key: cord-0039881-3js467lu authors: Roth, Wolff-Michael; Désautels, Jacques title: Educating for Citizenship: Reappraising the Role of Science Education date: 2004-04-01 journal: nan DOI: 10.1080/14926150409556603 sha: 4bc7fcc2d3bab5a51585be8132b3947525a5dcd8 doc_id: 39881 cord_uid: 3js467lu New discoveries and technological inventions render the world increasingly complex. Fostering students’ scientific and technological literacy has, therefore, become a primary goal for many science educators. Yet the concept of scientific literacy is itself not at all clear. In this article, we contest the dominant approach, which defines scientific literacy in terms of what scientists produce or do. We argue that a more viable approach begins by framing a more general project of (democratic) citizenship and asks what kind of scientific literacy can contribute to this project. The different parts of our argument are illustrated with data from a three-year ethnographic study of science in one community. These data feature adult residents who were dealing with the contested issue of whether or not to extend the existing water main in order to supply with water a part of the community that, at the time, had to rely on seasonally contaminated wells. Irrespective of their science background, these citizens engaged scientists. We argue that educating for citizenship presupposes participation in democratic processes, a stance that has considerable implications for science education. ensemble de procedures qui vi sent a enrichir la participation a la vie democratique dans nos societes. Nous proposons dans cet article une etude de cas qui illustre la posture que nous avons deve\oppee dans la premiere partie de I'article. II s'agit d'une etude ethnographique n!alisee par I'un de nous dans une municipalite de la province de Colombie-Britannique, autour des actions collectives menees par des citoyens et des citoyennes afin de regler des problemes lies a la qualite de I'eau potable et du raccordement de certaines habitations au reseau d'aqueduc. Plus precisement, nous rapportons certains discours des protagonistes lors d'une audience publique au cours de laquelle un expert fait rapport des resultats de I'enquete qu'i1 a mene pour pouvoir apprecier la qualite de I'eau dans les puits qui font partie de son echantillonnage. On peut alors « voir» le collectif it J'a:uvre et prendre connaissance de la maniere tres fine avec laquelle les gens ordinaires se montrent tout a fait capables de discuter avec I'expert et de mettre en question non seulement ses conclusions, mais egalement les pro cedes methodologiques mis en ceuvre. Certes, certains protagonistes semblent plus « connaisseurs» que d'autres, plus actifs que d'autres qui se contentent d'acquiescer ou d'applaudir. Toutefois, nous soutenons que c'est Ie contexte de I'audience public, y inclus Ie scientifique, Ie moderateur, les gens ordinaires et les interactions entre tous ces participants qui rend possible ce que, en paraphrasant McDermott (1993) , on peut nommer la choregraphie conversationnelle qui a rendu visible l'emergence d'une forme d'alphabetisation technoscientifique. Quelles leyons pouvons-nous tirer de cette experience pour penser une education aux sciences plus citoyenne? Tel est I 'objet de la demiere partie de I'article dans laquelle en reference aux propos de Hodson (1999) , nous suggerons que I'enseignement des sciences s'ouvre a la multirHerentialite et debouche sur I'action sociale dans la cite. A politicized ethic of care (caringfor) entails becoming actively involved in a local manifestation of a particular problem. exploring the complex sociopolitical contexts in which the problem is located. and attempting to resolve conflicts of interest. Preparing students for action necessarily means ensuring that they gain a clear understanding of how decisions are made within local. regional. and national government and within industry and commerce. Hodson. 1999. p. 789 Democratic citizenship is a core concept in many societies-the discourse of citizenship education shows up in the policies and curricula, not only of Canada, but also of jurisdictions as diverse as Australia, Russia, Colombia, and Singapore (Sears, in press ). Science education is often linked to citizenship. Our basic premise in this article is the contention that science education, in schools and as a life-long endeavour, is of little use if it does not allow students to care for and, in particular, engage in action. Recent scholarship in the social studies of science underscores the need of citizens to get involved in the processes of making decisions about controversial socia-scientific and socia-technical issues. In this article, we argue for a view of science that engages with people in the community, not in terms of laboratory science, but on their own terms. We provide one case study, from a small community on the Canadian West Coast, where residents engaged politicians and scientists to get access to the water main that supplied the rest of the community. We see the people in this case study as a model of the kind of citizens that we want students to become. There is an increasing public awareness of the ethical, practical, and politlcal dimensions that characterize socia-technical controversies, including those of mad cow disease (BSE), climate change, or the diffusion of genetically modified organisms. Modern science is deeply enmeshed in the personal and