Using Drama to Enrich Students’ Argumentation About Genetically Modified Foods

Abstract

In theory, there is broad agreement among science education stakeholders that supporting the achievement of scientific literacy is crucial for citizens to make informed and critical decisions about socioscientific issues (SSI). Likewise, it is widely held that argumentation is an important component of scientific literacy. In practice, however, university science courses give undergraduates limited opportunities to strengthen their argumentation skills. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence to explore the use of drama to enrich students’ argumentation about genetically modified (GM) foods. This study was conducted in Colombia where an eventual banning of GM crops is the subject of discussion in Congress. Data include the oral and written arguments produced by seventy-five students (55 females and 20 males, 18–24 years old) in a university science course during a complete drama-based teaching–learning sequence. Coding of students’ responses to open-ended questions, Cohen’s d effect size, and chi-square tests were performed. The outcomes suggest that the sequence effectively provided participants with explicit opportunities to enrich their GM food argumentation, producing arguments about their viewpoints and anticipating counterarguments. The evidence provided in this study contributes to the exploration of an emergent possibility in science education, namely, the use of drama as a platform for enriching students’ argumentation about SSI.

Appendices

Appendix 1. The play used in this project

Two Sisters and a Presentation on Genetically Modified Foods.

Dramatis personæ

Olivia (Oli): 26 years old, presenter at the Latin American Fair of Scientific Dissemination (which will begin the day after tomorrow).

Abigail (Abi): 42 years old. Olivia’s sister, scientific influencer and director of the Latin American Fair of Scientific Dissemination.

Olivia: (Reading in her tablet)

Abigail: (Arriving at the door of her house). Hello, “Oli.” Good news. The logistics of the next Latin American Fair of Scientific Dissemination have been confirmed. Don’t forget, it begins the day after tomorrow

Olivia: Great! I’m just finishing the last details of my presentation on genetically modified foods

Abigail: Are you ready for the fair?

Olivia: (In a military tone of voice). Yes, Madam Fair Director

Abigail: Don’t joke about this. You know that I have always dreamed about running it and now this dream has become reality

Olivia: I’m not joking. In fact, I have just sent the text of my presentation to your email. Why don’t you have a look?

Abigail: (Checks her cellphone). Yes, here it is- (She begins to read silently)

Olivia: Wait, before you continue, I’d like to know if I can have an extra timeslot for questions and interaction with members of the audience at my presentation

Abigail: “Oli”, I’m sorry. That is impossible. All the allotted timeslots are very tight

Olivia: OK, OK. Going back to the text, you will see that at the beginning I have included a definition

Abigail: I can see that in your definition you mention that the genetically modified organisms are plants, animals or microorganisms where the genetic material (DNA) has been altered so that this does not take place naturally through pairing and or natural recombination. And then food which has been altered in this way is food which has been genetically modified

Olivia: I also included some examples, such as rice, maize and salmon

Abigail: I have always wondered how safe genetically modified foods are

Olivia: They are very safe, and they have been developed over several decades. In summary, the first generation of biotechnological crops dates from the beginning of the 70 s and focusses on improving initial qualities, such as resistance to insecticides and herbicides. The second generation which followed was aimed at developing exit characteristics such as nutritional qualities. This was so successful that the third generation of transgenic technology goes beyond food and has to do with pharmaceutical products. In the case of Colombia, transgenic crops have been in existence for 15 years and up to now, three have been approved: cotton, flowers and maize

Abigail: Success? What about the ethical, political and social implications, etc.?

Olivia: “Abi,” innovations are always criticized. The most important thing in this case is to remember that going forward with the development of genetically modified crops will lead to more food supplies for the world’s population, which is growing fast. This is possible, as transgenic crops evidence greater resistance to adverse climatic conditions, such as droughts, frost, and salty soil. This is in addition to the fact that they need fewer pesticides and herbicides. Wonderful, isn’t it! And as a result, they produce more and at lower cost for the farmers. This leads to lower food prices for consumers and a better income for farmers

Abigail: But, what about this in Colombia?

Olivia: In the case of Colombia, in the fifteen years during which this type of crop has been used, the farmers have had additional income to their normal 301.7 million dollars. Maize production was 30.2% higher on average and cotton production rose by 17.4%. Another very important thing was that they didn’t need to use around 800.000 kilos of insecticides and herbicides, which traditionally would have been necessary. In 2018, these crops produced 90% cotton and 36% maize. Do you have a problem with this?

