[PDF] Opinions On And Attitudes Towards Genetic Engineering

117032_3opinions_on_and_attitudes_towards_genetic_engineering_acceptable_limits.pdf

OpinionsOnAndAttitudesTowards

GeneticEngineering:AcceptableLimits

A:TheDiscussionTask

YoungPeople"sUnderstanding

Of,AndAttitudesTo,"TheNew

Genetics

WorkingPaper7

1 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3 3.1 3.1.1 3.2.1 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 4 4.1 4.2 4.3

Contents

Introduction

Design,methodologyandadministration

ofthegeneticengineering discussiontask

Rational

anddesignofthetask

Administration

ofthetask

Sampling

Analysis

ofthetask

Findings

Understandingthebackgroundscience

"Whengenesaretakenout ofanimalsitisverypainfulforthem" "Thegeneticcodeinplantsworksinquiteadifferentwaytothe geneticcodeinanimals" "Sheepthatproducehumaninsulinhaveacopy ofthehumaninsulin geneineverycellintheir body" "Genesaresosmallthatyouneedspeciallaboratorytechniquesto separatedifferent genes" "ManyhundredsofgenescanbecodedforinjustonestrandofDNA"

Viewsontheuseofgeneticengineering

Criteriausedbythegroupsincomingtoaview

Generalattitudes

andbeliefs

Theacceptability

ofdifferentapplicationsofgeneticengineering

Criteriainfluencingthefinalviewpoint

Reasoningwithinthegroups

Discussion

Understandingthescience

Comingtoaview

Educationalimplications1

5 5 12 13 14 17 17 17 18 18 19 19 20 20 22
23
25
29
37
37
37
39

Anoteontheformat

oftranscriptusedinthisreport

References

Appendices

Appendix1-TheVideoScript

Appendix2-ContextsandCriteria

Appendix3-TheInformationCards

a)"HumanGrowthHormone" b)"GeneTherapy" c)"TheOncomouse"41 43
45
45
49
51
51
52
52
d)"HighYieldCrops"53 e)"ScorpionVenomPesticide"53

Appendix4-TheAudioScript55

Appendix5-TheInterviewGuides59

a)"HumanGrowthHormone"59 b)"GeneTherapy"60 c)"TheOncomouse"61 d)"HighYieldCrops"62 e)"ScorpionVenomPesticide"63

Appendix6 -GroupResponsestotheCardSortActivity65

Appendix7 -TheRangeofCriteriaConsideredDuringDiscussion67 a)intotal67 b)byindividualgroups70

Appendix8-ExplicitAttitudesandBeliefs71

Appendix9 -GroupResponsetoEachContext73

Appendix10-CriteriaDeterminingFinalView75

a)unconditionalacceptance75 b)rejection77 c)provisionalacceptance80 d)undecided84

Appendix

11-SummaryoftheCriteriaDeterminingtheFinalView,by89

Context

Appendix

12-SummaryoftheCriteriaDeterminingtheFinalView,by91

Outcome

a)unconditionalacceptance91 b)rejection92 c)provisionalacceptance93 d)undecided94 Appendix13-CriteriaDeterminingFinalView,byGroupandContext 95
Appendix14-SummaryoftheCriteriaDeterminingtheFinalView,by111 Group

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

WorkingPaper7

OpinionsOnAndAttitudesTowardsGenetic

Engineering:AcceptableLimits

A:TheDiscussionTask

JennyLewis,RosalindDriver,JohnLeach

andColinWood-Robinson

Abstract

Inthispaper,wereportfmdingsonstudents"opinionsaboutgeneticengineeringandthe criteriawhichtheymightuse incomingtotheseopinions,aselicitedthroughgroup discussionsfollowingthepresentation ofstimulusmaterial.Therationale,designand methodology ofthisapproachtoprobingattitudesandopinionsispresented.Manystudents inthe15-16agerangeseemedabletoformjustifiedopinionsaboutgeneticengineering.In caseswheretheopinionsformedbystudentswerenotjustified,thelimitingfactoron performancetendedtobeinterms ofthestudents"argumentskillsratherthantheir knowledge ofgenetics.Theimplicationsofthesefmdingsforteachingaboutareasof geneticswithastrongattitudinalcomponentarediscussed,asarelinksbetweenschool geneticsteachingandthebroaderconcept of"geneticliteracy".

1Introduction

Thispaperreportsonastudy

ofyoungpeople"sopinionson,andattitudes towards,geneticengineering(recombinantDNAtechnology).

DNAtechnology

isdevelopingatarapidpace.DNAdatabaseshavebeenset up,DNAfingerprinting isaroutineforensictool,screeningfor·genetic diseaseisbecomingcommonplaceandgeneticallymodifiedfoodisnowon sale. EachoftheseusesofDNAtechnologyraisesimportantsocialand ethicalissues,fortheindividualaswellasforsociety.Partoftherationaleof thisprojectwastoinvestigatethewaysinwhichyoungpeoplenearingthe end oftheircompulsoryscienceeducationinteractwithinformationabout "thenewgenetics"andidentify,evaluateandformopinionsonissuesthat arise(seeWood-Robinsonetai,1996).Inrecentyears,argumentshavebeen putforwardforteachingscience aspartofthecompulsorycurriculumforall youngpeopleinordertopromote"scientificliteracy"or"thepublic understanding ofscience"(e.g.AAAS,1989;OfficeforScienceand Technology,1993;TheEuropeanCommission,1995).Threemainreasons tendtobeputforwardforpromotingthescientificliteracy ofallstudents, includingthosewhowillnotstudysciencebeyondtheage ofcompulsory schooling: -theutilitariancase:knowledgefromschoolsciencewillbepractically usefulinpersonalorprofessionalcontextsinlaterlife; 1

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

-thedemocraticcase:inorder toparticipateindemocraticdecision- makingonissueswithsciencecontent,aminimumlevel ofscientific understanding isrequired;and -theculturalcase:scienceisamajorculturalproductandshould thereforebestudied aspartofageneraleducation. Inpracticetherearelimitstotheextenttowhichschoolsciencecanprepare peopletousescience,eitherinautilitarianorademocraticway,intheiradult life. Itisnotrealistictoexpecttheschoolsciencecurriculumtocoverin detailallthescientificfields likelyto beencounteredbyallfuturecitizensin theirpersonalandprofessionallives(Laytonet ai,1993).Inadditionwe knowverylittleaboutthewaysinwhichpeopleactuallydrawuponanduse variousforms ofknowledgeinproblematiccontextswithascience dimension(Laytonetai,1993;Irwin,1995).Amorerealisticaimforthe schoolsciencecurriculummightbe toequipallyoungpeoplewithabasic range ofscientificknowledge,togetherwithsomeunderstandingofthesorts ofsituationsinwhichsuchknowledgemightbeuseful.Theissuethen becomes-whatbasicknowledgemightstudentsneedandhowbestto preparethemforsituationsinwhichtheymight needtousesuchknowledge?

Inthisstudystudentsnearingtheend

ofKeyStage4werepresentedwith basicinformationaboutgeneticengineering,togetherwithsomeindication of thesortofissueswhichdifferentusesofgeneticengineeringmightgiverise to.Theywerethenaskedtodiscuss,insmallgroups,anumber ofspecific uses ofgeneticengineeringandcometoareasonedviewontheacceptable uses ofgeneticengineering.Whendiscussionwascompleteeachgroupwas interviewedinordertoprobetheconsistencyof,andthejustificationfor,the viewsexpressedwithinthegroup.Transcripts ofthesediscussionsand interviewsformthedataforthisstudy.Analysis ofthedatafocusesonthe waysinwhichtheseyoungpeopleinteractedwiththeinformationabout geneticengineeringandidentified,evaluatedandformedopinionsonthe issuesthatarisefromvarious applications ofgeneticengineering.Italso identifiesthecriteriawhichstudentsappearedtobeusingwhendeciding whichapplications ofgeneticengineeringaresociallyacceptableandwhich arenot,andtheactualviewswhichtheycameto.Intotal,

62studentsaged

15-16tookpartinthisstudy,workingin

15groups.

Thisstudywaspart

ofamuchlargerresearchprojecton"YoungPeople"s

Understanding

ojandAttitudesto,TheNewGenetics".Theoverallaimof thisprojectwastoproducebaselinedataontheunderstandingofgenetics, awareness ofDNAtechnologyandattitudestowardsDNAtechnologyof youngpeoplenearingtheendoftheircompulsoryscienceeducation.All studentstakingpartinthisprojecthadfollowedthe

1991National

Curriculum(DES,1991).

Theproject

asawholewasbasedonfourmainresearchquestions:-

1.Whatknowledgeandunderstandingofgeneticsdoyoungpeoplehaveat

theend oftheircompulsoryscienceeducation? 2

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

2.Whatknowledgeandunderstandingofnewgenetechnologiesdothese

sameyoungpeoplehave?

3.Whatissuesdotheyperceiveasbeingraisedbytheapplicationofnew

genetechnologiesinparticularcontexts?

