Determinism and Underdetermination in Genetics: Implications for Students’ Engagement in Argumentation and Epistemic Practices
In the last two decades science studies and science education research have shifted from an interest in products (of science or of learning), to an interest in processes and practices. The focus of this paper is on students’ engagement in epistemic practices (Kelly in Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam, pp 99–117, 2008), or on their practical epistemologies (Wickman in Sci Educ 88(3):325–344, 2004). In order to support these practices in genetics classrooms we need to take into account domain-specific features of the epistemology of genetics, in particular issues about determinism and underdetermination. I suggest that certain difficulties may be related to the specific nature of causality in genetics, and in particular to the correspondence between a given set of factors and a range of potential effects, rather than a single one. The paper seeks to bring together recent developments in the epistemology of biology and of genetics, on the one hand, with science education approaches about epistemic practices, on the other. The implications of these perspectives for current challenges in learning genetics are examined, focusing on students’ engagement in epistemic practices, as argumentation, understood as using evidence to evaluate knowledge claims. Engaging in argumentation in genetics classrooms is intertwined with practices such as using genetics models to build explanations, or framing genetics issues in their social context. These challenges are illustrated with studies making part of our research program in the USC.
KeywordsScience Learning Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Scrapie Genetic Knowledge Genetic Determinism
Work supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación), code EDU2009-13890-C02-01. The author gratefully acknowledges the work from the doctoral dissertations of Ánxela Bugallo-Rodríguez, Marta Federico-Agraso and Blanca Puig, discussed in the paper. Thanks also for the helpful suggestions of Kostas Kampourakis, Thomas Reydon and Science & Education’s anonymous reviewers to the first draft.
- Bechtel, W. P., & Hamilton, A. (2007). Reduction, integration, and the unity of science: Natural, behavioral, and social sciences and the humanities. In T. Kuipers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: General philosophy of science—focal issues (pp. 377–430). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1993). Discovering complexity. Decomposition and localization as strategies in scientific research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Brigandt, I. (2011). Explanation in biology: Reduction, pluralism, and explanatory aims. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-011-9350-7.
- Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition. In G. Salomon (Ed.) Distributed cognitions. Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 1–46). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Creath, R., & Maienschein, J. (Eds.). (2000). Biology and epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. E. (2008). Reconsidering the character and role of inquiry in school science: Framing the debates. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 1–37). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2012). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9539-4.
- Duschl, R. A., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2012). Epistemic foundations for conceptual change. In S. M. Carver & J. Shrager (Eds.), The journey from child to scientist: Integrating cognitive development and the education sciences (pp. 245–262). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Federico-Agraso, M., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Therapeutic cloning? Discourse genres, ethical issues and students’ perceptions. In M. Hammann, M. Reiss, C. Boulter, & S. D. Tunnicliffe (Eds.), Biology in context. Learning and teaching for the twenty-first century (pp. 315–326). London: University of London.Google Scholar
- Franklin, A., Edwards, A. W. F., Fairbanks, D. J., Hart, D. L., & Seidenfield, T. (2008). Ending the mendel-fisher controversy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
- Giere, R. N. (1992). Cognitive models of science. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Habermas, J. (1981–1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., & Reigosa, C. (2006). Contextualizing practices across epistemic levels in the chemistry laboratory. Science Education, 90, 707–733.Google Scholar
- Kampourakis, K. (2010). Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-010-9323-2.
- Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
- Keller, E. F. (2000). Making sense of life: Explanation in developmental biology. In R. Creath & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Biology and epistemology (pp. 244–260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Kelly, G. J. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. C. (1991). Biology as ideology. The doctrine of DNA. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. C. (2000). What do population geneticists know and how do they know it? In R. Creath & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Biology and epistemology (pp. 191–214). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lewontin, R. C., Rose, S., & Kamin, J. (1984). Not in our genes. Biology, ideology and human nature. New York: Pantheon books.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. E. (2000). Toward an epistemology for biological pluralism. In R. Creath & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Biology and epistemology (pp. 261–286). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Longino, H. E. (2008). Philosophical issues and next steps for research. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 134–137). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
- Magnus, D. (2000). Down the primrose path: Competing epistemologies in early twentieth-century biology. In R. Creath & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Biology and epistemology (pp. 91–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (1997). This is biology. The science of the living world. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- McClintock, B. (1953). Induction of instability at selected loci in maize. Genetics, 38(6), 579–599.Google Scholar
- Mendel, G. (1866). Versuche über pflanzen-hybriden. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Brunn. 4, 3–47. (Reproduced in E. von Tschermak, Ed., Leipzig: Engelmann, 1913, pp. 3–46).Google Scholar
- Olby, R. C. (1979). Mendel no Mendelian? History of Science, 17, 53–72.Google Scholar
- Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1951). La genèse de l’idée de hasard chez l’enfant, 2nd edn, 1974. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
- Piquemal, J. (1965). Aspects de la pensée de Mendel (Aspects of Mendel’s thinking). Paris: Palais de la Découverte (Impr. Alençonnaise).Google Scholar
- Schaffner, K. (1993). Discovery and explanation in biology and medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Svoboda, J., & Passmore, C. (2011). The strategies of modeling in biology education. Science & Education. doi: 10.1007/s11191-011-9425-5.
- Vicedo, M. (2000). Experimentation in early genetics: The implications of the historical character of science for scientific realism. In R. Creath & J. Maienschein (Eds.), Biology and epistemology (pp. 215–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wickman, P. -O. (2011). Practical epistemologies as beliefs or as actions. Paper presented at the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA) conference. Lyon, September.Google Scholar
- Zwart, H. (2008). Understanding nature. Case studies in comparative epistemology. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar