Our+Paper

=This is where we discuss the paper arising from our ASERA and wiki experiences...=

I think the response to Blood Diamonds is really interesting. It presents a problem about pedagogy of ssi and more crucially a foundational question about the purpose of science education. The Blood Diamond scenario essentially asks the question: is there a problem with depredation of the environment at the expense of profits? A question like that can go many different ways; it will certainly involve some aspects of technoscience but it comes back to ideas of human flourishing and wellbeing. the point is that questions of a polotical nature are open, uncertain and can take us down unexpected roads. I'm not surprised that science teachers reacted as they do. But then what do we mean by ssi.  1. Do ssis start from curriculum science and look for some 'relevant' issues to which they can be applied? This can raise questions but can be safely controlled and directed (I don't mean this perjoratively)  2. Do ssis start from deep questions of social injustice which involve anger and dissent, as well as the possibilities of action, and does the technoscience follow in a form that may feel different to us?

For example, I know that the disaster at bhopal occurred because sites which manufacture toxic gases don't need the same regulation in poor countries as they do in wealthier ones. This is about the products of science but I can't think of school science/chemistry that would help to illuminate the problem and the consequences for asking questions about the nature of our society.

From Ralph: I was reading Troy sadler's edited book on SSI where Sadler draws a distinction between his view of SSI, in which participants as individuals make their own decisions, and the EE and sustainability education programme which actually advocates forms of desirable change. In fact it strikes me that is the problem with the predominant paradigm of ssi, it is individualistic and apolitical. If we have something called SSI then we have to problematise the Socio bit and say not only that society is more than an agglomeration of individuals but that the term itself encapsulates certain values. If society is seen as some kind of nebulous amoral entity then it's not surprising we're all finding it difficult to grasp what it's about. I also think that's why it's so difficult to enact Larry's projects in schools which have to be seen to be politically 'neutral' and conform to explicit and implicit govermnet directives which reduce knowledge to bite size exam answers. So, I feel our article should be about problematising the 'Socio' in SSI.