sts3740.html

Atkinson College, York University - Department of Science and Technology Studies
1997-98 COURSE SYLLABUS

AK/STS 3740.06

Controversies in Environmental Science

Instructor: Adrian Ivakhiv
Office: Room 226-B, Lumbers Building.
Office hours: Wednesdays 12.00-1.00 p.m. and 5.00-6.00 p.m.
Email address: ai@yorku.ca

Prerequisites

Completion of Humanities, Social Science and either Mathematics of Modes of Reasoning at the 1000 6.0 level.

Overview and Course Objectives

Over the last three decades, the perception has grown that human society is undergoing an "environmental crisis." The popular environmental movement has alerted people to the many risks and dangers associated with living in a highly industrialized and technological society. Within science, the loose and interdisciplinary field of "environmental science" has emerged to address the details of this apparent crisis, and a data-bank of knowledge has grown apace. For most people, however, environmental controversies remain a source of confusion: many and conflicting facts are cited, wildly divergent opinions thrown about, and "experts" seemingly disagree more often than not.

This course aims to provide students with a broad background for understanding controversies within environmental science -- not by presenting "the facts as they are" (for instance, by answering such questions as "is global warming really occuring?"), but by exploring a variety of perspectives (scientific, cultural, historical, political, economic, etc.) from which the complexity of scientific and environmental debates can be made sense of. Environmental science will be seen as an activity which takes place within a broader cultural and historical milieu, one in which controversies emerge out of the interaction of various factors and actors, and which is fraught with social, political, and ethical questions.

Students can expect to gain the following by taking this course:

- an introduction to and general awareness of some of the most important and controversial issues within environmental science, both historically and (especially) in the present day;

- an awareness of some of the ways in which science, politics, economics, and culture interact in the generation of environmental controversies, and of the various ethical, political and ecological implications of, as well as competing perspectives on, controversial issues;

- an understanding of some basic concepts in the sociology of environmental science and technology, such as the "risk society," the "technological world system," debates on "expertise", scientific uncertainty, and "citizen science";

- and research skills appropriate to learning about an environmental issue or controversy, "critically reading" various kinds of arguments, and adjudicating between different points of view on environmental issues.

Course Description

The course will be divided into three broad sections of roughly seven or eight weeks each.

(1) Following a three-week introduction to environmental science and the central themes of the course, we will embark on a historical overview of ecological thinking. We will examine the changing relationship between science, society, and concern for "nature" or "the environment," tracing this thread from the beginnings of modern Western science, through the rise of Darwinism and of ecology in the nineteenth century, and to the emergence and growth of the environmental movement of the last thirty-five years.

(2) The next seven weeks will focus on scientific and environmental controversies within a "risk society." We will look at the social construction of environmental controversies; the respective roles of science, environmental movements, and the media in the framing and development of such controversies; and ideas of risk, scientific uncertainty, and contested notions of "expertise" in environmental and scientific debates.

(3) The remainder of the course will examine the longer-term political and ecological implications of contemporary environmental controversies, viewed in the context of the emerging "technological world system," and will explore competing and critical perspectives on science, technology, and the future of human society.

Throughout the course, but especially in the second half, we will make extensive use of case studies of contemporary environmental controversies, such as global warming, biodiversity loss, ozone depletion, the Gaia hypothesis, nuclear and toxic waste disposal, genetic engineering and biotechnology, ecological restoration, and so on. Each of these cases will involve asking questions not only about the scientific validity of competing arguments, but also about ethical concerns, the role of science and technology within society, the rise of the global economy and the political contours of the "risk society," North-South relations, race, class and gender issues, methods to improve popular participation in scientific decision-making, and competing visions of the future.

Course Readings

Required texts

1. Donald Worster, Nature's Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas (2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1994).

2. Alan Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development (New York: Routledge, 1995).

3. Wolfgang Sachs, ed., Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict (London: Zed, 1993).

4. Norman Myers and Julian L. Simon, Scarcity or Abundance? A Debate on the Environment (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1994).

5. Reading Kits for Fall and Winter terms.

Optional, recommended texts

1. Bill McKibben, The End of Nature (New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1989).

2. Daniel B. Botkin, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (Oxford University Press, 1990).

Please note:

(1) Nature's Economy and Citizen Science will be the central texts of (respectively) Parts One and Two of the course, and will be used almost in their entirety.

(2) Although we will not devote much time to discussing Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, students are urged to read this book (or at least Part One, pp. 3-91), if possible, PRIOR TO THE FIRST CLASS, as it is a very readable introduction to many themes of the course.

(3) Students are also encouraged to purchase or gain access to a good, up-to-date environmental science textbook for reference purposes, such as G. Tyler Miller, Jr., Living in the Environment, Daniel B. Botkin and Edward A. Keller, Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet, or William P. Cunningham and Barbara Saigo, Environmental Science: A Global Concern.

(4) The Myers-Simon reading, Scarcity or Abundance?, which is currently out of print, will be made available on reserve, and students are encouraged to read it ahead of time in order to avoid time conflicts. Additional supplementary readings will also be made available on reserve where appropriate.

Course Requirements

(1) ONGOING CLASS PARTICIPATION 20%

This component includes preparation for classes, regular attendance, and participation in class discussions and exercises (which may include small-group writing exercises, in-class debates, short reflection papers and brief quizzes, and so on).

Readings: Students are expected to read all the required readings for a given week, and to come prepared with critical comments or questions with respect to the readings. It is recommended that students make notes while reading, especially in response to the "study questions" that will be suggested at the end of each class. These questions will be the basis for writing assignments (see below) and the mid-term examination. Readings in the second term will be expected to be integrated into group presentations and class discussions.

Grading criteria: The grade for this component will be based on the quality of your contributions to class discussions, your demonstrated thought about the issues raised in the readings, and your ability to draw connections between theoretical ideas and specific issues or "cases," which may also include events you hear about in the news, in the community where you live, etc. Contributions are expected to add to the quality and "flow" of class discussion.

(2) THREE SHORT REFLECTION PAPERS (3-4 pp. each X 5% each) 15%

These will be based on readings and lecture materials; their style and content will be specified in class. They may include writing assignments developed in the context of peer-response groups; a critical analysis of an author's arguments; or assignments in the form of newspaper articles or "letters to the editor."

(3) MID-TERM EXAM 20%

The intent of this exam is to allow students to demonstrate an adequate understanding of the concepts introduced in the lectures and readings of the first term. Questions will generally require "short essay" type answers, and there will be some choice as to which questions students would prefer to answer. Factual details (such as dates, etc.) will be considered less important than an overall grasp of the concepts.

(4) GROUP PROJECT AND IN-CLASS PRESENTATION 25%

Each group will consist of three or four students who will be responsible for planning and leading a class session approximately 50-60 minutes in length, compiling an annotated bibliography (as a group), and writing short individual reflection papers. Presentations will take place sometime during the second term of the course, and will normally be in the form of "case studies" relevant or related to the topic or theme of the given week; thus, students are encouraged to examine the course syllabus well ahead to find a suitable date and topic. By the end of the first term, all groups should be formed and topics should be in place.

Preparation: To ensure that presentations will be informative and enjoyable for the class, it is essential that each group discuss plans with the instructor well ahead of the presentation date. At least four weeks ahead of the presentation date each group should submit a written proposal, including a brief description of the topic, format ideas, proposed division of responsibilities among group members, 3-5 "starting" bibliographic references, and a list of times (half-hour blocks) during the week when all of the group members would be available to meet with the instructor (preferred times are Tuesday or Wednesday afternoon) or to conduct a conference call. (Email communication is also a possibility, should the above be unworkable.) This meeting should take place at least a week prior to the presentation date.

Presentation: The aim of the presentation should be to introduce the given topic from various perspectives (scientific, environmental, social, ethical, etc.) and to make it meaningful, comprehensible, and "real" for other students. Projects must include consideration of both the scientific/technical and societal/values aspect of the topic under consideration. Verbal introduction of the topic (i.e. presenters "talking") should not take up more than 15-20 minutes maximum. You are encouraged to be creative with formats: "talk shows," games, role-playing, theatre, class debates, etc., may all be appropriate, as may the use of media (videos, slides, overheads, etc.), though these should normally not take up more than a third to a half of the given presentation's length. You may invite guest speakers into class, should this be a possibility, but make sure that person understands their role and any time limitations.

Annotated bibliography: In addition to the actual in-class presentation, the final output should include an annotated bibliography of sources read and consulted on the topic. This bibliography should include annotated references (i.e., with critical commentary, at least a paragraph per reference) to at least 12-15 books or journal articles, though this number can vary depending on the style of bibliography. It should be organized in a way that serves to introduce both the subject itself and the different kinds of literature on it, and to generally make the topic accessible to someone unfamiliar with it.

Individual reflection papers: Following the presentation, each group member will be expected to hand in a brief, 2-3 page paper reflecting on the entire presentation process, detailing your individual role in the project, what you learned, difficulties encountered along the way, etc.

Grading: Though the entire project will be considered a group effort, grading may vary on an individual basis. Groups are expected to divide the workload among all participants equally (though there may be flexibility in the "division of labour" - for instance, some students may wish to put more effort into certain components, e.g. the bibliography or the presentation, as opposed to others). In general, the presentation will be worth 15%, and the annotated bibliography 10%. The individual reflection paper is intended as a way to ensure that all students are graded according to the work they have done, and that the entire process be considered a learning opportunity; it will be factored into the overall grade for the project. Actual grades will be based upon three sources: a peer evaluation of the in-class presentation by the rest of the class; an evaluation by each group member of the contribution to the project of all the members of the group; and an evaluation of the project by the instructor. Class discussions of each other's work is intended to be collegial, fair and honest, and should be aimed at encouraging critical reflection and standards of quality for all of our work.

(5) MAJOR RESEARCH PAPER 20%

This will be due one week following the final class in April. Topics and detailed instructions will be given out in the second term. Students should normally choose an entirely different topic from that of their group presentation.

Structure of Classes

Though classes will remain flexible depending on course material, students' needs, group presentations, and so on, the general structure of classes will tend to be as follows.

1) Roughly the first third of each class will be devoted to discussing readings and issues raised within them, as well as related case studies. As participation in these discussions will be crucial, students are expected to read all of the required readings for a given week and to prepare some relevant questions and/or commentary in relation to each reading, prior to the class of the week in which they are listed below. Thus, the readings listed under September 17 (see below) are expected to be done in the week between Sept. 10 and Sept. 17.

2) A lecture-style presentation will elaborate on ideas related to the theme of the given class. This section will vary in length. The middle portion of the class may also include in-class presentations, film or video screenings, and the like.

3) Finally, a brief final section of the class will introduce the themes of the following week's readings, and suggestions or "study questions" will be given as a guide for "what to look for" in the readings.

Schedule of Topics and Readings

The following schedule of topics and readings is subject to revision as the course progresses. The second term, in particular, should be considered a "tentative" schedule. Depending on students interests in particular topics, it will be revised and a new schedule for the second term will be issued late in the first term.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXTS

September 10

Introduction and course overview

Winter Term

INTRODUCTION TO THE WINTER TERM

The first term of the course consisted of (1) an introduction to the course themes and to the perspective of environmental studies/science (first three weeks), (2) an historical overview of ecological thinking (weeks 4 through 10), and (3) an introduction to sociological and analytic perspectives on environmental controversies (beginning in week 8). In the second term we will continue with the sociological-analytic approach to issues, focusing on the social construction of controversies and of concepts of 'risk', uncertainty, and 'expertise'; but we will broaden this out to include the numerous ethical, cultural, and sociopolitical questions surrounding contemporary environmental controversies. We will also be focusing much more closely on a series of specific case studies, ranging from pollution in the Great Lakes, the collapse of East Coast fisheries, Toronto's garbage crisis, nuclear waste disposal, and endocrine-disruptor chemicals, to such global problems as climate change and the 'ozone hole.' (Note that the original division of the course into three sections will become more 'blurred' than was originally suggested. The reason for this is that our schedule of case studies, presentations, and guest speakers, will require referring to different aspects of issues as they arise.)

UPDATE ON COURSE REQUIREMENTS

Fall term: Writing exercises / short papers 10%

Mid-term exam 20%

Winter term: Two reflection papers (due Feb. 4, Mar. 18) 10%

Group project and in-class presentation 25%

Major research paper 20%

Class participation (fall & winter total) 15%

Please note that the relative "% value" of presentations and research papers is negotiable (e.g., individual presenters - as opposed to groups - may choose to have the presentation valued at 20% and the essay at 25%, but please approach me well beforehand if this is your wish). Details regarding the reflection papers and writing exercises will be given out at the beginning of January.

GROUP (or individual) PRESENTATIONS

(Please note that major changes are in italics.)

Presentation groups will be responsible for planning and leading a short class session, compiling an annotated bibliography (as a group), and writing short individual reflection papers. (Groups of four people should plan a 50-55 minute session; groups of three - 40 minutes; two - 25-30 minutes; individuals - 15-20 minutes.) Presentations will normally be in the form of 'case studies' related to the class topics of the given week; thus, students are encouraged to examine the course syllabus well ahead and to make connections with course topics and themes as appropriate.

Preparation:

To ensure that presentations will be informative and enjoyable for the class, it is essential that each group discuss plans with the instructor well ahead of the presentation date. At least three to four weeks ahead of the presentation date each group should submit a written proposal, including a brief description of the topic, format ideas, proposed division of responsibilities among group members, at least five 'starting' bibliographic references, and a list of times (half-hour blocks) during the week when all of the group members would be available to meet with the instructor or to conduct a conference call. (Email communication is also a possibility, should the above prove unworkable.) This meeting should take place at least a week prior to the presentation date. Finally, you should think about how your presentation may be evaluated, and possible means of incorporating some peer/group evaluation process into the presentation itself (or following it). (We will discuss this further in January.)

Presentation:

The aim of the presentation should be to introduce the given topic from various perspectives (scientific, environmental, sociopolitical, ethical, etc.) and to make it meaningful, comprehensible, and 'real' for other students. Projects must include consideration of both the scientific/technical and societal/values aspect of the topic under consideration. (See 'Presentation Guidelines' handout for details.) Verbal introduction of the topic (i.e. presenters 'talking') should take up no more than one-third of the total time. You are encouraged to be creative with formats: 'talk shows,' games, role-playing, theatre, class debates, etc., may all be appropriate, as may the use of media (videos, slides, overheads, etc.); videos or films should normally not take up more than a third of the given presentation's length. You may invite guest speakers into class, should this be a possibility, but make sure that person understands their role and any time limitations.

Annotated bibliography:

In addition to the actual in-class presentation, the final output should include an annotated bibliography of sources read and consulted on the topic. This bibliography should include annotated references (i.e., with critical commentary) to some 12-15 books or journal articles, though this number can vary depending on the style of bibliography you chosen. It should be organized in a way that serves to introduce both the subject itself and the different kinds of literature on it, and to generally make the topic accessible to someone unfamiliar with it. Bibliography should include references to the science as well as the ethics and politics of the given issue, with some mention made of the different types of literature (refereed scientific research, social scientific analysis, popular books and media, etc.).

Individual reflection papers:

Following the presentation, each group member will be expected to hand in a brief (1-3 page, as appropriate) paper reflecting on the presentation process, detailing your individual role in the project, difficulties encountered along the way, etc., and including an individual evaluation of the group work. (If you are doing an individual presentation, see below.)

Grading - for group work:

Though the entire project will be considered a group effort, grading may vary on an individual basis. Groups are expected to divide the workload among all participants equally (though there may be flexibility in the 'division of labour' - for instance, some students may wish to put more effort into certain components, e.g. the bibliography or the presentation, as opposed to others). In general, the presentation will be worth 15%, and the annotated bibliography 10%. The individual reflection paper is intended as a way to ensure that all students are graded according to the work they have done, and that the entire process be considered a learning opportunity; it will be factored into the overall grade for the project. Actual grades will be based upon three sources: a peer evaluation of the in-class presentation by the rest of the class; an evaluation by each group member of the contribution to the project of all the members of the group; and an evaluation of the project by the instructor. Class discussions of each other's work is intended to be collegial, fair and honest, and should be aimed at encouraging critical reflection and standards of quality for all of our work.

Grading - for individual presenters:

You are not required to write a 'reflection paper' as such; rather, your written output will be considered as a single unit, consisting of an introduction to the issue/controversy, an annotated bibliography, and a brief self-evaluation of the presentation. The total grade will be divided equally into presentation (1/2) and write-up / annotated bibliography (1/2).

MAJOR RESEARCH PAPER

This will be intended as a synthesis of the course material (especially that from the second two 'thirds' of the course), applied to a specific environmental issue or controversy. You will be expected to address issues of risk and the role of science, 'expertise', 'citizen knowledge', and ethical and political questions, in relation to your chosen issue/controversy. A list of topics and detailed instructions will be given out early in the term, though other topics will be possible, subject to approval of instructor. Some suggestions are included in an appendix at the end of this syllabus. (Students should normally choose a different topic from that of their group presentation.) Topics which are presently 'in the news' are especially encouraged. The paper will be due one week following the final class in April.

SCHEDULE OF TOPICS, READINGS, AND PRESENTATIONS

Note: Readings in the second term have been selected with the intention of providing a wide range of sources, ranging from environmental science textbooks (Miller), scholarly journals and social-scientific analyses, to popular science magazines and daily news reportage (e.g. Mar. 18), and structured debate formats (e.g. Jan. 21). You are expected to do all required readings prior to the date they are listed, and to be prepared to discuss them in class. Most of the readings below will either be available in the winter term reading kit (noted as "KIT"), or are among the required texts for the course -- i.e. Alan Irwin, Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise, and Sustainable Development (New York: Routledge, 1995), and Wolfgang Sachs, ed., Global Ecology: A New Arena of Political Conflict (London: Zed, 1993). The readings for March 25 are taken from the Fall Term Kit and the Supplementary Reading Kit (made available in November). A list of additional, supplementary reading materials on specific topics will be made available at the beginning of January; a few of these are listed below as "further reading."

January 7

SCIENCE AND CITIZENSHIP IN A "RISK SOCIETY":

PUBLIC TRUST AND ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT

Required reading:

1. Alan Irwin, chapters 1 and 2, CITIZEN SCIENCE, pp. 1-61.

January 14

SCIENCE AND THE POLICY PROCESS:

RISK ASSESSMENT, UNCERTAINTY, & EXPERT DISAGREEMENTS

Case study: Toxic wastes; environmental estrogens

Required readings:

1. G. Tyler Miller, from "Risk, Toxicology, and Human Health" (ch. 10), Living in the Environment (10th Ed.), pp. 258-68, 275-81). (KIT)

2. Beth Savan, "Sleazy Science," Alternatives 13:2 (April 1986), pp. 11-16. (KIT)

3. Irwin, chapter 3, Citizen Science, pp. 62-80.

Further reading:

Christina Chociolko, "The Experts Disagree: A Simple Matter of Facts Versus Values?", Alternatives 21:3, 1995, pp. 18-25.

T. Goldfarb, "Do Environmental Estrogens Pose a Potentially Serious Health Threat?": YES - Jon Luoma, "Havoc in the Hormones"; NO - Stephen H. Safe, "Environmental and Dietary Estrogens and Human Health"; and Goldfarb's Postscript. In T. D. Goldfarb, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental Issues (7th ed., Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill), pp. 258-277.

January 21

THE ETHICS & POLITICS OF TECHNOLOGY & TECHNOLOGICAL RISK

Case study: Nuclear power & nuclear waste disposal

Presentations: The nuclear industry (Alfred Lai); nuclear waste disposal (David Gabriel)

Required readings:

1. Ian Barbour, "Views of Technology" and "Nuclear Power," from Ethics in an Age of Technology (Gifford Lectures 1989-91, Vol. 2, HarperSan Francisco), pp. 3-25, 122-131. (KIT)

2. (a) T. Goldfarb, "Nuclear Waste: Should Plans for Underground Storage Be Put on Hold?":

(b) YES - Nicholas Lenssen, "Facing up to Nuclear Waste";

(d) Goldfarb's Postscript.

In T. D. Goldfarb, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Environmental Issues (7th ed., Guilford, CT: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill), pp. 258-277. (KIT)

January 28

RISK, DISASTER, AND RESPONSIBILITY:

DISTRIBUTING RISKS, ASSIGNING BLAME

Presentations: The collapse of East Coast fisheries (David Hopkins);

Great Lakes water pollution (Sharon Mcnutt, Kimberley Furtado-Elliott)

Required readings:

1. Lee Clarke, "The Wreck of the Exxon Valdez," in D. Nelkin, ed., Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions (3rd ed., London: Sage, 1992), pp. 80-95. (KIT)

2. Robert Kunzig, "Twilight of the Cod," Discover, April 1995, reprinted in John L. Allen, ed., Environment 97/98 (Annual Editions Series, 16th Ed., Dushkin/McGraw-Hill), pp. 187-95. (KIT)

3. Debora Mackenzie, "Seals to the Slaughter," New Scientist, 16 March 1996, pp. 36-39. (KIT)

3. Ruth Rosen, "Who Gets Polluted? The Movement for Environmental Justice," Dissent, Spring 1994, pp. 223-30. (KIT)

February 4

"LOCAL EXPERTISE" AND "CITIZEN SCIENCE"

*REFLECTION PAPER #1 DUE.

Presentation: Metro Toronto's garbage crisis (Teri Burgess, Rosmarie Bradley, Maryam Mozaheb, Andrew Harris)

Required reading:

1. Alan Irwin, Chapters 5-7 ('focus' sections to be announced in class), Citizen Science.

February 11

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION, ZOOS, & INTERSPECIES ETHICS

Presentation: Zoos (Anne Coles, Kathleen Quinn, John Jonas, Alan Mccord)

Required readings:

1. William Conway, "Zoo Conservation and Ethical Paradoxes," in B. G. Norton, M. Hutchins, E. F. Stevens, and T. L. Maple, eds., Ethics of the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995). (KIT)

2. Robert Loftin, "Captive Breeding of Endangered Species," in Norton, et al., eds., Ethics of the Ark, pp. 164-80. (KIT)

3. G. T. Miller, "Protecting Wild Species from Depletion and Extinction" and "Wildlife Management," Living in the Environment (10th Ed.), pp. 684-91. (KIT)

Further reading:

Dale Jamieson, "Against Zoos," in Peter Singer, ed., In Defense of Animals (New York: Harper & Row, 1985), pp. 108-17.

B. G. Norton, M. Hutchins, E. F. Stevens, and T. L. Maple, eds., Ethics of the Ark: Zoos, Animal Welfare, and Wildlife Conservation (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995).

February 18

READING WEEK. No class will be held.

February 25

THE GLOBALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Case study: The Rio 'Earth Summit' and its aftermath

Presentations: Tropical deforestation (Perry Jagdeo, Marie Barber, Magda Michon);

Geographical Information Systems (Peter Liima)

Required readings:

1. Steven Yearley, excerpt from "How do the World's Environmental Problems come to be 'Global'?" in Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization: Reinventing the Globe (London: SAGE, 1996), pp. 62-77. (KIT)

2. Wolfgang Sachs, "Global Ecology and the Shadow of 'Development'," in Global Ecology, pp. 3-20.

3. Nicholas Hildyard, "Foxes in Charge of the Chickens," in Global Ecology, pp. 22-35.