Skip to main content
Log in

Revolution, revision or reversal: Genetics — Ethics curriculum

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper reviews three pioneer programs that attempt to integrate genetic science and ethics in the classroom. The critical discussion focuses on what counts for ethics in each of these programs, on the corresponding theoretical framework represented in each, and on the success of each program in integrating science and ethics. It concludes by suggesting that the basic goal of integrating science and ethics is undermined in each program by a lack of correspondence between the articulated pedagogical goals and the unarticulated theoretical framework. In each case the unexamined framework gives epistemological privilege to science and undercuts the veracity of ethics. The constructive discussion suggests a theoretical framework that corresponds with the pedagogical goal of integrating ethics and genetic science in the classroom.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barman, C.R. and Hendrix, J.R.: 1983, ‘Exploring Bioethical Issues: An Instructional Model’, American Biology Teacher 45(1, 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, J.F.: 1989, Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • BSCS (Biological Science Curriculum Study): 1992, Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome: Science, Ethics and Public Policy, BSCS, Colorado Springs, CO.

  • Dewey, J.: 1939, ‘Theory of Valuation’, International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 11(1, 1–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J.: 1948, Reconstruction in Philosophy, The Beacon Press, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edel, A.: 1988, ‘The Concept of Values and Its Travels in Twentieth-Century America’, in M. G. Murphey and I. Berg (eds.), Values and Value Theory in Twentieth-Century America, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P.: 1975, Against Method, New Left Books, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haan, N., Aerts, E. and Cooper, B.A.B.: 1985, On Moral Ground: The Search for Practical Morality, New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S., ed.: 1993, The Racial Economy of Science, University of Indiana Press, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S.: 1986, The Science Question in Feminism, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrix, J.R.: 1991, ‘Project GENETHICS: Mentor Teachers Implementing Validated Model Workshops in Human Genetics and Related Societal Issues’, xeroxed report distributed at the Biotechnology Education Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, November, 1991.

  • Hendrix, J.R.: 1980, ‘Bioethical Value-Clarifying, Decision-Making Model Response Sheet’, xerox copy distributed by a Ball State trainer during a workshop for San Francisco State University, August, 1992.

  • Keller, E.F.: 1992, Secrets of Life — Secrets of Death: Essays on Language, Gender and Science, Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E.F.: 1985, Reflections on Gender and Science, Princeton University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E.F.: 1983, A Feeling for the Organism, W. H. Freeman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I.: 1970, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A.: 1981, After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, T.R. & Hendrix, J.R.: 1990, ‘The Popular Press, Scientific Literacy, and Bioethical Decision-Making’, School Science and Mathematics 90(4, 317–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, M.: 1985, Evolution as Religion, Methuen, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N.: 1992, The Challenge to Care in Schools: An Alternative Approach to Education, Teachers College Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noddings, N.: 1984, Caring, A Feminist Approach to Ethics & Moral Education, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poorman, M.: 1993, Interactional Morality, Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raths, L.E., Harmin, M. & Simon, S.B.: 1966, Values and Teaching: Working With Values in the Classroom, Charles E. Merrill, Columbus, OH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, F.J. & Ahlgren, A.: 1990, Science for All Americans, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • SFSU (San Francisco State University, Department of Biology): 1990, ‘Summary Report '90’, a 2 page public information report of the Teacher Education in Biology (TEB) program.

  • Snow, C.P.: 1963, The Two Cultures and a Second Look, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, E. V.: 1977, ‘A Study of Kohlberg's Structural Theory of Moral Development: a Critique of Liberal Social Science Ideology’, Human Development 20, 352–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiles, J.E.: 1988, Dewey, Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Blake, D.D. Revolution, revision or reversal: Genetics — Ethics curriculum. Sci Educ 3, 373–391 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00488453

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00488453

Keywords

Navigation