tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1337206901491734394.post6347753137892296667..comments2024-03-22T01:00:38.320-04:00Comments on I.N.K.: THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES: Part OneLinda Salzmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17217322360480267856noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1337206901491734394.post-51289276487454225182009-05-06T09:51:00.000-04:002009-05-06T09:51:00.000-04:00I have a funny unintended consequence story--with ...I have a funny unintended consequence story--with a happy ending. Years ago I wrote a biography of Barbara McClintock and then shortly afterward one on Mary Leakey. My father-in-law, a scientist, gave both books to a graduate student of his for his daughter. Rhoda gobbled them up--she wanted to be a scientist when she grew up. But both Barbara McClintock and Mary Leakey had troublesome relationships with their mothers. Rhoda was worried. She said to her mother, "I really want to be a scientist when I grow up, but I like you. Is that o.k.?" Her mother reassured her that hating your mother was not a prerequisite for being a scientist. Rhoda is now a scientist. Phew.Deborah Heiligmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02894150394598699172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1337206901491734394.post-89563672959040488082009-05-05T10:13:00.000-04:002009-05-05T10:13:00.000-04:00Thanks Vicki--this is exactly the kind of response...Thanks Vicki--this is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for, and I'm planning to delve into some of the more controversial aspects in my next post. I'll have to look up Elizabeth McEneany too. Sounds intriguing.Rosalyn Schanzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11605814379256096903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1337206901491734394.post-4006539797729825482009-05-05T08:50:00.000-04:002009-05-05T08:50:00.000-04:00Great post, Rosalyn. Very thought provoking. In s...Great post, Rosalyn. Very thought provoking. In science books, the facts are embedded into a point of view intended to influence the readers' interpretations of the facts. Sociologist, Elizabeth McEneany, has looked at worldwide trends in children's science textbooks over the course of the twentieth century and found a dramatic shift in actorhood. Early on, the universe was presented to children as God's fixed creation; the task of the learner was to glorify God by memorizing taxonomies. Later, professional scientists were portrayed as the relevant actors; children were to learn about the lives of great scientists and about their discoveries. Finally, in recent decades, the emphasis has shifted to the child; the child himself or herself is portrayed as the discoverer. The reason for learning science, children are now told, is that it's fun and relevant to the children's own lives. This latter perspective is doubtless our own, but historically it's quite new.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07214356318088069618noreply@blogger.com