Democracy.” The 2016 Descartes Lectures. Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. Tempe, AZ and Washington, DC: Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2021b. “Scientific Freedom and Social Responsibility.” In Science, Freedom, Democracy, edited by Hartl, Péter and Tuboly, Ádám Tamas, 6887. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367823436-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather. 2021c. “The Role of Scientific Expertise in Democracy.” In The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology, edited by Hannon, Michael and de Ridder, Jeroen, 435–45. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429326769-52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather, and Branch, T. Y.. Under Review. “The Social Contract for Science and the Value-Free Ideal.”Google Scholar
Duschl, Richard A., and Grandy, Richard. 2013. “Two Views about Explicitly Teaching Nature of Science.” Science and Education 22 (9):2109–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flick, Lawrence B., and Lederman, Norman G.. 2004. Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science: Implications for Teaching, Learning, and Teacher Education Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G. 1994. “The Roles of Rhetoric in the Public Understanding of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 3 (1):323. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/3/1/001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, Donald A. 2011. “The Eradication of Smallpox: An Overview of the Past, Present, and Future.” Vaccine 29 (S4):D7D9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.06.080 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodson, Derek, and Ling Wong, Siu. 2017. “Going beyond the Consensus View: Broadening and Enriching the Scope of NOS-Oriented Curricula.” Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education 17 (1):317. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2016.1271919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Wilholt, Torsten. 2022. “The New Demarcation Problem.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91 (1):211–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2021.11.01 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimball, Mekritt E. 1967. “Understanding the Nature of Science: A Comparison of Scientists and Science Teachers.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 5 (2):110–20. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/tea.3660050204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klopfer, Leopold E. 1969. “The Teaching of Science and the History of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 6 (1):8795. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.366006011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lederman, Norman G. 2006. “Syntax of Nature of Science within Inquiry and Science Instruction.” In Scientific Inquiry and Nature of Science (ix–xviii), edited by Lawrence, B. Flick and Norman, G. Lederman, 25: 301–17. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5814-1_14.Google Scholar
Lederman, Norman G., Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad, Bell, Randy L., and Schwartz, Renée S.. 2002. “Views of Nature of Science Questionnaire: Toward Valid and Meaningful Assessment of Learners’ Conceptions of Nature of Science.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 39 (6):497521. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewenstein, Bruce V. 1992. “The Meaning of Public Understanding of Science in the United States after World War II.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (1):4568. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/1/009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Miller, Jon D. 1983. “Scientific Literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review.” Daedalus 11 (2):2948.Google Scholar
Nisbet, Matthew C., and Scheufele, Dietram A. 2009. “What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions.” American Journal of Botany 96 (10):1767–78. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, Don K. 1965. The Scientific Estate. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sarewitz, Daniel. 2016. “Saving Science.” The New Atlantis 49 (Spring/Summer):440. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science Google Scholar
Scheufele, Dietram A. 2000. “Agenda-Setting, Priming, and Framing Revisited: Another Look at Cognitive Effects of Political Communication.” Mass Communication and Society 3 (2–3):297316. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude E., and Weaver, Warren. 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Simis, Molly J., Madden, Haley, Cacciatore, Michael A., and Yeo, Sara K.. 2016. “The Lure of Rationality: Why does the Deficit Model Persist in Science Communication?Public Understanding of Science 25 (4):400–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturgis, Patrick, and Allum, Nick. 2004. “Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes.” Public Understanding of Science 13 (1):5574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662504042690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Withey, Stephen B. 1959. “Public Opinion about Science and Scientists.” Public Opinion Quarterly 23 (3):382–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Robert C. 1964. “Scientists and Politics: The Rise of the Apolitical Elite.” In Scientists and National Policymaking, edited by Gilpin, Robert and Wright, Christopher, 4172. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar