Socioscientific Issues and Multidisciplinarity in School Science Textbooks

Abstract

The inclusion of socioscientific issues (SSIs) in the science curriculum is a well-established trend internationally. Apart from claims about its innate value, one of the rationales for this approach is its potential for helping to counter declining interest and participation. SSIs involve the use of science and are of interest to society, also raising ethical and moral dilemmas. Introducing such problems presents a significant and usually cross-disciplinary challenge to curriculum developers and teachers. The aim of this paper is to examine how this challenge has been met when judged against contemporary views of the issues concerned. It first explores how SSIs have been interpreted in an important and innovative science course for students aged 14–16 in England, entitled Twenty First Century Science. This paper analyses the Twenty First Century Science textbooks, focusing in detail on two SSIs, reproductive genetic technology and climate change. For each of these issues, the key ideas present in the social science literature surrounding the problems are outlined. This review is then used as an analytical framework to examine how the issues are presented in the textbooks. It is argued in this paper that the perspectives the textbooks take on these issues largely do not include perspectives from social science disciplines. It goes on to suggest that the development of future SSI-based curricula needs to take account of these wider, often interdisciplinary, perspectives.

Keywords:

• Socioscientific issues
• Curriculum
• Textbooks
• Multidisciplinarity

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Introduction

A prominent issue in science education research is the declining interest and participation in the physical sciences amongst young people. In England this decline is noticeable in the choices students make in post-16 education, once science is no longer a compulsory subject to study. One approach that has been advocated as a move towards overturning this pattern is the inclusion of socioscientific issues (SSIs) in science lessons (see, for example, Zeidler, Sadler, Simmons, & Howes, 2005). In the relevant literature SSIs have been described as problems that ‘reflect developments in science and technology that are a prominent part of the contemporary socio-political landscape in industrialised countries’ (Levinson, 2006, p. 1201). Others have stated that this term has ‘come to represent a variety of social dilemmas with conceptual, procedural or technological associations with science’ (Sadler & Zeidler, 2005, p. 112). It is also frequently argued that such problems involve ethical and moral dimensions (Fowler, Zeidler, & Sadler, 2009; Lee & Witz, 2009; Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006). SSIs can therefore be seen as problems that involve the use of science and are of interest to society, which also raise ethical and moral dilemmas. Examples of such issues could include reproductive genetic technology, the safety of mobile phones and climate change.

A key feature of SSIs is their multidisciplinary nature. Several researchers have noted that there are commonly multiple disciplines involved in understanding these problems. Kolstø (2000) points out that teachers should emphasise ‘science as only one of several domains relevant to decision-making on socio-scientific issues’ (Kolstø, 2000, p. 650). Sadler (2011) too argues that solutions to SSIs

can be informed by scientific principles, theories, and data, but the solutions cannot be fully determined by scientific considerations. The issues and potential courses of action associated with the issues are influenced by a variety of social factors including politics, economics, and ethics. (Sadler, 2011, p. 4)

The multidisciplinary nature of SSIs is particularly emphasised by Chang Rundgren and Rundgren (2010) who have developed a framework entitled the ‘SEE-SEP model’. This SEE-SEP model was given this abbreviation to highlight the different disciplinary subjects that the authors feel are integral to SSIs: ‘sociology/culture (S), environment (E), economy (E), science (S), ethics/morality (E) and policy (P)’ (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010, p. 10). The inclusion of social science-based disciplines in this model reminds us that these are socioscientific issues and as such knowledge from these disciplines has a place in understanding them. Science is only one of numerous disciplines involved.

SSIs have been included in many carefully designed teaching interventions (see, for example, Albe, 2008; Sadler & Zeidler, 2004; Tomas, Ritchie, & Tones, 2011; Walker & Zeidler, 2007; Zohar & Nemet, 2002). They have also been included in science courses that receive a recognised qualification, such as the Dutch ANW (Public Understanding of Science) course (which in 1999 was compulsory for all 15–19-year-olds, see Eijkelhof & Kapteijn, 2000) and, in England, in specific post-16 (and non-compulsory) biology and chemistry courses (Hughes, 2000; Lewis & Scott, 2006). However, research has less often clearly articulated the significant challenge of placing these multidisciplinary issues into the single discipline of science. How can perspectives from disciplines beyond science be adequately addressed in science lessons in order to provide students with a proper understanding of these problems? Whilst there is literature that recognises the multidisciplinarity of SSIs, I have been unable to find examples of research in the context of school science teaching that includes a detailed examination of the social science perspectives involved.

I seek in this paper to begin to address this gap in the literature. Following a science curriculum reform in 2006 in England for students aged 14–16, SSIs were given a heightened presence in the science curriculum. While most schools follow a common curriculum in England, each school is able to choose a particular specification (syllabus) to teach in their school. One such specification, Twenty First Century Science, has a greater emphasis on SSIs. Twenty First Century Science is used here as a context to explore how the challenge of placing these multidisciplinary issues into the single discipline of science has been met. In approaching the treatment of SSIs within the course, it was decided to focus on the textbooks developed as part of the support materials. It has previously been suggested that teachers may rely more on textbooks when teaching outside of their own science specialism (Stern & Roseman, 2004) and when teaching new topics that have been introduced to the science curriculum (e.g. earth science, see King, 2001). Both of these instances are relevant in the context of this study as SSIs, arguably, are outside teachers’ own science specialism and have a greater emphasis in the revised curriculum.

This paper first details the methods employed in the research, including the size and identification of the two SSIs analysed (reproductive genetic technology and climate change). The analytical frameworks, based on the key ideas relating to these issues to be found in social science literature, are then outlined. Findings from this analysis show that the accounts given in the textbooks largely do not include perspectives from social science disciplines. Thoughts on how such a gap could be addressed within the science curriculum are then finally provided.

Methodology

This paper analyses the Twenty First Century Science textbooks (which represent an accessible written resource both teachers and students are familiar with) to explore how the multidisciplinary nature of SSIs is addressed. It samples the two most prominent SSIs (in terms of the number of pages allocated) identified in the textbooks. A review of the key ideas in the sociological and policy literature surrounding each topic was first conducted, forming the basis of the analytical framework. A comparison was then undertaken of how these issues were handled in these broader settings with that to be found in the textbooks.

The study focuses only on Twenty First Century Science as this specification is well known for its inclusion of SSIs (Reiss, 2009). Twenty First Century Science was developed and piloted as a distinctive course for students in England at the end of their compulsory schooling (aged 16). It was ‘designed explicitly to enhance students’ scientific literacy’ (Millar, 2006, p. 1500). SSIs feature strongly in the biology, chemistry and physics units which cover topics such as genetic testing, air pollution and nuclear waste. Knowledge of such topics is then assessed in summative examinations (whereupon successful completion students may receive a General Certificate of Secondary Education, commonly abbreviation to GCSE, qualification).

Although concentrating on the textbooks is a focused approach, it does mean that a limited amount of data is examined within only one course. Other supporting materials are also available as part of the Twenty First Century Science package, including schemes of work, lesson plans and teaching resources. These were excluded from the analysis as although they represent an important element of the written curriculum, the amount of data analysed needed to be limited so as to be manageable and within the scale of this project. Focusing the analysis on how SSIs are represented in the activities students are asked to undertake (such as those provided by Twenty First Century Science) would provide a more resource-based interpretation which may give a broader and slightly different perspective. Limiting this analysis to focusing only on the textbooks ensured sufficiently detailed data to provide an interpretation of how multidisciplinary SSIs have been addressed in this teaching resource.

The following textbooks were included in the initial identification of SSIs present: Burden, Grayson, Hall, and Large (2006), Campbell, Sang, and Millar (2006) and Hunt and Grayson (2006). These textbooks cover the entire 14–16 science curriculum for this particular specification and are each divided into seven units (or chapters). Every unit was then checked for the inclusion of SSIs. Issues were identified using the definition outlined at the beginning of this paper, which is provided again below for clarification:

Socioscientific issues involve the use of science and are of interest to society. They raise ethical and moral dilemmas. A key feature of these issues is their multidisciplinary nature and that there are commonly multiple disciplines involved in understanding these problems.

Numerous examples of SSIs were found in all three textbooks, with some given more emphasis (in terms of the number of pages allocated) than others. Table 1 provides a summary of the most prominent issues identified across the textbooks.

Table 1. Summary of the most prominent SSIs identified across the textbooks

Subject	Unit	SSI	Amount of space allocated
Biology	You and your genes	Reproductive genetic technology	12 pages	50% of unit
Physics	Radiation and life	Climate change and global warming	5 pages	21% of unit
Biology	Keeping healthy	Vaccines (flu and MMR)	4.5 pages	19% of unit
Biology	Biology across the ecosystem	DNA fingerprinting	4 pages	17% of unit
Chemistry	Air quality	Improving air quality	4 pages	17% of unit
Chemistry	Air quality	Air quality and affect on health	4 pages	17% of unit
Chemistry	Food matters	Intensive and organic farming	4 pages	17% of unit
Chemistry	Food matters	Food safety	4 pages	17% of unit
Physics	Radioactive materials	Nuclear and renewable energy	4 pages	17% of unit
Physics	Radiation and life	Safety of mobile phones	4 pages	17% of unit

As is evident in Table 1, reproductive genetic technology and climate change are the two most prominent SSIs across the textbooks. Both of these account for a considerable proportion of the respective units. These two issues were then selected for detailed analysis. Within the topic reproductive genetic technology, several developments are referred to but this paper focuses only on prenatal genetic testing (due to space limitations). Prenatal genetic testing accounts for just over a third of the pages (4.5) covering reproductive genetic technology, representing a significant amount.

A review of the key ideas in the academic and policy literature surrounding each topic was then conducted. This review concentrated on the literature within sociology and policy. Taking this focused approach ensured that the socio of socioscientific issues was centred on and that the review was within the scale of the project. In addition, the two SSIs at the core of this paper are inextricably linked to human social activity and societal structures. Arguments found within the sociology and policy literature will therefore be central to understanding these problems.

Analytical Frameworks

This section now describes the key elements in the two analytical frameworks used for each SSI sampled. In the case of reproductive genetic technology, the literature search focused on relevant policy initiatives and research within sociology, specifically the field of disability studies. Prenatal genetic testing (and other reproductive genetic technology) has implications for all in society, but for disabled people there are additional concerns. In discussions relating to such technology, disability would be a difficult issue to avoid as many of the people who have a genetic condition will be disabled. Issues of disability and our response to it are central to how this kind of technology is addressed. Much of the literature exploring the issue of reproductive genetic technology focuses on the significance of this technology, and the possible policies and practices it enables, for disabled people. A prominent theme in both academic and policy literature is the tension between what are known in the sociological literature, as the medical and social models of disability. These opposing models reflect two fundamentally different ways of thinking about disability. As many authors use these models as analytical tools in their research, it is first necessary to outline each of these.

The medical (or individual, as it can be otherwise known as) model of disability places the meaning of disability onto the individual, and that it is their own impairment that is preventing them from taking part in everyday activities (Thomas, 2002). The medical model presents disability as a personal tragedy or problem. This model has been criticised by many, including Oliver (1990) who argues that it ‘produces definitions of disability which are partial and limited and which fail to take into account wider aspects of disability’ (Oliver, 1990, p. 25).

The social model by contrast changes the definition of disability and proposes ‘that the inability of people with impairments to undertake social activities is a consequence of the erection of barriers by the non-disabled majority’ (Thomas, 2002, p. 38). Under this idea, an impairment might be that a person may be blind, deaf or have mental health problems, but this in itself does not necessarily lead to a disability. A person is disabled instead by society through various barriers that have been created, frequently resulting in discrimination (Oliver, 1990). Under this model, disability therefore becomes a social and political problem.