4.Whatopinionsandattitudesdotheseyoungpeopleformconcerningthe

application ofthesetechnologies? Theworkreportedinthispaperrelatestoresearchquestions3and4.These questionswerealsoinvestigatedthroughawrittensurvey of444young peopleandthroughtheuse ofasecondaudiotapeddiscussiontaskwhich focusedonpre-natalscreeningforcysticfibrosis(Leachetai,1996). Researchquestions1and2,relatingtoknowledgeandunderstanding of geneticsandgene technology,wereinvestigatedthroughawrittensurveyof almost500youngpeople(Lewisetai,1997;Lewisetai,inpreparation)and throughaseries ofaudiotapedgroupdiscussionsinvolving36youngpeople.

Intotal,morethan700youngpeopleaged

14-16tookpartintheproject.

3

4WorkingPaper

7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

2Design,methodologyandadministration

ofthegenetic engineeringdiscussiontask

2.1Rationaleanddesign

ofthetask

Thisprobewasdesignedto:-

•identifytheviewsandopinionswhichstudentsexpressedwhen consideringaspecificapplication ofgeneticengineeringand •identifythecriteriawhichstudentsfocusedonindecidingwhetherornot differentapplications ofgeneticengineeringweresociallyacceptable.

Inordertodothisitwasnecessaryto:-

•presentstudentswithinformationaboutthetechnique ofgenetic engineeringandchecktheirunderstanding ofthatinformation; •presentstudentswithinformationaboutanumber ofdifferentapplications ofgeneticengineering; •presentstudentswithvariouspoints ofviewaboutdifferentapplicationsof geneticengineeringand •givestudentstheopportunitytodiscusstheirownviews,bothwithpeers andwithaninterviewer.

Withinthisprojecttheterm"issue"

isusedtomeananymatterarisingfroma particularcontextwhichpotentiallyinvolvesadecisionbeingmade.The term"opinion" isusedtomeanavaluepositionrelatingtoparticularissues withinspecificcontextsandtheterm"attitude" isusedtorefertovalue positionswhicharemoregeneral.Forexample,theoption ofabortingan affectedfoetusisone oftheissueswhichmayarisewhenconsidering prenatalscreeningforcysticfibrosis.Afterconsideringthisissue,some peoplemightexpresstheviewthatabortion ofafoetusbecauseithadcystic fibrosiswasunacceptable.

Wewouldconsiderthistobeanopinion.Others

mightexpressthebeliefthatabortionisethicallywrongunderany circumstances.Wewouldconsiderthisto beanattitude.

Althoughtheformation

ofopinionsandattitudesispresentedasafree- standingresearchquestion,separatefromtheidentification ofissues,sucha separation islargelyartificial.Theinabilitytoperceivesomeofthekey issues,forwhateverreason, islikelytoreducetheabilityofanindividualto reachaninformedopinion.Forexample,inconsideringthegeneticscreening ofindividualsforHuntingtondiseasesomestudentsmadethenaive assumptionthatallthosewhohadaccesstotheresults ofscreeningwould assistanaffectedindividual.Asaresult,many ofthesestudentsexpressed theviewthatemployershadtherighttoknowtheresultsinordertoprovide support-completelyignoringthepossibilitythatpotentialemployersmight notemployanaffectedindividualinthefirstplace.Ineffect,theirability to recognisetheissueswaslimitedbytheirlimitedexperienceoflife.Inthe followingexample,students"inabilitytorecognisethe issueswaslimitedby theirunderstanding ofthescience.Inconsideringsomaticandgermlinegene therapymanystudentswere unaware ofthegeneticandbiologicaldifferences 5

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

betweensomaticandgermcellsandasaresultwereunawarethattheissues mightbequitedifferent.Asaconsequencesuchstudentsexpressedsimilar opinionsinbothcases,andgavesimilarjustifications. Justasopinionsareinpartdeterminedbytheissueswhichareconsidered, so issuesaredependentonthecontext.Whenconsideringgenetechnologythe actualtechniquetobeused,thepurposeit istobeusedfor,thetypeof organismstobeusedandthetypeofcellinvolvedwillallinfluencethe issuesthatarelikely tobeidentifiedandtheopinionswhicharelikelytobe expressed.Forthisreason,attempts toprobeopinionswithoutspecifyingthe exactcontextareunlikely toyieldusefulinformation.Thisviewoftheinter- relationshipbetweencontext,issues,opinionsandattitudesunderpinnedour approachtothestudy ofyoungpeople"sattitudestothe"newgenetics". Indesigningaresearchinstrumentwhichwouldprobestudents"viewson geneticengineeringweassumedthat ifstudentsweretocometoaninformed opiniontheywouldneedtounderstandthespecificcontextswhichtheywere beingaskedabout.Theywouldalsoneedtohavesomeawareness ofthekey issueswhichthesecontextsmightraiseandthecriteriawhichmightneed to beconsideredincomingtoaview.Wealsoassumedthatstudentswould needanopportunitytoarticulatetheirownviewsandtodiscussopposing argumentsinordertoclarifytheirownthinkingandcometoareasonedview whichtheycouldjustify(BarnesandTodd,1977).Inprovidingopportunities fordiscussionwewouldgainaccesstostudents"thinkingaboutgenetic engmeermg.

Preliminaryresearchsuggestedthatmoststudentsaged

15-16wouldhave

onlylimitedknowledge ofgeneticengineering,despiteitsinclusioninthe

NationalCurriculum.TheKS4Programme

ofStudystatesthatpupils:- "shouldhavetheopportunity toconsiderthebasicprinciples ofgeneticengineering,forexampleinrelationtodrugand hormoneproduction." (DES1991) Inaddition,studentsfounditdifficult,especiallywithinalimitedtimeand workingwithanunfamiliarcontext, toidentifyrelevantissues.Undersuch circumstancestheopinionswhichtheyexpressedweregenerallysuperficial anduninformed.Preliminaryresearchalsosuggestedthatstudentswould haveaverylimitedunderstanding ofbasicgeneticconcepts.Thiswas confirmedbyfindingsfromanotherpart oftheproject(LewisetaI,1997).In ordertoinvestigatestudents"opinionsandattitudestodifferentapplications ofgeneticengineeringwethereforehadtoprovidethemwithinformation- aboutthekeygeneticconcepts,aboutthebasictechnique,aboutsome specificapplications ofthetechniqueandaboutsomeoftheissueswhich suchusesmightgiverise to.Wealsohadtoprovidesomefocusfor discussion. Informationaboutgeneticengineeringwasprovidedintheform ofavideo.

Thegeneticconceptsonwhichthetechnique

isbased,andasimplified 6

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

account oftheactualtechnique,wereexplained.Thekeypointspresentedin thevideoareshowninTable2.1.ThefullscriptcanbeseeninAppendix 1.

Table2.1-Keypointspresentedinthevideo

A.Basicgenetics

1

Identification

ofthekeystructures:- livingthing,cell,nucleus,chromosome,DNA,DNAsub-units.

2Therelationshipbetweenthesestructures.

3

Therelativescale

ofthesestructures(macroscopic/microscopic/ submicroscopic).

4Sub-unitswithintheDNAproducecodedmessageswhichtellthe

cellhowtomakethings;itisthesequence ofsub-unitswhich determinethemessage;themessagesareseparatedintogenes.

5Thecodewhichisusediscalledthegeneticcode;thesamecodeis

usedbyallcellsinalllivingthings;forexample,themessageina genefromacellfromadogcouldbecouldbereadandunderstood byacellfromaplant.

B.Geneticengineering

1

Theimplications

ofauniversalgeneticcode:- ifagenefromadogcellisputintoaplantcelltheplantcellcan makethedoggeneproduct. 2

Thebasicprocess

ofgeneticengineeringillustratedthroughthe example ofthebluerose:- identifythegene forbluepigmentinthecellsfromablue floweringplant,cutitout,copyit and"paste"itintocellsfroma roseplant;growanewbluerose. 3

Collection

ofcellsforuseinthisprocessispainless,bothfor plantsandanimals.(Thesize ofindividualcellsinrelationtothe wholeorganismisemphasised). 4 The differencebetweencrossbreedingandgeneticengineeringis noted (ifnorosescontainanygenesforbluepigmentthenno amount ofcrossbreedingwillproduceone).

Students"understanding

ofgeneticengineeringwasthenprobedthrougha cardsortactivity.Eachgroup ofstudentswaspresentedwith5statements aboutgeneticengineeringoncards.Thegroupwasinstructedtosortthe cardsintostatementswhichtheyagreedwith,statementswhichthey disagreedwith,andstatementswhichtheywerenotsureabout.Whenthe grouphadcompletedthisactivityaninterviewerjoinedthemtodiscusstheir responsesandtocorrectanymisunderstandings.Thecardsortstatementsare showninTable2.2.

Informationrelatingtostatements

1,2,4and5hadbeenpresentedinthe

video.Informationrelating tostatement3hadnot.Thisstatementwas includedasitwasfeltthatthisknowledge-thatatransgenicanimal containingahumangenewouldcarrythathumangeneineverycellinits 7

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

body-mightinfluencepeople"sattitudestowardstheproductionof transgenicanimalscontaininghumangenes.Byincludingthisstatementwe providedanopportunityforinterviewerstodiscussthisconceptwiththeir group,sothatallstudentsweremadeaware ofit.

