The sociopolitical turn in science education: revisiting the origins of an idea

As someone who studies the history of science, I agree that searching for precursors is nearly always problematic. Recent findings in our field, as reported by John Rudolph (^{Rudolph, 2024}), indicate that the term scientific literacy, which was previously believed to have been coined by Paul Hurd in 1958, dates to the 1940s - in a case of looking for a precursor. It is true, though, that this discovery might not change our grasp of scientific literacy. Therefore, instead of delving into the roots of the sociopolitical turn in science education, I would rather concentrate on the growing prevalence of the term. Sara Tolbert and Jesse Bazzul (^{Tolbert; Bazzul, 2017}) seem to be the front-runners for making it more widely used². The authors of the paper develop several premises of the sociopolitical shift in scientific education following Gutiérrez’s (2013) foundational essay proposing the sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. According to her, this would be the case of

[…] a growing body of researchers and practitioners who seek to foreground the political and to engage in the tensions that surround that work. The sociopolitical turn signals the shift in theoretical perspectives that see knowledge, power, and identity as interwoven and arising from (and constituted within) social discourses. Adopting such a stance means uncovering the taken-for-granted rules and ways of operating that privilege some individuals and exclude others. Those who have taken the sociopolitical turn seek not just to better understand mathematics education in all of its social forms but to transform mathematics education in ways that privilege more socially just practices (^{Gutiérrez, 2013}, p. 40).

Taking Gutiérrez’s ideas as a starting point, ^{Tolbert and Bazzul (2017)} argue that forces beyond the discipline itself are driving an imminent and significant turn in science education. These forces compel us, as researchers, teachers, and students, to rethink the meaning of educational projects. In fact, there is no choice: the catastrophes of our time, because of their intensity, force us to rethink our daily practices. In 2018, after the election of a president who, two years earlier, had publicly paid tribute to a dictator who had used electric torture on other human beings (^{Della Barba; Wentzel, 2016}), I began to think that, as an educator (whether in science or literature, it does not matter), I could not remain oblivious to such barbarity. In February 2022, after the collapse of the mountain behind my house, which resulted in the immediate burial and death of 93 people, and after a three-hour rainfall (^{Deister, 2024}) of nearly 260 mm, which had been forecast for an entire month, I had no choice but to prioritize the climate emergency as a central concern in all my actions as a teacher and a scholar. Of course, just as there are no crucial experiments in science, singular events, however traumatic, cannot be attributed solely to changes in our behavior. However, because they are deeply embedded in my memory, I understand them as metonyms for the motivations behind some of my positions.

^{Tolbert and Bazzul (2017)} argue that a sociopolitical turn requires a reevaluation of the nature-culture divide, a thorough examination of the inquiries pursued in educational research, and a critical analysis of the organizational frameworks and beneficiaries of these institutions. By employing activist, critical, and culturally sensitive pedagogies to meet the needs of historically underrepresented students in science education, this turn places a higher priority on research topics that explore instances of systemic oppression, power, and identity. In addition to the points made by ^{Gutiérrez (2013)} and ^{Tolbert and Bazzul (2017)}, ^{Pais and Valero (2012)} point to the importance of critically examining (mathematics) education research - that is, its research programs, directions as a field, etc. - rather than focusing exclusively on the pedagogical practices used in classrooms. This is for two reasons: first, pedagogical practices often fail to capture the complex nature of politics - and by assuming otherwise, we may paradoxically depoliticize Politics (with a capital P, as the authors describe it). Second, research fields serve as areas of tension and debate, that ultimately determine, among other things, the course of research programs. Therefore, it is important to understand the dynamics of this field - in this case, I apply this reflection to science education - so that we can act politically within it.

In the process of developing a definition for the sociopolitical turn in science education, I drew on a variety of sources and proposed that the sociopolitical turn

[…] refers to a body of research in science education that has been engaging with political aspects of science teaching and learning and the discussion of science within the Political, which means exploring the different ways in which science can relate or be positioned in relation to larger political discussions of our time, like the limits of growth, social inequalities, and historical issues such as racism, sexism, and colonialism in all forms. For this, authors in the sociopolitical turn have been working on dissecting the relationships between knowledge production, power, identities and ontologies to overcome current imbalances and oppressions that plague our society and are driving the sixth mass extinction on Earth (^{Moura, 2025a}, in press).

To effectively address the current political landscape in science education, I propose to divide this endeavor into two levels and three dimensions, for clarity. The two levels are the reflexive and the meta-reflexive. The reflexive level emerges when we critically examine and adapt the teaching practices - what we implement in the classroom or in non-formal settings - in order to respond to the demands of the sociopolitical turn. The second level, known as meta-reflexive, emerges when we focus our analysis and transformative efforts on the domain of research in science education itself. In terms of dimensions, I propose three: power, identities, and ontologies. These elements are examined at either the reflexive or the meta-reflexive level. In other words, they are the aspects that will be revealed (through research) or transformed/reimagined (through action) during research/action. Exploring the dynamics of power requires a critical examination of how it shapes our perceptions of truth, establishes norms, enforces hierarchies, and perpetuates oppression. Examining identities involves understanding and confronting the identities and ‘kinds of people’ shaped by science education practices and research. Ultimately, ontologies serve as a crucial reminder that any socio-political endeavor remains incomplete without a thorough examination and critique of the realities constructed and envisioned through research and educational practices in the sciences. It is therefore essential to acknowledge and address the competing narratives that are often sidelined or entirely overlooked altogether by overarching and dogmatic perspectives.

Finally, drawing on Valero’s (2020) definitions of the sociopolitical turn in mathematics education, I further examine how this sociopolitical work unfolds between two contrasting poles: strong and weak. The strong pole explores the production of knowledge in both historical and contemporary contexts, examining its connections to various social institutions. It posits that science is intimately connected to the structures and systems through which society organizes itself. For example, the intricate relationship between science and the global capitalist production system of production has been thoroughly examined by numerous historians of science (^{Rieppel; Lean; Deringer, 2018}), as well as by a variety of scholars in the field of science and technology studies, both historical and contemporary. As for the weak pole, a central aspect is the adoption of an uncritical perspective on the creation of scientific knowledge. This position may express some understanding of certain sociopolitical viewpoints in science education, but it does not delve into a deeper examination of how the creation of scientific knowledge is intertwined with power dynamics and identity formation. This strategy seeks to forge a new way forward that includes a reconfiguration of scientific practices, as suggested by ^{Stengers (2018)}.

The categorization I have drawn here is not intended to be a black or white kind of analysis - it is true that between the strong and weak poles there are gradations characteristic of hybridizations and multiple understandings, as well as aspects such as the didactic constraints of each reality. Not everything we do in the classroom (or any other teaching-learning space) is ideal. Or we may not always be ready (or feel ready) to do what we would like to do. Or we may not fully agree with the theoretical orientations that are presented here, which is also valid. It is therefore possible to find oneself at various points between these two poles. As I have explored, this characterization is inspired by Valero’s (2018) work on mathematics education, and it is also like Simmoneaux's (2014) proposal of the "cold" and "hot" sides for addressing socio-scientific issues (SSIs). Among other things, the author shows that the approach to SSIs can vary from practices that are more engaged with problems of immediate reality (hot) to the cold pole, where SSIs would be used as contexts for teaching standard content rather than properly aligned with politically engaged teaching.

Thus, the proposition of strong and weak poles is meant to function more as a compass for self-orientation among the possibilities in the spectrum of sociopolitical approaches than as a kind of denunciation of those who 'engage too little'. It is also an invitation to more people who find the present time challenging (for humans and other species) to consider engaging in approaches that are more confrontational with the structures of the system that is consuming our potential to live on Earth.

Very interesting! But who came up with the idea that science education is political?

The first objection I have heard to the argument I have developed is that, while it is undeniably an intriguing proposition, Paulo Freire and other educators known as the founders of critical pedagogy advanced it several decades earlier. Undoubtelly, ^{Freire (1987)} is the author of the most convincing text on the political possibilities of education, emphatically defending not only its non-neutrality, but also the possibilities that arise from the act of education when viewed in an emancipatory key. So, why should science education (which is part of the education under Freire's scrutiny) be left out of this analysis? Obviously, there is no reason. However, this argument has yet to gain traction in the field of science education. Strong evidence of this is that when another Brazilian, Wildson dos Santos (^{Santos, 2009}) presents to the international community a proposal for scientific literacy that radicalizes (in his own words) the humanistic vision of science education, it has an immediate impact on the field. This is recognized not only by one of the aforementioned references (^{Morales-Doyle, 2017}), but also by theorists of the so-called Vision III of scientific literacy, such as ^{Sjöström and Eilks (2018)}, who consider Wildson’s work fundamental for the design of a more engaged science education.