 Table 2 provides a summary of these two models, both of which are fundamental to the analytical framework used in relation to the SSI prenatal genetic testing.

Table 2. Key ideas in the medical and social models of disability

Medical model	Social model
Impairment defined as the condition an individual has (e.g. blindness and mental health conditions)	Impairment defined as the condition an individual has (e.g. blindness and mental health conditions)
Disability viewed as an individuals’ impairment prevents them from taking part in everyday activities	Disability viewed as barriers created by society prevent an individual from taking part in everyday activities
Disability is the consequences of having an impairment	Disability is the consequences of barriers in society
Disability viewed as a personal tragedy or problem	Disability viewed as a social and political problem

The review conducted of this literature highlighted several key ideas. One key idea was around the existence of the tests themselves. It has been argued that prenatal genetic tests can provide some reassurance to parents if they receive a result that is not positive for a genetic condition (Parens & Asch, 2000). However, others have taken the perspective that the presence of such tests may cause anxiety to parents as the expected outcome (from the medical profession) of a positive result is often abortion (Ettorre, 2000; Shakespeare, 1998).

This latter perspective draws on the social model of disability. Some feel that the existence of prenatal genetic tests is to reduce and prevent children being born who have an impairment (Disabled Peoples' International, 2000; McLean & Williamson, 2007). Shakespeare (1998) contends that ‘eugenic outcomes’ could develop as a result of these tests. Separating eugenics into ‘strong’ and ‘weak’, he defines the former as ‘population-level improvement by control of reproduction via state intervention’ and the latter as the promotion of ‘technologies of reproductive selection via non-coercive individual choices’. Strong eugenics, occurring particularly in Europe during the 1930s, is based on ideas of disabled people as financial burdens whose lives are of less worth. Weak eugenics is instead founded on the judgement that impairment involves suffering. Using this distinction, Shakespeare (1998) argues that weak eugenic practices are an outcome of prenatal genetic testing but that a recent shift to drawing on cost–benefit analysis within relevant UK policies¹ may mean a move towards strong eugenics (Shakespeare, 1998).

Another key idea was that prospective parents may feel pressurised into having an abortion after receiving a positive result from a genetic test. Ward (2002) in a review of the primary issues involved in this debate points out that often doctors and other medical professionals do not have experience of disability and genetic conditions and so advice that prospective parents receive in this situation may be medically orientated, providing an incomplete picture. Thus, decisions that prospective parents make may be based on certain stereotypes or myths which do not accurately take account of what disabled people experience (Disabled Peoples' International, 2000). It is argued by those critical of the medical model that it would be helpful to expectant parents if they received information about the social implications as well as the medical issues involved. Indeed, some parents feel these are more significant to know about as they may have more of an impact upon them (Shakespeare, 1998).

The literature further highlighted ideas of the ‘normal’ body that could be created through prenatal genetic tests. Ettorre (2000) reports on a research project conducted across several countries including the UK, Finland, Greece and the Netherlands. This project sought to obtain the accounts of experts on how prenatal genetic tests are used in the countries involved. In each country, ‘geneticists, clinicians, practitioners, lawyers and/or ethicists, policy-makers, public health officials and researchers’ were interviewed (Ettorre, 2000, p. 404). This research highlighted that prenatal genetic tests can give ideas of creating a ‘normal’ body, therefore reducing ‘bodily diversity’ (Ettorre, 2000). Using a social model perspective, this impacts directly on disabled people as it does nothing to overturn existing prejudices (a major disabling barrier) and instead reinforces them.

Ettorre (2000) further argues that prenatal genetic testing can result in prospective mothers desiring this technological development in the context of what she calls a ‘consumerist culture’. She suggests that whatever the outcome may be of a positive test, it is not a decision that a woman is completely free to make independently. This is due to a ‘discourse of shame’, something that Ettorre finds evidence of in her interviews, and the unequal society, that ‘devalues’ disability, in which these decisions take place (Ettorre, 2000). Women may feel pressured into deciding to abort a pregnancy, as if they go through with one after receiving a positive result for a genetic condition, they can become stigmatised by society and be apportioned blame.

Summarising the above review, research using a social model perspective has shown the following key ideas:

• the existence of prenatal genetic tests is problematic and has the potential for eugenic outcomes;

• the expected outcome (from the medical profession) of a positive result is often abortion;

• prenatal genetic tests can give ideas of creating a ‘normal’ body;

• there are concerning implications for women who, through a ‘discourse of shame’, are not completely free to make an independent decision on whether to have an abortion.

These key ideas, along with the medical and social models of disability, form the analytical framework used for prenatal genetic testing.

Turning to the analytical framework used for climate change, the literature search focused on policy relating to this issue and research within the area of sociology of the environment. A key idea found in this review was the numerous policy initiatives that have been implemented in an attempt to combat climate change. In the UK, these have become more central in policy since the political party New Labour brought the issue to the fore in its 1997 election campaign (Cass, 2007). Broadly speaking, the focus of such policies has been on reducing carbon emissions through the actions of individuals and businesses and through scientific and technological responses to the challenge of climate change (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2006).

A particular key idea that is widely drawn upon in discussions of climate change is Beck's thesis of the ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1992). Beck (1992) argues that, since the 1970s, we are now living in the ‘risk society’, having moved through ‘pre-industrial’ and ‘industrial’ society. According to Mythen (2004), who provides a useful introduction to Beck's work, the hazards experienced across these periods were different. In ‘pre-industrial’ society, hazards were ‘commonly attributed to external forces, such as gods, demons or nature’ (Mythen, 2004, p. 16). During the ‘industrial’ period, natural hazards were still experienced but ‘manufactured risks’ began to grow. In the ‘risk society’, ‘environmental risks’ are predominant. These risks ‘stem from industrial or techno-scientific activities and come to dominate social and cultural experience’. The transition into the risk society is marked by ‘manufactured risks’ becoming unmanageable and ‘environmental risks’ then developing, which ‘forces society to confront the harmful consequences of capitalist development’. Beck's use of the word capitalism refers to Western capitalism though, as Mythen (2004) notes, he is also critical of communist regimes that have done little to address environmental risks.

These environmental risks, which have roots in scientific and technological development, are one of Beck's primary concerns. He theorises that whereas science used to offer solutions to problems and create better living conditions, many issues science now deals with (including ‘environmental risks’) are those which have been produced by advances in this field (Beck, 1992). Beck's thesis can be related to climate change. One cause of human carbon emissions is the advancements made in science and technology (for example, the developments in transport). Scientific and technological research is now heavily invested in exploring climate change and modelling the Earth's climate to demonstrate risk. As Irwin (2001) questions ‘how would we be aware of such phenomena as global warming or acid rain without the intervention of scientists?’ (Irwin, 2001, p. 60). Policy solutions that focus on ‘fixing’ climate change and reducing carbon emissions through scientific and technological advancements add weight to Beck's thesis. Thus, climate change could be seen as an example which illustrates Beck's ideas.

The main tenet of Beck's thesis suggests that in a risk society, the political focus in (global) environmental issues (such as climate change) is ‘the distribution of the ‘costs’ and ‘risks’ of socio-economic development’ (Barry, 2007, p. 244). Beck recognises that risks are not equally distributed and that this distribution of risk is a recent phenomenon. In his own words ‘wealth accumulates at the top, risks at the bottom’ (Beck, 1992, p. 35). This idea of risk distribution is pertinent to climate change. Climate change is a global environmental issue but it is largely ‘advanced capitalist nations’, who possess greater political and economic power, that have disproportionately contributed towards the problem (Barry, 2007). Certain countries in the majority world, such as Bangladesh, will be dramatically affected by climate change if the sea level rises. In this example, the distribution of risk is unequal as countries (in the minority world) are not at risk of such dramatic consequences (e.g. the USA).

These global inequalities, discussion of which is a further key idea in the reviewed literature, are explored in greater detail by Dalby (2007) who uses the example of carbon emissions trading to illustrate the inequalities between the global North and South. Carbon emissions trading allows countries to emit a greater amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than their ‘allowance’ if they buy a permit from a country that has produced less (creating a ‘carbon economy', Thornes & Randalls, 2007). Dalby (2007) notes that in practice emissions trading begins to replicate colonialism and ‘imperial patterns’ of trading, ‘exporting products, people and convicts to colonies’ (p. 113). Examples are given in this paper of poorer Southern countries planting forests (which can have negative effects on their local communities) to offset carbon emissions produced by countries in the global North. Similarities can be drawn here to the distinction Demeritt (2001) makes between ‘luxury’ and ‘survival’ greenhouse gas emissions.

Such an analysis highlights the inequalities reinforced through the carbon emissions trading policy and the significance of a sociological perspective, another key idea found in the literature. Perspectives that reach beyond the discipline of science emphasise ‘the globalised processes of capitalist production’ as a cause of climate change (Barry, 2007, p. 248). Therefore, a focus only on scientific and technological solutions to climate change ignores the structures of capitalist economics that encourage human produced carbon emissions (Barry, 2007; Demeritt, 2001). A particular example of these structures is given by Bellamy Foster (2002) who argues that there is some division in America regarding reducing carbon emissions in transport. Some of the, what he terms, ‘capitalist class’ (but not all) are open to the idea of cars that consume fuel more efficiently or use alternative sources of fuel but overlook the development of public transport. Bellamy Foster (2002) feels that this is because developing public transport would alter the structure of production and reduce demand for cars, whereas modifying cars would allow the current (profitable) structure to continue. Capitalist ideology does not necessarily involve resistance to reducing carbon emissions but it will only do so in a way that fits the interests of production (Bellamy Foster, 2002).

Analysis of complex social structures can also provide a perspective on the reasons why some are sceptical of the existence of climate change. There is now a greater consensus amongst scientists and governments across the globe that the Earth's climate is changing through increased human activities that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Sceptics, however, still remain. Cass (2007) details how under the presidency of George W. Bush many groups in the USA took a sceptical stance of climate change. During this period they felt that climate change was a long-term threat that would not be viable to address economically.² Thus, free-market ideas and concern for the economy (social and economic forces) had a bearing upon their formulation of the climate change issue in addition to the scientific evidence available.

A final key idea found in the literature concerns the use of climate models and the construction of dangerous temperature limits the Earth could warm by. Scientific research into climate change makes use of ‘climate models’ to predict the changes and effects of CO₂ levels. Perspectives from different fields have challenged the use of such models, critiquing the idea that they take a sufficiently wide view of the issue. Demeritt (2001), for instance, provides a thorough critique of scientists’ use of climate models. He argues that these projections ‘have been driven by variations on business-as-usual emission scenarios that assume present emissions trends will continue more or less uninterrupted into the future’. His line of argument is that as a result of the exclusion of social and economic factors from climate change science a ‘misleading baseline mentality’ is promoted that

naturalizes the existing economic structures and cultural imperatives driving … [carbon] emissions and artificially constrains the range of conceivable alternative development paths to an open and indeterminate future. (p. 319)

Here, Demeritt (2001) highlights that the way a problem is formulated affects the range of possible solutions. In this context, climate models and climate change science provide only a partial understanding of global warming.