Table2.2-StatementsUsedOnTheCardSortActivity

1 "Whengenesaretakenoutofanimalsitisverypainfulforthem" False Designedtoprobestudentunderstandingofsizeandscaleandof techniquesforobtaininggenes. 2 "Thegeneticcodeinplantsworksinquiteadifferentwaytothe geneticcodeinanimals" False

Designed

toprobestudents"awarenessoftheuniversalnatureofthecode. 3 "Sheepthatproducehumaninsulinhaveacopy ofthehumaninsulin geneineverycellintheirbody"

PotentiallyTrue

(itwoulddependwhenthehumaninsulingenewasinsertedintothe embryo)

Designed

toprobestudents"understandingthataforeign"genewouldbe found inmostcellsintheanimalsbody,notjustthecellsproducing humaninsulin.

4"Genesaresosmallthatyouneedspeciallaboratorytechniquesto

separatedifferentgenes" True

Designed

toprobestudents"understandingofscale. 5 "Manyhundredsofgenescanbecodedforinjustonestrandof DNA" True

Designedtoprobestudents"understanding

ofscaleandorganisation-the relationshipbetweengenesandDNA. Asnotedearlier,factorswhichmightreasonablybeconsideredinformingan opinionaredeterminedinpartbytheissueswhichareconsideredandthese, intum,willdependonthespecificcontext.Geneticengineeringisageneral techniquewhichcanbeappliedinanumber ofdifferentwaysorcontexts. Forthisreasonmostpeoplewouldfinditdifficulttoexpressanopinion about"geneticengineering".

Ifasked,theirmostlikelyresponsewouldbe"it

depends....".Thedifferentfactorsonwhichitmightdependwouldreflectthe criteriawhichmightusedincomingtoareasonedviewaboutaparticularuse ofgeneticengineering.Forexample,twofactorsonwhichanopinionmight dependarethetypes oforganisminvolvedandthepurposeforwhichthe techniqueis beingused.Thecriteriabeingusedinthiscasemightbethe relativeimportance ofdifferentorganismsandtheacceptabilityofthe purpose. 8

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Table2.3-Summaryofmainfeatures

keyfactors applicationgene transferpotentialuses

1.HumanGrowthHormonehumantosheepmedical;treatment

humantobacteriasocial;enhancement/advantage

2.GeneTherapyhumantohumanmedical;treatment(somatic)

medicaVsocial;"cure"(germ) social;selection(either)

3.TheOncomousemouse

tomousemedical;research

4.ScorpionVenomPesticidescorpiontoviruscommercial;agricultural

5.HighYieldCropsplantspecies(a)commercial;agricultural

toplantspecies(b) Inordertoidentifythecriteriawhichstudentsusedincomingtoaviewabout geneticengineeringwethereforeneededtoprovidethemwithanumber of differentcontexts.Fivedifferentusesofgeneticengineeringwerechosenas examples-Human GrowthHormone,GeneTherapy,TheOncomouse, ScorpionVenomPesticideandHighYieldCrops.Thesewereselectedto includearange oftypesoforganism(human,othervertebrates,invertebrates, plants,bacteriaandviruses), tocoverarangeofdifferentusesandtoraiseas manydifferentissuesaspossible.Asummary ofthesefeaturescanbefound inTable2.3.AmoredetailedanalysiscanbefoundinAppendix 2.

Figure2.1-ContextCardForGeneTherapy

GeneTherapy

*Inhumans,someillnessese.g.CysticFibrosis, arecausedbygeneswhichdon"tworkproperly. *

Ifthefaultygenecouldbereplacedbyworking

copies ofthegene,theillnesscouldbecured. This iscalledgenetherapy. *Butthediseasecouldstillbepassedontoany children.Onlybyalteringtheeggsandsperm canthediseasebegotrid ofcompletely. *

Ifitwerepossibletoalterthegenesineggsor

spermformedicalreasons itmightalsobe possibletoalterothergenesforotherreasons. *Atthe moment,scientistsarenotallowedto changethegenes inhumaneggsorsperm.

9"Gene

Therapyseemslikeagood

idea.I thinkit"stimethey startedworkoneggs andsperm." "GeneTherapyshouldneverbe used, noteventocureillnesses"

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Studentswereprovidedwithinformationabouteach

ofthesecontextsona set ofcards-onecardforeachcontext.Ontherighthandsideofeachcard theparticularuse ofgeneticengineeringwasdescribedandkeypointsnoted. Onthelefthandsideofthecardtwodifferentpointsofviewaboutthat particularuse ofgeneticengineeringweregiven.Thepurposeofthesewasto provideafocalpointfordiscussion.

Anexampleofthesecardscanbeseen in

Figure2.1.Theset

ofcardscanbeseen inAppendix3(a-e).

Anumber

ofissueswhichthese,andother,usesofgeneticengineeringmight giverisetowerepresentedintheform ofashortaudiotapeddrama,featuring two6thformstudentsdiscussingtheuniversitycoursewhichtheyintendto applyfor(businessstudiesforone,geneticsfortheother).Thecompletetext oftheaudiotapecanbeseeninAppendix4.Thedifferentviewpoints presented onthecardsandinthedramaareshowninTable2.4.They providedstudentswithpossiblestartingpointsfortheirowndiscussionsand highlightedsome ofthecriteriawhichmightbeusedinevaluatinga particularapplication ofgeneticengineering. Thefollowingfacts,whichmightinfluenceaperson"sattitudetowardssome aspects ofgeneticengineering,werealsoincludedinthevideoand/oraudio tape:- •thefocus ofmodemgeneticexperimentsisoncellsratherthanwhole organIsms; •geneticengineeringneednothurtanimalsorplants;itcanbedoneusing cells,whichcanbecollectedpainlessly-evenfromhumans; •HumanGrowthHormonecanbeusedtogainsocialadvantageaswellas formedicalbenefits; •virusesarehostspecificand can"tliveindependentlyand • it"spossibletopatentgenes.

Threeviewsaboutpatentingwere expressed:-

• I don"tthinkit"srighttopatentgenes; •firmsmustpatentgenestoprotecttheirinvestmentand •this type ofresearchshouldbeusedforthegoodofeveryone,notthe profit ofafew. Oncethisinformationhadbeenpresentedtothestudentstheywereaskedto discusseachcontextbeforecomingtoaview.Thisgavethemanopportunity toarticulatetheirviews,todiscussopposingarguments,toclarifytheir own thinkingandtocometoareasonedviewwhichtheycouldjustify.Providing opportunitiesfordiscussionalsoallowedustoaccessstudents"thinking aboutgeneticengineering.

Thedesign

ofthisdiscussiontaskwasbasedonpreliminaryresearchwith over90youngpeopleusingopenendedwrittenquestionsandsemi- structuredinterviews.Drawingonthefindingsfromthispreliminarywork, pilotmaterialswereproducedwhichweretrialledandmodifiedinorderto 10

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

producethefinalversionforuseinthemainstudy.Thewholetaskwas designedtobecompletedwithinonelesson of70-80minutes.

Table2.4-Viewsexpressedontheaudiotapeandcards

Context

ViewsexpressedLocation

HumanGrowth•atleastthesheep

aren"treleasedintothewildtobreedaudiotape

Hormone

•otherorganismscouldbeused-likebacteria ... •soit"sOKtomesswithbacteriabutnotwithanimal? • It"sOKifit"sgoingtohelppeople(medically)ratherthan makemoneyforafew •butthepersonmakingthemoneymightalsobehelping people •anythingcanbemisused •somethingsaremoreOKthanothers • I don"tthinkthathumangenesshouldeverbeputintoanimalscard orbacteria justsothatsomepeople cangrowextratall • Ithinkthat it"sagoodideaifaffectedchildrencangrow normally

GeneTherapy•that"sgottobegoodaudiotape

•it"sabitlikeNaziGermany,decidingwhatillnessesare acceptableandwhatarenot •wemightallendupthesame • we"remessingaboutwithnatureifwechangegenesthatcan bepassedontothenextgeneration •genetherapyseemslikeagoodidea;Ithinkit"stimetheycard startedworkoneggsandsperm •genetherapyshouldneverbeused,noteventocureillness TheOncomouse•sometimesit"snecessarytoworkwithwholeanimalsratheraudiotape thancells •poormouse,doomedtodie ofcancerfromthedayit"sborn •doyouknowhowmanypeopledie ofcancereveryyear? •it"sOKtouseanimalsinthisway ifitmakescancertreatmentcard moreeffectiveandhelpstosavehumanlives •itcanneverberighttodeliberatelydesignananimalwhich is guaranteedtosuffer ScorpionVenom•better(thanchemicalpesticides)fortheenvironmentaudiotape

Pesticide

•itwillputmanufacturers (ofchemicalpesticides)outof business •itmightcontaminateourfood •itwouldnotcontaminateourfood •it"swrongtotamperwithgenesandthenreleasethemintothe environment;itmighthaveunexpectedconsequences •this ismessingwiththebalanceoftheecosystem •itwouldincreasecropyieldsandhelptofeedtheworld •someonemustbemakinglots ofmoneyoutofit • I don"tlikethisideaatallcard • ifitprotectsthecropsit"sagoodidea HighYieldCrops•movinggenesaboutbetweendifferentlivingthingscannevercard beright •there"snothingwrongwithmovinggenesaboutbetween differentplants 11