The second important observation is that when I say that the argument 'never really caught on', I mean that it never became hegemonic in the field. In other words, a careful look at the past of both national and international literature will reveal the existence of a line of academic production that has always sought to move closer to the strong pole of sociopolitical approaches, as I characterize it. In Brazil, groups such as those working with Demétrio Delizoicov and José Angotti, Marta Pernambuco, Simoni Gehlen, and others (the list here is fortunately long) are examples of this engagement. Internationally, since the 1980s, the efforts of Angela Calabrese Barton in the United States have focused on engaging marginalized communities and ensuring that science education resonates with their experiences and needs. Still in the global North, Wolff Michael-Roth and Jacques Desautels published the book Science Education as/for Socio-Political Action (^{Roth; Désautels, 2002}) in 2002. Earlier, in the 1990s, Derek Hodson initiated his renowned 'Call to action', advocating for a more politicized approach to science education (^{Hodson, 1994}). Indeed, others may have preceded them.

My defense, then, along with those who recognize an imminent sociopolitical turn in science education, as articulated by ^{Tolbert and Bazzul (2017)}, is that there has been a noticeable recent movement in the mainstream of the field toward sociopolitical approaches to science education. This could be attributed not only to a revived focus on critical pedagogies but also to the rise of decolonial and critical feminist pedagogies, among others, both nationally and internationally. In other words, we seem to be on the verge of observing a significant shift in what is considered hegemonic in the field of science education. In this sense, I argue that the Brazilian reality is particularly illustrative of this issue. As I have argued in another paper (^{Alvim; Moura, 2025}, in press), one only must look at the conferences to see how dynamic this movement is. In this respect, in contrast to international conferences, it is possible that Brazilians are at the forefront of this issue, which is no accident - here, in recent years, science education has become intertwined with other keywords such as human rights (^{Oliveira; Queiroz, 2016}), decolonialities (^{Monteiro et al., 2019}), among others, which certainly calls for a more careful study.

A second objection, which I also address in ^{Moura (2025a)}, concerns the positioning of the 'sociopolitical turn' in relation to the 'sociocultural turn', as characterized by ^{Lemke (2001)}. Well, in ^{Lemke (2001)}, and in the studies that began to consider the classroom not only as a place for the teaching of scientific content but much richer than that (including a review of the science to be taught), there was not necessarily an explicit intention to confront, in every action (and as much as possible), the political-economic system responsible for the sixth mass extinction we are going through. Many works, including my own from ten years ago, have attempted to reconcile "the two cultures" (^{Snow, 1959}), arguing with compelling examples that chemistry, physics, biology, and the earth sciences are also cultural constructs, contingent and responsive to their time and space. What is happening now at a time when many researchers are trying to promote a 'sociopolitical turn' can even be understood as a confirmation of what Lemke’s sociocultural turn said about science: science education, when viewed as a scientific field, turns out to be a product of a non-hermetic time and space. As it happens, the time-space we now inhabit today is one of political horrors, as in the case of the Brazilian elections of 2018, the American elections of 2016 and 2024, the Argentinean elections of 2023, as well as the climatic horrors we are accustomed to seeing every day on television, in Petrópolis, Valência, Porto Alegre, and many other places. This has probably prompted some researchers in the field to turn up the volume a few decibels when arguing for the politicization of science education. Some even explicitly identify capitalism as the scourge plaguing the planet and advocate for its replacement (^{Bencze, 2022}).

Between Strong, Weak, and Average: A longer discussion

As mentioned at the beginning, I would like to elaborate on the idea of poles with regard approaches to the sociopolitical turn in science education. Using this idea, I will present two almost anecdotal examples that illustrate the distinction between the two poles, their practical implications, and their significance for science education.

