Science & Education

, Volume 18, Issue 10, pp 1285–1311 | Cite as

Ethics or Morals: Understanding Students’ Values Related to Genetic Tests on Humans



To make meaning of scientific knowledge in such a way that concepts and values of the life-world are not threatened is difficult for students and laymen. Ethics and morals pertaining to the use of genetic tests for hereditary diseases have been investigated and discussed by educators, anthropologists, medical doctors and philosophers giving, at least in part, diverging results. This study investigates how students explain and understand their argumentation about dilemmas concerning gene testing for the purpose to reduce hereditary diseases. Thirteen students were interviewed about their views on this issue. Qualitative analysis was done primarily by relating students’ argumentation to their movements between ethics and morals as opposing poles. Students used either objective or subjective knowledge but had difficulties to integrate them. They tried to negotiate ethic arguments using utilitarian motives and medical knowledge with sympathy or irrational and personal arguments. They discussed the embryo’s moral status to decide if it was replaceable in a social group or not. The educational implications of the students’ use of knowledge in personal arguments are discussed.


  1. Aikenhead GS, Jegede OJ (1999) Cross-cultural science education: a cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. J Res Sci Teach 36(3):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batson CD, Sager K, Garst E, Kang M, Rubchinsky K, Dawson K (1997) Is empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? J Pers Soc Psychol 73(3):495–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauman Z (1994) Postmodern ethics. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bencze JL (2000) Democratic constructivist science education: enabling egalitarian literacy and self-actualization. J Curric Stud 32(6):847–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cook RJ, Dickens BM (2003) Human rights dynamics of abortion law reform. Hum Rights Q 25:1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dawson VM (2003) Effect of a forensic DNA testing module on adolescents’ ethical decision-making abilities. Aust Sci Teach J 49(4):12–17Google Scholar
  7. Dawson VM (2007) An exploration of high school (12–17 year old) students’ understandings of, attitudes towards biotechnology processes. Res Sci Educ 37:59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dietrich H, Schibeci R (2003) Beyond public perceptions of gene technology: community participation in public policy in Australia. Public Underst Sci 12:381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farver JM, Branstetter WH (1994) Preschoolers’ prosocial responses to their peers’ distress. Dev Psychol 30(3):334–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilligan C (1982) In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Gollust SE, Thompson RE, Gooding HC, Biesecker BB (2003) Living with achondroplasia: attitudes toward population screening and correlation with quality of life. Prenat Diagn 23:1003–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heijs WJM, Midden CJH, Drabbe RAJ (1993) Biotechnology, attitudes and influence factors. Eindhoven University of Technology, EindhovenGoogle Scholar
  14. Hurlbut WB (2005) Altered nuclear transfer as a morally acceptable means for the procurement of human embryonic stem cells. Perspect Biol Med 48(2):211–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jallinoja P, Aro AR (2000) Does knowledge make a difference? The association between knowledge about genes and attitudes toward gene tests. J Health Commun 5:29–39Google Scholar
  16. Jegede O (1995) Collateral learning and the eco-cultural paradigm in science and mathematics education in Africa. Stud Sci Educ 25:97–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kelly J (1995) Public perceptions of genetic engineering: Australia 1994. Biotechnology Section, Australian Department of Industry, Science and TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  18. Kohlberg L (1969) Stage and sequence: the cognitive development approach to socialization. In: Goslin DA (ed) Handbook of socialization theory. Rand McNally, Chicago, pp 347–480Google Scholar
  19. Kohlberg (1981) Essays on moral development, vol. 1: the philosophy of moral development. Harper & Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Konrad M (2003) Predictive genetic testing and the making of the pre-symptomatic person: prognostic moralities amongst Huntington’s-affected families. Anthropol Med 10(1):23–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krebs DL, Denton KL, Vermeulen SC, Carpendale JI, Bush A (1991) Structured flexibility of moral judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 61(6):1012–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lincoln YS, Guba E (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  23. Longbottom JE, Butler PH (1999) Why teach science? Setting rational goals for science education. Sci & Educ 83:473–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menzel P, Dolan P, Richardson J, Olsen JA (2002) The role of adaption to disability and disease in health state valuation: a preliminary normative analysis. Soc Sci Med 55:2149–2158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Middleton A, Hewison J, Muller RF (1998) Attitudes of deaf adults toward genetic testing for hereditary deafness. Am J Hum Genet 63:1175–1180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Milner KK, Collins EE, Connors GR, Petty EM (1998) Attitudes of young adults to prenatal screening and genetic correction for human attributes and psychiatric conditions. Am J Med Genet 76:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milunsky A, Fletcher JC (1978) Prenatal diagnosis: clinical and ethical aspects. In: Reich WT (ed) Encyclopedia of bioethics. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Nichols S (2004) Sentimental rules: on the natural foundations of moral judgment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Norris SP (1997) Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Sci & Educ 81:239–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parens E, Asch A (2003) Disability rights critique of prenatal genetic testing: reflections and recommendations. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev 9:40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pavlova M (2005) Social change: how should technology education respond? Int J Technol Des Educ 15:199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rest J, Narvaez D, Bebeau M, Thoma S (1999) A neo-Kohlbergian approach: the DIT and schema theory. Educ Psychol Rev 11(4):291–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sadler TD, Fowler SR (2006) A threshold model of content knowledge transfer for socioscientific argumentation. Sci & Educ 90:986–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sadler TD, Zeidler DL (2004) The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Sci & Educ 88:4–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sandelowski M, Jones LC (1996) Healing fictions: stories of choosing in the aftermath if the detection of fetal anomalies. Soc Sci Med 42(3):353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simon S, Erduran S, Osborne J (2006) Learning to teach argumentation: research and development in the classroom. Int J Sci Educ 28(2–3):235–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevenson C (1944) Ethics and language. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  38. Stich S, Weinberg J (2001) Jackson’s empirical assumptions. Philos Phenomenol Res 62(3):637–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Strassberg B (2005) Fortieth anniversary symposium: science, religion and secularity in a technological society. Zygon 40(2):307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Styles MLB (2002) Using education as a public relations tool for biotechnology. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 70:23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sugarman J (2005) Persons and moral agency. Theory Psychol 15(6):793–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Waddington SN, Kramer MG, Hernandez-Alcoceba R, Buckley SK, Themis M, Coutelle C, Prieto J (2005) In utero gene therapy: current challenges and perspectives. Mol Ther 11:661–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wall LL, Brown D (2006) Regarding zygotes as persons: implications for public policy. Perspect Biol Med 49(4):602–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams B (1973) Morality and the emotions. In: Problems of the self. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 207–229Google Scholar
  45. Williams B (1985) Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Fontana, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Zeidler DL, Sadler TD, Simmons ML, Howes EV (2005) Beyond STS: a research-based framework for socioscientific issues education. Sci & Educ 89:357–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zohar A, Nemet F (2002) Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. J Res Sci Teach 39(1):35–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Pure and Applied Natural SciencesUniversity of KalmarKalmarSweden

Personalised recommendations