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

2.2Administration

ofthediscussiontask

Thetaskwasadministeredtoonewholeclass

ofstudentsatatime.Students workedinselfselectedgroups of4or5andeachgroupwasassignedan interviewer. Beforeanygroupworkbegan,studentsweregivenanintroductiontothe wholetaskandshownthevideo.Studentsthenreturnedtotheirgroups, wheretheirinterviewerintroducedthecardsortactivity.Theinterviewerthen withdrew,butcontinuedtoobservethegroup"sprogressandlistenedfor specificpointstowhichtheymightwanttoreturnlater.Oncethegrouphad finishedthecardsortactivity,theinterviewerreturnedanddiscussedthe students"decisionsandjustifications,correctinganymisunderstandingsas necessary. Theaudiotapeddramawasthenplayedtothewholeclass.Afterwards studentsreturnedtotheirgroupsandthegroupinterviewerintroducedthe mainactivity.Eachstudentwasgivenaset ofnumberedcardswhichthey wereaskedtoread.Thiswastoensurethatasmanyissuesaspossiblehad beenraised,throughthedifferentcontexts,beforethestudentsstartedto discusstheirownviews.Whenthishadbeendone,thegroupwasaskedto consider eachcontextinturn,readingthetextoutloud(toensurethatall members ofthegrouphadthesameinformation)anddiscussthetwopoints ofviewwhichwerepresented.Thegroupwerethenaskedtoconsidertheir ownpoint ofviewaboutthatparticularuseofgeneticengineeringbefore goingontothenextcard.Theinterviewerwithdrewduringthispart ofthe activitybutagaincontinued toobservethegroup"sprogressandlistenedfor specificpointstowhichtheymightwanttoreturn. Whentheactivitywascompleted,orthetimelimithadbeenreached,the interviewerreturnedtothegroupanddiscussedthestudents"responsesto eachcard.Inparticular,theinterviewerswereaskedtoprobe :- •theextenttowhichstudentsthoughtthatthereshouldbelimitstotheuse ofgeneticengineering; •whatthoselimitsmightbeand •whatdeterminedthoselimits. Theywerealsoaskedtoensurethatthegrouphaddistinguishedbetween somaticandgermlinegenetherapyandtoprobethegroups"viewsabout each.InterviewschedulescanbefoundinAppendixSa-e. Alldiscussions,withorwithouttheinterviewer,wereaudiotapedandlater transcribed.

Allinterviewers,includingmembers

oftheprojectteam,attendedatraining sessionpriortodatacollection. Themethodologyusedinthisstudy,collectingdatathroughtranscribed audiotapes ofsmallgroupdiscussions,contrastswiththestudybyLockand 12

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Miles(1993)whichwasbasedonindividuallycompletedquestionnairesand madeuse ofattitudestatementsandLickertscales.

2.3Sampling

Thesampleforthisprobewasasubset

ofthemainsampleandwasdrawn fromthreedifferentschools-onecompleteclassfromeachschool.Selection oftheseclasseswasinpartopportunistic.Whileitisnotpossibletoclaim thatthissmallsampleisstatisticallyrepresentative ofthesampleasawhole, classeswereselectedtocovertheageandabilityrangeasfaraspossible.

Withineachclass,studentsworkedingroups

of4or5andeachgrouphadan interviewer.Intotal,

15groupswereinterviewed,representingmorethan60

students.Details ofthesamplecanbefoundinTable2.5.

SchoolA(39%

ofthesample)hadcoveredallthegeneticsinthecurriculum, includinggeneticengineering. SchoolB(19% ofthesample)hadcoveredas much ofthegeneticscurriculumasitwaslikelyto,includingalittlegenetic engineering.SchoolC(42% ofthesample)hadjustbegungeneticsandhad coveredinheritancebutnotgeneticengineering. Table2.5-Detailsofthesampleforthegeneticengineeringtask

SchoolCharacteristicsofGroupGendercomposition

wholeclassno. ofsmallgroups

14Male

2 4Female

AUpperabilityrange3 4Female

Year

11(age15-16)4 2Male2Female

5

4Female

6 4Male 7

2Male3Female

B

Lowerabilityrange4 2Male1Female

Year

11(age15-16)52Male2Female

1 3Male1Female

2 4Male

CMiddleabilityrange31Male4Female

Year

11(age15-16)4 4Male1Female

5 1Male4Female

6 4Male

Totals

1532Male30Female

(total =62) Fortheprojectasawhole743students,drawnfromtwelveco-educational comprehensiveschools,tookpart.Most ofthestudents(84%)wereintheir finalyear ofcompulsoryschooling(aged15-16).Theremainder(16%)were intheirpenultimateyear(aged14-15).Alltheparticipatingschoolstaught scienceinclasseswhichweregroupedbyability.Ineachschoolteachers 13

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

wereaskedtonominateonehighabilityclass,onemiddlingabilityclassand oneclass oflowachieverstoworkwithus.Viewedasawhole,oursample representedthefullrange ofabilityandachievementnormallyexperiencedin maintainedsecondaryschoolsinWestandNorthYorkshire.54% ofthe samplecamefromschoolswhichstatedthattheyhadbeentaughtallthe basicgeneticscomponents oftheNationalCurriculum(DES,1991),witha further II%havingbeen taughtsomegenetics.39%ofthesamplewere fromschoolswhichstatedthattheyhadbeen taughtaboutgenetic engmeenng.

2.4Analysis

ofthegeneticengineeringdiscussiontask

Inthistaskwewerelookingattheuse

ofgeneticengineeringacrossarange ofcontextsandconsideringhowyoungpeopledecidewhichusesare acceptableandwhichusesarenot.

Itwasthereforenotpossibletouseissues

asthefocusforthisanalysis.Instead,thefocus isonthecriteriawhich studentsapplywhenconsideringtheacceptability ofgeneticengineeringin differentcontexts-thecriteriatheyconsider;theirgeneralviewsaboutthose criteria,forexamplethetype oforganismwhichitisacceptabletouse;and therelativeimportance ofdifferentcriteriawhenreachingaviewabouta particularcontext,forexamplewhetherhumanbenefitismoreimportantthan animalrights.

Thetranscribedaudiotapes

ofgroupdiscussionsandgroupinterviews providedthedataforanalysis.Fromthetranscriptsitwasnotalwayspossible toidentifywhichindividualwasspeaking.Inaddition,theview(s) ofthe groupcouldnotbeattributedtoparticularindividuals.Forthesereasons, analysiswascarriedoutatthegrouplevel.

Theanalysis

ofthecardsort activitywasdesignedtoprovidefairlycrude informationaboutstudents"scientific understanding.Inthefirstinstance,the responses ofeachgrouptoeachstatementwereidentifiedwithinthe transcripts.Anybackgroundargumentationandreasoningusedbystudents to explaintheirresponsewasalsoidentified,asweredifferencesofopinion betweenindividualswithinthegroup.

Ifinterviewersaddedpoints,andgroup

membersrespondedtothese,thenthoseextracts oftranscriptwerealso identified.Fromamongsttheidentifiedsections oftranscript,eachgroups" responsewasclassifiedasagreeingwiththestatement,disagreeingor undecided.Anotewasmadeas towhethertheinterviewercorrected particularscientificpointsmadebygroupmembersornot.Fulldetails ofthis analysisarepresentedinSection

3.1andAppendix6.

Toanalysethegroupdiscussionsongeneticengineering,eachtranscriptwas readthroughwithaview toidentifyingsectionsofthetranscriptwhere students"viewpointsandargumentsweremadeexplicit.Asafirststep,a summary ofeachtranscriptwasmade,whichincludedallviewsexpressed withinthegroup,theissueswhichwerefocusedon,thejustificationswhich weregivenandthequestionswhichwereasked.Inmanycases,studentsdid 14

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

notgiveexplicitjustificationsforviewpoints.Inothercases,itappearedthat someissueswerebeingusedascriteriaagainstwhichpossibleuses of geneticengineeringmightbejudged.Sometimes,thesecriteriawereused systematically,beingappliedtoanumber ofdifferentcontexts.Inother casesonlyspecificissues,relatedtoonlyonecontext,wereconsidered.More information onthismatterispresentedinSection3.2.Ifmoregeneral attitudes orbeliefswereexpressed,thesewerenotedinasimilarway.

Groups

ofsimilarcriteriaweregenerated,andtreatedasacodingscheme. Eachtranscriptsummarywascodedaccordingtothecriteriamentionedin thegroupdiscussion,everypointthatwasmadebeingcoded.

Briefmentions

ofacriteria,andextendeddiscussionsaboutthatcriteria,weretreatedinthe sameway.Thefinalviews ofeachgroup,afterdiscussionwiththe interviewer,werethensummarised,togetherwiththekeycriteriathat appearedtohaveinfluencedthisfinalview.

Thecodingscheme,andresults

ofcoding,canbefoundinAppendix7aand

Section3.2respectively.

