Science and Technology
and High School Education
by Gregor Wolbring

June 30, 2006

My first column Synthetic Biology 2.0 reflected on the ever-increasing speed of change in the science and technology fields, products, and knowledge. This has numerous consequences, especially for areas and activities which are slow to adapt and embrace change. One which comes readily to mind is the field of law, which changes so slowly that it seems to be unable to deal in a timely fashion with many of the issues put forward by new and emerging science and technology.

I will deal with that in a later column. I want to focus here on the field of education -- in particular high school education -- an area which is rarely in the limelight with respect to science and technology advances.

The field of education is -- and increasingly will be -- impacted by these advances, in three fairly different ways. We have the internet, webcasting, podcasting, the webcamera conferencing capabilities of a computer in one's home, and other ICT advances to come. Research is being performed into brain machine interfaces, the artificial hippocampus, and other neuron-engineering interventions, that I will cover in a future column. Both of these will very likely change how we deliver education. And advances in NBICS (nano, bio, info, cogno, synbio) which will have an impact on the content of education.

If ICT has its way, we might see more distance learning, globalized learning and virtual home schooling. We might also see less group learning and more individual learning. If the envisioned neuron-engineering -- especially the artificial hippocampus -- has its way, we might see direct communication links to the brain, and direct uploads of information.

Of course, all of the above will create a 'have-and-have-not' divide, which will play differently in different societal settings. But, as some say…

"For example, if some form of intelligence amplification becomes available, it may at first be so expensive that only the wealthiest can afford it. The same could happen when we learn how to genetically enhance our children. Those who are already well off would become smarter and make even more money. This phenomenon is not new. Rich parents send their kids to better schools and provide them with resources such as personal connections and information technology that may not be available to the less privileged. Such advantages lead to greater earnings later in life and serve to increase social inequalities."

I think the education disparity deserves much more action than it receives. The high-tech education divide can only be diminished if we eliminate the low-tech education divide that already exists globally, and locally in many countries. Only three percent of disabled people in developing countries have access to basic education.

There are other areas of impact. The ever-increasing speed of innovation, invention, and knowledge generation begs questions as to how timely science teaching in schools and even universities can be; how ideologies around curricula might lead to biased teaching; and whether teachers are given the tools to teach not only science and technology, but also their social ramifications.

How will synthetic biology be taught and judged -- the science, ethics and social implications -- in different settings?

Increasingly, new and emerging sciences and technologies are not just changing the environment humans live in. They are also enabling humans to change themselves -- which in turn influences their identity; their self perception; their perceptions of others; their interaction with other humans and other species; and the interaction between social groups, societies, and the global community at large.

To give one example: what will the impact be of having disabled people depicted as defective in schoolbooks that deal with genetic testing?

If one searches the internet for nanoeducation one finds an increasing number of webpages dedicated to developing nano-teaching content.The USA National Nanotechnology initiative set up a nanoeducation website for K-12 students. A teacher's guide for Teaching Nanotechnology in the High School Curriculum has the following content:

• A Historical Perspective
• Common Nanotechnology Applications
• National Teaching Standards
• Nanotechnology and Science Measurement
• Reading Strategies using Nanotechnology
• Nanotechnology in the Chemistry Classroom
• Nanotechnology in the Physics Classroom
• Reading across the curriculum
• A Perspective on Ethics
• Nanotechnology Websites for Educators
  

This teacher's guide and other nano-teaching web pages are concerned nearly exclusively with the natural science side of nanotechnology. Ethics and social implications are barely mentioned, if at all. And I haven't found one page yet which looks at the impact of nanotechnology on marginalized groups.

The global community of learners and teachers must understand the social and not just the safety/technological implications of recent and coming developments in NBICS, and where they are likely to take us if present trends continue. As in the case with genetic testing and disabled people, the global community has to be aware of the impact of the teaching on marginalized groups. Teaching the complex interdependent fabric of perceptions, values, and choices within different cultural, economic, ethical, spiritual, religious and moral frameworks in a way that is accessible to high school students is indeed a great challenge.

The Choice is Yours

How can one ensure that there is a continuum in teaching new and emerging technologies to high school students which is broad, diverse and timely? Is teaching the social implications of a science or technology as important as teaching the science or technology itself? If yes, how can one ensure that the social implications are taught with as much quality?

Gregor Wolbring is a biochemist, bioethicist, science and technology ethicist, disability/vari-ability studies scholar, and health policy and science and technology studies researcher at the University of Calgary. He is a member of the Center for Nanotechnology and Society at Arizona State University; Member CAC/ISO - Canadian Advisory Committees for the International Organization for Standardization section TC229 Nanotechnologies; Member of the editorial team for the Nanotechnology for Development portal of the Development Gateway Foundation; Chair of the Bioethics Taskforce of Disabled People's International; and Member of the Executive of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. He publishes the Bioethics, Culture and Disability website.

©Gregor Wolbring, All Rights Reserved, 2006. Reprinted with permission.