Journal of Science Policy & Governance
​Volume 20, Issue 02 | May 16, 2022

Policy Memo: For the Public Good: Incorporating Civic Science into Undergraduate STEM Education

Christian H. Ross, Samantha Jo Fried
Tufts University, Jonathan M. Tisch College of Civic Life, Medford, MA
​​
Corresponding author: christian.ross@tufts.edu
Keywords: civic; civic science; STEM education; science communication; democracy ​
https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG200207 ​

Executive Summary

Science and technology are ubiquitous aspects of modern life, and their importance reaches far beyond the laboratory and into the public square. Those with STEM training have a distinct opportunity and responsibility as civic participants to apply their training to promote the public good by engaging with the civic dimensions of science and technology. However, civic engagement is difficult to do well, and current undergraduate STEM education does not adequately train students in these critical skills. To improve STEM graduates’ understanding of science and technology in broader societal contexts, enhance their science communication skills, and increase their civic engagement and competency, universities should adopt a civic science approach to STEM education. Drawing on an example from the Science and Technology and Society co-major program at Tufts University, we recommend universities and STEM departments incorporate training in civic science into STEM education to prepare STEM graduates to engage more fully with the technical and political dimensions of democratic life.

-Read the full article through download.-

Background header image courtesy of ESAL
Christian H. Ross is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Civic Science in the Tisch College of Civic Life studying the roles of expertise, responsibility, and public engagement in understanding the rightful place of science in democracy. Previously, he was a Science, Technology & Society Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow. He earned his doctorate in 2021 from Arizona State University in biology, synthesizing interdisciplinary expertise across the life sciences, science and technology studies (STS), and science policy. He also holds a B.S. in medicinal biochemistry and M.S. in biology from Arizona State University

Samantha Jo Fried is the program manager of the Civic Studies and Science, Technology, and Society (STS) programs at Tufts University. Samantha holds a Ph.D. in STS from Virginia Tech. While in graduate school, she was student body president, and was part of the Remote Sensing Interdisciplinary Graduate Education Program (IGEP). Educated in two different worlds that share little in terms of jargon, theories, or methodologies, she learned to think about the connections between these spaces in terms of shared values. Her research seeks to reconfigure critical theory and action-based coalition-building around a commitment to civic science.