15 16

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

3Findings

3.1Understandingthebackgroundscience

Asummary

ofgroupresponsestothecardsortactivitycanbefoundin

Appendix6anddetails

ofresponsestoeachstatementaregiveninsections

3.1.1-3.1.5below.

Afterwatchingthevideomostgroupswereawarethatobtaininggenesforuse ingeneticengineeringneednotbeapainfulprocess,thatgenesareverysmall andthatmanyhundreds ofgenescanbecodedforononestrandofDNA. Withinthegroups,manydisagreementswereresolvedbygroupdiscussion withouttheintervention ofaninterviewer-althoughthecomplexityofthese discussions,andthefirmness oftheagreement,variedconsiderably. Most ofthosegroupswhoeitherdidnotknow,orcouldnotreachagreement on,howtorespondtoastatementcametoabetterunderstandingthrough discussionwiththeirinterviewer.Onegroupwerenotabletodothisbecause theirinterviewer(asubstitute,broughtinatshortnotice)misunderstoodthe purpose ofthecardsortactivityandfailedtocorrectanymisunderstandings.

However,over

halfthegroupsdidnotappeartodistinguishbetweenthe messagewithinthegeneandthemechanismthatallowedthatmessagetobe read.Asaresult,thesegroupsdidnotappreciatethatthegeneticcodecould bethesameinplantsandanimals.Thereseemedtobeanintuitiveresistance totheideaandanumber ofthesegroupscouldnotacceptit,evenafter discussionwiththeirinterviewer. Informationaboutthewayinwhichrecombinant("hybrid")DNAwouldbe distributedinthecells oftransgenicanimalswasnotpresentedinthevideo. Notsurprisingly,onlyonegroupshowedanunderstandingthatmost ofthe cellsinatransgenicsheepwouldcontainthegeneforhumaninsulin.The mainreasonsfornotthinkingthiswouldbethecasearegiveninsection3.1.3. Inthiscase,allgroupsrespondedtodiscussionwiththeirinterviewerand cametoappreciatewhythiswouldbeso.

3.1.1"Whengenesaretakenout

ofanimalsitisverypainfulforthem" Allgroupsdisagreedwiththisstatement,unanimously.However,threegroups alsoexpressedtheviewthatitmightdependonthecircumstancesorthe methodsused.Onegroup,indiscussionwiththeinterviewer,alsodrewlinks betweenthisstatementandstatement3("sheepthatproducehumaninsulin haveacopy ofthehumaninsulingeneineverycellintheirbody").Having justbeentold,indiscussionofstatement3,thatallcellsinyourbodycontain genes,butonlysome ofthosegenesareactiveinanyonecell,thegroup suddenlyrealisedtheimplication ofcollectinggenespainlesslyfromthe cheekcells-thatthesecellscontainallthegenes: 9.1 weshouldhavegotthatonethenbecausethey"re aboutthesame,aren"tthey? 17

SchoolC/Group2"IWorkingPaper

7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Yeah, that"sright,that"sjustthepointbecauseyou cangetalltheinformationthatyouneed. 3.1.2 "Thegeneticcodeinplantsworksinquiteadifferentwaytothegenetic codeinanimals" Therewaswidespreaddifficultyinrecognisingtheuniversalnature ofthe geneticcode.Only7groupsrecognisedthisasbeingafalsestatementandin3 ofthesegroupstherewassomediscussionbeforethegroupcametothisview.

Themainsource

ofthisconfusionseemedtobebetweenthegenome(the messageswithinthegenes)andthegeneticcode(thelanguageinwhichthose messagesarewritten).Thecombination ofmessageswithinthegeneswillbe uniquebutthelanguageinwhichthosemessagesarewritten isuniversal. Severalgroupsjustifiedtheirresponsebyreferringtothedifferencesbetween plantsandanimals:

24.1plants

andanimalsthey"vegotdifferentlike qualities andthingslikethat

SchooiA/Group2

Manystudentsseemedunable

torecognisethatthereweretwoseparate conceptsinvolvedhere,evenafterdiscussionwiththeirinterviewer.Asimilar problemwasidentifiedinwrittenresponsestoasurveyquestiononthe geneticcode.Alargenumber ofresponsesdescribed thegeneticcodeasasort ofbarcode,uniquetoeachindividual(seeLewisetai,1997).

3.1.3"Sheep

thatproducehumaninsulinhaveacopyofthehumaninsulin geneineverycellin theirbody"

Therewaswidespreaddisbelief

ofthisstatement,forwhichnoinformation hadbeenincludedinthevideo(seeSection2.1).Threemainreasonsfornot thinkingthiswouldbethecasewereidentified.Thefirstfocusedonthe practicalities ofgettingacopyofthegeneintoeverycell:

2.16Everycell?

(..)

2.18Theycan"tputitineverycell,theycan"tputitin

everycell.

SchooiA/Group4

Thesegroupsappearednottoappreciatethatallgeneticinformationiscopied atcelldivisionandthateachnewcellreceivesonecompletecopy ofthat information. Thesecond reasonfocusedonthebeliefthatcellsonlycontainthegenes whichtheyneedinordertofunction: 4.4

No,I"msureit"snotbecauselikeifyou"rehuman,

then youdon"thaveaninsulincellinallyourcellsdo you?Costhereare justinsulincells,solike....

ISeenoteonformat

ofthequotesattheendofthisreport 18

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

wouldn"thave insulincellsin yourbraincellswould you?

SchoolA/Group3

Again,asimilarproblemhadbeenidentifiedfromwrittenresponsesinother parts oftheproject.Themajorityofstudentsbelievedthatthetypeofgenetic informationfoundinthecellwasrelatedtothefunction ofthecell-cellsof thesametypecontainedthesamegeneticinformation,cellsofdifferenttypes containeddifferentgeneticinformation(Lewisetai,inpreparation).

Thethirdreasonwasthebeliefthat

ifallthecellsinasheepcontainedthat onehumangene,thesheepwouldbehuman: 6.71

Iftheyhaveitineverycellthey"dbehumanand

they"djustbewalkingaroundtalkinglikeus.

SchoolC/Group4

Again,similarviewswereexpressedbysomestudentsinresponsetowritten questionsabouttransgeniccows(Lewisetai,1997). Aconfusionaboutcellsandtherelationshipbetweengeneandcell,illustrated inthemiddlequoteabove,wasevidentinmany ofthediscussions:

4.51Nobecause

they"dbelikehumansheepthenwouldn"t they?

4.52Yeah,ifthey

hadhumancellsleftinthem

SchoolC/Group2

Explanationsbytheinterviewers,focusingontheintroduction ofthehuman geneattheembryostageandthecopying ofgenespriortocelldivisionand emphasisingtheconsequences ofthis-thatallsubsequentcellswouldcontain acopy ofthehumangene-appearedtobeconvincing.Assomestudents assimilatedtheseideastheyalsosuddenlyunderstood whyitwaspossibleto collectanygeneswhichwerewantedfromthecellsfoundinamouthwash- becauseallcellscontainallthegenes,notjustsome ofthem(seeSection

3.1.1).

3.1.4"Genes

aresosmallthatyouneedspeciallaboratorytechniquesto separatedifferentgenes"

Allgroupsagreedwiththisstatement.

3.1.5 "ManyhundredsofgenescanbecodedforinjustonestrandofDNA"

11ofthe15groupsagreedwiththisstatement,butnotalwayswithoutsome

disagreementwithinthegroup.However,one ofthesegroupsappearedto havemisunderstoodthestatement,believingitreferredtocopyingthegenes ratherthancodingthegenes:

2.14Theycan

can"ttheycostheydothatwiththepolice 2.15

Don"tknow,yeahitmustbe

2.16Theydo

don"ttheycosImeanlikewhenthey"re investigatingintocrimes ...

2.17Yeah,theydo

19

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

2.18TheytakelikeDNAsamples

SchooiA/Group7

Most oftheremaininggroupsagreedwiththestatementafterdiscussionwith theirinterviewer.Thereasonswhygroupsorindividualsdidnotagreewith thisstatementwerenotclearlyarticulated.

3.2Viewsontheuse

ofgeneticengineering

3.2.1Criteriausedbythegroupsincomingtoaview

Analysis

ofthetranscriptsshowedthatthesestudentsusedawiderangeof criteriawhenconsideringtheextenttowhichaspecificuseofgenetic engineeringwasacceptable.Withindifferentcontextsgroupsfocusedon differentcriteriabutallgroups,atsometimeduringtheirdiscussions, consideredthetype oforganismsinvolved,theeffectonthoseorganismsand thepurposeforwhichthetechniquewasbeingused(criteria1a,1eand2a; seeAppendix7a).Mostgroupsalsoconsideredtheextent oftheneedforthe productortechnique,theeffectiveness ofthetechniqueortheproduct,how safethetechniqueortheproductwasandtheenvironmentalandhuman consequences ofusingthetechniqueorproduct(criteria3a,4a,5aand5c/d; seeAppendix7a).Inaddition,mostgroupsalsotookpersonalbeliefsand moralorethicalconsiderationsintoaccount.Onethird ofthegroupsalso explicitlyacknowledgedthattheirviewswouldbeinfluencedbypersonal considerations-that iftheywerepersonallyaffectedthentheirviewsmight change.

Adescription

ofthefullrangeofcriteriawhichthegroupsconsideredwhen discussingthedifferentapplications ofgeneticengineeringcanbeseenin

Appendix7aandtheuse

ofthesecriteriabyindividualgroupscanbeseenin Appendix7b.ThemaincriteriausedbyeachgrouparesummarisedinTable 3.1.

Therange

ofcriteriaconsideredbythegroupsanddescribedinAppendix7a includedallthecriteriaexplicitlyconsideredintheaudiodramaoronthe informationcards.Thesecriteria,andthenumber ofgroupswhichusedeach ofthem,areshowninTable3.2.Acomparisonofthetwotables(Table3.1 andTable3.2)showthatthegroupsconsideredanumberofadditional criteria,inparticular: lc-similarorrelatedusesoforganismswhichalreadyoccur(6groups);

3b-possiblealternatives

(8groups);

4a-theeffectivenessofthetechniqueorproduct(13groups);

4b/5b-theextent

ofourknowledgeregardingtheeffectivenessorsafetyofa techniqueorproduct (7groups)and

6c-thefeasibility

ofcontrollingtheuseofatechniqueorproductonceit wasavailable(7groups). 20

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Table3.1-Themaincriteriaconsideredbyindividualgroups duringdiscussion criteria

AlA2 A3A4ASA6A7BIB2CIC2C3 C4 C5 C6total

1.Relatingtothe

organism

a -type•• • • • • • ••••• •• •

15 b -origin•• • •4 c -similaruses••• •••6

e -effecton• •••••••• •••• ••

15

2.Relatingtouse

a -whatpurpose?• • • • • • •••• ••• ••

15 b -who"sbenefit?••• • • ••• •9

3.Relatingtoneed

a -theneed•••• • • • • • • 10 b -alternatives• •• •• •••8

4.Relatingto

effectiveness a -does itwork?• • •• • • • • ••• • •13

5.Riskassessment

a -howsafe isit?••• •••••• ••11 b -doweknow?• ••• • •6 possible consequences: c - dcombined• •• •• • •• •••• • 13

6.Control

a -theneedfor••••••••8 c -thefeasibility of• ••• •••77.Commercial aspects a -commercialprofit• ••••5 c -access• ••••5

8.Costs/benefits

b -benefitvsharm••• ••5

9.Personalbelief

a - ccombined• •••• •• •••• 11

11.Morals/ethics

a - bcombined•• •••••••• •••• 14 21

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Table3.2-Thecriteriaexplicitlyraisedintheinformation providedtostudents criteria locationgroup use la-thetypeoforganismcard(ONCO)15groups drama (xl,+summary)

Id-theoriginanddirectionofcard(HGH,HYC)3groups

exchangedgenes drama(xl)

Ie-theeffectontheorganismcard(HGH,ONCO)15groups

drama(x3)

2a-theusethatwillbemadeofitcard(HGH,GT,ONeO,SVP)15groups

drama(x1,+summary)

2b-thebeneficiaries

drama(xl)9groups

3a-theneeddrama(xl)10groups

Sa-safety/riskdrama(x2)

11groups

5c-possibleconsequencesdrama(x2+summary)10groups

(environmental)

5d-possibleconsequencesdrama(xl)12groups

(human/social)

6a-theneedforcontrols

drama(xl)8groups

7a -commercialinterests/profit

drama(x3+summary)5groups

8b-costslbenefits(harmvsgood)drama(x3)5groups

9b-personalbeliefsdrama(summary)8groups

("messingwithnature") llb-morals/ethics(rights)drama(x2+summary)14groups

Key:HGH-humangrowthhormone

HYC-highyieldcropsGT-genetherapyONCO-theoncomouse

SVP-scorpionvenompesticide

3.2.2

Generalattitudesandbeliefs

Duringdiscussionsthegroupsexpressedanumber

ofgeneralattitudesor beliefswhichcutacrosscontexts:-

1.Thingsareastheyareforareason(soweshouldn"tbetryingtochange

them). [6groups]

2.Messingwithgenesiswrong(actinggod,messingwithnature).

[9groups]

3.Allorganismsare

notequal(ingeneralbacteriaandplantswere consideredlessimportantthananimalsandanimalswereconsideredless importantthanhumans;therelativeimportance ofdifferentanimalswas oftendisputed). [9groups]

4.Animalsshouldnotbeused/madetosufferforthebenefit

ofhumans. [5groups] 5. It"sonlyacceptabletouse/changeanorganism/individualifitcangiveits consent (it"swrongtochoosethegenesforanotherorganism/individual). [5groups] 22

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

6.Ifscientistscandoittheywilldoit(alongsimilarlines;ifitisavailable

peoplewillmissuseit). [2groups]

7.Childrenshouldbelovedforwhattheyare(linkwithperfection).

[1group] Onlythosegroupswhoexplicitlystatedthebeliefslistedabove,infairly unambiguouslanguage,havebeencountedhere.Similarviewswerestatedin ratherdifferenttermsinmany ofthediscussions.Inparticulartherewasa feelingthat wecan"tallbeperfectandshouldn"ttrytobe(thatweshouldbe acceptedforwhatweare):

21.30Yeah,itssortofgettingintothedepthofwhere,where

doyoustopreally.Twolikeprospectiveparentscan saywellIwantmychild tobelikethis.

21.31Yeahyoucouldlikeorderachild,couldn"tyou?

21.32Idon"tthinkthat"squiteright.

SchoolA/Group3

17.28Everyonewouldjustbewalkingroundlookingperfect

anditwouldn"t berightgood.

SchoolA/Group6

Also,thebeliefthatoncesomething

ispossibletherewillalwaysbesomeone whowilldoit,whateverthecontrolsandrestrictions:

29.32Thenthere"salwaysgoing

tobesomeonewhosewilling topayloadsofmoneytohaveitdoneandsomeone who"ll doitforthemforallthemoneyandstufflike that.

SchoolA/Group2

Forabreakdown

ofbeliefsexplicitlyexpressedwithineachgroupsee

Appendix

8.

3.2.3Theacceptabilityofdifferentapplicationsofgeneticengineering

Inconsideringtheacceptability

ofdifferentapplicationsofgenetic engineering,therewerefourpossibleviews-unqualifiedacceptance, provisionalacceptance,rejectionand"undecided".Theseareconsideredin moredetailinSection3.2.4.Theextenttowhicheachapplicationwas acceptableisshowninTable

3.3belowandamoredetailedbreakdown,by

groupsandbycontext,can befoundinAppendix9.Insomegroupsmembers failedtoreachagreementwitheachotherandinthesecasesallpoints ofview expressedwithinthegrouparerecorded.Inaddition somegroupsranout of timeandwereunabletodiscuss"HighYieldCrops"or"ScorpionVenom

Pesticide".Forthesereasonthetotalnumber

ofviewsdoesnotalwaysmatch thenumber ofgroups(15).Intotal,89viewsondifferentaspectsofgenetic engineeringwereexpressed. 23

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Table3.3-Acceptability

ofspecificapplicationsofgeneticengineering

PointofViewnumberof

acceptablenotprovisionallyunresolvedviews

Application

acceptableacceptableexpressed humangrowthhormone0 210517 genetherapy: a)somatic1 19413 b)germline054514 c)nodifferentiation00 02 2 theoncomouse06 92 17 highyieldcrops822 214 scorpionvenompesticide350412 Themostacceptableoftheseapplicationsofgeneticengineeringwerethe production ofhighyieldcrops,theproductionofhumangrowthhormoneand theuse ofsomaticgenetherapy.Ofthese,onlytheproductionofhighyield cropswasacceptedunconditionallybythemajority(8/14responses).Inthe othertwocasesthemajorityviewwasthatacceptancewasprovisional. Responsestotheoncomousewerehighlypolarised.Halftheresponses indicatedaprovisionalacceptance oftheoncomousebutonethirdof responsesrejecteditunconditionally.Veryfewresponseswereundecided. Thegreatestuncertaintywasshowninresponsetogermlinegenetherapy, werealmosthalf oftheresponseswereunresolved,butthisincludedtwo responseswhichfailedtodistinguishbetweengermlineandsomaticgene therapy. Overall,germlinegenetherapyandthescorpionvenompesticidewere consideredtobetheleastacceptable oftheseusesofgeneticengineering. Mostgroupsreachedconsensusonallcontexts.Fourgroupswereunableto dothis(seeTable3.4).Thedifficultyseemedtoresultfromtheexistenceof stronglyheldbeliefswithinthesegroupsratherspecificissuesarisingwithina particularcontext:

37.3Idon"tthinkpeopleshould

belikemessedaroundwith

Ithinktheyshouldjustleftthewaylikethey"re

supposed tobe.ImeanIknowiftheydon"thave thegrowthhormonethat ...that"sthewaytheywere supposed tobe,actuallysupposedtobe.

I(..)areyoutellingmethatwejustdon"tknowenough

aboutitandthere areproblemsthatmighthappen that wehaven"tthoughtof,isthatwhatyoumean (...)?