public issues of our times (Restivo, 1988) , all the more so in the present, controversial globalization (Held & McGrew, 2000) and in the context of what Beck (1992) , Giddens (1994) , and other sociologists ha ve termed 'risk society.' The modification of our environment, and in fact, the modification of human nature, are issues that should concern all members of society. Science and technology, as any other domains that shape public and private life, should, therefore, become legitimate objects of reflection on the part of all citizens. That is why we believe that a central endeavour of science educators has to be the problematization of science and technology and the stance any citizen should take with respect to scientific knowledge and technological artefacts as they are socialized. Here, we assume that it is only out of this problematization that we can reappraise the role of science education in the promotion and service of an informed and engaged citizenship. In scien::e education, the notion of citizenship has often been conceptualized and argued in terms of 'scientific literacy' (DeHart Hurd, 1998; Laugksch, 2000) . Moreover, in many countries, governments and other agencies have issued policy statements that stipulate that the sciences are a necessary ingredient in the development of an informed and engaged citizenship. For instance, concerned with the question of scientific literacy, its role in American society, and ways of achieving it, Science for All Americ~ns (Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1990) contains an argument for science education that helps students become informed citizens, capable, with others, of using science and technology wisely in order to solve the numerous global problems humans now face. It is quite remarkable how science and technology are presented as unproblematic in such documents (Irwin & Wynne, 1996) . First, science and technology are not contrasted with other legitimate ways of representing nature. Second, science and technology are often defmed as human endeavours, subject to certain limitations, but, in this, retaining their supposedly universal character (Cobern, 1996) and thereby transcending the historically contingent and local conditions of their production. Third, the pertinence and value of science and technology in relation to the realization of personal and social goals is seldom called into doubt. All of this leads to the adoption of a scientistic attitude that overvalues a particular form of thinking, adapted to the particular circumstances of scientific research, but with little use in everyday life (McGinn & Roth, 1999) . Finally, only questioning the applications of science and technology instead of scrutinizing the production of knowledge obscures the ideological dimensions and political ties that science and technology have to the fmancial, industrial, and military sectors of society. In the science-education community, one can notice the emergence of debates that question the foundations of traditional scientific-literacy discourses either from a multicultural perspective (Lewis & Aikenhead, 2001; Stanley & Brickhouse, 2001) or a more sociological perspective (Desautels, 1998; Jenkins, 1999) . In this article, we, too, adopt a stance that differs from conventional science education as it is portrayed in literature on scientific literacy. We contend that one must begin with the notion of an active and critical citizenry and then problematize science and technology in its service. Drawing on the sociology of scientific knowledge, we describe science and technology as contingent practices. Being built on contingent practices, science and technology have to be subject to an interrogation of the assumptions that underlie their moment-to-moment decision-making processes. In doing so, we deconstruct the arbitrary social hierarchy of knowledge (Larochelle, 2001; Quicke, 2001 ) that puts scientific knowledge on top of the epistemic heap and rehabilitate other fonns of knowledge (including common sense, local expertise, and indigenous knowledge) as powerful resources in the debates over socio-technical controversies. Our case study of science in the community, which is centred on the quality of water in one Canadian community, illustrates the active participation of ordinary citizens in a democratic debate over socio-technical issues and the reflexive stance on expertise and expert knowledge taken in the debate. In sum, we intend this article to be read as an argument for rethinking scientific literacy from the more general perspectives of citizenship and inclusive democracy. Recent decades have seen a shift in the appreciation of science. Initially, science was approached like religious dogma (Lewontin, 1991) , celebrated by high priests in 'cathedrals' (Fuller, 1997; Knorr-Cetina, 1992) and 'citadels' (Martin, 1998) ; more recently, it has become associated with the messiness of real laboratories and finally with the everyday life of the polis (Brown & Michael, 2001) .1 It is only when science is part of the polis that citizens will be empowered, because their dependence on scientists as the sole normative force has been ended-as related analyses on the democratization of state and market have shown (Fotopoulos, 1999b) . For many years, philosophers granted the sciences (and medicine) a fonn of 'epistemological exceptionalism' (Bimber & Guston, 1995; Freidson, 1970) . Epistemological exceptionalism