Scientific Awareness Competency

Provisionally approved 6/6/02

SCIENTIFIC AWARENESS

Level III

RATIONALE: All of us are called upon to make decisions in our personal, work, and civic lives that involve science and technology. We face issues about the safety of appliances, cleaning products, or insecticides for use at home, about traffic safety and air quality in our communities, about the teaching of evolution in schools, or about how society can better prepare to limit the human toll from major health threats like AIDS or asthma. These issues all depend on science. For those who do not anticipate working in science, it is nonetheless important to learn what science is, how scientists work, and how they evaluate sources of information to distinguish scientific evidence from personal opinion not supported by scientific evidence.

Through work on the Scientific Awareness competency, students will gain familiarity with how scientists observe the world around them, pose questions, design and conduct experiments, interpret results, report them in the scientific literature, debate their significance among themselves, attempt to replicate the findings or disprove them in future experiments—and communicate all of this to those who are not experts.Students may choose among three different approaches for demonstrating the competency: a problem solving approach; one featuring a scientific controversy or important disagreement among scientists; or one emphasizing the way in which scientists advance scientific understanding through discovery.

COMPETENCY: Can explain one of the following: a scientific problem and a proposal for addressing the problem, a scientific controversy, or a scientific discovery.

Option A. Explaining a scientific problem and a proposal to address it

CRITERIA FOR OPTION A:

1. Identify a scientific problem, and a proposal for addressing the problem, that is currently under discussion among scientists and others in society.

2. For the problem, describe:

a. how and by whom the problem has been defined; and

b. how the scientific evidence upon which scientists rely for understanding the problem today has been generated, reviewed, and critiqued by scientists.

3. For the proposal to address the problem, describe:

a. how and by whom the proposed solution has been generated; and

b. how the scientific evidence upon which scientists rely to argue in favor of the proposal has been generated, reviewed, and critiqued by other scientists.

4. Explain the positions scientists have taken on the problem and solution, and on what evidence they base their positions. Do different groups of scientists have differing definitions of the problem? Do they take differing positions on whether sufficient evidence exists to take a position on the solution proposed? If so, what positions have scientists taken, and on what evidence do they base their arguments?

5. Provide an annotated bibliography of sources relied upon for any part of the explanation.

PORTFOLIO LINKS: You are expected to use the Writing Portfolio criteria and standards as guidelines for the written products required by this competency. Papers written for this competency may be considered for submission to the Writing Portfolio.

STANDARDS FOR OPTION A:

1. For Criterion 1, the evaluator must approve the choice of problem and the proposal for addressing it. These may involve one aspect of a larger problem and corresponding proposal so as to make the exercise manageable. The scope should allow for a student to provide the explanation within a 30 minute presentation or a paper of 10 pages plus annotated bibliography. Alternatively you and the evaluator may opt for several shorter papers or presentations linked together to reach the anticipated scope. If you make an oral or multimedia presentation, it should be accompanied by a detailed outline and annotated bibliography.

2. For Criterion 2a, the description must be accurate and presented in a way appropriate for informing a general audience. Scientific terms and concepts must be accurately and clearly defined or explained. The explanation must accurately match the evidence with the appropriate elements of the problem description and proposal.

3. For Criterion 2b and Criterion 3, the description of the scientific evidence about the problem and the proposal should demonstrate that you:

a. distinguish fact and observable evidence from prejudice or assumptions;

b. distinguish between association and cause-and-effect relationships;

c. understand the role played by observation and experiment in establishing a scientific conclusion, including replicability of experimental results;

d. understand “scientific theory” and “scientific fact”; and

e. understand the nature of the peer review process for evaluating the merit of scientific contributions.

4. For Criterion 4, in explaining why scientists believe the evidence does or does not support the proposal (including unavailability or insufficiency of evidence), you should demonstrate an understanding of:

a. the major scientific issues relevant to the problem;

b. how scientists consider conflicting results from multiple studies as a basis for refining their understanding of problems and for taking positions on proposed solutions; and

c. ways in which scientists judge credibility of evidence and potential for bias in its generation or application.