A similar stance is taken by Shaw (2010) who explores the construction of the ‘two degree dangerous limit’ identified in policy. This ‘two degree dangerous limit’ is supposedly a scientifically established limit by which it will be dangerous if the global temperature of the earth warms above this. Shaw (2010) draws on a range of data including interviews with 28 people from scientific research and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), email exchanges and newspaper articles. Through comparing discourse in the printed media and what climate scientists and NGO members said in interviews, Shaw (2010) finds that despite climate scientists stating that the two-degree limit has not been fully established scientifically, the media and NGO communities continued to legitimise this arbitrary figure. Thus, Shaw (2010) argues that the two-degree limit has been constructed as ‘an acceptable limit’ that climate change policy continues to draw upon and is a discourse that the media and NGOs continue to replicate.

Summarising the above review, research has signalled the following key ideas:

• policy initiatives that have been introduced to combat climate change have largely focused on reducing carbon emissions through the actions of individuals and businesses and through scientific and technological responses;

• Beck (1992) argues that we are currently in a ‘risk society’ and that whereas science used to offer solutions to problems and created better living conditions, it now deals with issues that have been produced by advances in this field;

• global inequalities exist within climate change as advanced capitalist nations have disproportionately contributed to carbon emissions;

• there are complex social structures surrounding the existence of and solutions to climate change, and analyses from various social science subjects as well as the hard sciences are needed in order to begin combating the issue;

• climate models provide only a partial understanding of global warming.

These key ideas form the analytical framework for the SSI climate change.

In the analysis of the two SSIs, each issue was initially read through to gain familiarity with the text. Each analytical framework outlined above was then used to compare these key ideas to the presentation of the issues in the textbooks. The sociology-based perspectives contained within the frameworks were used as an indication of how the multidisciplinary nature of SSIs is addressed in the textbooks. For example, the presence of social model perspectives in the reproductive genetic technology section would indicate the inclusion of disciplines beyond science.

Results

Reproductive Genetic Technology

Issues concerning recent developments in reproductive genetic technology occur in the first biology unit, entitled ‘You and Your Genes’. This unit includes coverage of topics such as prenatal genetic testing, genetic screening, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis and gene therapy. Prenatal genetic testing, the SSI focused on here, covers: cystic fibrosis and genetic inheritance; explaining the two different prenatal tests that can be done to test for cystic fibrosis; and the ethical decisions made surrounding prenatal genetic tests. This latter section concerning ethics is particularly brought to the fore.

Many of the questions raised in this section have direct implications for disabled people as the textbook makes references to specific impairments such as cystic fibrosis. Given the earlier discussion of the key ideas present in the social science literature, it is clear that the broader issues introduced in this unit have particular implications for disabled people that are different to or more exaggerated than those for non-disabled people. Additionally, the previous section of this paper also demonstrated the ubiquity of the social model in discussions around reproductive genetic technology. Social model perspectives are essential to these discussions and are not simply something else that might be said.

Prenatal genetic testing is introduced following an explanation of how cystic fibrosis is genetically inherited. This page (p. 16) is styled on a magazine problem page, entitled ‘Dear Doctor’. A letter from a prospective mother, Emma, explains that she has just received a positive result from a prenatal genetic test for cystic fibrosis. The letter ends with the question ‘did I do something wrong during my pregnancy?’ (p. 16). The response from the Doctor acknowledges that this must be a ‘difficult time’ and assures the mother that nothing she did throughout the pregnancy will have affected this, advising ‘so don't feel guilty’. The textbook then moves on to discuss facts about cystic fibrosis and how it is inherited genetically. Emma's feelings of guilt and worry that she has done something wrong during the pregnancy are addressed by the Doctor through the explanation of genetic inheritance. Her question ‘did I do something wrong during my pregnancy?’ is given a scientific response—‘No, because cystic fibrosis is genetically inherited’. A different response, using a social model perspective, would question the guilt implied. Drawing on Ettorre's work, it is evident that in a disabling society women become stigmatised and subjected to a ‘discourse of shame’ for having a disabled child (Ettorre, 2000).

A significant section is then devoted to the ethical decisions made surrounding prenatal genetic tests. This covers the actions people may take after having a prenatal genetic test and whether abortion is right or wrong. An example is given in the textbook of a fictional character (Elaine) who has received a positive result for cystic fibrosis from an amniocentesis. A caption accompanying a photo of a family on page 20 explains from the viewpoint of Elaine how she acted on receiving this result:

Sadly we felt we had to terminate the first one, because the foetus had CF [cystic fibrosis]. We are lucky enough now to have two healthy children—and we know we haven't got to watch them suffer. (Burden et al., 2006, p. 20)

In this statement, Elaine explains that she aborted the foetus with cystic fibrosis because she would have had to watch the child ‘suffer’ due to the condition. The two ‘healthy’ children the couple now have will not have to suffer (because they do not have cystic fibrosis). This perspective again clearly derives from the medical model of disability (viewing disability as a personal tragedy), though this specific example is context-dependent. Cystic fibrosis is a significant condition that is currently life-limiting. Elaine's concerns about ‘suffering’ in this particular context are therefore understandable. However, Edwards and Boxall (2010), in a paper that focuses on the barriers to employment for adults with cystic fibrosis, emphasise that research related to this condition more frequently views it as an illness rather than an impairment. The authors argue that such an approach means that ‘the social problems encountered by adults with CF are viewed purely as a consequence of the CF itself’ (Edwards & Boxall, 2010, p. 443). In their research, Edwards and Boxall (2010) take a social model approach focusing on understanding adults’ experiences of cystic fibrosis and barriers relating to employment, whilst still acknowledging an ‘impairment effect’.

Considering this when returning to the extract above from the textbook, some more general points can be made relating to perspectives on disability. In the literature previously outlined, Elaine's statement, when generalised to disability, is based on Shakespeare's (1998) definition of weak eugenics (that impairment involves suffering). A social model perspective here would critique this reasoning, questioning the narrow medically orientated advice received from medical professionals (Ward, 2002) and the stereotypes of disability a resulting decision may be based on (Disabled Peoples' International, 2000).