explains why sociologists of science were not provided with opportunities to study the production of scientific knowledge. It is certainly the case that sociologists were allowed to study the organization of science (promotion system, invisible colleges, ethical, and cognitive norms, etc.) but were discouraged from critically reflecting on the nature of scientific knowledge, which was thought to transcend its conditions of production. Although scientific knowledge was produced by social beings, it appeared to acquire quasi-divine properties (neutrality, universality, transcendence, etc.) in a process resembling 'Immaculate Conception' (Fuller, 1997) . Those who practised this form of epistemological asceticism were thought to develop a personality reflecting those very properties. Scientists became socially disincamated, neutral beings, capable of bracketing their subjectivities and accessing the true nature of things. Even though some scientists may have admitted that there were sometimes social influences affecting knowledge production, they nevertheless claimed that truth would ultimately come out (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984) . In recent years, sociologists and anthropologists who studied scientists at work largely debunked this image of science and contributed to transforming the epistemological dogma of science into a social enigma. In painstaking and meticulous detail, these studies described how scientists negotiate the criteria that underlie their judgement about what will be recognized as a successful experiment, a valuable result or interpretation, and the trustworthiness and value of a specific piece of work (Pinch, 1990; Lenoir, 1993) . Furthennore, these studies showed that science is not something that occurs in laboratories, entirely detached from the rest of the world. Rather, scientific research depends on tremendous networks of actors and agencies that connect laboratory activities to everyday life more broadly. Thus, scientists have to trust those who supply them with standardized products and produce scientific instruments and the theories they materialize. They also have to trust their colleagues from other disciplines who make judgements about the value of the various forms of knowledge that they use in their work. Trust is, therefore, a necessary ingredient for the maintenance of the network of scientific activities. More so, this trust has to be given knowing that not a single person or even a group of persons can have a clear picture of the whole of the network. The complexity of the situation can be gauged from the fact that there are more than 20,000 journals in biology and the US Library of Congress receives more than 80,000 scientific journals. In this context, having conducted climate-change-related research for many years, Ungar (2000) suggested, '[Alfter a decade of clipping articles from Science and Nature, my sense that climate change is real ultimately boils down to picking the experts you think you can trust' (p. 297). It is within this context that one can say that the various forms of scientific knowledge are marked by the contingencies (material, symbolic, economic, social, etc.) that constitute the local conditions of their production. Therefore, their so-called universal character, which presupposes scientists' abilities to adopt a god's-eye view of their object of study, is a kind of mystification. In the same way, the idea that scientists follow a step-by-step scientific method to solve the problems is inconsistent with what they do when they are observed: Scientists' theoretical and empirical practices are better described as a collective, intellectual, and material bricolage (Pickering, 1995) . Only in retrospect, when stable facts have emerged from the mangle of practice, do things become clear cut and exportable elsewhere. In real-time activity, the messiness and complexity of the (laboratory) world renders any prediction about the future state of affairs improbable. No sociologist or anthropologist of science has noticed at work a dis incarnated mind that, in solitary confinement, thinks of a theory or realizes an experiment. With all this contingency, how is one to explain how these contingent products-published as statements that refer to their conditions of production (IF a, b, c, ... THEN ... x, y, z)-acquire a certain robustness, a regional acceptability, and in some instances, international recognition? The aura of universality that frequently surrounds scientific knowledge is a consequence of scientists' activity, which contributes to the construction and maintenance of worldwide networks of human and non-human actors (Latour, 1999) . The stability and universality of scientific knowledge is a direct consequence of the stability of these networks. In participating in these network activities, scientists around the world come to agree, for instance, that all bodies fall under the influence of gravity or that the ozone layer is' being depleted. Instead of focusing on the mystifying notion of universality, researchers are now interes·ted in levels of generality (CalIon, 1999) . This generality is a function of the extension of the networks that allows for their re-production or mobilization for certain purposes. In other words, the generality of scientific knowledge depends on the possibility of transporting the conditions of production into new situations. One can draw several epistemological lessons from this sketch of science. Science and technology, through-and-through social practices, construct knowledge that carries the conditions of its production. Because knowledge is contingent, it can be interrogated. Scientific knowledge can no longer claim epistemologically exceptional status but has to interact with other forms of knowledge on an equal footing. As social practices, science and technology do not simply affect society but literally produce the social. Thus, scientists produce entities (bacteria, hormones, materials, etc.) in their laboratories that enter in the composition of our common world and reconfigure social relations. Society is no longer the same after genetically modified plants have been released into the environment or after a specific virus (e.g., HIV, SARS) has been identified. Once science has lost its exceptional status, more equitable, direct, and inclusive participation of citizens in controversial issues becomes possible. The hierarchy among different forms of knowledge gives way to the development of a critical distance towards expertise. Common sense and local (traditional) knowledge become salient as inescapable resources to be mobilized in those circumstances, since they are no more considered as inferior or worthless types of knowledge. But some citizens did not wait for sociologists to debunk the myth of science to get permission to involve themselves in the messy world of socio-technical controversies, as is shown by recent studies in the field of public understanding of science. There are a number of other instances reported in the literature (McGinn & Roth, 1999) relating the influence of citizens on the orientation of research efforts. Studies now show that when science moves from the confines of the laboratory into the world, scientists often lose their grip on knowledge construction. Increasingly, ordinary citizens with stakes in some issue contest scientists' epistemological exceptionalism (Rabeharisoa & CalIon, 1999) . In the ensuing controversy and negotiation, science often changes heretofore-accepted practices and develops new methodologies that take into account local knowledge and needs. For example, AIDS activists gained sufficient and different forms of credibility and thereby become genuine participants in the construction of scientific knowledge (Epstein, 1997) . They participated in the construction of valid methods and clinical protocols, which were, therefore, no longer the prerogatives of accredited scientists. In this, they effected changes in the epistemic practices ofbiomedical research and in the therapeutic practices in the medical care of the disease. The case shows that the politicization of AIDS brought about a multiplication of possible ways in which the credibility of individuals and groups can be established. This constitutes a diversification of personnel in scientific-knowledge construction beyond highly (and institutionally) accredited scientists, which, in turn, leads to more and more diverse trajectories of fact construction and closure in controversies. Other research within the AIDS community showed that the notion of science as clean and elegant is a myth that can be upheld only when it remains in the laboratory and unconcerned with real life. Outside of the laboratory, science is messy, impure, and ambiguous and is caught up in the economical, political, historical, or ethical-moral dimensions of everyday life (Epstein, 1995; Lee & Roth, 2001; Roth & Lee, 2002) . In fact, the AIDS studies and our own research show that the very notion of 'scientific knowledge' needs to be questioned: Does knowledge, whose construction crucially involved the participation of non-scientists, deserve the adjective 'scientific'? If it deserves this label, then the very nature of science has changed (Roth & Barton, 2004) . It is no longer the sole prerogative of a special cadre of individuals but involves individuals and groups with expertise other than that traditionally described as 'scientific.' A traditional take on science is that decisions concerning technical issues should be left in the hand of experts (Rowe & Frewer, 2000) . In the deficit model, the public is not involved because, so goes the argument, it does not understand the salient issues and concepts or the processes of science. Scientists operating in the spirit of this approach 'bludgeon publics with "certain facts," often ignoring the public's own culturally embedded understandings' (Brown & Michael, 2001, p. 18 ). However, democratic ideals, particularly those consistent with inclusive democracy (Fotopoulos, 1999a) , imply a greater involvement of the public in policymaking issues that pertain to or involve science and technology. Over the past decades, it has become increasingly evident that in risk management related to genetically modified organisms, those involved make value judgements at all stages of the risk management process. There exists, therefore, an 'increasing contention that public participation in policy making in science and technology is necessary to reflect and acknowledge democratic ideals and enhance the trust in regulators and transparency in regulatory systems' (Rowe & Frewer, 2000, p. 24) . Public participation involves a group of procedures designed to consult, involve, and inform the public to allow those affected by a decision to have input in that decision. Rowe and Frewer compared and evaluated eight of the most formalized public-participation methods. These include referenda, public hearings/inquiries, public opinion surveys, negotiated rule making, consensus conferences, citizens' jury/panel, citizen/public advisory committee, and focus groups. After an extensive evaluation, the authors concluded that there is no one best method for involving the public. But public hearings, because they have the potential to add balance and depth to information collected by other means, such as surveys, are an important and widely used mechanism in democratic countries. In the following case study, we show how scientific literacy was enacted as praxis in one public hearing. Science and scientific method were no longer the prerogative of scientists but were open to reconfiguration. In this case study, we show that ordinary citizens can be involved in questioning scientists and science and thereby actively participate in the way in which various forms of knowledge contribute to the solution of real problems. We do not argue for a demise of science but for opening its status to interrogation from a variety of perspectives and therefore relativizing it, in a democratic process where all forms of knowledge undergo equal scrutiny. Its value has to be negotiated in a process that should include the people most concerned and affected by the decisions made and in a process that has to include other forms of knowledge on a par. This case study was constructed from materials that were collected as part of a three-year ethnographic effort in one Canadian community on the West Coast. This effort was designed to increase our understanding of science in the community, including the science of Grade-7 students, who exhibited what they had learned about the health of a watershed during an open-house event organized by an environmental activist group. Our database includes field notes, videotapes, and audiotapes documenting various ways in which the people of Central Saanich and environmental activists pursued activities relating to the health of the watershed in which they live. Here, we focus on the participation of citizens in one particular audiotaped event, a public hearing concerning the problematic situation of the drinking water in one part of Central Saanich. As a public hearing, the events reported here constitute an example of the ways in which ordinary citizens can participate in policy and decision makirig regarding environmental and health issues. We obtained all publications pertaining to the drinking water-municipal documents, scientific (consultant) reports, reports by various agencies, and copies of letters by the representative of the Senanus Drive residents. The public hearing was held in the community of Central Saanich, where a variety of water issues were and had been a central and ongoing concern. In this particular case, the media had repeatedly reported on the situation in one part of the community, Senanus Drive, which was not connected to the water main. All properties of Sen anus Drive supplied their own water from wells on their properties and from cisterns. Because the wells were recharged mainly through precipitation. the water supply depended on weather patterns; very dry summers led to depletion of the aquifer and a correlated increase in the mineral content of the water and in contamination by biological organisms. Repeatedly, in the previous several years, local newspapers had carried stories about the fact that the water in these wells had been declared unfit for consumption without prior boiling, forcing residents to drive 5 km to get their water from the nearest gas station. The town council of Central Saanich felt that the estimated cost of $850,000 (at the time of study) for extending the currently existing water lines in order to supply Senanus Drive was too high to be covered through its allocated and available budget. 2 A total of six reports had been commissioned prior to the public hearing. These reports included one by the Regional Health Authority, a preliminary report by the Central Saanich Water Advisory Task Force, a report by a consulting hydrologist, the final report of the Water Advisory Task Force, a minority report submitted by a subgroup of the Water Advisory Task Force, and a report by the municipality. The mayor of Central Saanich had called for a public hearing. The authors of the technical and scientific reports would first provide it sketch of their work and subsequently make themselves available to respond to questions and comments from the public. Furthermore, the hearing was to provide opportunities for members of the community to ask questions and to make presentations. From the presentation of one expert In this case study, we focus on the presentation of one expert and his interactions with the audience. 3 The moderator of the session, a member of the engineering staff of Central Saanich, introduced Lowen as 'a professional engineer and a professional geologist.' The moderator explained that the town council and the regional health authority had chosen Lowen as an independent consultant because the scientific integrity of research done by the regional health authority had been questioned. Some members of the Water Advisory Task Force had questioned whether the sampling was rigid enough-whether measurements had been taken in the houses, where water was already modified by pipelines and storage tanks, and did not represent the water within the aquifer itself, down within the bedrock, in the wells. The moderator explained that Lowen had sampled nine wells, which, in the consultant's professional opinion, were representative of the ground water. Lowen had been asked simply to test the water and to provide the community with a report about the quality of the well water at Senanus Drive and an opinion about what might be done concerning the quality issue. After being invited by the moderator, Lowen presented his report. From his presentation, we excerpted the following statements pertinent to citizen questions that we present and discuss below. We chose the representative wells by their distribution in the area, well depth, well yield, and sampling history to get a representative cross-section of wells. We selected some wells because they were deeper wells, some wells because they were shallow wells, higher yielding wells, and lower yielding wells to get a good cross-section of wells that were in that area ... The sampling methodology was, 'sample as close to the well as possible and at an outside tap or right at the wellhead.' We tried to avoid house plumbing and cisterns as much as possible. So we pumped the wells for as much as fifteen minutes and as much as one hour to get a fresh water supply coming straight from the aquifer and not coming from storage. The results of our testing show that according to the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality, there are no concerns related to health. Nolie were identified in the parameters that we tested. Some aesthetic objectives from the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality were exceeded for some of the wells. Aesthetic objectives are for ... certain parameters in the water [that] may cause the water to be corrosive, deposit forming, or unpalatable. These are given a separate category because they are not a health concern but they are a concern. Total dissolved solids, that is one measure of water quality, four out of nine wells exceeded that parameter; turbidity, one of nine wells exceeded that; aluminum, one out of nine wells; iron, two out of nine wells; manganese, four out of nine wells; zinc, one of nine wells. For all of the bacteriological testing done, no wells were found to be unacceptable. Lowen had made his presentation by drawing on the rhetorical registers that characterize science and engineering: It was very factual, presenting those aspects of the methodology that supported claims about the generalizability of the results from the nine sampled wells to all wells at Senanus Drive. He described the point of sampling to support claims that, in fact, well water had been tested, rather than water that had remained in pipes, storage tanks, or cisterns. The privileged status of this expert witness was established by presenting him as 'a professional engineer and a professional geologist,' including him in the ranks of other scientific experts, some of whom were introduced with their degrees. ('Mr. Yang has a Masters of Science degree, and has significant experience with ~ater quality issues and he has been involved extensively in both reports in the sampling episodes. ') This, of course, is a classic tactic for constructing the exceptional status of the claims by the individuals thus elevated. After the different scientists and representatives of the Water Advisory Task Force had presented summaries of their report, the moderator of the public hearing encouraged members of the audience to ask questions and make comments pertaining to the technical issues of the reports. Hayden: You took water samples from our property. Now, [ was told that you let the water run. The problem is, first of all, at any source you get the water is coming out of a cistern that is two or three thousand gallons. It's had a chance to settle out, number one. Number two, the water you've got has been mitigated through a water softener. Number three, it has been mitigated under a UV system to kill bacteria. How can you say we can mitigate our water? [ mean how much more mitigation can we do? Moderator: Dennis [Lowen], can you? Do you know about that particular well, whether you tested it right at the well-head or whether it was through the system? Lowen: I don't know of any well that we tested that had any kind of treatment. We went to the cistern to get the water but we went to where the water came into the cistern from the well. We didn't, uh [ think there might have been one well that we tested from the cistern 'cause there was no other way to test it but all the others were uh before the cistern, and before any kind of treatment. Hayden: Are you sure of that? We have, an in-ground, basically a septic tank. We have a very low water flow and it has to go into a septic tank and from there. Unless you went through a lot of blackberry bushes, which I didn't really see them disturbed, you'd have to go through quite a bit ofbramble to get to it. It comes out of there, goes through the pump house, goes through a UV filter and goes out from there to the taps. And [ assume it was taken from the taps. So it's gone through a UV filter to kill bacteria because we have water levels that are near septic fields. It's gone through a water softener and a through a filter and it's still reading pretty nasty high levels. So I don't, I don't personally feel that mitigation means much to me since we're already mitigating the hell out of the water as