5. For Criterion 5, you will identify scientific sources relevant for identifying the issues through materials provided as part of a course, through research (computerized searches of scientific data bases, etc.), through contact with experts, or through combinations of these. The sources identified must be catalogued in an annotated bibliography for submission with the explanation (for papers and presentations). The sources must include peer-reviewed scientific articles along with secondary sources and other materials prepared for general audiences without scientific expertise in the areas involved. The annotations should identify which source materials are peer-reviewed, the intended audience for each, and any issues related to credibility or bias of the information.

EXAMPLES OF DEMONSTRATION FOR OPTION A:

1. Prior Learning: Based on experience working in a science-based public interest organization (e.g. Scientists for the Public Interest, Friends of the Earth, Council for Responsible Genetics), you seek approval from a CPCS evaluator of the scientific problem (and proposal to address it) that you wish to explain from prior experience. You present materials in the form of a 10-page paper or 30-minute presentation and annotated bibliography as explained in Standard 5. The problem can be from any area of science for which an agreement can be reached with an appropriate evaluator.

2. Independent Learning: If you have previous experience in science (but not a particular course for transfer credit), you can select a scientific problem for which you have sufficient background to be able to proceed independently, and select a proposal for addressing the problem. You identify an appropriate CPCS evaluator and seek approval of the scientific problem, the proposal to address it, the materials you will use to support your explanation (or the way in which you will assemble the scientific evidence to support your explanation), and the way you will proceed independently to complete the competency: one paper, several short ones, or a presentation. An annotated bibliography must accompany either the paper(s) or the presentation.

3. Course: A student takes a CPCS course that meets the criteria and standards of this competency

4. Field Project: In a field project involving epidemiologists and community residents, and a faculty member with appropriate background to evaluate the student, the participants intend to address the growing epidemic of childhood asthma. The project group investigates housing conditions and contaminants in ambient air, and epidemiologic evidence of incidence and prevalence of asthma in children in a particular residential area. These data are intended to form the basis for planning interventions(s) to reduce the rate of new cases of asthma and the burden disease on those already ill. The review of the epidemiologic evidence could result in an explanation of the problem, and the planning discussions could result in a proposal for intervention. The student could learn through participation in the project how a problem comes to be defined as well as the genesis of and scientific evidence behind one or more proposal(s) to address it. The audience for the student’s explanation might be additional residents in the same community or to parents in another community who might want to undertake a similar project.

Option B: Explaining a scientific controversy

CRITERIA FOR OPTION B:

1. Identify and describe a recent or current scientific controversy. (See examples under Examples of Demonstration.)

2. Describe how the controversy evolved over time. Include key historic events, noting when and how the differences contributing to the controversy emerged.

3. Describe the issue(s) about which scientists disagree (or disagreed at a key point in time for a historic example) and why scientists believe each disagreement to be important for advancing scientific understanding.

4. Describe key elements of scientific evidence upon which scientists rely today (or relied during the peak of a historic controversy) for understanding and explaining the controversy to colleagues and to non-scientists.

5. Explain the significance and implications of the controversy for science and society. Emphasize the difference in consequences anticipated if one or another view of the controversy you explain should become (or already did become) the one generally accepted by scientists.

6. Provide an annotated bibliography of sources relied upon for any part of the explanation.

PORTFOLIO LINKS: You are expected to use the Level III Communications Portfolio writing standards as guidelines for the essays required by this competency. Products from work on this competency may be submitted in demonstration of Criterion 1a or 1b of the Level III Communications Portfolio competency. At a minimum, writing should demonstrate Level II Communications Portfolio standards.