Similar situations are discussed on the following page which presents three cartoon couples who are voicing different opinions as to whether they should have a prenatal genetic test (p. 21). One of these sets of couples state that ‘It's wrong to have a termination, we'll look after our baby whatever’ to which the other person replies ‘So there's no point in having the amniocentesis, is there?’ (p. 21). A caption attached to a picture on the same page states that: ‘Jo has a serious genetic disorder. Her parents believe that termination is wrong. They decided not to have more children, rather than use information from an amniocentesis test’ (Burden et al., 2006, p. 21). Both of the couples in each extract presented here do not agree with abortion. One couple decides not to have the prenatal test and the other decides not to have any more children ‘rather than use information from an amniocentesis test’. Both, therefore, are linking having the test with abortion as the only outcome on receipt of a positive result. The reason these couples decide not to have the prenatal genetic test (or not to have children) is because they do not agree with abortion. It is not because they have a neutral opinion towards having a disabled child, although the latter part of the comment from the cartoon couple ‘we'll look after our baby whatever’ perhaps begins to suggest this. Whilst some people may prioritise the abortion question over disability issues, this different perspective is absent from the textbook. Shakespeare (1998) takes a stance on this issue that ‘accepts women's right to choose, but which opposes social and cultural pressures for selective termination of disabled people’ (Shakespeare, 1998, p. 666). These ‘social and cultural pressures’, which are entrenched in society through medical model perspectives, could have been discussed at this point.

The main body of the text on the same page comments on Elaine's (and her partner Peter's) position:

A couple in Elaine and Peter's position who felt that termination was wrong might decide not to have children at all. This would mean that they could not pass on the faulty allele. Or they could decide to have children, and to care for any child that did inherit the disease. (p. 21)

This extract summarises the positions of the two couples described above (the cartoon couple and the parents in the picture with attached caption). Over these two pages (pp. 20–21), the textbook thus establishes that people have differing opinions on abortion and this then affects whether they have a prenatal genetic test or have children at all. Drawing on the previous discussion of the relevant literature, researchers taking social model perspectives have commented that the reality and expectation (from the medical profession) of a positive result is often abortion (Ettorre, 2000; Shakespeare, 1998). The examples given in the textbook reinforce this position rather than critiquing it. In the above extract a further option is given: ‘they could decide to have children, and to care for any child that did inherit the disease’ (p. 21). This could have been an opportunity to discuss the social and economic implications of raising a disabled child and the disabling barriers present in society (Shakespeare, 1998).

Following this section, a brief paragraph touches upon the reliability of prenatal genetic tests. The text states here that ‘genetic tests can be used to make a decision about whether a pregnancy should be continued or not’ (p. 22). An explanation is then given of the reliability of such tests, discussing the probability of a false negative and a false positive outcome. A key aspect of this issue that the literature presented earlier emphasised is that some feel that the existence of these tests is to reduce the number of disabled children born (Disabled Peoples' International, 2000; McLean & Williamson, 2007) and that ‘eugenic outcomes’ can be developed as a result of these tests (Shakespeare, 1998). This argument is not discussed in the textbook.

Overall, in this section, I suggest that the treatment of the key social and ethical themes to be found in the literature relating to the question of prenatal genetic testing is impoverished in the textbook. The presentation of this SSI does largely not reflect the key domains of policy and sociological analysis addressed in the academic and other literature concerning the issue.

The discussion now turns to the issue of climate change, a SSI with prominence in the physics textbook. In parallel to the previous section on prenatal genetic testing an overview is given of how the issue is presented in the textbook, considering the key ideas in the analytical framework.

Climate Change

Climate change is covered in the second physics unit, Radiation and Life. This section in the textbook, having previously explained the greenhouse effect, details the human activities that release carbon and discusses climate modelling. It then moves on to explore the possible effects climate change could have on people and what action can be taken (Campbell et al., 2006, pp. 57–61).

The stance is taken in the textbook that anthropogenic climate change is happening and a means of combating this can be found in reducing carbon emissions. The textbook explains that human activities release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels and that human agricultural practices also contribute to global warming through the production of methane. One can illustrate the narrowness of this perspective by recalling the distinction Demeritt (2001) makes between ‘luxury’ greenhouse gas emissions and ‘survival’ greenhouse gas emissions. Demeritt (2001) argues that these are both treated in a similar way in scientific and policy literature as both ‘are analyzed in the same abstract and universal scientific terms’ (p. 313).

The textbook then moves on to provide an explanation of climate modelling (p. 58). The text here explains that:

The atmosphere and oceans control climates. Climate scientists use computer models to predict the effects of increasing CO₂ levels. What these models show is alarming. (p. 58)

This is then followed by a list of results from the climate models. The textbook does not explain the conjectural nature of these models. It was previously seen in the literature reviewed that the use of climate models has been challenged by Demeritt (2001), who points out that these climate models have a ‘misleading baseline mentality’ and exclude social and economic factors. Such ideas are not included in the textbook.

A short paragraph, which acknowledges that some ‘global warming sceptics’ used to dispute the idea of anthropogenic climate change, is allocated a small amount of space at the bottom of page 59:

During the 1980s and 90s, scientists argued a lot about what is happening to climates. Now even the sceptics accept global warming, and the fact that human activities contribute to it. But the sceptics still argue that temperatures will only increase by about 1.4°C. They say that global warming is harmless. (p. 59)

The previous discussion of relevant literature also drew attention to sceptics but it placed emphasis on the social and economic structures which impacted on such decisions in addition to the scientific evidence available (Cass, 2007). These structures are not considered in the textbook. The latter sentences of the extract above move on to state that sceptics ‘argue that temperatures will only increase by about 1.4°C’. Shaw's (2010) discussion of the construction of the supposedly scientifically established (by climate models) ‘two degree dangerous limit’ can be recalled here. Though the textbook introduces the idea that there is disagreement over the increase in temperature, it could have extended this discussion using the examples given by Shaw (2010) (that the limit of two-degree warming is an arbitrary figure legitimised by the media and NGO communities).