42.1Yeah.

42.2Idon"tthinkitshouldbedoneatall.Idon"tthink

they"vegottheright todoit. 24

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

(..)

46.1Ithink

weallthinkreallydifferently.Well,Ithinkwe thinkdifferentlyaboutit. (...)

IHaveyouchangedyourmindsabit

asthediscussion wenton? 52.1
Yes.

I[toanotherstudent]Youhaven"t?

53.1Emma"snotpersuadedat

all.

SchoolA/Group5

3.2.4

Criteriainfluencingthefinalviewpoint

Ingeneral,therewaslittleinterestinorconcernaboutthedirection of transferofgenes.Ofmoreimportancewas: •theorganismbeingused(ingeneraltheuse ofplantsandbacteriawas moreacceptablethantheuse ofanimals;theuseofanimalswhichwere consideredtobeunpleasantwasmoreacceptablethantheuse ofthose whichwereconsideredtobeattractive); •theamount ofsufferingitwouldcause(thiswasusuallyconsidered relativetothebenefits-someanimalsufferingmaybeacceptable ifit reduceslots ofhumansuffering); •thepurposeforwhichitwasbeingdone(seriousmedicalreasonswere usuallyacceptable,"frivolous"reasons-socialadvantage,personal preference-werenotusuallyacceptable); •theeffectiveness ofthetechniqueorproductand •thepossiblerisksandconsequences. Insomecasescriteriacameintodirectconflictwitheachotherandtherelative importance ofeachhadtobeconsidered.Forexample,inconsideringthe oncomousetwoimportantcriteriaweretheamount ofsufferingcausedtothe organismandtheextent ofthebenefittohumans:

32.2YeahIthink

wethoughtmedicalreasonsbecauseits certainlygoing tobemaybeafewmiceanditsgoingto savequitealot oflives.Sothoughtintheenditwas workingoutasanadvantageratherthan justkillinga mouse.

SchoolA/Group4

13.72Itsnotverynice

isit?

13.73Itsnotnatural.

13.74Nobutthey"vegot

tofindawaysomehowhaven"tthey?

13.75Yeahbuthowmanymicearegoing

togetkilled.Iknow likeitsgoing tocurepeople...

13.76Iknowthere"smillionsandmillionsofmicekilled.

13.77Itstheonlywaywe"regoingtofindacure.

(..)

60.2Ifyoucouldsavethousandsofpeoplefromdyingwith

25

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

a fewmice,it"dbeagoodidea.

SchoolA/Group7

Groupswerenotable,inallcases,toresolve suchconflicts. Thekeycriteriawhichdeterminedthefinalresponsetoaspecificuse of geneticengineeringarelistedinAppendix10a-dandsummarisedin

Appendix

11.

UnconditionalAcceptance

AsshowninTable3.3,veryfewresponsesindicatedanunconditional acceptance ofanyformofgeneticengineering(12outofthetotalof89views identifiedinSection3.2.3)andthemajority oftheserelatedtohighyield crops.Thedefiningcriterioninoverhalfthesecaseswasthestudents"attitude towardstheorganisminvolved- "notbotheredaboutplants","scorpionshurt you""insectsarepests ".Theeffectontheorganismwasalsotakeninto account-"plantscan "tfeelpain".FormoredetailsseeAppendix12a.

Rejection

Almosttwiceasmanyresponsesrejectedsomeform

ofgeneticengineering (21/89views),mostfrequentlygermlinegenetherapy,theoncomouseand scorpionvenompesticide. Personalbeliefsandethicalvalueswereimportantcriteriahere (9and4 mentionsrespectively):

58.1Idon"tthinkitshouldbedoneImeanpeoplewhohave

gotCysticFibrosisthenlikeIthinktheyweremeant to haveit.Erm,itwasjustmeantyeah.Idon"tthinkthey shouldtry andgetridofitbecausethatwastheway theyweremeant tobe.

SchoolA/Group5

16.73Peoplearealwaysonabouthumans

andhowitsso badtellingpeoplethey"vegotcancer.But yetthey"re likemakingmice tohavecancer.It"sjusta..

16.74Iftheydoitonsummatelsethat"snotlikeananimal

that"salright.But tolikeuseananimal.

16.75It"snotfair,Imeantheywouldn"tliketestonhumansto

trytotreatamouse.

16.76Andmicearen"tlikehumansanyway.Probablyaffect

them indifferentwaysaswell.

16.77Sothat"sadefiniteno.

SchoolC/Group5

Anxietyabouttherisksinvolvedandthepossibility

ofundesirable consequenceswerealsoanimportantinfluence (11mentions):

35.66(..)Imeanitslikegoodfortheenvironmentandall

that(..)

35.67Yeahbutthenit"llkillallthebirds.

35.68

Yeah,yeah,cosofallthosethateatthem...

26

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

35.69Itgetsrid

ofallpesticidesandstuffwhichislikebad totheenvironmentandallthatstuff.Butthenitkillall thecaterpillarsandthenhedgehogsandbirdsandthen whateatsthebirdsandthings.(..)everybody"sgoing todie.

SchoolNGroup5

FormoredetailsseeAppendix12b.

ProvisionalAcceptance

Morethanonethird

ofallresponses(34/89views)expressedaprovisional acceptance ofsomeformofgeneticengineering,mostfrequentlyhuman growthhormone,somaticgenetherapyandtheoncomouse.Inthemajority of thesecases(28/34views)thedefiningfactorwasthepurposeforwhichit wouldbeused.However,inmostcasesthiswasnotconsideredinisolation.

Insteadtherewasaweighingup

ofcostsandbenefits.Ingeneral,ifother organismsweretosuffer,personalbeliefsweretobesetasideandriskswith ourfuturewere tobetakenthenithadtobeforagoodreason.Underthese circumstancesgeneticengineeringwasonlyacceptable ifitwastotreator cureaseriousmedicalcondition-preferablyonewhichcouldnotbe preventedandforwhichnoalternativecureortreatmentwasavailable.There wasextensiveandsometimesheateddiscussioninsomegroups astowhat shouldbeconsidered"serious"andarecognitioninsomecasesthattheir personalview ofthiswouldchangeifthey,orsomeoneclosetothem,would bepersonallyaffectedbythedecision.Insomecases(5/34views)acceptance alsodependedontheexistence ofadequatecontrols:

29.19It

isagoodideareally,ifyou"veneverbeenthatsmallI don"tthinkyoucaneverunderstandlikehowgoodit is really.

29.20Iknowbutpeoplegetagoodchance

ofbeinguglyand stufflikethat.Andthey"regoingtobebringingoutall these ....

29.21Can"tcorrecteverythingandeveryone.

(..)

29.25Welldoyouthinktheyshouldstillbeattwofootwhen

they"re

18orwhatever?Thattheyshould

belikereally small?Ithink iftheywant,iftheycan,tobeaverage heightnottaller.ImeantheotherthingI"venoticed they"restillgoing tobebelowaverageheightanyway. Its justtogetthemlikeaboveabit.Imean...

29.26Yeahbutthethingwiththisislikeitslikeboundtoget

intolikethewronghandsaswell,youknowwhatI mean?Likepeoplewhoarealreadytallaregoing to getreallytallandlikethebasketball...

SchoolNGroup2

FormoredetailsseeAppendix12c.

27

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

Undecided

Asubstantialminority

ofresponses(24/89views)couldnotdecidewhetheror notaparticularform ofgeneticengineeringwasacceptable.Thereappearedto betwomaincauses ofthisuncertainty:

1.Unresolvedconflictbetweenabeliefthatitwasfundamentallywrongin

somewayandarecognitionthatundersomecircumstancesitmightbe desirable (7cases).

2.Anxietiesanddoubtswhichcouldnotbeevaluatedinaquantifiableway

(17cases).

NobutIthinktheyshouldgetrid

ofthediseaseifthey canseeit inthegenes.

Areyousayingthenthatyouthinkitwouldbegood

to(...Jchangetheparentseggsor spermsothat they"rechildrenwouldneverhaveit?

Yessoyou"dgetridofthedisease.

Butthechildrenmightnothave

CFandthenwhat"s

thatgoing todotothem?

Itwon"t

doanything.

Itmight

(..)Imeanisthatgoing tomesstheirgenesupor what.Imean, wedon"treallyknow.Ifthere"sanywaythatit"sgoingtoharmthechildit shouldn"t bedone.Costhatisanewlifeandifthat"s going toharmthenitsnotright.Ithinkitwouldbe bettertoactually,youknow,treatthemafterwards- likeyoutreattheparents.Areyousayingthenitsokay touseitasatreatment foranindividualbutnottoalteralltheother generationsthatcome,not tohavethattreatment passed on.

Yeahbutwouldn"tthatjustmeanthatyou"dhaveto

keepgivingthewhateveritisgenestothechildren?

Becausethey"llgetitaswellwon"tthey?

(. .)itshouldbeuptotheparentsorwhatever.35.1 35.2
(..) 35.5
36.1
36.2
36.3
36.4
(..) 36.6

36.7IThesewerenotmutuallyexclusive:

ISowhatdidyouthinkaboutgenetherapy?

(..) I (..)

36.11No,butits"theparentschoiceisn"tit?

IYouseem

tobesayingsomethingquiteimportant aboutchoicesandrightsand whoshouldmakethe choices isthatright? (..)

37.1It"stheparentschoice.

28

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

37.2Butthere"snopointmakingthechildhaveCFifit

doesn"tneed it.Ifyou..

IIfyoucouldpreventit,isthatwhatyou"resaying?

38.1

Yeah,summatlikethat.

IYou"vebeentalkingabouttwodifferentthingshere,

onemomentyou"vebeentalkingaboutusinggene therapy asatreatment(...)andyou"vealsobeen talkingaboutchanging eggsandsperminhumansso thatthey"rechildrendidn"t alsogetCFandyouseem tohavemixedfeelings.Howwouldyoufeelabout changingeggsandsperminanimals toimprove them?

39.1No1don"tthinkthat"sright.

39.2

Nocostheycan"ttellyou"ohIdon"twantthat"because

theycan"ttalk toyou.Soit"sbestleftalone.Againits messingaroundwithnatureisn"t it,becausenature doesn"tneed tobemessedaboutwith.Ifityouknow, natureshouldonlybemessedaboutwithwhereit needs tobe.Ifitsamatteroflifeanddeath.

SchoolC/Group5

Inaddition,twogroupsfeltthattherewould

besomanyconditionsattached totheiracceptance ofaparticularuseofgeneticengineeringthattheywould havetodecideeachcaseindividually.

Thefocus

ofconcernwasonthelongtermrisksandthedifficultiesofcontrol. Doubtsabouttherealorrelativebenefitswerealsomentioned-canresults frommicereliablyinformusabout humans?Isthisanappropriateuse of resources? Again,reasonsforconsideringprovisionalacceptancefocusedonthepurpose forwhichitwouldbeused-itwouldonlybeacceptableforseriousmedical illness.Theissue of"control"wasoftenlinkedtoviewsonprovisional acceptance-doubtsaboutthepossibility ofcontrollingthewayinwhich somethingwouldbeused,onceitwasavailable,wasthereasonwhymany remainedundecided.FormoredetailsseeAppendix12d.

Theviews

ofeachgroup,foreachcontext,arepresentedinAppendix13and thecriteriawhichdeterminedtheseviewsaresummarisedinAppendix 14.

3.2.5Reasoningwithinthegroups

Engagementwiththetask

AsshowninTable3.4(page32),mostgroupswerewillingtoengagewiththe tasks.However,theextenttowhichsomegroupsengaged-asreflectedin theirwillingnesstoreadthematerials,thespeedwithwhichtheyconsidered eachcontextandtheextenttowhichtheywereside-tracked-waslimited.For anumber ofreasonsclassBwereveryunsettledandonegroupwasdisruptive tothepointthatinterviewingcouldnotcontinue.Despitethis,somemembers 29

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

ofGroupB2didbecomeengagedwiththetaskswiththehelpofthe interviewer,whoreadsome ofthetexttothem.

Quality

ofdiscussion

Mercer(1996)suggeststhreeways

ofdescribingsmallgroupdiscussions:

1.Disputationaltalk,involvingshortexchangesbetweenstudentswhichare

characterisedbyindividualdecision-makingordisagreementbetween students;therearenoapparentattemptstopoolideas,toreachdecisions,or toofferconstructivecriticismtoideasraisedbyothers.

2.Cumulativetalk,involvingspeakersinbuildingpositivelyanduncritically

uponeverythingthatissaidindiscussion.

3.Exploratorytalk,duringwhichspeakersengageincriticalbutconstructive

discussionabouteachother"sideas;whenchallengesaremade,theyare backedupwithargumentationandalternativeviewpointsaresuggested. Mercer"scategoriesseemtofocusonthereflectivenature ofthediscussion andtheeffectthishasonthedevelopment ofreasonedargument: •indisputationaltalkpointsmightbeignored,ordisagreedwith(without anyjustification),asaresultnocoherentline ofargumentdevelopsand pointsareunrelated; •incumulativetalkpointsareunreflectivelyanduncriticallyaccepted,asa resultsinglelines ofargumentarere-enforcedandcommentsbuildoneach other; •inexploratorytalkpointsareconstructivelycriticised, asaresultlinesof argumentarechallengedandalternativeviewsareconsidered. Thisapproachtocategorisingdiscussionprovidedausefulstartingpointfor consideringthequality ofdiscussionsinthisstudy.However,nosinglegroup fittedclearlyintoanyonecategory.Usingthisapproach,manygroupsshowed intermediateforms ofdiscussionandmostgroupsmovedbetweenthe differentforms ofdiscussionastheymovedbetweencontexts.Qualityof discussionseemedtobeinfluencedbysuchfactorsasthegroup"sinterestin thetopic,theextent oftheirpriorknowledgeandexperienceandtheextentto whichgroupmemberswereinagreementwitheachother.Insomegroupsthe form ofthediscussionchangedwithinasinglecontext,forexamplein responsetoachangeinthedirection ofthediscussionortotheraisingofa newpoint.Inthefollowingextractthegroupareconsideringtheuse ofgene therapy.Theform ofthediscussionchangesfromdisputationaltalk(but withoutanydisagreement)tomoreexploratorytalkwhenonepersonstartsto reflectonthestatementspresentedonthecard.This isfollowedbyuncritical agreementfromseveralmembers ofthegroupwhichcouldperhapsbe consideredcumulativetalkbutdoesn"tactuallyaddanythingtothe discussion:

15.37Idisagreewithboth

ofthem.

15.38Ithinkthepersonwhosaidstatement2want"s

shooting.

15.39Ithink

itshouldbeallowedtocureillness. [Disputationaltalkchangestomoreexploratorytalk] 30

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

15.40ErmI"msurethey"d[referring

tothepeoplemakingthe statementonthecard}haveadifferent,havedifferent ideareallyiftheyhadanillnesswouldthey?

15.41Ithinktheyshouldbeable

tocureillnessbutnotmess aboutwiththeoldsperm,eggs,spermandeggs.Idon"t thinktheyshouldchangesomeone.

15.42Onlythingis-youcan

doit.

15.43Ifyoucandoitproperlythenyoumightaswellchange

thembutitsjustlike,ifitsjustlikegoingtobe haphazard ...onlymightworkthenthere"snopoint doingitcosifyourgoingtobecuredofanillness, that"ssomething. [Exploratorytalkchangestouncriticalagreement]

15.44Wellabsolutely.

15.45Absolutely.

15.46

Yesthat"swhatIsay.

15.47Isthatitthen?

15.48

Yessoweagreewithnumberonedon"twe.

15.49Weagreewiththefirstone.

SchoolC/Group2

Therange

ofcriteriaconsideredduringthegroupdiscussionswasalsousedas anindicatorofthequalityofdiscussion.Ingeneral,thelargerthenumberof criteriaconsidered,thebetterthequalityofthediscussion.Althoughitwas possiblethatsomegroupsmightconsideralargenumber ofcriteria superficiallywhileothersmightconsideronlyafewbutinsomedepth,this didnotseemtobethecase-asthefollowingtwoextractsillustrate.Inthese discussionsontheoncomouse,takingplaceintheabsence ofaninterviewer, Group A3considered9differentcriteria(criteriaIa,Ib,3a,3b,4a,8b,9b,10 and11b;seeAppendix7),challenging,evaluatingandconsideringtheir relativeimportancethroughexploratorytalk.GroupA6consideredonly3 criteriarathersuperficially,beforebeingside-trackedintoadiscussion ofthe weirdandwonderful(criteria la,3bandlIb).

SchoolA1Group3:

[Animalrights(11b)areraisedearlyinthediscussion.]

21.42(....)Cositsjustgettingontothewholeissueofanimal

testingandwhetheritsright tomakeanimalssufferfor somethingwhichwe ... [Thediscussionthenbecomesanevaluationoftheimportanceofthiscriteria, drawingonaconsideration oftheoriginoftheoncomouse(1b)..]

21.43Idisagree

...becausethemousehasobviouslybeen producedforaparticularpurpose.Itisn"tasifyou"ve gonelikeandgotanormalmouseand ...

21.44Yeahbuttheywouldhavehadtogetthemousefrom

somewherefirst. [ ...therelativecostsandbenefits(8b)..]

21.45Yeahitwasonlyonemouse.

31

WorkingPaper7:Geneticengineering-thelimits

21.46Itdoesn"tchangethefactthatanimalsstillhave

to sufferthe...

21.47OhyeahI"mnotsayingthattheyshouldbutiflike,if

youcan....Idon"tknow...

21.48Ithinkitwouldbegreattogetridofcancer.

21.49

Ohdefinitely.

[ ...possiblealternatives(3b)]

21.50Butitwould

bebettertodoitadifferentway.

21.51YeahIdon"tthinkitsrighttosortofdeliberatelylike

saydeliberatelydesign ananimalsothatitsuffersbut ifyou(..)couldtakesomethingfromthatanimal...

21.52Itsnotasifyourdoingittoananimalthatalready

exists.ImeanIknowyou