STANDARDS FOR OPTION B:

1. For Criterion 1, the evaluator must approve the choice of the controversy. The topic may be limited to one aspect of a larger controversy so as to make the exercise manageable. You need not examine more than two points of view, although more may be involved. The scope should allow you to provide the explanation in a 30-minute presentation or a paper of 10 pages plus an annotated bibliography. Alternatively, you and the evaluator may opt for several shorter papers or presentations linked together to reach the anticipated scope. If you make an oral or multimedia presentation, it should be accompanied by a detailed outline and annotated bibliography.

2. For Criterion 2, in describing the how the controversy evolved and the issues about which scientists disagree (or disagreed until recently), and For Criterion 3, in describing why scientists believe the disagreement to be important for advancing scientific understanding, you must:

a. Identify precisely the major scientific disagreement that will be discussed. For example:Many scientific disagreements have to do with measurement. In evaluating the importance of a range of health problems globally, today there is a major scientific debate about the most appropriate way to measure global or local “burden of disease.” The list of most serious problems varies depending on the method of measurement. This is important as priorities for research and use of health system resources may be allocated differently and the consequences to health and well-being will be different.

b. Identify contrasting views of the disagreement offered by scientists (no more than two are required, but your choices require the evaluator’s approval). For example:In the controversy over whether tobacco does or does not cause various diseases, those who said smoking did cause disease were relying on epidemiologic evidence; those who said it had not been proved were looking for the missing information on cause and effect from biology and chemistry. Thus, they disagreed on which scientific model to use to determine if smoking caused cancer or other diseases and therefore, did not agree on whether it was known if cigarettes caused disease.

3. Describe how the scientific evidence upon which scientists rely for understanding the controversy has been generated, reviewed, and critiqued by scientists.

4. For Criterion 4, the description of the scientific evidence should demonstrate that you:·

distinguish fact and observable evidence from prejudice or assumptions;

distinguish between association and cause-and-effect relationships;

understand the role played by observation and experiment in establishing a scientific conclusion, including replicability of experimental results;

understand “scientific theory” and “scientific fact”;

understand the nature of the peer review process for evaluating the merit of scientific contributions;

understand how scientists consider conflicting results from multiple studies as a basis for refining their understanding of problems and for taking positions on proposed solutions; and

understand ways in which scientists judge credibility of evidence and potential for bias in its generation or application.

5. For Criterion 5, in explaining the significance and implications of the controversy for science and for society, you must demonstrate understanding of:

implications of the controversy for advancing or inhibiting advance of scientific understanding (by including at least one important example); and

social and economic implications (by offering at least one important example).

6. For Criterion 6, you will identify scientific sources relevant for explaining the controversy through materials provided as part of a course, through research (computerized searches of scientific data bases, etc.), through contact with experts, or through combinations of these. The sources identified must be catalogued in an annotated bibliography to be submitted with the explanation (for papers and presentations). The sources must include peer-reviewed scientific articles along with secondary sources and other materials prepared for general audiences that lack scientific expertise in the areas involved. The annotations should identify which source materials are peer-reviewed, the intended audience for each, and any issues related to credibility or bias of the information.

7. Overall, the explanation must be accurate and presented in a way appropriate for informing a general audience at the level of a clearly written newspaper article or an oral or multimedia presentation. Scientific terms and concepts must be accurately and clearly defined or explained. The explanation must accurately match the evidence with the appropriate elements of the controversy.

EXAMPLES OF DEMONSTRATION FOR OPTION B:

1. Prior Learning: Based on experience working in a laboratory, in scientific journalism, or in some other science-based activity, present an explanation of a controversy using materials equivalent to those to be used for new learning. You must identify an appropriate CPCS evaluator and gain approval for the controversy chosen as the topic for the competency.Examples of current controversies:

whether or not there is an exposure threshold for carcinogenicity (in other words, is there a safe amount of exposure to an agent known to cause cancer?)

whether or not cloned animals are less healthy than those born after the joining of an egg and a sperm (scientists argued over this in front of the US Congress in April 2001).Examples of recent controversies:

whether “second-hand smoke” (tobacco smoke inhaled from the smoking of others) results in the same diseases as those that afflict smokers

2. Independent Learning: If you have sufficient background in science (but not a college course to transfer), you can select a scientific controversy to explain. You must identify an appropriate CPCS evaluator and gain approval for the controversy chosen as the topic for the competency, the materials you will use to support the explanation, and the means you will use to find them. You and evaluator will agree on whether you will make a presentation or write one or several papers to cover the criteria. The same examples listed in #1 above are pertinent here.

