In this article, they take up the debate regarding a paper published by Qvist & Brook on PLoSONE (May 2015), in which they encourage a large expansion of global nuclear power. The article approaches the topic from a variety of perspectives, drawing on a variety of sources, in order to highlight the complexity of the issue and the social, political and educational implications of presenting the nuclear option as a plain, linear, rational choice (What?). They develop a critique of conventional scientific research. They argue that for all scientific studies, they should specify clearly and correctly the boundaries of the system under consideration which in turn, will determine the range of experimental data being collected (What?). Results should be clearly separated from the conclusions which, in fact, are inevitably influenced by personal interpretations and collective assumptions, which often remain unchecked . Scientists and referees of scientific journals therefore have a great responsibility when dealing with complex and controversial issues, because their voices can influence both the public and policy makers alike.
By virtue of the idea, still deeply rooted in the Western world, that science describes reality, scientific evidence is deemed to speak truth to power. Consequently, a model of governance by numbers seeking to be informed by the promises of scientific certainty fails to recognize the areas of uncertainty, the multiple questions which yield opportunities for disclosing alternative assumptions and visions for sustainability. Drawing on the insights offered by feminist epistemologies, and the educational tools here derived, They point to a reformulation of the role of science education in growing democratic expertise that is, the ability of the public to unmask the value and worldviews underpinning the products of science by taking into account the wider socio-cultural and socio-material discourses in which such products are embedded. What???
Managed & Built by I2M Consulting, LLC | © 2010-
