Whole Earth Curriculum WEC

Lesson 04 — Proposing a More Just Science

Learners turn the critique of Lesson 3 into a constructive proposal: a more just scientific practice. They learn concrete levers — open sharing, peer review and replication, informed consent, community-based and participatory research, and data sovereignty — and write a one-page proposal that names a problem, a principle, a change, who is newly included, and how we would know it worked.

D06 P3: Intellectual & Cognitive Awareness D06.S1 55 minutes Draft

Objectives

Essential question

Given who asks and who benefits today, what would a more just scientific practice look like — and how do I propose it concretely?

open sciencepeer reviewreplicationinformed consentcommunity-based researchdata sovereigntyproposal

Materials

Standard materials

Low-tech / no-cost

Enriched / lab & device

Works in different contexts

A proposal scaffold with five steps — name the problem, state the principle, make one concrete change, name who is newly included, and say how we would know it worked — drawn as a path. Labels carry the meaning, so it prints in grayscale.
A proposal scaffold with five steps — name the problem, state the principle, make one concrete change, name who is newly included, and say how we would know it worked — drawn as a path. Labels carry the meaning, so it prints in grayscale.

Lesson 4 — Proposing a More Just Science

Summary

Learners turn critique into construction: they learn concrete levers for a more just practice — open sharing, peer review and replication, informed consent, community-based and participatory research, and data sovereignty — and write a one-page proposal that names a problem, a principle, a change, who is newly included, and how we would know it worked.

Objectives

  • Reflect on the ethics of scientific practice — who asks the questions, who benefits, and how knowledge is used — and propose a more just practice. (D06.S1.12.02)

Connection

You have named a problem — the questions are asked by some and the benefits go to others. Now the harder, better work: what would you actually change? A medicine could be tested on the people who will take it; a community could help write the question before the study begins; the data a community gives could remain theirs to govern. Justice in science is not a feeling — it is a set of specific, checkable practices anyone can propose.

Materials

  • “More-just practice” proposal frame
  • Science journal
  • Low-tech: the Lesson 3 trace, scratch paper

Preparation

  • Copy or draw the proposal frame.
  • Retrieval: from Lesson 3, the five-station trace and the missing question. Today we answer that missing question with a change.
  • Prepare one model proposal to model first (S-011).

Facilitator note

This lesson is written to the learner (“you”). The idea to land: a more just science is not an abstraction — it is named practices (open sharing, replication, consent, participation, data sovereignty) that can be proposed, tried, and checked. Teach the proposal structure explicitly, then let learners write (S-011). Keep the distinction live: each lever is factually documented as a real practice (peer review and replication make knowledge more trustworthy, S-489; exclusion is historically documented, S-357, S-484); that these practices are better is a value commitment we state openly.

The ethics lens: the proposal is ethics made operational — consent, participation, and shared benefit written as steps, not slogans. The egalitarianism lens: the question “who is newly included?” is the egalitarian test of any reform — if the same people still hold the pen, nothing has moved. The global lens: data sovereignty and community-based research are movements with roots in Indigenous and formerly excluded communities worldwide, asserting that a community’s knowledge and data are theirs to govern (S-427, S-085); the levers are not one nation’s property. The technology lens: open science is made possible — and contested — by technology; open publication and open data are tools, but so is the digital divide that can keep them closed to the least resourced (S-281, S-489). The environment lens: a more just science of the environment is one where the people living with a river or a forest help set the questions, not merely answer them (S-483). Preview: Lesson 5 leaves the ethics of inquiry and enters coupled living systems.

Procedure

  1. Recall (5 min). From Lesson 3, name the missing question in your traced case. Today you propose the change that would let that question be asked.
  2. Meet the levers (10 min). Write each and one line on how it helps: open sharing (findings published so others can read and check), peer review and replication (others re-run and re-check before trust, S-489), informed consent (people choose, knowing what will happen to their data and bodies), community-based research (the people affected help write the question and do the work), and data sovereignty (a community governs its own knowledge and data, S-427, S-085).
  3. Worked example — a model proposal (12 min). Build one together: Problem — a medicine was tested on people unlike those who will take it. Principle — the people studied should be the people served. Change — recruit the full range of people who will use it, and let a community board review the question first. Who is newly included — the people previously left out now help set the question. How we would know — the study reports who was included and on what terms. Write all five parts.
  4. Write your own proposal (20 min). Using the scaffold, write a one-page proposal for your traced case from Lesson 3. Say — or write, sign, gesture, or use AAC to show — each of the five parts, especially who is newly included.
  5. Peer-check (6 min). Exchange proposals. Check one thing: does the change actually include someone new, or does it just describe the problem again? Give one specific improvement.
  6. Close (2 min). Say — or write, sign, gesture, or use AAC to express — one concrete practice that would make science more just, and who it would newly include.

Differentiation

  • Support: Complete only three of the five parts — problem, change, who is included — and use the model proposal as a template to adapt.
  • Extension: Add the “how we would know” measure with a falsifiable indicator, and name one obstacle and who would need to help remove it.
  • Number access (dyscalculia): The proposal is prose, not arithmetic; provide the five-part frame as a pre-printed scaffold with sentence starters, and allow every part to be completed in words, gesture, or recorded voice with no numbers required.
  • Communication access: Every spoken step — saying, naming, reading aloud, discussing, or closing — can be done in writing, sign, gesture, or AAC instead. Learners who are non-speaking, d/Deaf, hard-of-hearing, or who use AAC complete every task in their preferred mode; no step requires producing or hearing sound.

Assessment

  • Formative (peer + self): Can the learner name at least three levers of a more just practice and write a proposal that names a problem, a principle, a change, who is newly included, and how we would know it worked?
  • Portfolio artifact (unit): The one-page proposal, opened in the science journal — a capstone artifact for the science-ethics strand.

Home connection

Show your proposal to someone at home and ask: who else is still left out? Add their answer as one sentence and one adjustment to your change.

Resources

  • On worked examples and guided practice: Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006) (S-011).
  • On peer review and replication making knowledge trustworthy: Understanding Science — peer review & replication (S-489).
  • On Indigenous knowledge and data governance: Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass (S-427); AIATSIS (S-085).
  • On the digital divide in who can participate: World Bank — Digital Dividends (S-281); on environmental justice: EPA (S-483).