In the first week of August, 34 graduate students from across the country joined three University of Montana professors and 3 co-teachers from Iowa, South Carolina, and North Carolina for a four day National Science Foundation sponsored workshop titled “Debating Science.” Twenty-three institutions and thirty-one fields of study were represented. The workshop was designed to introduce the students, ¾ of whom were studying for graduate degrees in the natural sciences, to some of the skills necessary for deliberation about complex issues in science policy.
The students were divided up into 3 interest groups focusing on climate change, nanotechnology and agricultural biotechnology. The Center for Ethics created a program of study with lectures by national experts in each of the three interest areas in addition to seminars on more general issues of ethics and policy. The University of Montana’s own Steven Running offered an informative talk on his experience working for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Vicky Colvin gave students insight into the politics surrounding the creation of potentially harmful nanomaterials from her perspective as director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology at Rice University. Paul Thompson from Michigan State University regaled us with stories of the various twists and turns in the debates over genetically modified crops.
Throughout each day, there were break-out groups in each of the interest areas lead by Dane Scott (UM) and Jim Costa (Western Carolina College) in biotechnology, Rebecca Bendick (UM) and Clark Wolf (Iowa State) in climate change, and Christopher Preston (UM) and Cathy Murphy (University of South Carolina) in nanotechnology. Lunchtimes and evenings were filled with additional talks and events on topics ranging from biomimicry, forest restoration, economic policy, local food, and the philosophy of technology.
Throughout the workshop, the students kept up an incredibly high quality of questions and discussion, on some occasions staying up late into the night discussing the finer points of questions like “objectivity, advocacy, or both.” Feedback has been very positive. Please see below for some of the comments we received in the post-workshop evaluation.
  
Further Information:
experiences from the 2007 program
Please be aware that we are still in the process of planning the 2008 program and inviting speakers; information will be added to this page as it becomes available. However, students interested in applying to this year's program may also be interested information from last year: the 2008 program will include many of the 2007 speakers, and the program structure has not changed.
You can visit last year's site by clicking here. Items you may be interested in include:
Comments From the 2007 Workshop Evaluations
"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."
|
