Assignments: Wiki and Articles

I have been asked to put together a wiki called Science Controversies. Science Controversies brings disputed issues regarding science and technology to interested audiences of academics and lay people. Readers of, and participants in, Science Controversies want to read and converse about the problems and arguments arising from the reciprocal dynamic between science and society.

The audience for the Science Controversies wiki generally, and for your article, specifically, is comprised of both specialists and non-specialists — a well-educated and diverse audience unfamiliar with the specific aspects of the controversy. To appeal to this audience you must offer a compelling argument within the framework of non-technical discourse. You must, then, avoid, or clearly define, scientific and technical jargon while lending relevant details within a clear argument. Finally, to encourage the audience's participation on the wiki, you wish to write in such a way that the audience finds the controversy interesting, follows the argument you map out, and learns something about a controversy that may have a direct or indirect bearing on their personal welfare (addressing the "so what" question).

Scientific and technological controversies require us to examine the place of science and technology in modern culture. The contexts for the dispute can be wide ranging — economic, political, environmental, personal, methodological, philosophical, spiritual, historical and statistical. During a scientific and technological controversy, many basic assumptions that we hold regarding, for example, clear communication, what counts as evidence and knowledge, and boundaries between public and private interests, come under scrutiny. The purpose of this assignment is to have you examine, from both a practitioner's and a layperson's perspective, the roles science and technology play in public discourse.

Contemporary controversies often appear in The New York Review of Books, the Times Higher Education Supplement,The Skeptical Inquirer, and the Tuesday science section of The New York Times. On-line magazine such as Slate and Salon often track controversies. "Letters to the Editor" sections in journals such as Science and Nature provide summaries of on-going controversies. Sunday editions of most major newspapers can also point you in the direction of current controversies. Finally, Easton's Taking Sides provides inspiration for this assignment and offers a starting point for possible topics.

Controversies are also addressed in the disciplines in which you are studying. For example, proposed changes in, and the ensuing debate over, the Endangered Species Act will affect practices in forestry, biology and environmental science. Evidence concerning the possible harmful effects of technologies (from genetically altered plants and animals, to cell phones, to high voltage power lines) and the liability of designers and engineers are topics taken up in many of your classes.

You may choose to research any one of the examples included in the following categories, but feel free to pick another topic — perhaps a controversy within your discipline. But please choose a topic about which the group members have a shared — and hopefully passionate — interest.

In her edited volume Controversy: The Politics of Technical Decisions (1992, 1984), Dorothy Nelkin identifies four general contexts in which controversies occur (please note that these categories are not mutually exclusive):

1) Efficiency Versus Equity. State, local or community concerns with costs, benefits and justice. Examples include building or modifying airports, power plants, highways, public parks or landfills; local environmental policy, mining, zoning regulations, and public works projects. Questions of efficiency and equity also occur on national and international levels, the Microsoft antitrust case for example, and with regard to the funding of "big science" projects. For instance, what benefits does society get from "big science?" Couldn't the money be better spent elsewhere — on social programs for example? Examples include funding for the failed Superconducting Supercollider, the Strategic Defense Initiative, the Human Genome project, mapping human proteins, the Hubble Space Telescope, the international space station, and missions (manned and unmanned) to Mars.

Examples of local (Southwest Virginia) controversies include: growth controversies in Blacksburg, the need to move homes and businesses in the flight path of the Virginia Tech airport, a new Blacksburg sewer system, the widening of I-81, the use of coal-fired boilers at Tech, the development of transgenic pigs and cloned pigs, the "Smart" Road, the environmental policies of the Pittston Coal Company, the Greenbrier Pipeline, the construction and path of I-73, and whether transmission of electricity should be handled by nonprofit or for-profit companies (e.g., AEP's proposed 765,000-volt line which would run from Wyoming County, W.Va., to Jacksons Ferry, Va.).


2) Benefits Versus Risks. Fear of potential health and environmental hazards. Examples include global warming, alternative (to oil) energy projects, developing nanotechnology, nuclear waste disposal (e.g., Yucca Mountain), use of growth hormones or synthetic drugs in making animals more productive, genetic alteration of crops and vegetables, occupational health standards (e.g., with what chemicals can people work and for how long), damming, rerouting or using waterways for irrigation, the results of the human genome project or developing chemical and biological weapons systems.

3) Regulation Versus Freedom of Choice. Restrictions of freedom of choice by the government. Supporters of government defend regulation; opponents want less government interference. Examples include lack of immediate availability of certain drugs (e.g., experimental AIDS or cancer treatments), oil drilling in protected areas, federal risk assessment procedures, regulation of the Internet (e.g., what information can be posted [is hate speech permissible]), intellectual property rights (e.g., downloading and sharing music and movies), federally mandated safety regulation on technologies — cars, cell phones, powerlines, construction materials and methods, household technologies — environmental protection legislation and federally mandated immunization programs.

4) Science Versus Traditional Values. Controversies over research procedures and science education in the public schools. Examples include the controversy over teaching Darwinian theory and/or "Intelligent Design," human and animal cloning, stem cell research, biomedical research, the use of animals in experiments, doctor assisted suicide, and the problems, causes and effects of transferring technologies and methods produced by industrial countries to developing countries.

I would like to add a fifth context in which to examine controversies:

5) Science Versus Pseudo-Science. Controversies over whether certain phenomena actually exist and cause particular effects, and the uses of empirical evidence to validate or invalidate given claims. Examples include debates over the existence of: a rise in the rates of autism, extraterrestrial visitation (e.g., the Roswell, New Mexico "incident"), the greenhouse effect, the efficacy of psychoanalysis, subliminal persuasion, the methodological problems of studying other cultures (e.g., explaining Captain Cook's death at the hand of Hawaiian natives in the late 18th century, Carlos Castaneda and "new age" anthropology), room temperature (cold) fusion, the rise of Satanism in the late 1980's, a relation between celestial phenomena and personal destiny, an afterlife as evidenced in near-death experiences, repressed memory syndrome, and facilitated communication. Included in this category are debates over scientific hoaxes such as Piltdown Man, N-Rays, evidence of "alien visitations" (e.g., crop circles), and a "missing link" in the fossil record.

The project will be published on the Science Controversies wiki.

Teams will work together to format their contributions on the wiki to meet the audience's needs for accessibility and readability. The following elements need to be included:

• Logically ordered pages and links to each of the project's major elements (an on-line table of contents);
• A one-page introduction, 250-500 words, providing a concise overview of the controversy and of the project's content;
• Individual articles (each will have a linked page on the wiki) — 1750-2500 words — that must:

Give a title and byline;
Provide an abstract no longer than 10% of the entire article's length;
Take a position on the central question posed by the group on the controversy;
Develop an argument and analysis, based on evidence, that supports the position on the central question;
Offer findings and a conclusion based on argument and evidence;
Give appropriate, well-chosen in-text links to citations and external resources.

• A one- to two-page conclusion, 250-500 words, synthesizing the team's view on the controversy in the wake of the collective research performed;
• A page providing combined list of works cited and consulted from each team member (citation and works-cited pages to follow the MLA style of documentation).

Please consider (not required) embedding supplemental on-line media (e.g., YouTube videos) to support your work.

Each member of the team will submit a 1750-2500 word article (including abstract) for publication on the wiki. The article will develop the question, position and evidence you put together in the annotated bibliography and will extend the argument you provided in the debate. Each wiki article will (the following list provides a basis for my assessment):

• Give a title and a byline;
• Provide an abstract no longer than 10% of the entire article's length;
• Take a position on the central question posed by the group about the controversy;
• Develop an argument and analysis, based on evidence, that supports your position on the central question;
• Offer findings and a conclusion based on evidence and argument;
• Embed media (if needed) and give links, as appropriate, to citations and to relevant resources.

While all of the articles will deal with the scientific controversy the team has selected, each member of the team will approach their position on the controversy from a unique context or perspective. Let me offer an example:

Let's say that the team decides to examine the controversy surrounding a proposed national site, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for burying America's nuclear waste. Your central question: Should Yucca Mountain, Nevada serve as a facility for burying America's nuclear waste? Now, assuming your team is comprised of four members for the debate, two fob you have answered "yes" to the question, two of you have answered "no." Given your answer, each team member will choose a unique context or perspective from which to defend your position. For example, perhaps one of you is interested in history. You may want to examine the controversy from an historical perspective. You might argue that nuclear waste should by buried at Yucca Mountain because the history of this policy initiative indicates that the government has worked through the most troubling contingencies. Another team member may be interested in the civil engineering problems raised by building the facility at Yucca Mountain. Yet another team member may be interested in environmental policy and the policy issues raised by the controversy. Finally, a team member may be interested in transportation. What issues are raised in transporting the nuclear waste to the proposed facility? For any controversy you choose, a context or perspective in which you are interested can offer an analytical framework. I want each team member, then, to choose a particular context or perspective which will be the focus of their analysis in answering the central question.