Abigail: It sounds good, very good. What I don’t understand is whether all this could lead to an increase in environmental pollution and possible allergenic reactions, due to the consumption of genetically modified foods. I think that we still have a very vague knowledge about the possible negative impact on human health, especially in the long term. I think other potential problems are the threat to the genetic diversity of crops, the change to the natural ecological balance and the unintended transfer of genes to wild plants

Olivia: You seem determined to find objections

Abigail: But my objections don’t end there. I’ve always been worried about the probable resistance to antibiotics due to the consumption of transgenic crops and the objections to these because of religious and ethical reasons. In your presentation, you highlight the topic of the benefits for farmers. This is questionable, as the farmers of small holdings who traditionally keep their own seeds sometimes find it difficult to get seeds from the multinational companies, as some of these control seed supply by means of patents

Olivia: Some companies provide access to seeds

Abigail: Not all of them, that’s the problem

Olivia: Now I really think that you are determined to find objections to everything

Abigail: Maybe, but at least the food industry could start by being more transparent in the labeling of their products and state whether they are genetically modified

Olivia: They already do that

Abigail: Not in all countries

Olivia: It is obligatory for the members of the European Union, as well as Japan, New Zealand and China

Abigail: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, the United States and India are some of the main producers of genetically modified crops. Not all of them have regulations which oblige them to include information about any genetic modification on the product labels. I find this worrying

Olivia: I think you are overlooking the fact that the cost of the obligatory label would mean an additional cost for the consumer. As I said before, one of the advantages of genetically modified crops is that they are usually cheaper than those which have not been genetically modified, which means that they are more affordable for people on lower incomes. This process of labeling would affect those most in need, as it would raise the price of the product about 30%

Abigail: The extra costs that you mention could be offset by government subsidies

Olivia: Maybe, that’s possible, but in the end the label would be useless if the consumer did not have enough scientific knowledge to understand the information on the label. Now, if we go beyond whether to label or not, I think what is really important are the benefits of genetically modified foods. For example, consider the famous case of the rice which was genetically modified with beta-carotene, which the body transforms into Vitamin A and the deficiency of which produces blindness. This rice is known as “Golden Rice.” Don’t you see this as a great contribution?

Abigail: I know the case of the golden rice well. In spite of the supposed benefits, the implementation of the golden rice has been strongly questioned, mainly by farmers and activists from the group “Masipag” and Greenpeace. Millions of dollars and decades of research have been spent producing a harvest of golden rice which has not been exactly well-received by the farmers in countries such as the Philippines, where tons of papaya and mango are produced, which are also rich in Vitamin A, but sold mainly for export

Olivia: “Abi,” this kind of innovations do not only receive criticism, they also need time and money

Abigail: I can understand that, but I repeat, what worries me is that they divert resources for the production of genetically modified rice, on the pretext of its contribution regarding Vitamin A, while there are other sources of food, such as papaya and mango which are themselves sources of Vitamin A, without needing to be genetically modified

Olivia: In 2019, golden rice was approved by Canada, the United States and New Zealand

Abigail: That’s true, as well as in Bangladesh and the Philippines, two of the countries which developed this in particular, but where it has not yet been approved. The case of golden rice reminds me of another controversial development. Surely you must have heard about it

Olivia: “Controversial”?

Abigail: Yes. It’s about the Canadian company Okanagan Specialty Fruits. This company produced and commercialized the first genetically modified apple in Canada and in the United States, to prevent the fruit turning brown (browning) when opened

Olivia: This is great! Just imagine the contribution. First, these apples will not need the chemical preservative which is used today to avoid browning. Therefore they are healthier. And second, food-waste is reduced. A very important point, “Abi,” if you think that 40% of apples are not consumed at the present time

Abigail: “Oli,” look at it this way, apart from avoiding browning, the genetically modified apples need the same amount of water and pesticides as “normal” apples, which are mass-produced. It’s obvious that selling slightly damaged apples at a lower price would reduce waste and would also not need the machinery that is used today to cut and pack the slices of apple in plastic. Eating an apple doesn’t need plastic, and the brown marks could be cut or even bitten. I think that these apples were not developed to reduce world hunger, but to satisfy spoilt US appetites instead