According to ^{Pereira, Santana, and Brandão (2019)}, Alice Ball was a black American researcher in the field of chemistry who conducted research on the oil of the chaulmoogra tree. This research led to the creation of the first treatment for Hansen’s disease. The point is that Alice’s department head took credit for her research after she died. The authors highlight that this as an example of the Matilda Effect, which refers to the devaluation, erasure, or misattribution of women's contributions to men. The concept of intersectionality can also be used to understand how this affects Black women, as many of the markers of exclusion (female gender, disadvantaged economic class, and Black race) typically intersect in their experiences, resulting in a compounding effect that further subalternizes them (^{Pereira; Santana; Brandão, 2019}).

In a second case of women in science, El Jamal and Guerra (2022) analyze the trajectory of Marie Curie through the lens of the cultural history of science. They observe that the prominence of Marie Curie as one of the most notable figures in the history of science, almost paradoxically, highlights the invisibility of several other women throughout history. A closer examination of this trajectory reveals that a minimum set of conditions was necessary for Marie Curie to stand out. These circumstances are not configured as a privilege, but rather as minimum structural conditions for participation. However, these conditions are more available to men, such as the right of access to educational institutions, the freedom not to be captured by the reproductive labor, and the ability to circulate in certain spaces of scientific production. From a different frame of reference, the authors end up confirming the notion of intersectionality and the challenges that this oppression rooted in different social markers poses to women (El Jamal; Guerra, 2022).

This is only an abbreviated version of the aforementioned work to set the reader up for further exploration of the referenced works. Following this brief overview, I will now focus on explaining how the strong-weak spectrum of sociopolitical approaches that I have proposed might apply to a translation of this work into educational settings.

To begin with the weak sociopolitical perspective, one way of translating these works into the various educational settings is to use them to affirm the possibility of women doing science, since that there are successful examples in history. Although this tendency to celebrate can be understood as important from the point of view of representativeness (seeing more women in the sciences creates positive imaginaries to break the cycle of exclusion), it does not yet engage in a critical analysis of the production of science. In other words, if the lack of women is the main problem of science, then it would be enough additional access and leaving scientific practices untouched, considering that these actions would not be connected to power, identity, or the worlds we create.

As we move toward the strong viewpoints, we find ourselves delving into the histories of these two scientists. This includes how they became involved in science, the obstacles they had to overcome, the particularities of their contexts that distinguished them, the limitations and hurdles that existed in scientific societies, universities, and journals, and the strategies that these women used to navigate these contexts. Here we have a series of discussions that are situated in what has been classified as the non-epistemic domain of the most recent models of the Nature of Science (^{García-Carmona, 2024}). I understand that there is a growing demand from socio-political approaches towards this pole, as discussions about the construction of scientific knowledge, which heavily involve issues of power, identity, and ontologies, become more evident when investigating aspects of knowledge beyond the epistemic domain (cf. ^{Gandolfi, 2019}, ²⁰²⁴).

If we go further, we can explore other aspects of this story. Both researchers (Marie Curie and Alice Ball) ran into problems, but by contrasting the two paths through an intersectional lens, we can see more clearly the role of structural conditioning factors in each case. El Jamal and Guerra (2022) look at an example that benefited from these conditions, while Pereira, Santana, and Brando (2019) show that Alice Ball, on the other hand, was completely invisible for a while until her story was discovered. Armed with these more complex lenses, we can connect these cases with contemporary histories (cf. ^{Allchin; Andersen; Nielsen, 2014}; ^{Moura et al., 2017}) and try to understand the resonances of the structures observed in these historical cases in current scientific practice. How can we find the mechanisms (and social actors) that excluded these women from scientific narratives in addition to reinscribing them (or reinscribing them in a more nuanced way, as in the case of Marie Curie)? How can we engage with social movements (^{Philip; Azevedo, 2017}) - given that this can be crucial for the promotion of critical science education (^{Jager, 2024}) - that today seek to redress for these erasures? Movements, such as the Brazilian Network of Women Scientists and the Parents in Science network, reflect a growing commitment to address and redress ongoing inequalities. Moreover, it is time to consider how science can contribute to larger movements for social justice and equality movements (^{Philip; Azevedo, 2017}). In short, connecting the narratives of both researchers to the structures that perpetuate inequalities in our society, while also connecting these discussions to current movements and actionable principles, can make these discussions less abstract, and more in line with the transformative principles of sociopolitical approaches.

