Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Of Pigs and Men: Understanding Students’ Reasoning About the Use of Pigs as Donors for Xenotransplantation

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two important roles of education are to provide students with knowledge for their democratic participation in society and to provide knowledge for a future profession. In science education, students encounter values that may be in conflict with their worldview. Such conflicts may, for example, lead to constructive reflections as well as rejection of scientific knowledge and technology. Students’ ways of reasoning are important starting points for discussing problematic issues and may be crucial for constructive dialogues in the classroom. This study investigates students’ reasoning about conflicting values concerning the human-animal relationship exemplified by the use of genetically modified pigs as organ donors for xenotransplantation. Students’ reasoning is analyzed using Giddens’ concepts of disembedded and embedded practices in parallel with moral philosophical theories in a framework based on human-animal relationships. Thirteen students were interviewed and their stances categorized. Kantian deontological and classical utilitarian ethics were found within the patronage and the partnership models. These students appreciated expert knowledge but those using the partnership model could not accept xenotransplantation if pigs were to be killed. Students using care ethics did not appreciate expert knowledge since it threatened naturalness. The results suggest that stances against the use of scientific knowledge are more problematic than knowledge per se, and that conflicting stances have similarities that present opportunities for understanding and development of students’ argumentation skills for future participation in societal discourse on utilizing expert knowledge. Furthermore it is argued that science education could benefit from a higher awareness of the presence of different morals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid

GMO:

Genetically modified organism

PUS:

Public understanding of science

PUST:

Public understanding of science and technology

RFLP:

Restriction fragment length polymorphism

SSI:

Socio-scientific issues

STS:

Science-technology-society

References

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1973). The measurement of high school students’ knowledge about science and scientists. Science Education, 51, 539–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S. (1996). Science education: Border crossing into the subculture of science. Studies in Science Education, 27, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead, G. S., & Jegede, O. J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, J. (2008). Higher education and social change. Higher Education, 56, 381–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. Y., & Raffan, J. (1999). Biotechnology: Students knowledge and attitude in the UK and Taiwan. Journal of Biological Education, 34(1), 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, G. (2007). The ethic of care and the problem of wild animals. In J. Donovan & C. J. Adams (Eds.), The feminist care tradition in animal ethics (pp. 301–315). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobern, W. W. (1996). World view theory and conceptual change. Science Education, 80(5), 579–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, F. M., Irvine, F. G., & Enns, R. J. (1980). Stakeholders in curriculum. In F. M. Connelly, A. S. Dukacz, & F. Quinlan (Eds.), Curriculum planning for the classroom (pp. 44–55). Toronto: OISE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, V. B. (1993). School science as a rite of passage: A new frame for familiar problems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(7), 649–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, V. B. (1995). When science is “another world”: Relationships between worlds of family, friends, school and science. Science Education, 79, 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtin, D. (2007). Toward an ecological ethic of care. In J. Donovan & C. J. Adams (Eds.), The feminist care tradition in animal ethics (pp. 87–104). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, J. (2007). Attention to suffering: Sympathy as a basis for ethical treatment of animals. In J. Donovan & C. J. Adams (Eds.), The feminist care tradition in animal ethics (pp. 174–197). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisner, E., & Vallace, E. (1974). Conflicting conceptions of curriculum. Series on contemporary educational issues. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1985). Science for all. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 415–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1988a). Approaches to the teaching of STS in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 346–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1988b). Familiar but different: Some dilemmas and new directions in science education. In P. J. Fensham (Ed.), Developments and dilemmas in science education (pp. 1–26). New York: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fensham, P. J. (1992). Science and technology. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 789–829). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, S. R., Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2009). Moral sensitivity in the context of socioscientific issues in high school science students. International Journal of Science Education, 31(2), 279–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, J. P. (1982). Science, technology and society: Issues for science teachers. Studies in Science Education, 9, 33–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaskell, P. J. (1992). Authentic science and school science. International Journal of Science Education, 14, 265–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunter, B., Kinderlerer, J., & Beyleveld, D. (1998). Teenagers and biotechnology: A survey of understanding and opinion in Britain. Studies in Science Education, 32, 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J., & Pea, R. D. (1987). Tools for bridging the cultures of everyday and scientific thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24(4), 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R., Stanistreet, M., Boyes, E., & O’Sullivan, H. (1998). Reactions to a new technology: Students ideas about genetically engineered foodstuffs. Research in Science and Technological Education, 16(2), 203–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalantzis, M. (2006). Elements of a science of education. Australian Educational Researcher, 33(2), 15–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilbourne, B. (1980). World views and curriculum. Interchange, 11(2), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolstø, S. D. (2001). Scientific literacy for citizenship: Tools for dealing with the science dimension of controversial socioscientific issues. Science Education, 85, 291–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laugksch, R. C. (2000). Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview. Science Education, 84, 71–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D., Davey, A., & Jenkins, E. (1986). Science for specific purposes (SSSP): Perspectives on adult scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 13, 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindahl, M. (2009). Ethics or morals—understanding students’ values related to genetic tests on humans. Science & Education, 18(10), 1285–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lock, R., Miles, C., & Hughes, S. (1995). The influence of teaching on knowledge and attitudes in biotechnology and genetic engineering contexts: Implications for teaching controversial issues and the public understanding of science. School Science Review, 76, 47–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macer, D., Inaba, M., Maekawa, F., Chen Ng, M., & Obata, H. (2002). Japanese attitudes toward xenotransplantation. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manning, R. C. (1992). Speaking from the heart: A feminist perspective on ethics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliam, W., & Lee, A. (2006). The problem of ‘the problem with educational research’. The Australian Educational Researcher, 33(1), 43–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, C. E., & Taylor, P. C. (1998). Between myth and a hard place. In W. W. Cobern (Ed.), Sociocultural perspectives on science education (pp. 25–48). Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, C. E., Thomas, A. P. M., & Clements, D. A. V. (2006). The ethics of xenotransplantation: a survey of student attitudes. Xenotransplantation, 13, 253–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelan, P., Davidson, A. L., & Cao, H. T. (1991). Students’ multiple worlds: Negotiating the boundaries of family, peer and school cultures. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 224–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plous, S. (1996). Attitudes toward the use of animals in psychological research and education: Results from a national survey of psychology majors. Psychological Science, 7, 352–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratcliffe, M. (1996). Adolescent decision-making, by individuals and groups, about science-related societal issues. In G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe: Current issues and themes (pp. 126–140). London: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, T. (1985). The case for animals rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13–26). New York: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rios, A. R., Conesa, C. C., Ramírez, P., Rodríguez, M. M., & Parrilla, P. (2004). Public attitude toward xenotransplantation: Opinion survey. Transplantation Procedings, 36, 2901–2905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. A. (2008). Scientific literacy/science literacy. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 729–780). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rolston, H., I. I. I. (2002). What do we mean by the intrinsic value and integrity of plants and animals? In D. Heaf & J. Wirtz (Eds.), Genetic engineering and the intrinsic value and integrity of animals and plants, proceedings of a workshop at the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, UK (pp. 5–10). Hafan, UK: Ifgene.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Fowler, S. R. (2006). A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Science Education, 90, 986–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88, 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). The significance of content knowledge for informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: Applying genetics knowledge to genetic engineering issues. Science Education, 89, 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier, D. A., & Cain, M. E. (2006). The foundations of attitudes about animal research. Ethics and Behavior, 16(2), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schicktanz, S. (2006). Ethical considerations of human-animal-relationship under conditions of asymmetry and ambivalence. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. (2002). Animal liberation. New York: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. (1993). Teaching science, technology and society. Philadelphia, CA: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szkudlarek, T. (2007). Empty signifiers, education and politics. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 26, 237–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tal, T., & Kedmi, Y. (2006). Teaching socioscientific issues: Classroom culture and students performances. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 1, 615–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. (1971). Knowledge and control: New directions in the sociology of education. London: Collier-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Keefer, M. (2003). The role of moral reasoning and the status of socioscientific issues in science education: Philosophical, psychological and pedagogical considerations. In D. L. Zeidler (Ed.), The role of moral reasoning on socioscientific issues and discourse in science education (pp. 7–38). The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Lederman, N. G., & Taylor, S. C. (1992). Fallacies and student discourse: Conceptualizing the role of critical thinking in science education. Science Education, 75(4), 437–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., & Sadler, T. D. (2008). The role of moral reasoning in argumentation: Conscience, character and care. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 201–216). The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89, 357–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler, D. L., Walker, K. A., Ackett, W. A., & Simmons, M. L. (2002). Tangled up in views: Beliefs in the nature of science and responses to socioscientific dilemmas. Science Education, 86, 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Faculty of Natural Science and Technology and The Board of Teacher Training and Educational Research at Kalmar University. I would also like to thank Dr. Anne-Mari Folkesson for stimulating discussions throughout the writing process of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Natural Sciences, Linnaeus University, Barlastgatan 11, 39182, Kalmar, Sweden

    Mats Gunnar Lindahl

Authors
  1. Mats Gunnar Lindahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Gunnar Lindahl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lindahl, M.G. Of Pigs and Men: Understanding Students’ Reasoning About the Use of Pigs as Donors for Xenotransplantation. Sci & Educ 19, 867–894 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9238-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9238-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation