“Is social darwinism a scientific theory?,” Vetti Giri asked his students at the start of his class. Social Darwinism, as he had already explained to them, is a discredited ideology suggesting that the powerful in society are innately better than the weak and that success is proof of their superiority. Despite being deemed pseudoscientific, it’s common to encounter people using this flawed logic to rationalise social inequalities.
“No,” responded a student, after a moment of thought. “Swalpa elaboration chaahiye,” Giri replied – I want to hear more. In the hour that followed, Giri shepherded his students through a meandering but enlightening discussion about misinformation, disinformation, caste and racial violence, the nature of scientific theories, and evolution.
Giri is a faculty member with the School of Education at Azim Premji University, Bengaluru. Before this, he spent a decade as a science teacher, teacher trainer, and research scholar. In June this year, I caught up with him to discuss his explorations of a key concept in science education: Nature of Science. Studying the nature of science becomes especially important in this technological age, when AlphaFold2 boasts of having solved the protein structure problem, DeepMind just won two medals in the International Maths Olympiads and ChatGPT can explain the Raman Effect to a five year old. What does science education have to offer our AI-powered futures?
Below is an edited version of our conversation:
Nandita (N): How would you define Nature of Science?
Giri (G): The way it is traditionally taught, science seems to be a finished product. It exists as a constellation of facts, principles, laws and theories. It is content-driven and examination-oriented. But, there is more to science than that. The purpose of science is to also foster scientific thinking, processes like observation, analysis, data interpretation, evaluation and forming an argument.
Science is not sealed off from society. Scientists are human beings with their own sensibilities, biases and beliefs. Science is not done in a vacuum; it is heavily influenced by politics, power and people, by backgrounds, gender and the resources that you have. Let’s say that there is a push towards protein-based diets. Why? “Because scientists said so.” Generally, the reasoning ends there, but one has to go deeper. From my perspective, one of the ultimate goals of science is to liberate people.
The topic of diet choices can be used to discuss sources of information, and challenge one’s own belief systems in the light of evidence. Credit: Mulkh Singh/Wikimedia Commons
In a single line, Nature of Science is knowledge of science and about science. ‘Of science’ refers to the concepts and its processes. ‘About science’ deals with the questions of who does science, who influences it, where and when is it done? This is the part of science that looks at how scientific knowledge is produced and who holds it.
Why? “Because scientists said so.” Generally, the reasoning ends there, but one has to go deeper.
In developing countries, science teaching is still heavily focused on content delivery. Some schools, the well-resourced ones, may also be focusing on the processes. I am not sure how many are thinking about using science as a context to liberate, emancipate, enlighten, to bring in this consciousness about who we are, and our values. The point I am trying to make is that if students are exposed to the idea that knowledge-making and knowledge-holding are social and political processes, then they will be critical about the nature of information.
N: Take us back to your own science education. Was there a point when you felt there was something missing that led you to think about Nature of Science?
G: I am a first-generation formal learner, and I became a teacher by chance. After my 12th, I joined BSc-BEd (Bachelors in Science-Bachelors in Education), a four-year integrated programme. That was a very rigorous programme; it helped me understand the basic concepts of science as well as education. After finishing in 2011, I joined a school in Andhra Pradesh. There, everyone was hardworking and so was I. I was teaching students in sixth to eighth standard. Apparently, my teaching was popular and I was highly appreciated. The classes were hands-on, discussion-oriented, full of debate, fun, entertainment and games. However, my focus was limited to delivering content. What I was aiming for as a teacher was whether the student understood the definition and the mechanism, say, of photosynthesis or respiration.
In order to understand whether to oppose or support a proposed development project, people must first ask the right questions like: For whose good is this project? What will the repercussions be for the local people? Will it affect the climate and groundwater? They may get some money now, but is this sustainable in the long run? That’s what the topic Nature of Science can teach students to do, according to Giri. Credit: Biswarup Ganguly/Wikimedia Commons
In retrospect, I don’t like that kind of teaching at all. Yes, facts are definitely important, but think about this: why is learning science compulsory for every student at school? It is not that everybody becomes a scientist or an engineer. So why do they need to come to school and learn science? It’s not just to learn facts by heart. While the facts may change one day in the light of new evidence with the advancement in technology, the robust scientific process will stay with us.
