Hi B.

Thanks a lot for the note. I am sorry, it took me a while to get back to you. Busy
with the kids! What I wanted to say in my previous posting is that science is
science wherever you go. IT IS neutral in this sense. What is not neutral is the
way people react to it. 2+2=4 and this is a fact, a neutral fact. What changes
here is the way we look at it. Besides, why do we always connect science to the
West? Probably it is high time to tell the aboriginal people that science is not a
western thing but international. There is no doubt that the west paved the way
to promote science to move to a certain urban level and it was very successful in
doing that. There are many nations (from all over the world) that have really
taken great steps in the building the science we know now. Probably if the
aboriginal people are informed of this fact then they wont associate science to
colonization. My point here is that science is neutral. We are not neutral when
we look at things or when we conceive new ideas. Yes, I can agree with you that
some science topics like biology and geology can trigger a kind of rejection from
people, but this is simply due to the fact that people interpret things that suit
their culture and beliefs. I think what we need to work on when it comes to
aboriginal peoples education and science is that they should not associate
science to colonization. Actually this is a hurdle in front of education in general.
Thank you and have a great long weekend
H.


Hi H.,

Im going to have to respectfully disagree with your opinion that science is culturally
neutral. As a science teacher, I teach my students that science is a way of knowing
and understanding the physical world. And each time that there is a new scientific
discovery, we must change our way of knowing that part of the world.

We use the modern day Scientific Method in order to investigate the world around
us; it is a foundational tool for approaching all branches of science. The fact that it is
referred to as the modern day Scientific method hints to its inability to be
culturally neutral as there have been various different Scientific methods developed
by different cultures throughout time.

In the Scientific Method students are taught to Observe, Question, Hypothesize, Test,
and then based on the results, Revise that test or come to a Conclusion. Students
also learn that when many scientists all over the world come to the same conclusion
we can establish a Scientific Theory. They also learn that as new technologies
develop, that Scientific Theories can be disproven.

For instance, Aristotles theory widely held theory of Spontaneous Generation (the
belief that life could come from non-living things ex. Frogs came from raindrops
because frogs were always abundant after heavy rains) was only disproven by Louis
Pasteur in 1864 when he developed the swan-necked flask.

Step one of the scientific method is to make observations about or question the
natural world. I believe that this process is inherently culturally biased. What we
focus our attention on, the types of questions we ask, even how we carry out those
observations is going to be determined by what our culture values, how our culture
asks questions and what our culture already believes to be true.

A great example of this came to me when I was teaching about nutrition in Costa
Rica. I was of course using the Canada Food guide because, being Canadian, I had
assumed it to be factually accurate. After all, it HAD been developed by scientists;
scientists who had studied the physiological effect of every last amino acid and
glucose in those recommended servings of food. Well, as we are all well aware of,
what is deemed healthy is constantly changing (one day butter is good, the next day
its not now Im eating butter again). The Canadian Food Guide recommendations
that I was using with my students was out of sync with what they were familiar with
and what scientists at their universities were coming out with. The reasons for this
were likely two-fold. First, their scientists were probably asking different questions
about nutrition; questions that were relevant to the culture in which they were
raised. Secondly, what scientists are understanding more and more about nutrition,
is that it cant be reduced to amino acids or sugars and still be understood within the
body as a whole. There are too many other interactions. We still dont know why
some cultures can exist on yak meat, yak milk, yak cheese and almost no vegetables,
and yet still carry out normal bodily functions/processes. Our Western approach to
Nutrition has been reductionism, and now we are having to take a step back and
look at things more holistically.

Now back to the Scientific method; these observations/questions then lead to a
Hypothesis (an educated guess) which then in turn determines and directs the
Experimental process. This essentially means that every single conclusion that we
come to was first initiated by a culturally biased question. What we choose to study,
what we choose to test, and even how we test them is going to be culturally biased.

Consider this somewhat controversial example. Right now there is a lot of talk
about the safety of GMO foods. A company named Monsanto produces 95% of the
Genetically Modified Organisms out there. Monsanto also happens to carry out the
majority of the scientific testing (for safety etc) on these GMOs. Will a scientist for
Monsanto ask the right questions? Can their testing be entirely unbiased? Will
negative findings be published if they tarnish their companys name? And yet the
result of their testing forms much of the basis of our understanding for the safety
and efficacy of GMOs.

In her response to the upper level Chemistry question, Cynthia Nicol comments that
we have been taught to think of the textbook as the way. In many curriculums,
students are taught science is the facts in the textbook (Ive yet to come across a
science textbook that wasnt outdated in some of its facts), but this isnt really
science. Science is a process of observing and questioning. Cynthia also challenges
us to think beyond what were familiar with; that community members and elders
will help us to unpack or de-compartmentalize knowledge. They can help us to ask
different questions (like why is that growing there and not somewhere else) which
in turn can help drive the scientific process in ways and directions that Western
approaches may not yet have thought to go.

Sorry if this seems like a rant I just get really passionate about science!

I do want to end on a quick note about the math. 2 + 2 does not always equal 4. It
could also equal 7.08, or 184.88. A very important component of many math
problems are the units. So we could change the initial question slightly and get
2cm + 2inches = 7.08cm. In my mind, units are culturally biased. Although the
International System of Units was implemented to help standardize units across the
globe, all you have to do is drive across the U.S. border to remember that its not in
use everywhere. To this day I still cant picture what a yard looks or remember the
conversion factor without looking for it on the internet.


Jenn



From the Course Instructor:


Glad to see the exchange here and if folks are interested in reading further here
are some citations on Indigenous knowledge and science education:

Cajete, G. (1997). Look to the Mountain: An Ecology of Indigenous Education. Skyland:

Kivaki Press.
Barnhardt, R., & Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Alaska
Native Ways of Knowing. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 36 (1), 8-23.
Kawagley, A. O. (1995). A Yupiaq Worldview. A Pathway to Ecology and Spirit.
Prospect Heights, IL: Wave-land Press.
Sammel, A. (2009). Turning the focus from other to science education: exploring
the invisibility of Whiteness. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4, 649-656.

Snively, G. & Corsiglia, J. (2001). Discovering Indigenous science: implications for

science education. Science Education, 85, 6-34.
H.