Evaluating Arguments from a Play about Ethics in Science: A Study with Medical Learners

Abstract

Developing critical thinking ability is one of the main goals of medical education, in part because it enhances clinical reasoning, a vital competence in clinical practice. However, there is limited evidence suggesting ways to effectively teach critical thinking in the classroom. Here, we describe the use of a drama-based critical thinking classroom scenario. The study used a mixed-methods approach with both quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire responses. Ninety-one medical students (56 females; 35 males; ages 16–30 years) in Colombia were asked to identify and evaluate arguments regarding a dilemma between ethics, social responsibility and scientific work presented in the play Should’ve by the Nobel laureate Roald Hoffmann. Chi square analyses of responses to closed-ended questions showed that the drama-based classroom scenario provided learners with opportunities to make decisions, and to identify and evaluate arguments from the play. Qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions confirmed these findings and illustrated the processes underlying the decisions. Students were able to evaluate arguments in an impartial way. Our findings support the use of drama-based scenarios in the classroom as an approach to fostering medical students’ critical thinking. This approach could contribute to a classroom pedagogy in which all students have an active role in responding to controversial questions, evaluating arguments and critically responding. This would support the development of critical thinking and promote deeper understanding of the dilemmas involved in scientific work.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

1.1 Phase One: Decision-making

• 1. In your opinion, are scientists responsible for the way others use their work?

• a. Yes

• b. No

1.2 Phase Two: Argument Identification

Use the text of Scenes 3, 5, 11 and 12 of the play Should’ve to answer the following questions.

• 2. What are Katie’s arguments?

• 3. What are Stefan’s arguments?

• 4. What are Julia’s arguments?

1.3 Phase Three: Argument Evaluation

• 5. Are Katie’s arguments adequate? Explain why or why not.

• 6. Are Stefan’s arguments adequate? Explain why or why not.

• 7. Are Julia’s arguments adequate? Explain why or why not.

Appendix 2: List of Arguments Identified by the Author in Scenes 3, 5, 11 and 12 of the Play Should’ve (Hoffmann 2006)

1.1 Katie’s Arguments

• 1. “In what I do, we just ask how the virus finds its way into the cell, disguising itself, changing. It’s something we don’t know. It’s good to know” (p. 26).

• 2. “Knowledge is good, and so are most of its applications—it led us to penicillin, to the smallpox vaccine. Have you ever walked through a 19th century graveyard and seen all the graves of young children? [talking to Stefan]” (p. 26).

• 3. “We do things that are useful [talking to Stefan and Julia]” (p. 26).

1.2 Stefan’s Arguments

• 1. “What good is knowledge, when it’s hidden by a company in New Guinea, not telling people that it spilled barrels of toxin into a stream? When it’s used to sell outdated drugs? [talking to Katie]” (p. 26).

• 2. “Science can hurt people [talking to Katie]” (p. 27).

• 3. “The problem with you is that you just don’t worry about whether what you do will hurt people [talking to Katie]” (p. 27).

1.3 Julia’s Arguments

• 1. “When that knowledge is used by some clan chief to kill 600 people? [talking to Katie]” (p. 26).

• 2. “[You] gave them plastic explosives and that Zyklon gas for the death camps [talking to Katie]” (p. 29).

• 3. “You need to worry about the way others use your work [talking to Katie]” (p. 26).

• 4. “At least ask the question […] of whether it might hurt people [talking to Katie]” (p. 29).