Major goals for science education is to enable students to develop understandings and skills to participate in the public debate and make informed decisions about science issues that influence their lives (Aikenhead et al., 2011). Modern biotechnology has provided us with new understandings of life including ourselves as human beings and it will increasingly influence the society. It is important that students learn about the practical applications of biotechnology related to human health, environment, agriculture and forensic (Brewer & Smith, 2011; Dawson, 2007). Moreover, along with the rapid development of biotechnologies follows series of important ethical issues concerning what society we want to live in and how we are going to handle this new knowledge. This aspect is regarded as an important part of education for sustainable development (Sandell, Öhman, & Östman, 2006).

Scientific literacy (Vision II) starts out in a school science subject that permeates and interacts with human activity and life situations, and is thus often called science for citizenship (Roberts & Bybee, 2014). This is an ideal that is also put forward in the Norwegian national curriculum in science (Utdanningsdirektoratet [Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training], 2013). Thus, it is essential that students develop scientific understanding of biotechnology, perspectives on ethics as well as skills such as argumentation that presumably will enable them to contribute to public debates and make informed personal decisions. This concern is reflected in the Norwegian national curriculum for upper secondary school through the following competence aim “compare arguments on the use of biotechnology and discuss and elaborate on different academic and ethical problems related to these” (ibid.). However, it is claimed that the often perceived objectivity of science by excluding values and ethics, shelter students from science as it is conducted in and applied to society (Sadler, Amirshokoohi, Kazempour, & Allspaw, 2006). Moreover, it is also claimed that science education provides few means for students to engage in discussions about conflicts they have experienced, and to develop their roles as participants in the reproduction and transformation of society (Kolstø, 2001; Zeidler & Sadler, 2009).

Biotechnology with its ethical controversies are suggested as issues to engage students in order to develop understanding and skills in line with the quest for active participation in the society (Sadler, 2009). However, there is a need for more classroom-based studies of implications and outcomes concerning these issues (Sadler, 2011). Thus, in order to get a deeper understanding of how school science prepare students to participate in the public debate and make informed decisions, we will identify the main characteristics of biotechnology and related ethical issues providing rich empirical data from a science classroom.

                In this case study we empirically investigate students’ learning environment in form of the teaching and the textbook as these will influence how the students position themselves in their written texts toward biotechnology and related ethics.  This enables a discussion on the main research question:

How can school science contribute to enhance students’ active citizenship concerning ethics in biotechnology?

Aikenhead, G., Orpwood, G., Fensham, P., Aikenhead, G., Orpwood, G., & Fensham, P. (2011). Scientific literacy for a knowledge society. Exploring the landscape of scientific literacy, 28-44. Brewer, C. A., & Smith, D. (2011). Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC. Dawson, V. (2007). An exploration of high school (12–17 year old) students' understandings of, and attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Research in science education, 37(1), 59-73. Erickson, F. (2012). Qualitative research methods for science education. In B. J. Fraser, K. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 1451-1469). Netherlands: Springer. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research. Oxon: Routledge. Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85(3), 291-310. Roberts, D. A., & Bybee, R. W. (2014). Scientific Literacy, Science Literacy, and Science Education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Education. Oxon: Routledge. Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Applebaum, S., & Callahan, B. E. (2009). Advancing reflective judgment through socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 74. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio‐scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42. Sadler, T. D. (2011). Situating socio-scientific issues in classrooms as a means of achieving goals of science education. In T. D. Sadler (Ed.), Socio-scientific Issues in the Classroom (pp. 1-9): Springer. Sadler, T. D., Amirshokoohi, A., Kazempour, M., & Allspaw, K. M. (2006). Socioscience and ethics in science classrooms: Teacher perspectives and strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(4), 353-376. Sandell, K., Öhman, J., & Östman, L. (2006). Education for sustainable development: Nature, school and democracy. Malmö, Studentlitteratur. Utdanningsdirektoratet [Norwegian Directorate for Education and Training]. (2013). Læreplan i naturfag [Curriculum for School Science]. Retrieved from http://www.udir.no/kl06/NAT1-03/Hele/Komplett_visning?lplang=eng Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom based research (pp. 201-216). The Netherlands, Springer Press.