1 A FOCUS ON COMMUNITY-DRIVEN SCIENCE

Profound equity and justice-related challenges persist in promoting community engagement with science. The intersecting effects of multiple pandemics—racial and economic injustice, COVID-19, gun violence, and climate change, among others—have all shaped when, how and why people engage with, or even have access to, science. There is also a growing public distrust in science, with broad-reaching implications. The antivaccination movement, one manifestation of the distrust of science, has substantively shaped the course of the COVID-19 pandemic (Tsipursky, 2018). From “alternative facts” to climate change denial, there is increasing public rhetoric, driven by corporate and political interests, that any empirical position can be denied because it does not fit with one's wishes or desires.

In the face of inequitable access to science, distrust, and debate on what can even be considered verifiable information, many look to science education to rescue society from this destructive spiral. Surely, we just need to find better ways of engaging people in science? Yet, the culture and practice of dominant science has been used to justify racism, and to position particular ways of knowing, doing, and being as outside the realm of science. By “dominant science,” we mean the particular forms of Western science that have become dominant to the point that “other ways of knowing, doing, and being are deemed illegitimate or are erased” (Liboiron, 2021; p. 21). The historical lack of inclusion of multiple voices and perspectives in decision-making around scientific issues and in the production of scientific understandings, a lack of transparency of how science is done, including insights into who controls the agenda, whose knowledge counts, and who benefits, all shape how and why communities may—or may not—engage in science. Consequently, a significant divide exists between the scientific community and many members of local communities. Among these tensions emerges the notion of community-driven science.

Consider Flint, MI, a city home to primarily African American families, where 40% of residents live in poverty. In 2014, residents of the city began complaining of discolored and foul smelling and tasting water. However, the city and state were slow to respond. It took a resident-organized effort in collaboration with outside researchers at Virginia Tech University to document what was to become known as one of the “most significant” environmental injustice events of “recent history” (Pauli, 2019). They documented low levels of chlorine in the city's water that led to high levels of the bacteria that causes Legionnaires' disease, and the heavy metals leaching into the water supply at levels in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Zahran et al., 2020), lead to highly elevated levels of lead in children's blood. All of this resulted from the entanglement of economic, political, and structural inequities that led to a state-level decision to save money by changing the city's water support from treated Huron River water to untreated Flint River water (Pauli, 2019). The health and safety impacts of the decision to prioritize saving money over people's well-being only became known because of the collective work of residents.

The Flint water crisis is just one of many science-related issues that affect the well-being of communities that could have had a more positive outcome if governmental and scientific institutions took everyday people's observations seriously. Health care, food, the environment, climate, energy production, digital surveillance, genetically modified organisms, and disease transmission are just a handful of areas of study that all demand cooperation between science and society. Recent events such as the COVID-19 pandemic illustrate that not only has distrust in science increased, science itself has become politicized. Partisan divisions mark almost all aspects of the pandemic, from how seriously the threat to public health was treated, to the uptake of misinformation about the virus' origin, possible treatments, and the safety of vaccines. People and communities can play a vital role in helping to define the problems that are worth investigating, in generating sources and forms of data, and in offering interpretations for the future of this planet. But for this to happen, scientists need to acknowledge and better understand the needs, interests, and knowledge of people and communities. Even further, most scientists have not necessarily been educated or encouraged to support community engagement as part of their efforts.

At the same time, many different communities may not understand, trust, or engage with the scientific enterprise, for historicized and self-protecting reasons. We noted above that communities of color, and low-income communities, such as the people of Flint, MI, have powerful historical reasons for this distrust (Ramirez-Andreotta, 2019), as these communities have been often ignored or silenced by the scientific community in dehumanizing and harmful ways. The field of science education is both partly responsible for these problems, but is also key to addressing them. So while some progress has been made in scientists and government agencies listening to local community science observations and expertise (e.g., Dosemagen & Parker, 2019), and conceptual discussions of the relationship of citizen science, ecojustice, and science education (e.g., Mueller & Tippins, 2012), there is a gap in explicitly examining, with empirical research, science education as part of the problem and solution through community-driven science.

How the field of science education grapples with these equity- and justice-related concerns around community participation in science is a central concern for the field, and a variety of approaches have been introduced both within and outside the field of science education. From the professional scientist's perspective, there has been some focus on community participation in science, but primarily a broader push toward “public engagement in science.” Historically, this has meant “intentional, meaningful interactions that provide opportunities for mutual learning between scientists and members of the public” (AAAS, 2018). This approach has been heralded as a way to decrease the tension between science and society. However, while a good first step, current efforts to promote public engagement have also been critiqued for (1) lacking more authentic and substantive forms of engagement by communities themselves, particularly communities historically marginalized by science and society or (2) limited efforts to have such engagement transform the processes and outcomes of science (Jadallah et al., in Review, Stilgoe et al., 2014). Additionally, approaches focused on “public participation in scientific research” (Shirk et al., 2012) and “citizen science” (Bonney et al., 2014) do go farther in inviting members of the public into scientific research through participation in data collection and the generation of new scientific knowledge, but these are still focused primarily on projects driven by professional scientists and often lack roles in the decision-making for community members. Community science, typically defined as more community-driven and focused on community needs (Dosemagen & Parker, 2019), gets closer to the equitable cogeneration of knowledge that benefits local communities, but nevertheless as a term has been more recently muddied to include scientist-driven efforts (Cooper et al., 2021).

