The Science- Society Paradigm. Its impact and its importance in education

Paradigms may radically transform the human way of thinking. They emerge as a result of knowledge production, social practices and social groups identities. A clear example is the LGBTQIA+ movement resulting from the need of raising awareness on the exclusion and repression suffered by non-traditional sexually oriented communities around the world. This movement has fought for recognition and against the stigmatization of homosexuality and other forms of sexuality in society. As a result, a system of beliefs, principles, knowledge and values is developing to lead society towards an increasing respect for the exercise of sexual rights by any human being regardless of sexual orientation. Thus, it helps us to understand diversity as an inherent human trait and refuse any act of repression against its expression.

Likewise, the science-society paradigm is transforming our way to be, do and learn since humanizing scientific practice broadens our perception of science. The relation between science and society particularly focuses on expanding our conceptions of the role of society in the scientific system and vice versa. At the beginning of the 20th century, science was understood as a merely objective and neutral activity. Back then scientists tried to hide the social aspects of knowledge production so as not to relate it to a subjective nature. Science sociologists proposed that science is a human practice that sets a wide array of purposes and makes an impact in a variety of ways. According to this view, science is a unique kind of tool because humanity uses it to fulfil a certain role, therefore, it is similar to any other human creation, determined by the political, economic and social contexts.

Society provides economic and human resources to meet the needs of science; in turn, science provides society with the knowledge, practices and products to be used for its benefit and for improving people’s quality of life. The relationship between science and society contributes to the world’s economic and social development and it is then the cornerstone for integrating research, development and innovation. In order to meet the challenges of the COVID-19 health emergency, countries like China, the United Kingdom, Russia and the United States funded scientific vaccine production projects with the aim to control the spread of the virus globally. Thanks to this funding decision, both society and science have benefited. On the one hand, society has promoted the provision of vaccines needed for saving human lives and, on the other hand, science has developed new technology to help produce vaccines intended to cope with other diseases.




A society’s culture also has an influence on the way science is carried out in order to produce knowledge. For instance, Xochimilco has been an agricultural production center since pre-Hispanic times. The great Tenochtitlan received the supplies coming from the abundant agricultural production of the chinampas (small rectangular areas of land on the lakes of the Valley of Mexico still existing in Lake Xochimilco). The effectiveness of the agricultural production system of the Xochimilco chinampas has attracted the attention of scientists from various fields (chemists, biologists, agronomists) who have studied the soil characteristics and the system’s sustainability.

Science has also influenced culture and politics. Chemical engineer Mario Molina was an extraordinary researcher who revolutionized environmental awareness and policy around the world. Molina and his research team identified and studied the ozone decomposition in the stratosphere. His scientific work was instrumental in regulating pollutant emissions in order to eliminate lead and reduce sulphur and chlorofluorocarbons and avoid tropospheric ozone formation. So Molina and other researchers became leading activists for climate change scientific policies. As a result, there was an increasing awareness in stopping aerosol cans consumption thanks to a warning label about the environmental damage caused by this container and in removing lead from the gasoline sold in Mexico at the beginning of the 21st century and other regulations. Scientists such as Mario Molina have been key players in scientific policy making oriented to create solutions in dealing with socio-environmental issues such as lead elimination in gasoline (Bolaños Guerra, 2021).

As these examples show, we can reflect on how society and science have been reshaped at a fast pace and how well-informed citizens can participate in facing the challenges and needs of a changing world. Related to this line of thought, what efforts should we make to educate citizens so that they become able to make crucial decisions on current issues? Undoubtedly, education plays a major role and it is the possible answer to this big question.

In this case, chemistry may provide the answer (Sevian y Talanquer, 2014). If we were taught in school the processes used in cardboard and glass production, we could know each kind’s cost-benefit-risk ratio of material and make an assessment about which of them is the least harmful; if we were also taught about this materials recycling processes, we could know the cost-benefit-risk ratioof each to choose the cheapest and most efficient one. This is a single everyday-life example, but there is a huge number of choices we make based on chemistry-related criteria (electric or internal combustion cars, veganism or animal byproducts consumption, etc.)

On the cost-benefit-risk assessment of material synthesis and transformation processes, chemistry can be associated with the environment or ecosystem in which we live. Teaching and learning this subject should focus on the practical use of chemistry-based thought in everyday-life experiences always having in mind the social, political, cultural, economic and environmental impact of scientific development and the use of resulting products. These types of situations do not necessarily mean that we have to give the right answers; on the contrary, we have the opportunity to think and decide considering multiple contexts which stress the importance of diverse ways of thinking, doing and being of the students.

A new science and society paradigm in education broadens our views on the practice of chemistry. It is common to find people who believe that the use of chemistry produces pollution and diseases. It is difficult to understand that all citizens may get involved in the decision-making process in this field, either scientists or consumers of commercial products.

On the other side, we must be careful not to understand chemistry from the scientificist standpoint that views chemistry as the only solution to all society problems. Chemistry as well as science in general offer solutions to the challenges society faces every day. It is for us to decide how to use science tools for our benefit, but the consequences in terms of the cost-benefit-risk ratio of this decisions must be considered.

ADVANTAGES OF THE SCIENCE-SOCIETY PARADIGM
The science-society approach looks for a far-reaching transformation that does not envision contents as isolated topics with no connection with human experiences. The context in wich science teaching takes place acquires a major importance that gives meaning to science in our lives.

To make it real in the classroom, teachers must identify global and local socio-scientific aspects; that is, aspects that are relevant to students both in their daily lives and in the society level where they belong. These socio-scientific aspects can be the basis for addressing specific issues to each country, city, campus or even classroom. It is important to point out that identifying those issues can emanate from students questions and concerns.



LEARNING AND TEACHING SCIENCE IN THE SCIENCE-SOCIETY PARADIGM
Due to the intrinsic relationship between society and science, scientific education has undergone relevant reforms in order to widen people’s horizons of thought, action and behavior that may function as useful means to face today’s social challenges. It is believed that if education is based on this kind of relation, students may acquire a critical awareness regarding science and its social environment so that they can make choices to solve personal and collective challenges (Garritz, 1994). In order to implement a science-society approach to teaching and learning, we need a will to transgress rules that usually present a discipline’s subjects in an isolated way.

Traditional teaching of science shows scientific practice and scientists separated from the world‘s real problems, disconnected from the challenges regular people see and hear in the media and social networks. A consequence of traditional teaching is that students believe that what they are studying is indifferent to the world they live in and they feel that there is no clear connection between what they have learnt and and what they can do with it. There is a need to change the neutral image of science that disregards a countrie’s economic, political, environmental, cultural and social conflicts.

How should the teaching and learning of science be in the context of human experience? Let us use chemistry as an example subject of scientific practice which is specifically concerned with the design, application and evaluation of the analysis, synthesis and transformation of substances. Let us then think of a person that goes to the supermarket to buy bottled water for a picnic. In the shop shelf, there will be many options to choose. There will be a bottled water in plastic, glass and cardboard-made containers. The person will wonder which one to choose: what criteria may help in making the right choice? In terms of measuring environmental impact, the person may possibly think that the glass or cardboard containers are better, but it would be more difficult to choose between these two based on the available information on environment protection.

Sometimes it is worth to set aside teachers’ goals in order to address topics that are of great interest to students; they are active agents of society who make their own choices and have a saying on social problems solving. Why shall the students wait until they are “ready” to put in practice what they have learnt? It’s time to leave behind 19th century methods to teach 21st century students. A science and society model offers an excellent opportunity to move forward onto the present and the future of science education. Students are decision makers in a society that faces socio-scientific challenges.

COROLLARY
A paradigm is a system of beliefs, principles, knowledge and values that influence and give meaning to our experience of reality (Wray, 2011). Thus, it is key in understanding social interactions and its challenges. The science-society paradigm is an example of how such a system shapes our perception and participation in society. There is a mutually influential relationship among the science field and the economic, cultural, political and environmental areas of a country. That’s why we pay great attention to recent evils affecting us, like climate change or COVID-19 pandemic, that can be effectively addressed from the point of view of science. Within the science-society paradigm, chemistry requires us to assess and decide what processes of substances synthesis and transformation make a difference on reducing or accelerating climate change. This science-society mindset provides the grounds for an educational scheme that allows people to realize the importance of science in their lives and take responsibility for their decisions on the use of products coming from scientific development. It allows us to become knowledgeable and demanding citizens of the science our own society produces and the scientific tools always present in our lives.

---