The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas

Abstract

ABSTRACT:The ability to negotiate and resolve socioscientific issues has been posited as integral components of scientific literacy. Although philosophers and science educators have argued that socioscientific issues inherently involve moral and ethical considerations, the ultimate arbiters of morality are individual decision-makers. This study explored the extent to which college students construe genetic engineering issues as moral problems. Twenty college students participated in interviews designed to elicit their ideas, reactions, and feelings regarding a series of gene therapy and cloning scenarios. Qualitative analyses revealed that moral considerations were significant influences on decision-making, indicating a tendency for students to construe genetic engineering issues as moral problems. Students engaged in moral reasoning based on utilitarian analyses of consequences as well as the application of principles. Issue construal was also influenced by affective features such as emotion and intuition. In addition to moral considerations, a series of other factors emerged as important dimensions of socioscientific decision-making. These factors included personal experiences, family biases, background knowledge, and the impact of popular culture. The implications for classroom science instruction and future research are discussed.

Students’ Ontological Security and Agency in Science Education—An Example from Reasoning about the Use of Gene Technology

“…As shown by other studies, a variety of norms is expected to be found among students (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). When the students participating in our study used norms to legitimize their signification of gene technology, they focussed attention on a variety of interesting norms that uncovered potential latent conflicts for science classroom discussions.…”

“…The validity of this study is further strengthened by the presence of similar arguments about gene technology in other studies. For example, see Bates, Lynch, Bevan, and Condit (2005), Barnett, Cooper, and Senior (2007), Chen and Raffan (1999), Gunter et al (1998), Kolstø et al (2006), Pearce, Thomas, and Clements (2006), Saucier and Cain (2006), Sadler and Donnelly, (2006) Sadler and Zeidler (2004), Walker and Zeidler (2007), Zeidler, Walker, Ackett, and Simmons (2002), and Zohar and Nemet (2002).…”

Socioscientific Issues and Multidisciplinarity in School Science Textbooks

“…SSIs have been included in many carefully designed teaching interventions (see, for example, Albe, 2008;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004;Tomas, Ritchie, & Tones, 2011;Walker & Zeidler, 2007;Zohar & Nemet, 2002). They have also been included in science courses that receive a recognised qualification, such as the Dutch ANW (Public Understanding of Science) course (which in 1999 was compulsory for all 15 -19-year-olds, see Eijkelhof & Kapteijn, 2000) and, in England, in specific post-16 (and non-compulsory) biology and chemistry courses (Hughes, 2000;Lewis & Scott, 2006).…”

The role of socioscientific issues in biology teaching: from the perspective of teachers

“…Such issues are typically defined as issues that on the one hand have a conceptual basis in science, and on the other hand arise as issues within the ethical, political, and economical realm of society (e.g. Sadler & Zeidler, 2003). In contrast, we will use the slightly awkward term THE ROLE OF SOCIOSCIENTIFIC ISSUES 'socioscientific teaching activities' to denote the teaching situations or activities in which one or more specific socioscientific issues are thematised -e.g.…”