3. Course: A student takes a CPCS course that meets the criteria and standards of this competency

4. Field Project: In a field project involving environmental epidemiologists (and/or toxicologists), community residents, and a faculty member with appropriate background to evaluate the student, the group investigates the human health and environmental consequences to be expected from construction and operation of an incinerator proposed to dispose of trash and medical wastes. [Such facilities have often been proposed for location in lower-income neighborhoods.] The project group would seek to identify: a) the substances to be incinerated, b) the quantities of each, c) the resulting combustion products likely to be released, d) which people may be exposed to these, e) what other elements of the environment may be exposed, f) where and how the exposures may occur (air, water, etc.) and, f) to how much of what. The analysts would use these data to evaluate the likely impact of operating the incinerator on human health and on the environment. In many instances the evidence and analysis of anticipated impact is presented by those both in favor of and opposed to construction of an incinerator, and in a particular location. The student might participate in such a project and demonstrate the competency by explaining the scientific evidence from both sides of the controversy to residents in communities adjacent to the proposed incinerator, to policymakers, or to the editorial board of a newspaper.

OPTION C. Explaining a scientific discovery

CRITERIA FOR OPTION C:

1. Identify and describe a major scientific discovery (see examples under Examples of Demonstration below.)

2. Describe the way in which scientists made the discovery initially, including:

a. the circumstances under which scientists worked at the time (for example, the nature of scientific interest in the area, resources available, and previous work and insights on which to build);

b. initial observation(s), which provoked further investigation leading to the discovery key questions posed;

c. hypothesis developed;

d. models and methods used to examine the hypothesis; and

e. early results, or scientific evidence (which may have accumulated from the efforts of multiple contributors) that convinced scientists that the discovery was significant.

3. Describe major developments since the initial discovery, including:

a. key historic events in the story of when and what scientists have added to scientific understanding;

b. major advances in questions posed, models, and methods developed by scientists to explore the questions;

c. key elements of evidence that emerged from ongoing investigations (even those no longer considered correct or useful today, so long as they seemed key or major at the time); and

d. the scientific evidence upon which scientists do rely today for understanding and explaining the discovery to scientists and others.

4. Explain the significance of the discovery in terms of its implications for advancing science and influencing society.

5. Provide an annotated bibliography of sources relied upon for any part of the explanation.

STANDARDS FOR OPTION C:

1. For Criterion 1, the evaluator must approve the choice of the discovery. The topic may be limited to one aspect of a larger discovery to make the exercise manageable. The scope should allow you to provide the explanation in a 30-minute presentation or a paper of 10 pages, plus an annotated bibliography. Alternatively you and the evaluator may opt for several shorter papers or presentations linked together to reach the anticipated scope. If you make an oral or multimedia presentation, it must be accompanied by a detailed outline and annotated bibliography.

2. For Criterion 2, the description of the scientific evidence and how it was generated initially and for Criterion 3, the description as the discovery was further investigated should demonstrate that you:

a. distinguish fact and observable evidence from prejudice or assumptions;

b. distinguish between association and cause-and-effect relationships;

c. understand the role played by observation and experiment in establishing a scientific conclusion;

d. understand “scientific theory” and “scientific fact,” including replicability of experimental results;

e. understand the nature of the peer review process for evaluating the merit of scientific contributions;

f. understand how scientists consider conflicting results from multiple studies as a basis for refining their perceptions and designing future studies; and

g. understand the ways in which scientists judge credibility of evidence and potential for bias in its generation or application.