Page 60 then begins to introduce the idea that Northern ‘developed’ countries are primarily responsible for climate change through their disproportionate share of carbon emissions. The textbook states that

The world's poorest countries will be least able to deal with the effects of climate change, so their people are most vulnerable. Even people in developed countries could be badly affected. (p. 60)

A graph is then included which illustrates that developed countries produce the most tonnes of carbon each year, with North America standing much higher than any other region. A note to the side of the graph draws attention to this particular point:

Europe and North America have just one-fifth of the world's population. But they account for more than 60% of carbon emissions. (p. 60)

This is an important fact to highlight from the graph as it is not immediately obvious. The textbook touches here on the issue of global inequality and the wider mechanisms and understandings that are available relating to climate change. The previous section of this paper cited the analysis conducted by Dalby (2007) which explored the inequalities between the global North and South. Such ideas are, to an extent, utilised at this point in the textbook.

Following this, the textbook then puts forward solutions that could contribute towards reducing carbon emissions (thus combating climate change). These suggestions involve changes in the behaviour of individuals, government regulation and scientific and technological development. The idea that individual behaviour should change in order to combat climate change is evident in the extracts below:

To reach those ambitious targets people's expectations and behaviour need to change. (p. 60)

What can you do? Perhaps you will take action yourself, now and in the future. You could: turn the heating down; use a car less; have fewer holidays involving air travel; use electricity from non-fossil energy sources. (p. 61)

These ideas in the textbook that ‘people's expectations and behaviour need to change’ along with the list of actions individuals could take, do not include ideas from disciplines beyond science. The sociological literature drawn upon earlier emphasises the importance of recognising social and economic structures in the development of potential climate change solutions. A focus on capitalism (and also communist regimes such as China) and how this contributes to human produced carbon emissions (Barry, 2007; Beck, 1992; Demeritt, 2001) could have been included here.

A short discussion is also included on the role the government can take:

The government can spend tax money in different ways. It can introduce new taxes, laws and regulations. But democratic governments are sensitive to public opinion, because they face election every few years. They find it difficult to do what's best for the long term. (p. 61)

This extract begins to recognise a social structure (the short-term nature of democratic governments) that affects possible solutions to climate change.

Scientific and technological solutions are put forward on page 61. A section on this page is designed to look like an ‘extract from a popular science magazine’ and is entitled ‘Science to the Rescue’ (p. 61). Here, three different methods that could be used to reduce carbon emissions are suggested, each being scientific and/or technological solutions. It is not necessarily suggested in the textbook that scientific solutions are the definitive answer to the climate change problem as a question posed in the box at the bottom of page 61 invites argument against this:

Do you think people should rely on technical solutions, like those suggested in the magazine? (p. 61)

Nonetheless, this ‘Science to the Rescue’ section is quite prominent and in the context of a science textbook (and given the ideas outlined above), this could be interpreted by the reader as ‘science can fix this’.

Conclusion

The various perspectives from academic and policy literature outlined for each of the issues discussed here suggest a quite different and more diverse understanding of the issues to that presented in the textbooks. The biology textbook (Burden et al., 2006) presents the recent developments in reproductive genetic technology overwhelmingly from a medical model perspective of disability. Social model perspectives, which view disability as a social and political issue, are not included. Analysis of the genetic screening topic, not reported here, demonstrates similar findings, although a very brief viewpoint in this section of the textbook expresses a neutral (as opposed to negative) opinion to having an ‘ill child’. Given that social model perspectives are absent in the rest of this unit and medical model perspectives dominate, this short neutral opinion is not enough to argue that social model ideas are present. Throughout the reproductive genetic technology section, the textbook portrays cystic fibrosis (the main genetic disorder it focuses upon) as an illness as opposed to an impairment. Such views of cystic fibrosis are relatively common and perhaps indicate why ‘medical model approaches to understanding and explaining their experiences prevail’ (Edwards & Boxall, 2010, p. 444). However, as was illustrated earlier in this paper, the social model is ubiquitous in discussions of these issues. Social model perspectives are essential to the arguments surrounding reproductive genetic technology and central to any serious understanding of the issue.

The climate change issue presented in the physics textbook (Campbell et al., 2006) follows this pattern too but less so. The broad overview provided in this paper of the social science-based literature showed concern for social and economic forces which can inhibit the reduction of carbon emissions (Bellamy Foster, 2002) and be the motivation behind sceptical views of climate change (Cass, 2007). A further key idea found in the literature was the ‘risk society’ (which, according to Beck, we live in today) and the change in the role of scientific and technological development from one of offering solutions to contributing to the problems and managing the risks (Beck, 1992). The textbook however limits the solutions towards combating climate change to a change in individual behaviour and to scientific and technological development. Larger social and economic structures receive little recognition here which then limits the solutions put forward to young people.

Attention is now turned to the representativeness of these findings. As previously stated, I have completed a full analysis on the genetic screening section (pp. 22–25 of the biology textbook) which yielded very similar results in terms of the narrowness of ideas presented and the absence of attention to wider sociological and political perspectives (Morris, 2012). Some preliminary analysis was also carried out into the chemistry topic improving air quality (pp. 30–33 of the chemistry textbook). Parallels can be drawn here to the previous discussion on climate change. The chemistry textbook cites specific examples of how advances in technology can improve air quality, including the use of catalytic converters in vehicles. The introduction of catalytic converters in vehicles reduces the levels of the air pollutants carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxide but converts these into carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Carbon dioxide then of course contributes to climate change. Revisiting the ideas of Beck's ‘risk society’ (Beck, 1992), catalytic converters can be seen as a scientific and technological development that sought to offer a solution but that has created further risk through the CO₂ emissions. In short, it is an example of an issue that science has to deal with that exists because of advances in the field.

