Skip to main content
Log in

A collaborative approach for the teaching of the ethical and technological issues surrounding gene modification

  • Published:
International Journal of Ethics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technologies allowing for the modifications of genes and gene expression are constantly expanding. With these technologies, comes the possibility of new treatments and cures for a number of serious diseases; however, they also pose serious ethical issues that must be addressed. One difficulty with discussing such dilemmas is that most people lack either the scientific or ethical foundations necessary to fully comprehend these issues. It will therefore be necessary for scientists and ethicists to discuss these matters and work together to understand their implications. Herein, we describe a collaborative project that was conducted jointly between an upper-division chemistry class (Chemical Biology) and a capstone ethics course (Ethics). In this project, the chemistry students provided expertise regarding the technological background and current research applications of technologies related to the modification of genes and gene expression which they share with the ethics students. The ethics students then take this understanding and use it to provide information about ethical systems that can be used to help understand the implications of these technologies. We will describe the genesis of this assignment, the assignment itself, and student and faculty views on the efficacy of this collaborative learning opportunity.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There have been several published works indicating that my experience of obtaining only responsible conduct of research (RCR) training and no formal training in ethical systems is not unique to me and is, in fact, the norm for scientists (Pennock and O’Rourke 2017; Keiler et al. 2017)

References

  • Boss, Judith A. 2013. Analyzing Moral Issues Sixth Edition. New York: McGrawHill.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, Mark A., Wendy Magis, Nicolas L. Bray, Tianjiao Wang, Jennifer R. Berman, Fabrizia Urbinati, Seok-Jin Heo, Therese Mitros, Denise P. Muñoz, Dario Boffelli, Donald B. Kohn, Mark C. Walters, Dana Caroll, David I.K. Martin, and Jacob E. Com. 2016. Selection-free genome editing of the sickle mutation in human adult hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells. Science Translational Medicine 8 (360): 360ra134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doudna, Jennifer. 2015. How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA. TED talks. https://www.ted.com/talks/jennifer_doudna_we_can_now_edit_our_dna_but_let_s_do_it_wisely#t-145242. Accessed 17 August 2018.

  • Hammond, Andrew, Roberto Galizi, Kyros Kyrou, Alekos Simoni, Carla Siniscalchi, Dimitris Katsanos, Matthew Gribble, Dean Baker, Eric Marois, Steven Russell, Austin Burt, Nikolai Windbichler, Andrea Crisanti, and Tony Nolan. 2016. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nat Biotechnol 34 (1): 78–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagger, Kathleen S., and Jack Furlong. 2014. Infusing bioethics into biology and microbiology courses and curricula: A vertical approach. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education 15 (2): 213–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keiler, Kenneth C., Kathy L. Jackson, Leslie Jaworski, David Lopatto, and Sarah E. Ades. 2017. Teaching broader impacts of science with undergraduate research. PLoS Biol. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2001318.

  • Lanphier, Edward, Fyodor Urnov, Sarh Ehlen Haecker, Michael Werner, and Joanna Smolenski. 2015. Don’t edit the human germ line. Nature 519: 410–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, Puping, Yanwen Xu, Xiya Zhang, Chenhui Ding, Rui Huang, Zhen Zhang, Jie Lv, Xiaowei Xie, Yuxi Chen, Yujing Li, Ying Sun, Yaofu Bai, Zhou Songyang, Wenbin Ma, Canquan Zhou, and Junjiu Huang. 2015. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 6 (5): 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loui, Michael C. 2005. Educational technologies and the teaching of ethics in science and engineering. Sci Eng Ethics 11: 435–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Hong, Nuria Marti-Gutierrez, Sang-Wook Park, Wu Jun, Yeonmi Lee, Keiichiro Suzuki, Amy Koski, Dongmei Ji, Tomonari Hayama, Riffat Ahmed, Hayley Darby, Crystal Van Dyken, Ying Li, Eunju Kang, A.-Reum Park, Daesik Kim, Sang-Tae Kim, Jianhui Gong, Gu Ying, Xu Xun, David Battaglia, Sacha A. Krieg, David M. Lee, H. Wu Diana, Don P. Wolf, Stephen B. Heitner, Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, Paula Amato, Jin-Soo Kim, Sanjiv Kaul, and Shoukhrat Mitalipov. 2017. Correction of a pathogenic gene mutation in human embryos. Nature 548: 413–419.

  • McGowan, Alan H. 2013. Teaching science and ethics to undergraduates: A multidisciplinary approach. Science Engineering Ethics 19: 535–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. 2017. Human genome editing: Science, ethics. In And governance. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, Robert T., and Michael O’Rourke. 2017. Developing a scientific virtue-based approach to science ethics training. Science Engineering Ethics 23: 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratan, Zubair Ahmed, Young-Jin Son, Mohammad Faisal Haidere, Bhuiyan Mohammad Mahtab Uddin, Md. Abdullah Yusuf, Sojib Bin-Zaman, Jong-Hoon Kim, Laila Anjuman Banu, and Jae Youl Cho. 2018. CRISPR-Cas9: A promising genetic engineering approach in cancer research. Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology 10: 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy Marie Danowitz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendix A

Instructions provided to CHEM 420 (Chemical Biology) students

CHEM 420 Outreach assignment Spring 2017

Purpose

  1. 1)

    To provide students with an opportunity to gain in-depth knowledge of a technique for modifying genes/gene expressions.

  2. 2)

    To provide students with an opportunity to practice communicating science with the general public.

  3. 3)

    To provide students with a framework for thinking about and discussing the ethical issues involved in modifying genes/gene expression.

