The Moral Reasoning of Genetic Dilemmas Amongst Jewish Israeli Undergraduate Students with Different Religious Affiliations and Scientific Backgrounds

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to shed light on the moral reasoning of undergraduate Israeli students towards genetic dilemmas, and on how these are affected by their religious affiliation, by the field they study and by their gender. An open ended questionnaire was distributed among 449 undergraduate students in institutions of higher education in Israel, and their answers were analyzed according to the framework described by Sadler and Zeidler (Science Education, 88(1), 4–27, 2004). They were divided into two major categories: those whose reasoning was based on the consideration of moral consequences (MC), and those who supported their opinion by citing non-consequentialist moral principles (MP). Students’ elaborations to questions dealing with values towards genetic testing showed a correlation between the students’ religious affiliation and their reasoning, with religious students’ elaborations tending to be more principle based than those of secular ones. Overall, the students’ elaborations indicate that their main concern is the possibility that their personal genetic information will be exposed, and that their body’s personal rights will be violated. We conclude the paper by offering several practical recommendations based on our findings for genetic counseling that is specifically tailored to fit different patients according to their background.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Alvarado, K. A., Templer, D. I., Bresler, C., & Thomas-Dobson, S. (1995). The relationship of religious variables to death depression and death anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51, 202–204.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aqueel, A. I. (2007). Islamic ethical framework for research into and prevention of genetic diseases. Nature Genetics, 39, 1293–1298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Atkinson, B. E., & Malony, H. N. (1994). Religious maturity and psychological distress among older Christian women. Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 4, 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Awwad, R., McCarthy, V. P., Bartels, D. M., & LeRoy, B. S. (2008). Culture and acculturation influences on Palestinian perceptions of prenatal genetic counseling. Genetic Counseling, 17, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beekun, R. I., Stedham, Y., Westerman, J. W., & Yamamura, J. H. (2010). Effects of justice and utilitarianism on ethical decision making: a cross-cultural examination of gender similarities and differences. Business Ethics: A European Review, 19, 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bell, R. L., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Understandings of the nature of science and decision making on science and technology based issues. Science Education, 87(3), 352–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Boerwinkel, D. J., Knippels, M. C., & Waarlo, A. J. (2011). Raising awareness of pre-symptomatic genetic testing. Journal of Biological Education, 45(4), 213–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bowling, B. V., Acra, E. E., Wang, L., Myers, M. F., Dean, G. E., Markle, G. C., et al. (2008). Development and evaluation of a genetics literacy assessment instrument for undergraduates. Genetics, 178, 15–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Curtis, M. B., Conover, T. L., & Chui, L. C. (2012). A cross-cultural study of the influence of country of origin, justice, power distance, and gender on ethical decision making. Journal of International Accounting Research, 11(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: an indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1421–1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dickerson, D. L., Dawkins, K. R., & Penick, J. E. (2008). Clergy’s views of the relationship between science and religious faith and the implications for science education. Science & Education, 17, 359–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dietz, T., Fitzgeralds, A., & Shwom, R. (2005). Environmental values. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 30, 335–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dormandy, E., Tsui, E. Y. L., & Marteau, T. M. (2007). Development of a measure of informed choice suitable for use in low literacy populations. Patient Education and Counselling, 66, 278–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., et al. (2012). Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(10), 1361–1367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Endicott, L., Bock, T., & Narvaez, D. (2003). Moral reasoning, intercultural development, and multicultural experiences: relations and cognitive underpinnings. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Evers-Kiebooms, G., Welkenhuysen, M., Claes, E., Decruyenaere, M., & Denayer, L. (2000). The psychological complexity of predictive testing for late onset neurogenetic diseases and hereditary cancers: implications for multidisciplinary counselling and for genetic education. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 831–841.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gordis, R. (1978). Abortion: major wrong or basic right. Midstream, 24, 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gordon, E. S., Griffin, G., Wawak, L., Pang, H., Gollust, S. E., & Bernhardt, B. A. (2012). “It’s not like judgment day”: public understanding of and reactions to personalized genomic risk information. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 423–432.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Haga, S. B., Barry, W. T., Mills, R., Ginsburg, G. S., Svetkey, L., Sullivan, J., & Willard, H. F. (2013). Public knowledge of and attitudes toward genetics and genetic testing. Genetic testing and molecular biomarkers, 17(4), 327–335.