Olivia: In my presentation, I refer to an example of a type of genetically modified food, which I doubt that you will object to

Abigail: Ah, I see, you are referring to salmon

Olivia: Exactly, “Abi.” As you can see, this makes a tremendous contribution. In summary, in 1994, Canadian geneticists from the West Vancouver Department of Fisheries and Oceans (British Columbia), together with two researchers from the United States and Singapore, produced transgenic salmon which in a year weighed 11 times more than its counterpart of the same age. Moreover, the growth rate of one of them was 37 times greater than the norm. This would have a positive influence in the increase in productivity of the companies which produce salmon, don’t you think?

Abigail: Of course. However, I think that we need to look more closely at certain aspects

Olivia: What do you mean?

Abigail: I am referring to things like the possible alteration of ecosystems, the loss of biodiversity, risks to human health, the question of labeling that we have already talked about, as well as company monopolies. There are studies that show probable negative consequences of genetically modified foods on consumers’ health and on the environment

Olivia: I know some of those studies and I can tell you that many of the risks of genetically modified foods are speculation. However, I have to acknowledge that many of these studies are scientifically sound and conducted in good faith

Abigail: I think that you obstinately refuse to recognize the possible risks

Olivia: The current risk evaluation procedures are sufficient. So, I can say that the genetically modified foods approved by the regulators for their market launch are safe

Abigail: Maybe so, but don’t forget that not all the results of studies into genetically modified foods published by universities, companies and research institutes are accepted by all interested parties. I understand that a large section of the scientific community supports genetically modified crops. But, “Oli,” I think that we must not forget that this is a view which leads to single-crop farming. Colombia is a highly diverse country, and the genetic diversity of native varieties could be affected. So, it would be important to contextualize this dilemma according to the characteristics of each country

Olivia: Now you understand why I have asked you for more time and the opportunity to interact with the participants at my presentation

Abigail: Yes, I am beginning to realize that it would be good to get to know the points of view of different people, both experts and non-experts in the matter. You can count on that!

The End

Appendix 2. Questionnaire

Part one: Initial decision

• 1. In your opinion, should GM foods be banned?

• 2. Yes.

• 3. No.

• 4. Why did you develop that opinion?

Part two: Argument identification

Use the script of the play Two Sisters and a Presentation on Genetically Modified Foods to complete the following activity.

• 3. Highlight in the text, Olivia’s arguments.

• 4. Highlight in the text, Abigail’s arguments.

Part three: Argument evaluation

• 5. In your opinion, are Olivia’s arguments solid? Explain why or why not.

• 6. In your opinion, are Abigail’s arguments solid? Explain why or why not.

Part four: Decision before small-group debate

• 7. In your opinion, should GM foods be banned?

• 8. Yes.

• 9. No.

• 10. Why did you develop that opinion?

Part five: Final decision

• 9. In your opinion, should GM foods be banned?

• 10. Yes.

• 11. No.

• 12. Why did you develop that opinion?

Appendix 3. Survey

• 1. Apart from the Food Microbiology course, have you ever received instruction in argumentation?

• 2. Yes.

• 3. No.

• 4. Apart from the Food Microbiology course, have you ever received instruction in argument identification?

• 5. Yes.

• 6. No.

• 7. Apart from the Food Microbiology course, have you ever received instruction in argument evaluation?

• 8. Yes.

• 9. No.

• 10. Was the script of the play Two Sisters and a Presentation on Genetically Modified Foods easily understandable for you?

• 11. Yes.

• 12. No.

• 13. Did you have sufficient time for reading the script of the play Two Sisters and a Presentation on Genetically Modified Foods?

• 14. Yes.

• 15. No.

• 16. Was the script of the play Two Sisters and a Presentation on Genetically Modified Foods useful for you to make a decision? Explain why or why not.

• 17. Was the small-group debate useful for you to make a decision? Explain why or why not.

• 18. Was the whole-class debate useful for you to make a decision? Explain why or why not.

• 19. How often do you have the opportunity to explicitly reflect on the GM foods controversy in other university courses?

• 20. Very frequently.

• 21. Fairly frequently.

• 22. Infrequently.

• 23. Never.