Study Companion
Topic 10 | Science as a human endeavour

Science as a human endeavour

Year 8 (Levels 7-8 band): scientific knowledge changes with new evidence, multidisciplinary work uses many perspectives, and scientific responses to real issues have ethical, social and environmental trade-offs.

45-60 min Printable practice Answer key Challenge included
VC2S8H01 VC2S8H02 VC2S8H03 VC2S8H04
How to use this page

Read the explanation, work through the examples, then complete the core practice before printing.

Print practice Print answers
Study progress: Not started

What you will learn

Worked example 0 Real-world example: the periodic table

In 1869 Dmitri Mendeleev arranged the known elements into a table by atomic mass and chemical behaviour. He left gaps where no known element fitted, and predicted what those missing elements would be like. Within 15 years, gallium (1875) and germanium (1886) were discovered — and closely matched his predictions. Why is this story a good example of “science as a human endeavour”?

  1. Mendeleev used existing evidence (known elements’ properties) to build a new pattern.
  2. His table made testable predictions about elements nobody had seen.
  3. Later discoveries tested and confirmed the pattern.
  4. Other scientists then refined the table (Moseley re-ordered it by atomic number, not mass).

Key idea: scientific theories are strongest when they predict things nobody has yet observed — and are then confirmed.

1. Scientific knowledge changes

Why theories change. When new evidence, better instruments, or new ways of thinking come along, old theories are revised or replaced. Examples:

Change does not mean “science was wrong before.” It means science is self-correcting: ideas that fail against new data are dropped, improved ones replace them.

2. Multidisciplinary science and many perspectives

Modern science rarely happens in one field alone.

Scientists also bring different perspectives:

Worked example 1 Multidisciplinary in action: the COVID-19 vaccine

List four different areas of expertise that had to work together to produce a COVID-19 vaccine in about a year.

  1. Virology / molecular biology — identify and sequence the virus, find protein targets.
  2. Immunology — design something the immune system will respond to.
  3. Chemistry / biotechnology — produce mRNA or protein at scale; stabilise it.
  4. Clinical trials (medicine + statistics) — test safety and efficacy in volunteers.
  5. Manufacturing and logistics (engineering) — ship hundreds of millions of doses safely.
  6. Public health and ethics — decide who gets doses first.

Key idea: no single laboratory or discipline could have done this alone.

3. Socio-scientific issues: ethics, environment, economics

A socio-scientific issue is one where science informs a decision but the decision also involves ethical, environmental, social and economic trade-offs.

Examples: climate policy, genetically modified crops, fluoride in drinking water, nuclear power, vaccine mandates, antibiotic overuse, fast-fashion chemicals in rivers.

A useful framework when analysing any such issue:

  1. What does the science actually say? (Strong evidence, early findings, or contested?)
  2. Who benefits and who bears the cost? (Economic, health, cultural.)
  3. What are the environmental impacts? (Short- and long-term.)
  4. What ethical questions are at stake? (Fairness, autonomy, consent, future generations.)
  5. What trade-offs are acceptable? (And to whom?)
Worked example 2 Analysing a real issue: antibiotic resistance

Overuse of antibiotics in hospitals and farming is driving the rise of “superbugs” resistant to treatment. Identify a science angle, an economic angle, and an ethical angle.

  1. Science: bacteria evolve resistance through natural selection; wider antibiotic use speeds this up.
  2. Economic: new antibiotics are expensive to develop; farms get cheaper meat with routine antibiotics in feed.
  3. Ethical: future patients may die from formerly treatable infections. Is it fair to trade cheaper meat today for greater disease risk tomorrow?

Key idea: the science identifies the problem, but choosing what to do requires weighing costs across groups and generations.

4. Communicating science

Science only changes what people do if it is communicated well. Communication influences:

Good science communication:

Poor science communication:

Worked example 3 Reading a news headline

“Chocolate proven to prevent heart attacks — new study!” What questions should a careful reader ask?

  1. Who ran the study, and who paid for it? (Watch out for industry-funded research.)
  2. How big was the sample? A small study can find anything by chance.
  3. Was it a real experiment or just a correlation (people who ate chocolate also exercised more)?
  4. Has the result been repeated by other scientists?
  5. “Proven” is a huge word. Science rarely proves — it accumulates evidence.

Key idea: healthy skepticism is part of how science defends itself against hype.

5. Case study: climate change

A textbook example of socio-scientific decision-making.

Practice: Year 8

Fluency

How science works

    1. Explain in your own words why scientific knowledge is not “fixed”.
    2. Give one example where a scientific theory was revised because of new evidence.
    3. What is meant by “multidisciplinary” research?
    4. Name three fields of science that would cooperate to study climate change.
    5. Give one example of scientific knowledge that has been refined by First Nations knowledge in Australia.
Fluency

Socio-scientific issues

    1. Define a socio-scientific issue and give one example.
    2. List four types of consideration (ethical, environmental, social, economic) using a single example.
    3. Why might different groups reach different conclusions about a scientific policy?
    4. Give one example where science changed a government’s rules about safety or health.
Reasoning

Analyse and argue

    1. A TV ad says “nine out of ten dentists recommend this toothpaste.” Suggest three questions a scientist would ask before trusting this claim.
    2. Describe one advantage and one risk of social media as a way to communicate science.
    3. Explain why “the science is never settled” is sometimes used honestly and sometimes used to delay action.
    4. A community debates whether to fluoridate the water supply. Outline one scientific argument in favour and one ethical argument against.
Problem solving

Case studies

    1. Vaccines. Using what you know about multidisciplinary work, list four types of expert involved in bringing a new vaccine from research to public rollout.
    2. Climate policy. Give one economic benefit and one environmental cost of a coal-fired power station. Then suggest a third factor (social or ethical) that policy-makers should weigh.
    3. Antibiotics. Suggest two actions — one at the individual level, one at the policy level — that could slow the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
    4. Mendeleev’s periodic table. Explain why the later discovery of the noble gases (argon, helium, etc.) did not destroy Mendeleev’s table and instead strengthened it.

Challenge

Reasoning

Harder reasoning

    1. The 1980s Marshall-Warren discovery that most stomach ulcers are caused by the bacterium H. pylori overturned the then-accepted idea that ulcers were caused by stress and diet. Use this case to argue that science benefits from listening to researchers who challenge the majority view — while still demanding evidence.
    2. Compare how scientific evidence on tobacco (developed from 1950s onwards) and climate change (developed from 1960s onwards) were communicated to the public. What patterns do you see in how industries respond to unwelcome findings?
    3. A science reporter claims that “polls say 40%40\% of people doubt evolution, so scientists should be less certain.” Evaluate this reasoning using the idea that science is decided by evidence, not popularity.
    4. Choose any current socio-scientific issue (climate, AI, genetic engineering, nuclear, vaccines). Describe the key science, list two stakeholders with conflicting interests, and argue for a position — then state what evidence would make you change your mind.
Answers

Answer key

Attempt the practice first. When you're ready to check, expand the answers below.

Show the full answer key

Year 8 answers

Fluency

How science works

    1. Scientific knowledge changes when new evidence appears, better instruments allow new observations, or improved ideas explain data better. Theories are revised or replaced as understanding grows.
    2. Any valid example, e.g. continental drift →\to plate tectonics; geocentric →\to heliocentric model; phlogiston →\to oxygen theory of combustion; stress →\to bacterial cause of ulcers.
    3. Research that draws on several different fields of expertise to answer a question no single field could answer alone.
    4. Any three of: physics, chemistry, biology, geology, mathematics/statistics, computer science.
    5. Cultural burning / fire management practices are now used alongside modern bushfire science to reduce fuel loads and protect biodiversity.
Fluency

Socio-scientific issues

    1. An issue where science informs a decision but other factors (ethical, economic, social, environmental) also matter. Examples: climate policy, vaccine mandates, GM crops, nuclear power.
    2. Example (nuclear power): ethical — waste for future generations; environmental — low CO2_2 but radioactive waste; social — public trust, local community impact; economic — high up-front cost but low fuel cost.
    3. Different groups weigh risks, costs, and ethical values differently; they may also have different access to information or different things to lose. The science can be the same but the decision still varies.
    4. Any valid example, e.g. banning leaded petrol (after research showed lead harm), restricting CFCs (after ozone-layer research), tobacco regulation, asbestos bans.
Reasoning

Analyse and argue

    1. Any three of: How many dentists were surveyed? Were they paid or sponsored by the company? What exactly did they recommend — this brand, or “any fluoride toothpaste”? Was the claim peer-reviewed? Is the study repeatable?
    2. Advantage: reaches large audiences quickly; lets scientists communicate directly. Risk: misinformation spreads as fast as accurate information; algorithms favour emotional content over evidence.
    3. Honestly: acknowledges that measurements and models always have uncertainty, and new evidence can refine conclusions. Dishonestly: used to pretend weak evidence exists on both sides to delay action (e.g. tobacco, climate change).
    4. In favour (science): at low concentrations fluoride reduces tooth decay across a population. Against (ethics): mass medication removes individual consent — people cannot easily opt out of the water supply.
Problem solving

Case studies

    1. Virologists/microbiologists, immunologists, chemists (formulating the vaccine), statisticians (trial design), medical doctors (clinical trials), manufacturing engineers, public health officials, ethicists. Any four.
    2. Benefit: cheap large-scale electricity, local employment. Cost: CO2_2 and particulate emissions, mining impacts. Third factor: social/ethical — climate impact on future generations, or job security for the workforce if the plant is closed.
    3. Individual: only use antibiotics as prescribed; finish the course; avoid demanding antibiotics for viral illnesses. Policy: restrict routine antibiotic use in livestock; fund new antibiotic development; national surveillance of resistant strains.
    4. The noble gases slotted neatly into a new column (Group 18) that had not been known before, without requiring changes elsewhere. A good classification should be able to absorb new data — the fact that it did was evidence the table reflected a real underlying pattern.
Reasoning

Challenge

    1. Marshall and Warren were initially dismissed because their claim contradicted the consensus. But they gathered strong evidence (including Marshall deliberately infecting himself) and eventually won the argument on evidence alone. Science needs room for challenging the majority view — provided the evidence is tested rigorously. Consensus should not be protected from new data.
    2. Both tobacco and climate-change responses show a pattern: industries funded research designed to emphasise uncertainty, attacked inconvenient studies, and lobbied policy-makers to delay regulation. In both cases, the overwhelming scientific evidence eventually led to public-health and environmental policy, but decades of delay caused real harm.
    3. Science is decided by the weight of evidence, not public opinion. The theory of evolution is supported by genetics, fossils, comparative anatomy, and direct observation of evolution in microbes. Polling shows cultural beliefs, not scientific soundness. Scientists should communicate better, but not adjust their confidence to public mood.
    4. Answers will vary; a complete answer should (a) summarise the key evidence, (b) describe at least two competing stakeholders (e.g. fossil-fuel industry vs climate-impacted communities), (c) take a clear position with reasons, and (d) specify the evidence that would change the writer’s mind — the last point is the most important test of scientific thinking.

Prefer paper? Print the answer key as a separate booklet: open print view ->