Revisiting the three elements that make up what I call the sociopolitical turn (power, identities, and ontologies), it becomes clear that in Alice Ball’s case, the power dynamics of the mentoring relationship are present alongside the deliberate omission of her contributions to the study of the subject. In Marie Curie’s case, reproductive labor, the lack of female education at the time, and other formal barriers demonstrate the use of power to limit women’s participation in science. In terms of identities, we can observe the representations of science and scientists that narratives can produce, such as Alice Ball’s overlooked contributions and Marie Curie’s glorified journey. It asks whether these representations are inclusive and what this means for participation in scientific endeavors, with all the consequences that a lack of diversity has for science. At the level of ontologies, we can think about the worlds that emerge from these power dynamics and the unequal valuation of identities in science. We can also think about how these imagined and constructed worlds relate to issues such as academic hyper-productivism and the methods used to produce, fund, and disseminate scientific research. One can explore these three dimensions through a reflexive lens, seeking to understand their manifestations in science classrooms, or through a meta-reflexive lens, examining how the field of academic research has interacted with or perpetuated these concerns.

I have yet to develop certain aspects of this theoretical perspective, as is the case with any work in progress. Educational research, especially in science education, has already reached some important consensuses about classroom practices that promote better learning and student engagement. For example, we know that monologic, discursive approaches in which only the teacher speaks and students listen do not lead to rich and vibrant learning environments compared to dialogic and interactive classrooms (^{Mortimer; Scott, 2003}) or classrooms in which students can engage in creative projects and activities. Examining sociopolitical perspectives makes it clear that the focus goes beyond the assumption that education is only a process of learning - which implies that education involves more than just measuring the amount of knowledge acquired during a particular interaction or educational process (^{Biesta, 2020}). However, if the goal is to stimulate debate on contemporary social issues and to promote social change through the identification and modification of structural problems, I believe that these opportunities are unattainable without the active engagement of students in the educational process. However, project-based learning or highly dialogic and participatory classrooms do not necessarily have a deeply rooted sociopolitical component. This only emerges when we connect with issues that can challenge the ontologies, identities, and power relations of structural socioeconomic inequalities.

Potentials, challenges, and hopes: Some reflections

Like any major change, the proposed socio-political turn is likely to be met with resistance and suspicious glances, or simply ignored by the more entrenched traditions of the field. To return to the image of the river that carries everything at the beginning of this text, that same river will also move the sand and the rocks that lie beneath the surface, obscuring the view for many of us and perhaps leaving us feeling disoriented. This experience is not unique to science education - we experience it in the world at large. ^{Latour (2020)} recently explored the challenges of navigating political landscapes in a world that is changing at an unprecedented rate. To try to be less metaphorical, some of the disorder we experience is due to the political climate in which we find ourselves, which unsettles us and even clouds our vision. Another aspect comes from movements that seek to maintain existing frameworks within our small scientific community, even if this is at odds with the notion of continuous exploration and openness to challenge established ideas, a principle that even the most structural and positivist perspectives on science have come to embrace. In this section, I would like to present some thoughts that attempt to conclude the argument of the article, without claiming to cover every aspect of the discussion, given the breadth of the topic.

Firstly, science education needs to rethink its boundaries. As I have developed elsewhere (^{Moura, 2021}; ^{Moura; Nascimento; Lima, 2021}), standard or canonical content - those conceptual ideas that are considered as classics in different fields - naturally attract attention in discussions about science education. When we think about science education, we imagine... yes: chemical kinetics, Newton’s laws, the organelles. To recognize and integrate the diverse contributions of the sociopolitical turn, ranging from decolonial to feminist perspectives, it is essential to reorient these core concepts within educational and informal settings. And here, it is not enough to relabel our core subjects to make them more 'contextualized', while still aiming to convey the traditional conceptual content³ - when I refer to conceptual content, I follow ^{Zabala (2014)} in distinguishing between conceptual, attitudinal, and procedural content. In essence, I am replacing chemical kinetics with why bananas spoil faster in the heat, but still with the intention of talking about factors influencing the rate of a reaction™ along with a complete list of the different heats of reaction™, and also the Hess's Law™. This discussion - about what are the core ideas - is an old one in the field, but far from settled⁴. Furthermore, the sense I am making here is that 'attacks on science' are often not 'on science' but part of broader strategies to dismantle mechanisms for generating collective well-being and everything associated with these mechanisms, including science. Therefore, rather than 'defending science', which often relies on strategies that simply reinforce its authority, it might be more productive to ask what science can do for the production of collective well-being, and how we can promote this through science education. We need to undertake a serious review of what should be removed and what should remain from the extensive list of topics that teachers are expected to teach. In this review, it is important to remember that much of what is learned in school goes unnoticed: ways of relating to others and the world around us, values, and ways of life. We need to remember that we are educators and not science enthusiasts trying to 'defend' science against everything⁵. We need to recognize that the very basis of what is 'fundamental to teach' today may not even be relevant (what is the purpose of this approach? To pass university entrance exams?). It may simply be the product of an educational tradition formed over many, many generations. It is debatable whether it makes sense to continue teaching chemistry/physics/biology as we do today, given the proliferation of specializations in the natural sciences. There is still a lack of research in the areas I have briefly touched on, that deals with evidence rather than general premises and assumptions derived from specific theoretical positions⁶.

