What+do+we+mean+by+socio-scientific+issues?

This section is intended to support the discussion on the concept of socio-scientific issues.
Generally, I tell my students that 'socioscientific issues' are points of contention regarding potential problems for the wellbeing of individuals, societies and environments associated with fields of science and technology. My position is that, among the many reasons for disagreements about such potential problems, a dominant one pertains to individuals' and groups' conceptions and beliefs about relationships between self and others. Those adhering to 'possessive individualism,' for instance, disagree with those adhering to communitarianism on issues such as the right of companies to minimize the quality of its products in order to maximize its profits and/or the right of companies to externalize to others costs of production, consumption and disposal of for-profit goods and services. - Larry, 23 Sept. 2010.

I liked your start at a definition, Larry. It's one that does a more effective job than most definitions up to date. I'm thinking for example of how Brazilian recyclers from the favelas unionised to challenge the monopoly of Alcan. One of the problems however is that ssis become prominent often because of the media, or other communication systems, which represent interests of those who own them. So, things like nanotechnology and health, eg heart conditions, are big because they reflect either corporate and/or the interests who have greatest access to the media. Even having access to the internet and chat groups, such as this one, presuppose influence and cultural cachet. Sometimes those who are victims of misuse of science and tech such as Bhopal or dumping toxic waste in less wealthy countries, only get heard because of the power a nd ingenuity of some organisers. they get lucky in a perverse kind of way. But I would suggest many issues simply don't get heard or articulated, eg contraception for women in many suppressive communities. I would suggest that something like communication and resistance have some place in the definition. I'd like to push you a little on the distinction between possessive individualism and communitarianism. What distinguishes communitarianism irt ssi? That a group share values through public dialogue, say, can also be deeply suppressive of individuals, rather like the suppressive male-dominated communities I refer to above. Dialogue, sharing of values, doesn't necessarily confront capitalism and profit-seeking. On the contrary, some of the most successful companies which tread over the rights of others have shared values and openness among their members. Isn't it the case that in some cases individualism, or maybe a better term is a sense of self, might challenge deeply sectarian and misguided values which have a strong communitarian basis? And what about 'wellbeing'? Whose wellbeing? isn't this in itself a contentious term? Ralph, 29 Sept. 2010.

Larry: Thanks to you - and to Clare - for posting all those resources. Also I found your definition illuminating and helpful. But a few points. is there a problem re-the articulation of an ssi as a point of contention? Sometimes ssis don't get expressed as a contentioius points simply because those who suffer from the effects of S&T - or who have the potential to gain,(I'm thinking of women in some hegeminous male communities re-birth control, or people in impoverished societies who have toxic waste dumped on their doorstep; or simply those outside R&D communities) simply don't get access to a space to make their opinions or actions felt. So the fact that an issue is recognised as contentious already says something about power relations between the parties involved. the work of Elizabeth Ellsworth is worth looking at here. But the old Brit socialist Tom Paine is good on this. Secondly, that something is recognised as contentious by a range of actors/parties means that they can at least agree to disagree. The point is when there are no grounds for dialogue, eg when the disagreement is conceptually and politically riven - I'm thinking of the AIDS/HIV row in S. Africa - or when power refuses to speak those on the receiving end of the deleterious effects of a development. i didn't relaise this but the Gutaamalan govt has just received an apology from the U.S. govt whose scientists infected hundreds of Guatamalans with syphilis and gonorrhea in the 1950s [] reminder of Tuskegee. thirdly, I'd like to push on the communitarianism/individualism distinction. Is there a disconnection - the self becomes the self through the other, we recognise who we are through social interaction? And you imbue communitarianism with an anti-capitalist ideology. But isn't it more a form of organising? Some big capitalist ventures are communitarian organisationally, and all the more successful because of it. Also individuals can stand against injustice as individuals showing intense courage and fellow-feeling. Ralph, Oct. 2, 2010 This is interesting. I can edit the page from work so there is some problem with my laptop. I thought it might be worth positing a few more definitions of ssi in addition to Larry's and some of the responses I've given above. One comes from the Citizenship advisory committee in the UK. This is about controversial issues but can be applied to ssi. I've added ssi context in parentheses.

 about which there is no one fixed or universally held point of view. Such issues are those which commonly divide society and for which significant groups offer conflicting explanations and solutions.

This says nothing about the epistemic or the political nature of controversies or ssi.

An epistemic view comes from Dearden. An ssi is one in which ' contrary views can be held on it without these views being contrary to reason'.

This doesn't necessarily help in formulating decisions in understanding which might be better or more just reasons than others. It might, however, start deliberation on what constitutes good reasons. In technoscience, the views of the experts are deemed to be rational and puts those with more local or situated knowledge at a disadvantage. It also precludes 'emotion' or 'rage'. There might be good reasons for locating a chemical factory in Bhopal or for experimenting on people without any advantage to them, the powerless don't often have the resources of the more powerful to make their reasons acceptable.

There are, I think, different types of ssi rather than one single definition. But I'd like to throw another one into the ring suggested by Vivi Lachs who I worked with on a Genetics and Citizenship resource about five years ago. Here we looked at issues based on identifying **'Who gains, who loses?'** We did this 5 years ago but it looks like the website has now been taken down. I will try and find some way I can get this added as a resource but it included resources for developing discussions on genes for behaviour - consequences or rights?, political ideologies and the narrative of genetics, money and profit: the terminator gene game and Who owns your DNA? Ralph 13th October 2010

Some interewsting ideas here. I think one of the things that we are discussing here is that SSI are issues. However, one of the challenges is that it may not be an issue for everyone. For some groups they are not aware of the possible future concerns that they are their families might be faced with. I think much of this comes back to some of the ideas raised around access to information and this is linked to socio economic status.The interesting question for me is what role do educators have in formal edcuation contexts to challange this in their education programs and also how do we explore mechanisms to engage through informal education. Debbie Heck 2 Nov

Re your comment Debbie, yes, i n my mobile phone study the young people certainly had not thought safety an issue. But then there is still value in opening students’ thinking to more perspectives, provided of course there is some point of connection for them. I think our role relates to developing a critical scientific literacy. The Berkeley SEPUP project established 1987, still current, uses the term ‘issue-oriented science’. They see issues more broadly I think, as using evidence to make decisions, (including personal such as ”Shall I take this new medicine?”) though acknowledging different perspectives on any decision. Re articulation of SSI as a point of contention: 'Issue’ is defined (Oxford Concise, 5th edn) as ‘point in question between contending parties’ and as I think contention is what we are interested in, I am happy with ‘socioscientific issues’ as a term for this field of interest. But Ralph, as in your 2006 paper, do you see an advantage in ‘controversial socioscientific issues’? I like Larry’s broad definition (tho I would say ‘benefits and problems’) and the one from UK Citizenship Adv Comm. I think it best to avoid reference to ‘reason’ because of the dangers of the rational/emotional (ethical) dichotomy you refer to, Ralph. Wynne (2001) writes about how this dichotomy has been set up as a distinction in public discourse around risk, with the implication that the latter dimension is claimed to be absent from expert judgments on possible risks. I think this dichotomy is highly likely to be adopted by teachers in SSI discussions so better to avoid the term & develop a more complex framework from the start. I wonder perhaps if it would be useful to add that issues may relate to the social impact of science and technology or differences over the nature and content of the science such as perception of risk, or interpretation of empirical data and scientific theories (p. 1202, your 2006 paper, Ralph) One final point: Zeidler & Sadler (2008) see SSI as tending to have “implicit & explicit ethical components and require some degree of moral reasoning” which distinguishes them from other topics involving science. Thoughts re this??? Clare, November 6