The Debating Science courses formally begin with the workshop in Missoula and continue throughout the fall of 2008 online. At the workshop, participants will be treated to talks by leading scientists and ethicists in the areas of nanotechnology, biotechnology and climate change. In addition, the course instructors (Bendick, Preston and Scott) will meet with students in a seminar format to introduce them to the Online Deliberation Center (ODC), essentially a web-based tool for facilitating deliberation over policy issues. Students will leave Missoula familiar with this new technology and the goals of this project. Perhaps most importantly, participant will interact and make friends with a wide variety of graduate students from around the country who are interested in the ethical implications of science.
The three Debating Science courses take place throughout the fall on the Online Deliberation Center (ODC). One of the goals of this project is to test the ODC as an educational tool. During the first year of this project we gained many insights into how to make the ODC a useful educational tool. During the second year we will implement and test many new features and instructional techniques.
This technology creates exciting new possibilities for cooperative, democratic deliberations between people with different areas of expertise located at universities across the country. Working on the ODC provides participants with the opportunity to reflect on the ethical and social contexts for research. This project is designed to provide graduate students with the unique opportunity to step back and look at the bigger picture.
In order for this project to be successful, participants must commit to consistent participation. This means reading assigned articles, conducting research, and working online with their cohort every week. Over the course of the term participants will regularly log on to the ODC to discuss issues and collaborate in writing analyses and recommendations. Commitment to regular participation by all participants is essential to the success of this project. All students who are accepted into this program must take the course for credit and grade.
"I was very impressed with my fellow participants and I look forward to interacting with them over the coming semester and beyond"
Rebecca Bendick is Assistant Professor of Geophysics at The University of Montana. Her primary scientific interest is neotectonics, which generates interactions with government and community groups regarding earthquake hazard assessment and planning, most recently with the Higher Education Commission and Army of Pakistan. She has participated in a range of scientific outreach programs, including earthquake education materials in Pakistan and Nepal, science television documentaries with the BBC and the Discovery Channel, and radio journalism with the BBC World Service. She teaches, speaks, and writes on communicating science to nonscientists, so that they may make informed decisions based on tested data. Finally, she teaches an undergraduate course at The University of Montana called ‘Science and Society’ which explores the interactions of scientific and social information in human communities.
Dane Scott is Director of the Center for Ethics at The University of Montana and Associate Professor of Environmental Studies. He became interested in debates over science and technology while studying the international debate over genetically modified organisms. Since 2001, these studies have produced several publications and professional presentations in the United States and Europe. Dr. Scott is currently completing a book dealing with practical reasoning, precaution and the biotechnology debate. These interests also led Dr. Scott to team-teach a course on ethics and biotechnology with biologist Jim Costa. In addition, Dr. Scott has taught several courses on practical reasoning and ethical dialogue, including a graduate course at the University of Montana focusing on ethical reasoning and the biotechnology debate in 2006. Dr. Scott holds a B.S. in Soil Science from the University of California at Riverside, an MA from the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Vanderbilt University. When not working, Scott is out riding his mountain bike, skiing, hiking or climbing in the beautiful mountains surrounding Missoula.
Christopher Preston is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at The University of Montana and a Fellow at the Center for Ethics. He teaches classes in ethics and environmental ethics to majors from all across campus. In his previous position at the University of South Carolina, he participated in an initiative to investigate the societal and ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. He also worked there with marine scientists to bring ethical and cultural consideration into their scientific research. As part of the New Directions Initiative now based at the University of North Texas, he traveled to St. Petersburg, Russia to map the Neva River from multiple disciplinary perspectives. He has just finished a biography of environmental philosopher Holmes Rolston III, charting his views on the intersection of science, ethics, and religion. His comfort level at the intersection of science and ethics recently led to him being solicited to edit the ethics chapter in a popular environmental science textbook widely used both in the United States and overseas. Dr. Preston has also worked many summers outside of his academic environment in the fishing, park, and conservation industries in Alaska, giving him a fairly unique hands-on perspective relative to other philosophers. Each of these experiences gives him good preparation in how to teach ethical concepts to non-philosophers.
"The strongest aspect of the workshop is actually bringing everyone together. I felt that this getting to know one another face to face was absolutely essential and will be invaluable in the upcoming semester. I thought the most useful portion of the workshop was that it provided me with a shelter from the daily demands of my research so that I could think all the way through these more conceptual issues regarding science - something that I've been desperately hoping for quite a while."
"This is, without question, the best workshop I've ever attended, and in fact far superior to the two-year fellowship I had for the science-theology debate at Princeton's Center of Theological Inquiry. It would be difficult for me to think of ways to improve the quality of the workshop."
"Time management was definitely adequate in terms of keeping everything on time, but what I thought was done extremely well was the number and variety of talks. Even when I was physically wearing down, the new topics introduced in each talk perked me back up and helped me to confront issues that I either had little experience in or would not otherwise have seen as a priority to understand."
"The presentations (lectures) were in general, excellent. I also really enjoyed switching venues to the farms one evening and the visits to local areas to break up the time sitting and listening. I felt like my fellow students were incredibly diverse and stellar in their fields. They generally had a real curiosity and genuinely employed critical thinking skills in fields disparate from their own, which strengthens every aspect of the workshop as a whole."
"The overall ethics, scientific, and philosophical lectures were fantastic. I had not been exposed to all facets of these topics."
"I not only enjoyed the diverse group of students, but presenters as well. Each presenter covered a critical area in a unique and informative way. Also, the facilitators did an excellent job at time management, making sure discussions didn't run too long, etc."
"Logistics of travel, stay, and food were great and allowed the focus to be on the event and not the day to day expectants. Guest lecturers added freshness each day."
"The introduction(s) to environmental ethics were good. The introduction to concerns over nanotechnology was good. The diversity of participants and speakers was also really good. I liked the talk on Glacier Nat'l Park and climate change."
"I really like Vicki Colvin and Dan Fagre's lectures. Missoula was beautiful and the hikes were very nice. I also liked going to the local farm where the food was wonderful. I was very impressed with my fellow participants and I look forward to interacting with them over the coming semester and beyond."
"I'm not a scientist, so I certainly appreciated Vicki Colvin's lectures on nanotechnology. That was an area of research in which I was totally lost, but in her morning lecture she took some time to explain the fundamentals of what nanotechnology actually is. Thus, I was able to follow along (for the most part) as her talks progressed. The morning hikes were also a special treat, allowing us to spend some time in a beautiful part of the country. An incredible job; I still miss the stimulation."
