Abstract
In “Moral-Ethical Character and Science Education,” Michael Mueller and Dana Zeidler ground their ecojustice ethic mostly within a consequentialist theoretical framework. Consequentialism is the philosophical theory that determines the morality of an action by looking at the various consequences or effects that the action produces (Troyer 2003). One does not judge an action as morally defensible or indefensible by critiquing the action in of itself, but rather the good or bad effects that follow. For the authors, it is not the immediate act of biogenetically transforming the species Danio rerio into the ornamental, fluorescent-glowing pet fish, “GloFish,” that is morally suspect. It is, instead, the various social and environmental consequences and risks that might, and in fact have, ensued from this act. For this response I will primarily focus on the ethics of what is clearly a forceful socioscientific issue – genetically modified organisms (GMOs) – and extend the ethical-educational conversation started by Mueller and Zeidler.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Cavalieri, P., & Singer, P. (1994). The great ape project: Equality beyond humanity. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Kant, I. (1785/1981). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Mueller, M. P. (2009). Educational reflections on the “ecological crisis”: Ecojustice, environmentalism, and sustainability. Science & Education, 18, 1031–1056.
Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rollin, B. (1995). The Frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, J. J. (1762/1979). Emile: or, on education. New York: Basic Books.
Shannon, T. (2000). Made in whose image? Genetic engineering and Christian ethics. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Smith, K. R. (2003). Animal genetic manipulation: A utilitarian response. In S. J. Armstrong & R. G. Botzler (Eds.), The animal ethics reader (pp. 323–331). New York: Routledge.
Troyer, J. (Ed.). (2003). The classical utilitarians: Bentham and Mill. Indianapolis: Hackett.
Acknowledgments
I thank Bryan R. Warnick for his thoughtful comments on previous drafts of this response.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rowe, B.D. (2010). What’s Wrong with Genetic Engineering? Ethics, Socioscientific Issues, and Education. In: Tippins, D., Mueller, M., van Eijck, M., Adams, J. (eds) Cultural Studies and Environmentalism. Cultural Studies of Science Education, vol 3. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3929-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3928-6
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3929-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)