In the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the masses are susceptible to manipulation through disinformation and misinformation. During the pandemic it was evident that the rich became richer and the poor became poorer and accelerating AI usage may jeopardise the livelihoods of the poor. Justice may become the sovereign’s sword. In an ethically fragile period like this, it is very, very important to ask questions, doubt things, and look beneath the surface—this is a skill set that needs to be developed. We need public pedagogy.
N: How can the concept of public pedagogy, which focuses on learning outside formal institutions, change the way we see science?
G: What is “science”? Let’s imagine a scenario: There is an Adivasi guide who takes you–a researcher—through the forest, and helps you understand the native species there. According to me, this person is as good as a classroom teacher. We have to break this notion, this hierarchy, that considers a formal classroom teacher great and these people as just “okay-okay”. We have to develop respect for everyone who is trying to give us some kind of understanding about nature or science.
To understand a forest, you need a park ranger, the forest guide, a farmer, a person in the laboratory—a lot of actors have to come together to give you the big picture of how science works. Credit: Forest Services/USDA_Flickr
Doing this will not just give you the knowledge of concepts such as forest, types of species, vegetation, fauna, flora, evolution, co-evolution and so on, but also liberate your thinking about life. It can build agency, identity, and help you understand various different arguments.
To understand a forest, you need a park ranger, a forest guide, a farmer, a person in the laboratory… a lot of actors have to come together to give you the big picture of how science works. Now, I am slowly getting the sense of these nuances and realising that everything cannot be done in the classroom.
We have to break this notion, this hierarchy, that considers a formal classroom teacher great and these people as just “okay-okay”. We have to develop respect for everyone who is trying to give us some kind of understanding about nature or science.
N: You recently published a paper titled “Using the History of Research on DNA to Teach Nature of Science” in the journal Research in Science Education. What is special about the history of DNA research that makes it a potential tool to teach Nature of Science?
G: Generally, science is synonymous with experiments, testing and verification. The structure of DNA though, was discovered not by testing, but by model building. The discovery received a Nobel Prize, and revolutionised the method of doing science. The actual proof for it came much later when molecular biology developed tools to see the structure and behaviour at a granular level.
Before this study, my students believed that the scientific method is very systematic, rigid and universal. You start with observation, end with results, and everything happens step by step. But after I exposed them to this method, they understood that it need not always be this way. The scientific method could be recursive, and it could be iterative as well (meaning, it involves repeating and revisiting steps as new information emerges). And it need not always be about experimentation.
James Watson and Francis Crick won the 1962 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the structure of DNA. Their discovery, interestingly, came not from experimental proof but from model-building. (right) Rosalind Franklin’s X-ray diffraction pattern of DNA, which helped to elucidate its double helix structure. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Then there was also the aspect of the treatment Rosalind Franklin got from Watson and Crick. The students realised that women’s views back then were downplayed and they did not get the recognition that they deserved.
Overall, this topic shows that science is tentative, but this does not mean it is weak. It just means that in the light of better evidence, it is open to revise itself. It is strong, but it is humble.
N: In contrast to the case of Rosalind Franklin, who actually had useful evidence in hand, there was Linus Pauling, whose views were favoured despite having nothing concrete!
G: Yes, so that aspect is called theory ladenness. Theory ladenness is similar to confirmation bias yet slightly different; it means that our observations are influenced by our beliefs, prior knowledge and backgrounds.
Pauling was a very great figure during that time because he had already discovered the structure of proteins. There was an aura around him. So when he proposed that DNA had a triple helical structure, everybody started experimenting towards this. Even Watson and Crick tried to prove this for a long time.
It was Rosalind Franklin who did crystallography, changed the humidity of the material and found evidence that it can never be triple helical. Eventually, Maurice Wilkins leaked Franklin’s crystallography photograph to Watson and Crick and this was the basis of the discovery.
…science is tentative, but this does not mean it is weak. It just means that in the light of better evidence, it is open to revise itself. It is strong, but it is humble.
N: We hear a lot of debate about whether it’s important to separate the ‘Art’ from the ‘Artist’. Similarly, should we separate the ‘Science’ from the ‘Scientist’? Take for example, the case of Sir CV Raman, who as Indians we continue to celebrate, without questioning problematic parts of his personality such as his sexism and his reluctance to question his caste privilege.
G: This is a very big question that I am grappling with in life. Socrates emphasised that one should focus within and without. ‘Within’ includes the virtues of courage, honesty, integrity, humility, friendship, respect. ‘Without’ refers to the world out there, in this case, science. This is relevant in the current time.
I don’t know much about the Raman Effect as I am not a physics person, but I’m sure that if I ask ChatGPT, I can get a step-by-step explanation in simple language. So understanding a concept is not a great thing these days. What is, I think, very important, and why students still need classrooms is to develop their values, along with subject knowledge.
It was Rosalind Franklin who did crystallography, changed the humidity of the material and found evidence that it can never be triple helical. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
We are at a stage where we have a new means of production. Everything is AI. When the means of production changes, relationships will change, values will change, our life will change. And this will have a cascading effect on our entire societal structure. Inequity will increase. Violence will creep in. Because if you own technology, you can do anything and don’t need anybody. So we need to help our people acquire virtues along with knowledge.
N: What does a country like India have to gain by changing the way we do science education?
G: The only way forward for us is appreciating diversity. When you have people from diverse backgrounds, they bring a diversity of ideas to the table. Diversity is epistemic strength, and it will actually lead to big innovations and creativity. I think what we need in order to grow faster is not just resources but also diversity. No society ever prospered without appreciating diversity.
N: However, in our country, we tend to obsess about merit, and consider diversity as something that can dilute it.
G: Feminist epistemologist Sandra Harding said that the privileged can never see the issue with a neutral lens because the moment they accept their privilege, they will lose it. Forget the dominant groups, even within marginalised sections, will the small number who have benefited from affirmative action give up their privilege for the others? I am saying that this is the human tendency. There may be individuals who give it up, but no society as a whole will give up its privilege on its own.
So how do you make the privileged realise they are privileged? Through this kind of pedagogy. Through these kinds of discussions. We have to grow as a society, but not by polarising groups. That’s what I think.
Sandra Harding, a leading feminist scholar, pioneered the “standpoint theory,” which views science as a contextualised and culturally embedded undertaking, in contrast to its reputation as neutral and objective. She passed away in March 2025. Credit: Villanova University/Youtube
N: As a former teacher, and now an educationist, what message do you have for school teachers in small schools who may be overburdened but are still dedicated to the cause of education?
G: In the face of this sociopolitical scenario, school teachers may have to embrace the philosophy of ‘bildung’ in teaching science. Bildung is the German educational philosophy that pushes for science to move beyond the content and the applications, to also nurture scientific thinking skills, cultivation of self, ethical reasoning, critical thinking, liberation, and conscientisation.
I think what we need in order to grow faster is not just resources but also diversity. No society ever prospered without appreciating diversity.
For example, instead of teaching the concepts of flowers, sexual reproduction, pollination and co-evolution sequentially as isolated concepts, the teacher might consider leading with a question such as “why do flowering plants dominate the earth?”. Engaging students in sustained discussions around this question for a few hours can not only integrate these concepts meaningfully but also foster, in parallel, the skills advocated by the Bildung philosophy.
Yes, it may be challenging for teachers on the ground to adopt these methods? Certainly. But we, as a community, must embrace a collective movement toward transformation in science education. There is a book called Divaswapna (“Daydreams”) by the educator Gijubhai Badheka where he describes the endurance of a teacher. He too was not appreciated when he was trying to introduce Montessori education methods to India. But eventually, he has succeeded in enlightening a lot of people.
If you don’t try, you will become redundant.
[Disclaimer: The author of this piece works as a part-time consultant at Azim Premji University, Bangalore, where Vetti Giri works as faculty.]