3. For Criterion 4, in explaining the significance and implications of the discovery for advancing science and for influencing society, you must demonstrate understanding of the following, by giving at least one important example in each case:

a. how the discovery advanced science

Advances in moving from a discrete discovery, initially narrow in scope, to developing a broader understanding which allows scientists to make predictions and to test these and then to generalize about a phenomenon broader than the initial discovery itself. For example, in the late 1800s, bacteriologists advanced from the discovery of a particular organism causing one disease to understanding how to identify organisms causing other diseases

Advances through development of new tools for scientific investigation in nature, in laboratories, or using models, often with the aid of mathematics and computers. For example, research undertaken to understand the smallpox-causing virus provided an insight that allowed scientists to use a virus to carry immunizing agents against multiple other diseases of animals or humans.

b. how the discovery influenced society. (Typical examples include impact on how products or technologies are made, new products or technologies that can be made in the future, and the social and economic consequences—already occurred or anticipated.)

4. For Criterion 5, you will identify scientific sources relevant for understanding the discovery through materials provided as part of a course, through research (computerized searches of scientific data bases, etc.), through contact with experts, or through combinations of these. The sources identified must be catalogued in an annotated bibliography for submission with the explanation (for papers and presentations). The sources must include peer-reviewed scientific articles along with secondary sources and other materials prepared for general audiences that lack scientific expertise in the areas involved. The annotations should identify which source materials are peer-reviewed, the intended audience for each, and any issues related to credibility or bias of the information.

5. Overall, the explanation must be accurate and presented in a way appropriate for informing a general audience. Scientific terms and concepts must be accurately and clearly defined or explained. The explanation must accurately match the evidence to the appropriate elements of the initial discovery and developments to expand understanding of it.

EXAMPLES OF DEMONSTRATION for Option C:

1. Prior Learning: If you have worked in science (in a science museum, a laboratory, or another science setting), and have already learned about a major scientific discovery from that experience, you may identify an appropriate CPCS evaluator and present that prior learning about a major scientific discovery for evaluation. Examples of major discoveries include:· discovery of DNA as the carrier of genetic information for all species;· discovery that hydrofluorocarbons destroy ozone, reducing the ozone layer surrounding the earth;· discovery of semiconductor properties of some elements/compounds (leading to transistors, integrated circuits, computer chips—the technologies of modern electronics);· discovery of the prion (the agent causing mad cow disease or bovine spongiform encephalopathies and Creutzfeldt Jacob disease variants in humans).You and the evaluator must agree on the evidence you must present to assure equivalence to what a student would present based on new learning.

2. Independent Learning: If you have sufficient background in science (but not a college course to transfer), you can select a scientific controversy to explain. You must identify an appropriate CPCS evaluator and gain approval for the discovery chosen as the topic for the competency, the materials you will use to support the explanation, and the means you will use to find them. You and the evaluator must agree on whether you will make a presentation or write one or several papers to cover the criteria. The same examples listed in #1 above are pertinent here.

3. Course: A student takes a CPCS course that meets the criteria and standards of this competency

4. Field Project: Scientists have long studied transfer of genetic material within species. Much more recently scientists observed existence of plants from different species bearing morphologically identical thorns. Through detailed investigation scientists determined that the thorns were transferred from one plant species to an adjacent one, not developed through natural selection. In a field project involving a search for additional possible instances of intraspecies transfer of genetic material (for example, in other desert oases beyond the one where the original discovery was made) the group would prepare by examining how the original discovery of this phenomenon was studied and documented as well as the implications of the discovery for science and for society. A student in this field project could demonstrate the competency through presentations in the preparatory phase and in the field to that group, or by explaining the history and implications of the discovery of intraspecies transfer of genetic material along with the findings from the fieldwork to an additional audience at the end of the project.