References

  1. ​Allen, Greg. 2020. “Florida Governor Defends Firing Of Top Data Scientist.” NPR. May 20, 2020. https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/05/20/859741245/florida-governor-defends-firing-of-top-data-scientist 
  2. Besley, John C., Sang Hwa Oh, and Matthew Nisbet. 2012 "Predicting scientists’ participation in public life." Public Understanding of Science 22, no. 8: 971-987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315
  3. Besley, John C., Anthony Dudo, Shupei Yuan, and Frank Lawrence. "Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage." Science Communication 40, no. 5: 559-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561
  4. Biden, Joseph R. 2020. Twitter post. Oct 28, 2020, 8:15PM. https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1321606423495823361 
  5. Bäckstrand, K. 2003. “Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance.” Global Environmental Politics 3, 
  6. Bloudoff-Indelicato Mollie. 2012. “Physicist Elected to Congress Calls for More Scientists-Statesmen.” Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2012.11839 
  7. Bourla, Albert. 2021. “Continuing to Follow the Science: An Open Letter from Pfizer Chairman and CEO Dr. Albert Bourla.” Pfizer https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/continuing_to_follow_the_science_an_open_letter_from_pfizer_chairman_and_ceo_dr_albert_bourla 
  8. Brownell, Sara E., Jordan V. Price, and Lawrence Steinman. 2013. "Science communication to the general public: why we need to teach undergraduate and graduate students this skill as part of their formal scientific training." Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 12, no. 1: E6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc3852879/
  9. Bush, Vannevar. 1945. Science: The Endless Frontier. The National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/EndlessFrontier_w.pdf 
  10. Callon, Michel. 1984. "Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay." The Sociological Review 32, no. 1_suppl: 196-233. no.4: 24-41. https://doi.org/10.1162/152638003322757916 
  11. Christopherson, Elizabeth Good, Dietram A. Scheufele, and Brooke Smith. 2018. “The civic science imperative.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://doi.org/10.48558/6k46-1c68 
  12. Christopherson, Elizabeth Good, Emily L. Howell, Dietram A. Scheufele, Kasisomayajula Viswanath, and Norris P. West. 2021. “How Science Philanthropy Can Build Equity.” Stanford Social Innovation Review. 
  13. https://doi.org/10.48558/p4g8-qm77. 
  14. Coons, Christopher. 2017. “Scientist’s can't’ be silent.” Science 357, no. 6350:431-431. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao4665 
  15. Crow, Michael, Robert Frodeman, David Guston, Carl Mitcham, and Daniel Sarewitz. 2013. The Rightful Place of Science: Politics. Vol. 1. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.
  16. Day, Jennifer Cheeseman and Anthony Martinez. 2021. “STEM Majors Earned More Than Other STEM Workers.” United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/06/does-majoring-in-stem-lead-to-stem-job-after-graduation.html 
  17. Dietz, Thomas. 2013."Bringing values and deliberation to science communication." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. Supplement 3: 14081-14087. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212740110
  18. Dosemagen, S. 2020. “Exploring the Roots: The Evolution of Civic and Community Science.” Medium. https://medium.com/@sdosemagen/exploring-the-roots-the-evolution-of-civic-and-community-science-80dd899335cb
  19. Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press. 
  20. Facher, Lev. 2021. “Biden pledged to ‘follow the science.’ But experts say he’s sometimes fallen short.” STAT News. Sep. 1, 2021. https://www.statnews.com/2021/09/01/biden-pledged-follow-the-science-but-hes-fallen-short/Gibbons, Michael. 1999. "Science's new social contract with society." Nature 402, no. 6761: C81-C84. https://doi.org/10.1038/35011576 
  21. Fortun, Kim, and Mike Fortun. 2005. “Scientific imaginaries and ethical plateaus in contemporary US toxicology.” American Anthropologist 107, no. 1: 43-54. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3567671 
  22. Garlick, Jonathan. A., and Peter Levine. 2016. “Where civics meets science: building science for the public good through civic science.” Oral Diseases 23, no. 6: 692-696. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12534 
  23. Grundmann, Reiner. 2018. "The rightful place of expertise." Social Epistemology 32, no. 6 : 372-386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2018.1546347 
  24. Guston, David H. 2000. "Retiring the social contract for science." Issues in Science and Technology 16, no. 4 (2000): 32-36. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43314013 
  25. Hornsey, Matthew J. 2020. "Why facts are not enough: Understanding and managing the motivated rejection of science." Current Directions in Psychological Science 29, no. 6: 583-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420969364
  26. Huang, Pien. 2021. “New CDC isolation guidelines raise concerns among health experts.” NPR. Dec. 28, 2021. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/12/28/1068632200/cdc-covid-guidelines-testing 
  27. Jasanoff, Sheila, ed. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-production of Science and the Social Order. Routledge.
  28. Lane, Neal. 1996. “Science and the American Dream: Healthy or History.” In Speech to the February 1996 meeting of the AAAS. Notices of the American Mathematical Society. https://www.ams.org/notices/199606/comm-lane.pdf. 
  29. Latour, Bruno. 1993 [1991]. We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by Catherine Porter. Harvard University Press.
