Trust, Science Education and Vaccines

The issue of trust in science has come to the fore in recent years. I focus on vaccines, first looking at what is known about trust in vaccines and then concentrating on whether what science education teaches about vaccines can be trusted. I present an argument to connect the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy to the issue of trust and then argue for what an education about vaccines in school science might look like that takes seriously the notion of respect for students, including students who hold views about vaccination with which science teachers might disagree. Trust in others (people and institutions) varies greatly, both between countries and within countries, and depends on the characteristics of both trustor and trustee, and there are great differences in the extent to which people trust vaccines. However, it is a mistake to think that people who do not trust vaccines are simply ill-informed. There are a range of reasons for rejecting what is often an unexamined narrative about vaccines, namely that vaccines are always desirable. Many people come from communities that have sound reasons for being suspicious of what they are told by governments, business and the medical establishment. COVID-19 and earlier reactions to vaccination health scares show how important high-quality education about vaccines is. Much of that education can take place out of school, but the foundations are laid in school. Vaccine rejection and hesitancy have major global public health implications. Good quality vaccine education should help students understand about relevant biology and the nature of science; it should also be respectful of all students, including those who come from families that reject vaccines or are hesitant about them

Is It Possible that Robots will not One Day Become Persons?

That robots might become persons is increasingly explored in popular fiction and films and is receiving growing academic analysis. Here, I ask what would be necessary for robots not to become persons at some point. After examining the meanings of “robots” and “persons,” I discuss whether robots might not become persons from a range of perspectives: evolution (which has led over time from species that do not exhibit personhood to species that do), development (personhood is something into which each of us grows), chemistry (must persons be carbon-based and must robots be non–carbon-based?), history (we now consider more entities to be persons than was once the case), and theology (are humans privileged over the rest of creation, and how relevant is panpsychism?). I end by considering some of the implications if/once robots do become persons

Consent, mutuality and respect for persons as standards for ethical sex and for sex education

This article examines Lamb, Gable & de Ruyter's critique of consent as the standard by which one can determine if a sexual encounter is ethical in their ‘Mutuality in sexual relationships: a standard of ethical sex?’. Their examination of this issue is to be welcomed for a number of reasons, including growing criticism of ‘consent’ as the gold standard in medical and social science research ethics. The focus of this article is specifically on school sex education (principally, for 11–16-year-olds). Contrary to Lamb et al., I argue that it is difficult to maintain that ‘The standard of mutuality should be taught in all schools and the government should indeed demand or support this, even with checks to see if children have learned this standard, at least in attitudes about sexual behavior’ for three reasons. First, while there are good arguments in favour of school children being introduced to the ideal of mutuality, it seems too high a bar to require children to ‘have learned’—a phrase that can be taken to mean to ‘have come to accept’ rather than merely to ‘understand’—this; consent is a more appropriate requirement and is itself a sufficiently rich term that it merits analysis by students, aided by their teachers. Second, my judgement as a sex educator is that sex education is more effective when students are given the opportunity to explore what is good and what is right, rather than simply being told. Third, if we have to adopt a single principle, there is much to be said for ‘respect for others’ to trump both ‘consent’ and ‘mutuality’

The assessment of practical skills

Major changes are currently afoot as to how practical work will be assessed in highstatus examinations (GCSEs for 16-year-olds and A-levels for 18-year-olds) in England. We explore here how practical skills might best be assessed in school science and introduce two terms: direct assessment of practical skills (DAPS) and indirect assessment of practical skills (IAPS). We conclude that both the direct and indirect assessment of practical skills have their place in effective assessment of school science and that too great a reliance on the indirect assessment of practical skills will lead to assessment that is less valid

Teaching science interdisciplinarily – the BRaSSS approach

Recently, there have been a number of moves to encourage the development of approaches to science teaching that emphasise its links with other curriculum subjects. This article describes the rationale of one such project for 11- to 16-year-olds: the Broadening Secondary School Science (BRaSSS) project. We situate the project in the history of interdisciplinarity in science education, explain the principles that underpin the project and describe the extensive materials that have been produced and are now freely available for others to use

Evolutionary stasis: creationism, evolution and climate change in the Accelerated Christian Education curriculum

There has been little consideration in the science education literature of schools or curricula that advocate creationism. Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) is among the world’s largest providers of creationist science materials with a curriculum divided into a system of workbooks which students complete at their own speed. This article examines the ways in which ACE presents particular areas of science that it considers to be contentious, namely evolution and climate change. The ACE curriculum has recently been rewritten, and we show that, like previous editions, the current curriculum relies on rote memorisation to the exclusion of other styles of learning, and that information presented is often misleading or distorted. Religious explanations of natural phenomena are sometimes given in place of scientific ones, and creationist assumptions are inserted into lessons not directly related to evolution or the Big Bang. Those who reject creationism are depicted as making an immoral choice. ACE’s recent curricula also add material denying the role of humans in climate change. It is argued that both the teaching methods and content of the ACE curriculum place students at an educational disadvantage

Dimensions and Pillars of Human Flourishing

Interest in human flourishing has been growing in recent years in academic, policy, and popular circles. What is it that makes a human life a flourishing life? Both scientific insight—including from such social sciences as psychology and sociology—and spiritual wisdom can help answer this question. The concept of human flourishing provides a valuable framework within which to consider the importance of satisfying people’s yearnings for material goods, successful relationships and the hope that we can achieve and experience things that give us a sense of something greater than ourselves—the transcendent. The transcendent is not discerned only within religion; for many, the arts, nature, wilderness, and a consideration of our place in the Universe are all instances of routes towards an appreciation of something beyond. At the same time, we discuss aspects of transcendence that are opened up by a religious or spiritual outlook on life