Our collaborators:

We will be working with Dr. Ehret’s ETH 400 classes to come to a more full understanding of how genes and gene expression can be modified and what the ethical implications of these technologies are. Our class will be providing expertise on how these technologies work. Dr. Ehret’s classes will be providing expertise on how to ethically evaluate these technologies. Communication between the two classes will occur in both oral and written form.

The topics:

Topics will be assigned on a first-come-first-served basis. There will be one group of two students and two groups of three students. Topics available are:

  • Recombinant DNA

  • RNAi

  • CRISPR

The project:

Creating a handout

Each team will create a handout describing their chosen technology. These handouts will be given to Dr. Ehret’s students to augment their understanding of genetic manipulations. The handout should be no longer than two pages and should be written for a general audience of college educated adults. You may assume that your audience has a General Chemistry I or Eco/Evo level of scientific understanding.

Your handout should minimally include the following:

  • Your names

  • A title

  • A brief background of your technology (when it was discovered/how it was discovered/etc.)

  • An explanation of what your technology does in a cell

  • An explanation of how your technology works

  • At least two examples of applications of this technology in industry and/or the clinic

  • At least one high quality figure to help illustrate your description of the functions of your technology

    • This must be an original figure and can’t be copied and pasted from a journal or other source

  • At least 4 references from high quality peer-reviewed journal articles

Your handout will need to be accurate, well-written at the appropriate level, and visually attractive.

Participating in a discussion with Dr. Ehret’s classes on gene altering technologies

All students are invited to help lead a discussion in one of Dr. Ehret’s ETH400 classes on April 3rd. The classes will be held at 8, 10, and 11 am. Any student who is free during any of these times is encouraged to attend. Students can earn up to 3 bonus points for attending a class and participating fully in the class discussion (up to 9 points total).

Participating in a discussion with Dr. Ehret’s classes on the ethical implications of these technologies

After we present our information to Dr. Ehret’s classes, her students will write up a handout for our class to help us understand the ethical issues surrounding the modification of genes. You will be required to read and think about these issues. You will also be required to attend and participate in a discussion with Dr. Ehret and some of her students about these ideas. The discussion will be held April 19th at a time TBD.

The timeline and grading

Date

What’s due

Points

ASAP

Pick your technology

 

March 13

Bibliography of at least 4 sources*

5

March 20th

Draft of your handout*

5

March 29th

Final copy of your handout

30

April 3rd

Optional discussion with Dr. Ehret’s classes on technologies

0–9 bonus points

April 19th

Required discussion with Dr. Ehret’s classes on ethics**

10

  1. *Indicates completion credit
  2. **Students must participate at least twice in this conversation to earn full points. Participation may include: asking a substantive question, providing a substantive response, raising a new point, or writing a brief response paper

Appendix B

Instructions provided to ETH 400 (Ethics) students

Formatting Ethical Primer on genetic engineering technologies:

  1. I.

    Introduction: What is the technology and the ethical issues that are raised? Keep in mind these are not only negatives. There may be distinct positives about these technologies as well.

  2. II.

    Methodology: How is your group approaching addressing the ethical questions? For example, are you basing your analysis on issues of rights, personhood, outcome based ethics, intent based ethics, social justice, a combination, etc.

  3. III.

    Identify the benefits from your ethical perspective (in particular issues of rights, quality of life, and social justice may play a role here)

  4. IV.

    Identify the detriments from your ethical perspective

  5. V.

    Recommendations based on the ethical concerns on how to proceed with the technology based on the benefits and detriments above.

Typed, double spaced, Times font, one inch margins, grammatically and mechanically correct, citations from any sources used, names of all group members at the top, 1 ½-2 pages.

Please note, you have already been assigned to groups to work on this through blackboard. This provides you an electronic platform to share ideas and develop this document together. I strongly recommend the use of Google Docs or a similar online platform that will allow everyone access to the writing and editing of the document.

Appendix C

Survey given to students at the end of the term asking for their feedback on this project. This survey was given to the Chemical Biology students. The survey given to the Ethics students was nearly identical except that it asked about their science background rather than their ethics background and asked if about their ability to communicate ethics with the general public rather than science with the general public

Student Feedback on ETH400/CHEM420 collaboration

  1. 1)

    Please check the box that best represents your opinion on each question. We will use your feedback to improve this project for future students.

 

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

My understanding of the ethical issues regarding genetic modification increased as a result of this project.

     

My understanding of the technical aspects of genetic modification increased as a result of this project

     

My ability to communicate science with the general public increased as a result of this project.

     

I found the pamphlets made by the other class to be helpful.

     
  1. 2)

    If you had the opportunity to do something like this again, would you?

  2. 3)

    What additional resources would help you with this project? (ex. more time, additional information, deeper exploration of topics, etc.)

  3. 4)

    I attended (please check all that apply)

    1. a.

      One or more class discussions in the Ethics class_____

    2. b.

      The class discussion in the Chemical biology class______

  4. 5)

    Check the option that BEST describes your ethics background (check one):

    1. a.

      I have never taken Ethics at Mercyhurst______

    2. b.

      I am currently enrolled in Ethics at Mercyhurst____

    3. c.

      I have previously taken Ethics at Mercyhurst______

  5. 6)

    Any general comments on the project?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Danowitz, A.M., Ehret, V.M. A collaborative approach for the teaching of the ethical and technological issues surrounding gene modification. International Journal of Ethics Education 4, 57–71 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-018-0066-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40889-018-0066-2

Keywords

Navigation