  30. Lemire, Jonathan Aamer Madhani, Will Weissert And Ellen Knickmeyer. 2020. “Trump spurns science on climate: ‘Don’t think science knows’. “ AP News. Sep. 14, 2020. https://apnews.com/article/climate-climate-change-elections-joe-biden-campaigns-bd152cd786b58e45c61bebf2457f9930 
  31. Levy, Brett L.M., Alandeom W. Oliveira, and Cornelia B. Harris. 2021. "The potential of “civic science education”: Theory, research, practice, and uncertainties." Science Education 105, no. 6: 1053-1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21678
  32. Mak, Aaron. 2021. “In This House, We Believe.” Slate. May 12, 2021. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/05/yard-sign-love-is-love-post-trump-sales.html 
  33. March for Science. 2019. “Unite Behind the Science.” March for Science.  https://marchforscience.org/ 
  34. Mervins, Jeffrey. 2018. “Meet the scientists running to transform Congress in 2018.” Science Insider. 22 Feb. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat3783 
  35. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2018. Graduate STEM education for the 21st century. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25038
  36. Nature Editors. 2021. “Biden has assembled a stellar science team — now they must pull together.”Nature 590, 7-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00184-y 
  37. Nelson, Alondra, and William Kearney. 2021 “Science and Technology Now Sit in the Center of Every Policy and Social Issue.” Issues in Science and Technology 38, no. 1: 26–29. https://issues.org/science-technology-policy-social-issue-alondra-nelson-interview/ 
  38. Oreskes, Naomi. 2021. Why trust science?. Princeton University Press.
  39. Polanyi, Michael. 1964.”The Republic of Science.” Minerva 1 no. 1: 54-73. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41821550 
  40. Popovich, Nadja, Livia Albeck-Ripka, and Kendra Pierre-Louis. 2020. “The Trump Administration Is Reversing Nearly 100 Environmental Rules. Here’s the Full List.” The New York Times. Oct. 15, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html 
  41. Ravetz, Jerry. 1988. "A new social contract for science." Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 8, no. 1: 20-30. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046768800800107 
  42. Ross, Ashley D., Rhonda Struminger, Jeffrey Winking, and Kathryn R. Wedemeyer-Strombel. 2018. "Science as a public good: Findings from a survey of March for Science participants." Science Communication 40, no. 2: 228-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018758076
  43. The Royal Society. 2006. Science communication: Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. The Royal Society. https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/file/b28517751_Full%20report.pdf 
  44. Sarewitz, Daniel. 2009. "The rightful place of science." Issues in Science and Technology 25, no. 4: 89-94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43314922 
  45. Schmandt, Juergen. 1998. “Civic science.” Science Communication, 20, no. 1, 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547098020001008. 
  46. Seethaler, Sherry, John H. Evans, Cathy Gere, and Ramya M. Rajagopalan. 2019. "Science, values, and science communication: Competencies for pushing beyond the deficit model." Science Communication 41, no. 3: 378-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019847484
  47. Science News Staff. 2021. “Biden seeks big increases for science budgets.” Science News. May 28, 2021. https://www.science.org/content/article/biden-seeks-big-increases-science-budgets 
  48. Simis, Molly J., Haley Madden, Michael A. Cacciatore, and Sara K. Yeo. 2016. "The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?." Public Understanding of Science 25, no. 4 : 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
  49. Thompson, Alex. “Biden’s top science adviser bullied and demeaned subordinates, according to White House investigation.” Politico. Feb. 7, 2022. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/eric-lander-white-house-investigation-00006077 
  50. Tormos-Aponte, Fernando, Scott Frickel, and John Parker. 2020. “Scientists Are Becoming More Politically Engaged.” Scientific American. Nov. 25, 2020. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientists-are-becoming-more-politically-engaged/ 
  51. Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). 2021. How Is President Biden Doing on Science and Democracy?.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Apr. 28, 2021. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/biden-science-tracker 
  52. Waldman, Scott. 2019. “Trump officials deleting mentions of ‘climate change' from U.S. Geological Survey press releases.” Science Insider. Jul. 8, 2019. https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-officials-deleting-mentions-climate-change-us-geological-survey-press-releases 
  53. Walker, Greg. B., and Steven E. Daniels. 2004. “Dialogue and deliberation in environmental conflict: enacting civic science.” In Environmental Communication Yearbook, edited by Susan L. Senecah. Routledge, 135-152.
  54. Wylie, Sara Ann, Kirk Jalbert, Shannon Dosemagen, and Matt Ratto. 2014. "Institutions for civic technoscience: How critical making is transforming environmental research." The Information Society 30, no. 2: 116-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.875783 
  55. Wynne, Brian. 2006. "Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science–hitting the notes, but missing the music?." Public Health Genomics 9, no. 3: 211-220. https://doi.org/10.1159/000092659

DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.