It is also important to note that such a review of the key ideas is very different, both in form and content from the Brazilian National Common Core Curriculum (BNCC). In their exploration of the networks of relationships that shaped the BNCC, ^{Avelar and Ball (2019)} note that the process was closely linked to corporations and their "philanthropic" arms. If we recognize that the public interest and collective welfare should drive education policy, this connection may mean that we are 'jumping the gun'. I also assert that I do not subscribe to the idea of centralized curricula that do not adequately account for differences. By suggesting that we engage in a review of canons (or the canonization of canonical content, to be redundant), I want to align myself with Latour’s notion that we need to reach for the common world (in the singular) and, at the same time, for local perspectives, rather than pursuing a total standardization of what should be in the school curriculum. In other words, conceptual content is there because it is necessary to reach out to the common world, where people share a common vocabulary to grasp the foundations of modern science.⁷ How does conceptual content serve these purposes? Which contents, specifically? To what extent? How can we reconcile the need for a common language with localized focus and culturally responsive approaches to science education (as in ^{Mensah, 2021})? These are questions that require deeper exploration and debate.

Following this line of reasoning, it is important to note that, in the face of perceived public scientific denial (which is a problem apart from disinformation and misinformation), a growing number of colleagues have rallied to uphold the importance of teaching canonical content (as opposed to anything else that is considered an add-on). At the height of the pandemic, I noticed prominent colleagues suggesting that greater knowledge of how a virus works might have helped us more effectively navigate towards best practices for virus containment or might have guided us as citizens in shaping public policy decisions. Were the fellow scientists who were reluctant to mandate the wearing of masks at the beginning of the epidemic simply lacking a proper understanding of how viruses work? Note that I am not suggesting that viruses be removed from science education. It is a fundamental idea on which science has been built for the last hundred years or so. However, a better (in the sense of more detailed and specific) understanding of the functioning of this infectious particle could not be sufficient to understand the dynamics of the fight against the coronavirus at that time, because these dynamics were intertwined with complex social, political, and economic factors (see ^{Moura; Nascimento; Lima, 2021}). Furthermore, the argument of widespread denialism and erosion of trust in science and scientists - often used to support these so-called content defenses - is decisively challenged by a recent study based on a survey conducted in 68 countries, confirming previous studies (^{Cologna; Mede et al., 2024}). In other words, greater caution is needed in navigating the evidence available in the literature, lest we rush to set directions for science education based on hasty considerations.