it is. Lowen: Yeah, if that sample was treated before we got it that would mean that one of the samples isn't exactly what we thought it was. But it wouldn't change the conclusions of my report. Whereas scientists are often portrayed as the guardians of scientific methodology, of which everyday folk are ignorant (Brown & Michael, 2001) , the community members in this meeting, here exemplified by Hayden, did not appear to be overly impressed by the scientists, their explicitly named degrees, or their expertise. In fact, an important dimension of all the questions was the appropriateness of the methodology used and the validity of the data to draw the conclusion that the independent consultant Lowen had presented. The ftrst exchange opened with Hayden'S questions about where the water samples had been taken. Hayden suggested that the sheer quantity of water in his cistern would have determined that Lowen tested water that had been stagnant for a while and that, therefore, had allowed any substances to settle. Stating the holding capacity of his cistern-2,000 or 3,000 gallons of water-he contrasted that capacity with the 15 minutes of letting the water run at the tap. Common sense tells any listener that a water tap running for 15 minutes does not empty 2,000 gallons of water necessary to have access to the water from the well. He, thereby, made salient a potential problem in the methodology, which implicitly raised questions about the validity of the fmdings, '(N]o wells were found unacceptable.' Further, the water samples would have already been mitigated by a water softener and a bacteria-killing system based on UV irradiation. Lowen attempted to defend himself by saying, consistent with his initial presentation, that to his knowledge all water tested came from the wells rather than from cisterns (with perhaps one exception). Hayden questioned the veracity of Lowen's statements, thereby portraying them as claims rather than as matters of fact as they had seemed to be in Lowen's presentation and initial response. Hayden's subsequent question again put the authority of Lowen's description of method into relief by stating that there had been no evidence on his property that Lowen had actually accessed the water at the only place where it could have been sampled in unmitigated form. There was, therefore, a strong possibility that Lowen's data were not unbiased. Nevertheless, he claimed that even if he had not conducted these measurements appropriately, his overall conclusion would not change. Here, we see an ordinary citizen questioning the legitimacy of a scientific report. The transcript does not allow us to think of Hayden as an ignorant person. For example, although Hayden probably had a conception of what a solution might be that was different from what Lowen proposed, he could participate in the debate quite efficiently. In these circumstances, we must acknowledge a person who, through his public participation in the hearing, produces knowledgeability about the operation of water softeners, UV filters, and their action on bacteria (but not on other aspects of water quality) and about the effect nearby septic fields have on drinking water. (In rural areas, many homes still use septic fields, where wastewater is allowed to move through a special bed made of rocks, pebbles, and sand to enter the ground water.) This episode quite clearly illustrates how 'lay expertise' and common knowledge can be mobilized to clarify what is at stake in the context of a socio-technical controversy. In the following excerpt, another local resident, Knott, asked the expert Lowen to evaluate his own results in light of those apparently contradictory ones presented by another scientist in the service of the regional health authority. Here, the major issue was whether Lowen's data represent an average value or whether they had to be interpreted as a short-term, best-case scenario. Knott not only asked the expert to make this evaluation but also, as his further questioning showed, brought out the pertinent issues that had led to the contradictions between the two reports, authored by Low~n, on the one hand, and scientists from the regional health authority, on the other. Lowen had argued that his data-taken at a water level in the aquifer midway between its minimum and maximum values-represented an average and therefore representative value of the biological and chemical parameters of water quality. The scientists from the regional health authority suggested, on the other hand, that there were fluctuations in water levels such that, during one half of the year, the quality values were in fact below the Health Canada standards. This was the same period when the residents were advised not to consume their water; this, therefore, deeply affected their quality of life. In this excerpt, Knott questioned Lowen about the variations and the level of water in the aquifer at the time Lowen conducted his measurements. This interaction was a moment when the contradictory claims about the acceptability of the water quality were made salient, again in public. Knott was but another resident ofthe area. He asked Lowen to reflect on the results of his own readings after having another report, which had come to different conclusion. In particular, Knott asked Lowen to attend to and interpret the effect of sampling moment on the amount of rainfall at and prior to the time of testing. In response to Lowen's description