  23. Herman, T., Be’ery, G., Heller, E., Cohen, C., Lebel, Y., Mozes, H., et al. (2014). The national-religious sector in Israel 2014. Israel: Israel Democracy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(4), 341–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Inglehart, R. F., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Jaffee, S., & Hyde, J. S. (2000). Gender differences in moral orientation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 703.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kaufman, D. J., Bollinger, J. M., Dvoskin, R. L., & Scott, J. A. (2012). Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 21(3), 413–422.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. King, P. M., & Mayhew, M. J. (2002). Moral judgement development in higher education: insights from the defining issues test. Journal of Moral Education, 31(3), 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Koenig, H., King, D., & Carson, V. B. (2012). Handbook of religion and health. Oxford University Press.

  30. Kortenkamp, K. V., & Moore, C. F. (2001). Ecocentrism and anthropocentrism: moral reasoning about ecological commoms dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 261–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J. E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lewis, L. J. (2002). Models of genetic counseling and their effects on multicultural genetic counseling. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 11(3), 193–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lindahl, M. G. (2009). Ethics or morals: understanding students’ values related to genetic tests on humans. Science & Education, 18(10), 1285–1311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (1998). Attitudes toward women’s roles in society: a replication after 20 years. Sex Roles, 39(11–12), 903–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Makoul, G., & Clayman, M. L. (2006). An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Education and Counseling, 60(3), 301–312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Marteau, T. M., Dormandy, E., & Michie, S. (2001). A measure of informed choice. Health Expectations, 4, 99–108.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2015). http://www.ninds.nih.gov. Retrieved 25/2/2015.

  38. National Society of Genetic Counselors. (2013). http://www.nsgc.org. Retrieved 20/11/2013.

  39. Ngim, C. F., Lai, N. M., Ibrahim, H., & Ratnasingam, V. (2013). Attitudes towards prenatal diagnosis and abortion in a multi-ethnic country: a survey among parents of children with thalassaemia major in Malaysia. Journal of Community Genetics, 4(2), 215–221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nucci, L. P. (2001). Education in the moral domain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  41. Oreg, S., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2006). Predicting proenvironmental behavior crass-nationally: values, the theory of planned behavior, and value-belief-norm theory. Environment and Behavior, 38, 462–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ota Wang, V. (2001). Multicultural genetic counseling: then, now, and in the 21st century. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 106, 208–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Parette, P. (1999). Transition planning with families across cultures. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 22, 213–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Parsons, E. C., & Carlone, H. B. (2013). Culture and science education in the 21st century: extending and making the cultural box more inclusive. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Peters, K. F., & Petrill, S. A. (2011). Development of a scale to assess the background, needs, and expectations of genetic counseling clients. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 155(4), 673–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pivetti, M., & Melotti, G. (2013). Prenatal genetic testing: an investigation of determining factors affecting the decision-making process. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(1), 76–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pivetti, M., Montali, L., & Simonetti, G. (2012). The discourse around usefulness, morality, risk and trust: a focus group study on prenatal genetic testing. Prenatal Diagnosis, 32(12), 1205–1211.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Powell, M., & Ansic, D. (1997). Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: an experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, 18(6), 605–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Raz, A. E. (2004). Important to test, important to support”: attitudes toward disability rights and prenatal diagnosis among leaders of support groups for genetic disorders in Israel. Social Science & Medicine, 59(9), 1857–1866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Raz, A. E. (2009). Community genetics and genetic alliances: Eugenics, carrier testing, and networks of risk. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Raz, A. E., & Atar, M. (2003). Nondirectiveness and its lay interpretations: the effect of counseling style, ethnicity and culture on attitudes towards genetic counseling among Jewish and Bedouin respondents in Israel. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 12(4), 313–332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Richardson, H. S. (2014). In E. N. Zalta (ed.), “Moral reasoning”, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter Edition), URL= http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/reasoning-moral/.

