Recent research on motivation to learn science shows that science teaching usually supports students’ systemising, but not their empathising cognition. In this paper we argue that empathy, with due caution, should be emphasised in science learning more seriously and consistently, particularly in a Science|Environment|Health pedagogy that aims at fostering the mutual benefit between the three interlinked educational fields. After briefly recapitulating research results about the empathising-systemising (E-S) theory and motivation to learn science, the paper describes the science of empathy and then reflects on the opportunities and challenges of introducing empathy into science teaching. Many studies of effective science learning can be found that involve empathising, though this usually is not made explicit. Thus, bringing empathy into play sheds another light on successful science learning and helps in unfolding its full potential. Moreover, considerations about the role of values in science education entail the insight that, when it comes to complex socio-scientific issues, including empathy is not only useful, but actually vital. The concept of reflective equilibrium, taken from applied ethics, provides a framework for the consideration of both systematic and empathic aspects in science teaching. This undervalued approach promises to involve all students and is therefore a genuine science for all approach.

In this paper, we explore Science|Environment|Health, One Health, Planetary Health, and Sustainability/Education for Sustainable Development in the context of the 2030 Agenda as four major frameworks that take a step toward investigating health from different angles to tackle the grand challenges that lie ahead of humanity. In most of these frameworks, the topic of health is no longer limited to the health of humans; it also encompasses the health of ecosystems and planetary systems. Therefore, our ways of teaching and discussing health in science education may need to be adjusted. To this aim, we first shortly characterize the four frameworks and then analyze the concepts of health, the contributing sciences, and the role of values in the frameworks. In our opinion, three main questions have to be settled: (1) Which concept of health lies at the root of each framework? (2) Which sciences should be considered when teaching about health, and what role will they take in an interdisciplinary, integrative approach and under complexity restraints? (3) What is the role of values in these frameworks, and how can the is–ought fallacy be avoided? We finally discuss our findings in light of the concept of two-eyed seeing in science education. This concept helps us disentangle and sharpen the three main questions and draw implications for teaching about health in school science.

Science|Environment|Health (S|E|H) is an emerging science pedagogy for complex living systems. The name highlights a situation of mutual benefit between science education, environmental education and health education. The paper discusses a range of topics from the curriculum-focused origin of the S|E|H movement to the issues that concern S|E|H researchers today. These include, among others, the role of scientific knowledge in S|E|H decision making, medicine education as a paradigmatic example of S|E|H, complexity in S|E|H issues, the role of empathy in S|E|H, and the tension between societal and individual responsibility. In conclusion, it is argued that two insights are essential for current S|E|H work. First, living systems can be understood both in causal and empathetic terms, which makes S|E|H a powerful ‘science for all’ approach. Second, in living systems, there is always a trade-off between predictability and homeostasis. This brings S|E|H in a natural antagonism – but not in opposition – to STEM approaches.

This conceptual paper starts by outlining six important concerns of Science|Environment|Health (S|E|H), a new pedagogy of science that has been developed during the last decade by a Special Interest Group of the ESERA community. The paper points out that the importance of these six concerns even increased during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. They play an essential role in preparing future citizens not only for coping with the pandemic but in general with other great challenges that lie ahead of our world. In this way S|E|H is naturally connected to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, and the paper discusses how S|E|H work in recent years may inspire education for sustainable development. The six concerns are: (1) the question of curricular change, (2) the role of knowledge in S|E|H contexts, (3) the danger of scientism and the tension between individual and political responsibility, (4) decision-making in S|E|H contexts, (5) the challenge of coping with uncertainty, and (6) the question of scientific holism. Structured by these concerns, the paper reviews recent research of the S|E|H community. These findings are reframed by the Two-Eyed Seeing approach that has recently found growing interest in the S|E|H community. This new approach distinguishes between the scientific image and the life-world image on an ontological basis, which helps to disentangle the six concerns and to provide a framework for tackling them in teacher education and educational research—in S|E|H contexts and also in education for sustainable development.

Not much is known about the role of scientific knowledge in vaccination decision making. This study is based on previous findings that the concern about the human papillomavirus (HPV) agent mutating back to a virulent HPV was common among Swiss student teachers and turned out to be one factor of vaccine hesitancy. The study investigate the impact of a standard public health brochure describing the effectiveness, safety, and importance of HPV vaccination on young student teachers, and the additional effect of supplementing the standard brochure with biological arguments against the mutation concerns. It uses a pre-posttest design and assigns participants randomly to two groups, one reviewing a standard public health brochure, the other the same brochure enhanced with additional biological information. Participants in both groups showed a significant positive change in their beliefs about vaccination safety, effectiveness, and importance in preventing cervical cancer. Post hoc analysis showed significant safety beliefs gain for the subgroup of participants who received the biology-enhanced text and held moderate, rather than high or low, pretest safety beliefs—the so-called fencesitters. We conclude that these fencesitters may particularly profit from even minimal (biologically supplemented) interventions, an effect that should receive more attention in future research.