that all the water in the wells and in the aquifer came from rainfall, Knott stated that there should be a buffering aspect. That is, changes in the aquifer did not directly correlate directly with rainfall but were delayed by three to five months. As Lowen made another categorical statement that all water came from rain, Knott's interjection 'but-' made Lowen retract or at least modify his earlier statement. He now admitted that the concentration of dissolved minerals in the water would increase if it stayed for longer in the ground. Knott's subsequent question aimed at eliciting from Lowen a statement about the groundwater levels; Lowen had to admit that there were record water levels but attempted to argue that these rainfalls did not affect the groundwater levels. However, Knott questioned this claim by contrasting it with a previous, seemingly contradictory one. Lowen attempted to argue that there were limits to absorption and that much of the rainwater would be carried away as run-off. Knott was unsatisfied by this response. He suggested that there was a 522% increase in rainfall from the summer to the winter months. Therefore, the water levels could not have been average, as Lowen had claimed in his report, and the concentration of substances would generally have been lower (more diluted) than under normal circumstances. Lowen, however, responded that the hydro graph had shown an average reading. We notice, in the last excerpt, that Knott was unsatisfied by this answer. He first cast doubt on Lowen's conclusion by evoking the possibility that an error could have been committed in using the average water level registered by the hydrograph in the months of April and May. Moreover, in a clever or astute rhetorical move, he squarely attributed the responsibility to the expert, 'Could you be in error hereT In this episode again, we see a member of the general public question the content of a scientific report on water quality, the methodology for gathering the data, and the inferences made on the basis of the data. Hayden and Knott, and all the other individuals who asked questions, did not appear to be intimidated by the social status usually attributed to scientific experts. (Here, several scientists were introduced by mentioning their degrees and their rank in their respective institutional hierarchies). They pursued their lines of questioning, which threw into relief what otherwise were presented as authoritative statements about the quality of the water they were using. Indeed we have, here, an example of the 'good use of experts,' which, according to Fourez (1997) , constitutes one of the competencies individuals should develop in'the context of their education in the sciences, conceived of as social practices. The authority of the scientific report was also called into question by rather personal accounts of having to live with the water from the wells. For example, one resident stated that ifhe watered his flowers, they would bum. Their water pipes, dishwasher, and washer corroded so that they had to be replaced frequently. MB Labs tested our water that was shortly after we moved in 'cause we were concerned then. We were over the acceptable limit of arsenic, five times the acceptable limit of lead, plus other problems. Their comments included that t:ontinuous arsenic ingestion in high amounts is toxic. Sources of arsenic in water include industrial discharge, mineral dissolution, and insecticides. Lead. Lead is toxic and accumulates in body tissues. Lead may come from old lead pipes, which we don't have, solders or industrial discharges. Even small amounts can contribute to learning disability in children. (Bayer, local resident) Lowen had claimed that the levels of toxic substances were below the official permissible lim- its. Yet the resident, who had hired his own consulting firm, presented data that were inconsistent with Lowen's data and conclusion. Consistent with the claims of the local health authority that the water was unacceptable during some parts of the year and contradicting Lowen's claims that water quality was acceptable based on his sample representing the 'average situation,' this contribution provided yet another description of the presence of toxic substances and their effects. In this situation, local people did not just wildly complain and express their displeasure but knew to find an appropriate agency (MB Labs) that would provide them with a report, the contents of which they could subsequently use in the presentation of their case about the water. Knowledgeability with respect to finding and drawing on a variety of resources is a central aspect of scientific and technological literacy as social practice (F ourez, 1997) . In these excerpts from the public hearing, we can observe ordinary, but concemed, citizens engage scientists and science in exchanges over the nature of the water problem and the way in which the data documenting the water quality were established. The citizens asked scientists to reflect on their own test results in the light of other results that had been made available during the hearing or that the contributing individual had made available. Furthermore, evidence that was either omitted or labelled as unimportant by scientists was emphasized and therefore made salient by the citizens. Thus, what appeared to Lowen as unimportant aesthetic indicators were, in fact, major problems in the lives of the residents--