Each article will develop an argument. Thus, each article will provide a clear argumentative claim. For example, let's say you are looking at the Yucca Mountain controversy from an environmental context. Based on your analysis of the arguments for and against the environmental safety of the project, and your examination of the evidence, you might argue that the evidence gathered regarding the environmental safety of Yucca Mountain does not support building a nuclear waste facility. In essence, then, I am asking you to take a side in the controversy. The side that you take — supporting or rejecting a controversial project — is based on the evidence you gather within the context of framework you have chosen.

• Select, once the team has determined a topic, a particular case (or cases) on which to focus. For example, if the topic is nuclear waste disposal, the team should then select a case which exemplifies the elements of the controversy to be analyzed. Consequently, the team may want to look at (given the above example) the controversy surrounding the proposed nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The selection of a case (or cases) is the key to this assignment. Articles typically descend into vague generalities when addressing a broad topic (e.g., the controversy over genetic engineering) about which several books have been written;

• State clearly the argumentative claim of the article. Let the reader know the specific position for which you wish to argue;

• Determine the participants in the controversy and define their views about science and technology in the context of the debate;

• Analyze the arguments, evidence and terms presented by groups and individuals in the controversy;

• Evaluate, given your analysis, and draw conclusions about the positions presented in the controversy.

Strategies

• Map out and identify the constituencies involved. What groups or individuals are participating in the controversy? What is the agenda of each of these groups? Do all the members of a certain team agree? About what issues do they disagree? Examples of constituencies include consumer advocacy and safety groups, unions, professional societies and associations, manufactures, lobbyists, scientists, engineers, educators, government representatives (on national and local levels) and the lay public.

• Provide a history of the specific controversy — not a general history of the science or the technological artifact.When did the controversy arise? Under what circumstances? What other historical and social factors contributed to the controversy? Do the groups and individuals in the debate see and tell the history differently? What is significant about these differences?

• Show how evidence is used to make a particular team or person's case. How is experimental evidence interpreted? Do groups and individuals interpret experimental results in the same way? Why or why not? How are statistics and polling data used? If experiments have been performed are they sound? Have experiments been replicated?

• Analyze how scientific communication (defined broadly) and language is used. What types of documents make appearances in the debate? What role does technical jargon play? How are visual representations used? What role does the media play? How do the participants try to convince opponents, or one another? What rhetorical appeals (to, for example, freedom, choice, economic gain, expertise, truth, objectivity, democracy, autonomy, knowledge) are used in the debate?

• Examine the use of experts in the controversy. Who are the experts? How did they achieve their expertise? Why should one listen to experts? Do experts agree? Can agreement among experts bring the controversy to a close?

• Determine if the debate can be, or has, ended. Did overwhelming scientific evidence convince all of the participants? Can an experiment, or technological invention, bring a controversy to an end? How does a scientific or technological controversy achieve closure?

Groups may divide the work any way they choose. Assuming a team of 4, an obvious method would be to assign one of the major elements of the final wiki posting — project formatting, overall introduction, overall conclusion, works cited — to each team member.

From past experience, dealing with computer and on-line vagaries will be time consuming. Plan for possible delays by starting early. To avoid last minute hair pulling, make sure the duties of each team member are clear by meeting on a regular basis, by having a set timetable, and by reaching a clear consensus on who is doing what. Remember — it always takes longer than it takes. I am available for consultation at any time during the process.

• Due: 13 May
• Structure:

• Logically ordered pages and links to each of the project's major elements (an on-line table of contents);
• A 250-500 word introduction providing a concise overview of the controversy and of the project's content;
• Individual articles — 1750-2500 — words (article requirements above);
• A 250-500 word conclusion synthesizing the team's view on the controversy in the wake of the collective research performed;
• A combined list of works cited and consulted from each team member.

• Feedback: To give me feedback on the process, please provide:

• A team evaluation;
• A peer review of each contribution sent to me (as e-mail).

• I will use this grading rubric (document file) to assess individual chapters.
• I will use this grading rubric (document file) to assess collective project.