It could be argued that taking on such a challenge is overly ambitious in a country where a significant proportion of the student population fails to achieve even the basic standards of scientific literacy (^{Martins, 2023}). Indeed, it could be argued that we should prioritize investment in content and leave the complexities (of sociopolitical approaches, for example) for a more opportune time. But have we really paused to consider how complex it is to understand the workings of an atom from a purely conceptual point of view (even, if possible, disregarding all its historicity)? Understanding the constitution of an atom is an iterative process, beginning with the simplest models used to explain phenomena like floating bodies in elementary school, and progressing to the most complex ones used to explain the relationship between electronic transitions and the different colors of objects in high school. The question at hand is why we invest so much in trivialities (and here I can’t help but think of a question on chromophoric compounds from the 2019 ENEM chemistry exam, which reminds me of my time as a high school chemistry teacher in Brazil), while we consider the discussion of how science can perpetuate inequalities in society almost superfluous... Are we focused on the minimum skills our students will need to succeed in the job market? Or to the possibility that our students will eventually enroll in a science program at a university? (and what happens if they don't know X or Y?). Thus, even though it is argued that undergraduate science education should also serve the needs of aspiring scientists, engineers, and technicians who need a solid foundation in science (^{Taber, 2017}), I am not aware of a similar concern for undergraduate history, sociology, or philosophy education in the official discourse of researchers in these fields. But should that really be our concern? To be clear, content will always exist because it is the key to understanding the world - that is not the question. The question is whether we, as a field of inquiry, should focus on refining and specializing in the delivery of that content, or whether we should devote the available resources to developing a science education that combats oppression in all its manifestations and promotes more altruistic and considerate ways of being and relating to the world. In saying this, I do not mean to put research on the teaching of scientific concepts in limbo. I simply want to avoid the trap of thinking that research on teaching concepts can be part of a sociopolitical turn. Moreover, there is an extensive debate about curriculum and knowledge that I do not intend to discuss here. However, I understand that it is difficult to argue that knowing more science means having the key to access higher strata of society, at a time when the gap between the rich and the poor is widening, and with convincing studies on the link between students’ performance in ENEM, for example, and their socioeconomic level (e.g. ^{Nascimento; Cavalcanti; Ostermann, 2018}). This is not to deny the transformative power that 'traditional' and content-centred education (which I was exposed to) can have on individual trajectories, which would be to deny my own story - leaving a poor community in Rio de Janeiro and studying exclusively in public schools to get a job at a foreign university. In any case, I think it is important to be open to divergence on this issue.

To summarize this editorial, I have tried to offer some perspectives on the emerging sociopolitical turn in science education (^{Moura, 2025b}), to characterize and justify why decolonial, anti-racist, indigenous, activist, feminist, and anti-patriarchal movements (among others) are so important in the field of science education. All these movements, which are seeking to open and transform our field, are a direct response to the pressing social and environmental crises we are currently facing. We are witnessing unprecedented levels of social inequality alongside alarming trends in biodiversity loss and climate disruption. I have provided classifications that might be useful for this purpose, along with the reasons why our current approaches to science education need significant overhaul.

I understand that we should not hesitate to take a political stance - provided it is based on research and evidence. For example, ^{Cologna et al. (2024)} found, for example, that public trust in climate scientists remains unaffected when they advocate for public policies consistent with their research outcomes. By the same token, I believe it is important that we, as science education researchers, do not shy away from defending an education that prioritizes the creation of more just, democratic, and environmentally sustainable societies, even in the face of a rising tide of persecution from conservative groups, as I showed at the beginning of this editorial. It is important to note, however, that while research has advanced in the directions that I have outlined here, the gap between theory and practice is still vast. In my view, this underscores the need for a coordinated effort in science education to combat public policies that impede or limit the potential for transforming spaces beyond academia. This includes clear, public, and explicit opposition to any educational programs that, even with the best of intentions, might lead to the teaching of content for its sake - a practice that has been widely criticized in decades of research in the field (for a more detailed discussion, and for an example of a strong political-academic position, see ^{Vaz et al., 2024}). As a field, we need to oppose high school exit exams (such as the nationwide ENEM test in Brazil) that end up being a constrainer on instructional action on the schooling process - and rightly so, because we teachers want our students to succeed, but, in unequal societies like Brazil, this often translates into the need to obtain a college degree (^{Araújo, 2024}). We must also, as a field, support the demands of social movements that advocate for minimum structural conditions in all schools above any other government priority. Therefore, if we want to pay close attention to Politics (with a capital P) through our research and public stances as researchers, these are some basic steps to follow.

These words can be seen as extreme and inflammatory rhetoric, far removed from the calm and contemplative nature often associated with 'doing science.' However, it is necessary to put them into perspective: the margins that compress this text (genocides, environmental destruction, social inequality) are too violent for me to choose to be less direct and clear in what I have just said in the preceding paragraphs. The river should converge with the sea - and, in this context, the sea represents a less unequal and more ecologically sustainable society. Anything that stands in the way of the river must be eradicated because our existence on this earth depends on it. So, I invite my colleagues to see this text as an additional impulse to the transformative work that many are already doing.