Our (post-)modern world becomes increasingly complex, not in the least because of the changes to scientific knowledge and technological artifacts that pervade our lives. Science and technology are deeply enmeshed with personal and public issues (Latour, 1993; Restivo, 1988), particularly those relating to sociotechnical controversies such as mad cow or foot and mouth disease, AIDS, climate change, or the diffusion of genetically modified organisms. It is not surprising that there is an increasing public awareness of the ethical, practical, and political dimensions that characterize the controversies in which science and technology are embroiled. Science and technology, as all other domains that shape public and private life, should therefore become legitimate objects of reflection on the part of all citizens. An important question poses itself, "How do all citizens participate in reflecting on science and technology?" and "What level of scientific and technological literacy do citizens have to bring to be legitimate participants in the public debate?" These questions are particularly salient as there are suggestions about the nonexistence and non-attainability of scientific literacy (Shamos, 1995). Many citizens are said to have "blanks" in their background knowledge and are given lessons to get the right scientific knowledge to make up (Hazen & Trefil, 1991). Others disagree with such assessment, taking a more democratic and emancipatory approach to the contributions different types of knowledge can play to sort the problems that humanity faces today (Jenkins, 1999; McGinn & Roth, 1999). These authors take their cues from activists concerning AIDS (e.g., Epstein, 1996), muscular dystrophy (Rabeharisoa & Callon, 1999), or environment (Lee & Roth, 2001) to show that citizens can legitimately contribute to science and its processes even if they do not have a scientific or technological training.

Democratic ideals, particularly those of consistent with inclusive democracy (Fotopoulos, 1999), imply a greater involvement of the public in policy-making issues that pertain to or involve science and technology. However, today we are still far from an equitable approach where science and other forms of knowledge contribute in situationally appropriate and equitable way to solving problems and controversial issues. The public is often 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 take "bludgeon publics with ‘certain facts,’ often ignoring the public’s own culturally embedded understandings" (Brown & Michael, 2001, p. 18).

Controversial issues and the role science and technology play in their unfolding are often studied from the perspective of sociologists, anthropologists, or educators interested in science. In the present study, we take a different approach. One of us (Roth) had conducted an ethnographic study surrounding water issues in the community where he lives. He proposed an analysis of the data surrounding one controversy as one of the activities in a advanced course on interpretive inquiry. The diverse mix of participants in this course therefore provided us with the opportunity to analyze the public data on one controversy from the heterogeneous perspectives of an educated but diverse public. The purpose of this article is to articulate our understanding of the controversial issue and to derive implications for lifelong learning that would provide more emancipatory, legitimate (if peripheral) participation in the issues for local participants.

Contested Water

Water is one of the most common substances of the world. It is so common that those of us who live in the Northern Hemisphere often do not usually attend to it as something special. At least not until some serious problem arises such as the recent crisis in Walkerton, Ontario, where seven people died as a consequence of E. coli contamination of the drinking water. However, in some parts of the world, such as in rural areas of Africa and in parts of the Caribbean, most people lack access to a safe water supply (United Nations, 2000b).

Water is more than an issue contested in metaphorical way. Titles such as Water Wars: Coming Conflicts in the Middle East (Bulloch & Darwish, 1993) and La bataille de l'eau au Proche Orient (Chesnot, 1993) point to the fact that now, and even more so in the future, water becomes a battle ground and resource in struggle over nationhood and identity.

The possibilities of water as a contested entity and a general awareness of a looming water crisis around the world is becoming increasingly salient. For example, in Canada, numerous special research chairs on water quality have been created and efforts are under way to establish a national research network ("Reseau-watnet") focusing on drinking water or by cover stories in prestigious periodicals such as Scientific American. It becomes clear that the problems will only increase in the coming years:

It is also becoming clear that drinking water, its quality and quantity will not remain scientific and technological issues. In Canada, the export of drinking water to other nations has entered the political arena as the federal government considers legislation to control (limit, make possible) the sale of bulk water to other nations (Environment Canada, 2001; Shrybman, 1999).

While the debate at the national level about the sale of water to other nations is in its beginning, more than 200 communities experience more or less severe problems with the quantity and quality of their water. Despite the concern of the citizens that are affected, cities, provinces, and federation seem to do little to alleviate the local concerns. At the same time, organizations such as Lifewater International are dedicated to rural villagers to obtain safe water, mainly in developing nations where government-operated water systems are not available (http://www.lifewater.org/help.htm). But what options are there for people and communities in developed nations who, despite the national wealth, do not have access to the necessary quantity and quality of water as their fellow citizens do?

References