中文翻译：

---

社区驱动的科学和科学教育：生活在公平、正义和科学学习的边缘并在其边缘航行

1 关注社区驱动的科学

在促进社区参与科学方面，与公平和正义相关的深刻挑战仍然存在。多种流行病的交叉影响——种族和经济不公正、COVID-19、枪支暴力和气候变化等——都影响了人们何时、如何以及为何接触甚至接触科学。公众对科学的不信任也与日俱增，影响广泛。反疫苗运动是对科学不信任的一种表现，它极大地影响了 COVID-19 大流行的进程（Tsipursky，  2018）。从“另类事实”到否认气候变化，在企业和政治利益的驱动下，越来越多的公众言论认为，任何经验立场都可以因为不符合个人的意愿或愿望而被否认。

面对科学获取机会的不平等、不信任以及关于什么可以被视为可验证信息的争论，许多人希望通过科学教育来拯救社会，使其摆脱这种破坏性的螺旋。当然，我们只需要找到更好的方法让人们参与科学？然而，主流科学的文化和实践已被用来为种族主义辩护，并将特定的认知、行为和存在方式置于科学领域之外。我们所说的“主导科学”是指西方科学的特定形式，它们已经占据主导地位，以至于“其他认识、做事和存在的方式被认为是非法的或被删除”（Liboiron，2021  ）; p。21）。历史上在围绕科学问题的决策和科学理解的产生过程中缺乏包容多种声音和观点的现象，科学工作方式缺乏透明度，包括对谁控制议程、谁的知识重要以及谁受益的见解，所有这些都决定了社区可能或可能不参与科学的方式和原因。因此，科学界和当地社区的许多成员之间存在着巨大的分歧。在这些紧张关系中出现了社区驱动科学的概念。

以密歇根州弗林特为例，这座城市主要居住着非裔美国家庭，40% 的居民生活在贫困之中。2014年，该市居民开始抱怨水变色、变臭、变味。然而，该市和州政府反应迟缓。经过居民组织的努力，与弗吉尼亚理工大学的外部研究人员合作，记录了“近代历史”中“最重大”的环境不公正事件之一（Pauli，2019  ）。他们记录了该市水中的氯含量较低，导致导致退伍军人病的细菌含量较高，并且渗入供水系统的重金属含量违反了《安全饮用水法》（Zahran 等人，2020 年 ）），导致儿童血液中的铅含量大幅升高。所有这一切都是经济、政治和结构性不平等交织的结果，导致州一级决定通过将城市的供水支持从经过处理的休伦河水改为未经处理的弗林特河水来节省资金（Pauli，2019  ）。由于居民的集体努力，人们才意识到将省钱置于人民福祉之上的决定对健康和安全的影响。

弗林特水危机只是影响社区福祉的众多与科学相关的问题之一，如果政府和科学机构认真对待日常人们的观察，这些问题本可以产生更积极的结果。医疗保健、食品、环境、气候、能源生产、数字监控、转基因生物和疾病传播只是需要科学与社会合作的少数研究领域。最近发生的 COVID-19 大流行等事件表明，不仅对科学的不信任增加，科学本身也变得政治化。党派分歧几乎体现了这一流行病的方方面面，从对待公共卫生威胁的严重程度，到对病毒起源、可能的治疗方法和疫苗安全性的错误信息的接受。人民和社区可以在帮助确定值得研究的问题、生成数据来源和形式以及为地球的未来提供解释方面发挥至关重要的作用。但要做到这一点，科学家需要承认并更好地理解人们和社区的需求、兴趣和知识。更进一步，大多数科学家不一定受到教育或鼓励支持社区参与作为他们努力的一部分。

与此同时，出于历史和自我保护的原因，许多不同的群体可能不理解、信任或参与科学事业。我们在上面指出，有色人种社区和低收入社区，例如密歇根州弗林特的人们，有这种不信任的强大历史原因（Ramirez-Andreotta，2019），因为这些社区经常被科学界忽视或 压制。社区以非人性和有害的方式。科学教育领域不仅对这些问题负有部分责任，而且也是解决这些问题的关键。因此，尽管科学家和政府机构在听取当地社区科学观察和专业知识方面取得了一些进展（例如，Dosemagen & Parker，  2019），以及公民科学、生态正义和科学教育之间关系的概念讨论（例如，Mueller & Tippins，  2012），在通过实证研究明确检验科学教育作为问题和通过社区解决方案的一部分方面存在差距驱动的科学。

科学教育领域如何解决社区参与科学的公平和正义相关问题是该领域的一个中心问题，并且在科学教育领域内外引入了多种方法。从专业科学家的角度来看，人们对科学的社区参与有所关注，但主要是更广泛地推动“公众参与科学”。从历史上看，这意味着“有意识的、有意义的互动，为科学家和公众之间的相互学习提供机会”（AAAS，  2018 ））。这种方法被誉为减少科学与社会之间紧张关系的一种方法。然而，虽然迈出了良好的第一步，但当前促进公众参与的努力也受到了批评，因为（1）社区本身缺乏更真实和实质性的参与形式，特别是历史上被科学和社会边缘化的社区，或者（2）在促进公众参与方面所做的努力有限。这种参与改变了科学的进程和结果（Jadallah et al.,  in Review , Stilgoe et al.,  2014）。此外，方法侧重于“公众参与科学研究”（Shirk 等，  2012）和“公民科学”（Bonney 等，  2014））确实更进一步邀请公众通过参与数据收集和新科学知识的产生来参与科学研究，但这些仍然主要集中在由专业科学家驱动的项目上，并且往往缺乏社区成员在决策中的作用。社区科学通常被定义为更多由社区驱动并关注社区需求（Dosemagen＆Parker，  2019），更接近于造福当地社区的知识的公平共生，但尽管如此，作为一个术语最近已经变得混乱，包括科学家 -驱动努力（Cooper 等人，  2021）。