The chemistry textbook could have examined here the structures and policies in society that cause people to use cars to such an extent (which draw on similar arguments to those presented in the section on climate change). Bellamy Foster (2002) takes the stance that this is because ‘the drive to accumulate capital pushed the advanced capitalist countries down the road of maximum dependence on the automobile, as the most efficient way of generating profits’ (p. 98). The relevance of policies on such issues as public transport, for example, is a central but neglected part of the issue.

Though the above analysis of the SSI improving air quality is briefer than the previous two examples, similar patterns in the way the issue is presented begin to emerge. Key ideas found in sociological literature on this issue (such as Beck, 1992; Bellamy Foster, 2002) are largely not presented in the textbook. Thus, the findings from the analysis of the two most prominent SSIs across the textbooks also begin to emerge in an initial analysis of another SSI. This suggests that the examples of reproductive genetic technology and climate change are not atypical.

Discussion

The definition of SSIs in this paper recognises that such topics are multidisciplinary. The specification for Twenty First Century Science also recognises this idea:

The application of scientific knowledge, in new technologies, materials and devices, greatly enhances our lives, but can also have unintended and undesirable side-effects. An application of science may have social, economic and political implications, and perhaps also ethical ones. Personal and social decisions require an understanding of the science involved, but also involve knowledge and values beyond science. (OCR, 2007, p. 85)

This extract clearly acknowledges that SSIs involve multiple perspectives (the ‘knowledge and values beyond science’) and that they have ‘social, economic and political implications’. In addition, the relevant academic literature cited earlier emphasises that such problems have multiple perspectives beyond those associated with science (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010; Kolstø, 2000; Sadler, 2011). Despite this acknowledgement, the analysis here shows a distinct gap between the perspectives of social science disciplines on these issues and the perspectives taken in the textbooks. The conceptualisation of SSIs as multidisciplinary is not fully realised in the interpretation of these issues in the textbooks as social science perspectives are largely excluded. The findings here reinforce the work of those that emphasise multidisciplinarity in SSIs by demonstrating both its necessity and its absence within these textbooks.

The research presented in this paper, though focused on a specific set of textbooks, problematises the placement of SSIs more generally within the science curriculum. Readers could use these findings to support an argument to exclude such issues from science lessons. However, they could also be used in the development of future SSI-based curricula as a framework to identify and pursue the other knowledge domains. Consideration is now given here as to how some of these ‘placement’ problems might be addressed, assuming that including SSIs is a desired approach to science education.

One route might be through the development of further teaching resources. The textbooks could be altered to include social science perspectives on the various SSIs. However, this approach may not be viable. In addition to their role as a teaching resource, textbooks must, in many countries, be marketable. In England, exam boards compete to sell schools a package of materials: would science textbooks that included such sociological perspectives be marketable? A major study focusing on the enactment and impact of the 2006 science curriculum reform in England has shown empirically that teachers held diverse responses (Ryder & Banner, 2013). These responses suggest that the Twenty First Century Science textbooks, with their current interpretation of SSIs, do not appeal to all science educators. It could therefore be assumed that introducing social science-based perspectives into the textbooks will generate similarly diverse responses and may not be commercially viable.

However, if the social science-based perspectives on SSIs are not included in the textbooks, students are potentially provided with only a partial and limited understanding of these problems. Alternative outputs exist though other than the textbooks. Free teaching resources made available on the Internet (such as the linked Physics and Ethics Education Project³ and Biology and Ethics Education Project⁴) could be a way of providing resources that contain these perspectives without being subject to market forces.

The development of the assessment of these topics alongside teaching resources also needs consideration. Several authors have been concerned with the assessment of the nature of science, especially highlighting the importance of including items concerning this area in summative assessments to ensure that they are taught in classrooms (see, for example, Lederman, Wade, & Bell, 1998; Ryder, 2009). Though such ideas relate specifically to the nature of science and this is not the same as SSIs, there are some overlaps between the two. The points made by examples of such research regarding assessment can therefore be usefully applied to the context of SSIs. Following this argument, any change to SSI teaching resources that reflected perspectives from social science disciplines would therefore need to be included in assessment to strengthen their status in classrooms. It is further pointed out by Ryder (2009) though that ‘instruments addressing ideas about the nature of science have been developed mainly for research purposes rather than for use in the classroom’ (p. 294). Hence, he argues for these instruments to be developed for the ‘formal examination and accreditation of students’ (p. 294).

A final point to consider is students’ own construction of school science. The research reported here is part of a PhD study that explored girls’ responses to the teaching of SSIs (Morris, 2012). An analysis of 15 focus groups involving over 60 girls from one school was also conducted. This showed that these girls constructed school science as involving learning new facts and carrying out practical experiments. The SSIs were considered by some to be not ‘proper’ science, an idea which emerged both as a positive and a negative. This construction needs to be challenged to legitimise the inclusion of these issues within science and to allow for the inclusion of perspectives from social science disciplines. Those seeking to develop SSI-based teaching need to be aware of this perception of school science. Providing a programme that is different to this can affect some girls’ enjoyment of the lesson.

Further work is therefore needed in the development of teaching resources and assessment, whilst considering students’ perceptions of school science, if social science perspectives on these problems are to be successfully included. The challenge articulated at the beginning of this paper, of placing multidisciplinary issues into the single discipline of science, thus continues.

Notes

1. See, for example, Department of Health (2003, p. 12) and the guidance provided in The green book (HM Treasury, 2003) to help the UK Central Government evaluate the effectiveness of a range of policies and programmes.

2. This debate is still continuing in USA as New Scientist magazine recently reported a Republican presidential candidate querying anthropogenic climate change (Grossman, 2011).

3. www.peep.ac.uk.

4. www.beep.ac.uk.