  53. Rosner, G., Rosner, S., & Orr-Urtreger, A. (2009). Genetic testing in Israel: an overview. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, 10, 175–192.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Rothbart, M. K., Hanley, D., & Albert, M. (1986). Gender differences in moral reasoning. Sex Roles, 15(11–12), 645–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process (Vol. 6). Pittsburgh: Rws Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality. International Journal of Science Education, 28(12), 1463–1488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1), 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schiff, D. (2002). Abortion in Judaism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Seth, S. G., Goka, T., Harbison, A., Hollier, L., Peterson, S., Ramondetta, L., et al. (2011). Exploring the role of religiosity and spirituality in amniocentesis decision-making among Latinas. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 20(6), 660–673.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Shaw, A. (2011). Risk and reproductive decisions: British Pakistani couples’ responses to genetic counselling. Social Science & Medicine, 73(1), 111–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Shaw, A., & Hurst, J. A. (2008). “What is this genetics, anyway?” Understandings of genetics, illness causality and inheritance among British Pakistani users of genetic services. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 17, 373–383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Sher, C., Romano-Zelekha, O., Green, M. S., & Shohat, T. (2003). Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 120(3), 418–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Shiloh, S. (1994). Heuristics and biases in health decision making: their expression in genetic counseling. In L. Heath, & R. S. Tindale (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 13–30). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Siani, M., & Assaraf, O. B. (2015). University students’ attitudes towards genetic testing: a comparative study. American Journal of Public Health Research, 3(3), 81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Signorielli, N. (2012). Gender-role socialization in the twenty-first century. In A. N. Valdivia (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of media studies: Media history and the foundations of media studies. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Retrieved from doi:10.1002/9781444361506.wbiems116.

  68. Solli, A., Bach, F., & Åkerman, B. (2014). Learning to argue as a biotechnologist: disprivileging opposition to genetically modified food. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Starr, L. J. (2010). Does anyone really know anything? An exploration of constructivist meaning and identity in the tension between scientific and religious knowledge. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 191–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Stephens, M., Jordens, C. F., Kerridge, I. H., & Ankeny, R. A. (2010). Religious perspectives on abortion and a secular response. Journal of Religion and Health, 49(4), 513–535.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmantally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: the case of environmental concern. Human Ecology Review, 6(2), 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Taylor, S. (2011). A population-based survey in Australia of men’s and women’s perceptions of genetic risk and predictive genetic testing and implications for primary care. Public Health Genomics, 14(6), 325–336.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Ten Have, H. (2001). Genetics and culture: the geneticization thesis medicine. Health Care and Philosophy, 4, 295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Tibben, A. (1993). What is knowledge but grieving? On psychological effects of presymptomatic DNA-testing for Huntington’s disease. Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam.

  76. Tytler, R. (2012). Socio-scientific issues, sustainability and science education. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 155–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Van der Zande, P., Akkerman, S. F., Brekelmans, M., Waarlo, A. J., & Vermunt, J. D. (2012). Expertise for teaching biology situated in the context of genetic testing. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1741–1767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Vedder-Weiss, D., & Fortus, D. (2012). Adolescents’ declining motivation to learn science: a follow-up study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Wagner, S. C., & Sanders, G. L. (2001). Considerations in ethical decision-making and software piracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 29(1–2), 161–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Weil, J. (2001). Multicultural education and genetic counseling. Clinical Genetics, 59(3), 143–149.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Wert, G. D., Meulen, R. T., Mordacci, R., & Tallacchini, M. (2003). Ethics and genetics: A workbook for practitioners and students. Berghahn Books.

  82. Williams, D. R., Larson, D. B., Buckler, R. E., Heckmann, R. C., & Pyle, C. M. (1991). Religion and psychological distress in a community sample. Social Science & Medicine, 32(11), 1257–1262.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Woltanski, A. R., Cragun, R. T., Myers, M. F., & Cragun, D. L. (2009). Views on abortion: a comparison of female genetic counselors and women from the general population. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 18(1), 28–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Zayts, O., Sarangi, S., Thong, M. K., Chung, B. H. Y., Lo, I. F. M., Kan, A. S. Y., ... & Wasant, P. (2013). Genetic counseling/consultation in South-East Asia: a report from the workshop at the 10th Asia Pacific conference on human genetics. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 22(6), 917–924.

  86. Zeidler, D. L., Herman, B. C., Ruzek, M., Linder, A., & Lin, S. S. (2013). Cross-cultural epistemological orientations to socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 251–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Zlotogora, J. (2002). Parental decisions to abort or continue a pregnancy with an abnormal finding after an invasive prenatal test. Prenatal Diagnosis, 22(12), 1102–1106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merav Siani.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No grants or funding obtained for this study.

Conflict of Interest

Merav Siani and Orit Ben-Zvi Assaraf declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human Studies and Informed Consent

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Animal Studies

No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 16 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 28 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Siani, M., Ben-Zvi Assaraf, O. The Moral Reasoning of Genetic Dilemmas Amongst Jewish Israeli Undergraduate Students with Different Religious Affiliations and Scientific Backgrounds. J Genet Counsel 25, 596–609 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-015-9918-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Moral reasoning
  • Genetic dilemma
  • Undergraduate students
  • Decision making
  • Religious affiliation
  • Genetic testing
  • Qualitative analysis