Content knowledge and social factors influence student moral reasoning about CRISPR/Cas9 in humans

Abstract

Consideration of socioscientific issues (SSIs) promotes the development of moral and sociocultural perspectives that encourage a rich understanding of the nature of science. The use of moral reasoning to approach SSIs is known to influence how students justify arguments and persuade others; less is known about how student moral reasoning is influenced by both content knowledge and demographic identities. We performed an exploratory study to investigate how students use moral reasoning when considering an SSI about the use of CRISPR/Cas9 technology for nonmedical enhancement in humans. Using content analysis, we examined written responses from 279 undergraduate students from three content knowledge levels and a variety of demographic populations (socioeconomic, gender, and first‐generation status). We identified instances of consequence and principle‐based moral reasoning and categorized commonly employed moral considerations under these broad themes. Students opposed nonmedical enhancement with CRISPR/Cas9 technology and perceived it as fraught with moral controversy primarily related to eugenics, equity, diversity, risk, and the authority of nature. Content knowledge level, gender, socioeconomic status, and first‐generation status influenced which moral considerations were employed by students and these carried interaction effects that indicate complex relationships between content knowledge level and demographic variables. We suggest more explicit instruction about complex societal issues linked to the history of science and genetic engineering, such as eugenics and inequity, and further investigation of moral perspectives for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and underrepresented groups so that these perspectives can be integrated into curricula to foster diverse classroom environments.

The research trends and contributions of science education during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A narrative systematic literature review of publications in selected journals

“…Studies in the field of science and science education at the higher education level include: both male and female students commonly believed that issues of gender were restricted to the the male‐dominated science disciplines but female students are more persistent in studying science (Fisher et al., 2020); conceptual changes to SSI‐based obesity (Leung & Cheng, 2020); an effective intervention in science class with a taxonomy code (Newton & Zeidler, 2020); motivation to learn physics and chemistry influenced by academic majors (Salta & Koulougliotis, 2020); a study of teacher candidates that showed a lack of consistency, simplicity and completeness in the explanations given to students (Viennot, 2020); student literacy skills that are enhanced by the context of the task and still use a lot of pre‐interpreted texts (Lennox et al., 2020); teacher candidates implementing NOS in inquiry even though NOS is not required (Librea‐carden et al., 2021); content knowledge and social factors influencing students' moral reasoning (Seiter & Fuselier, 2021); and negotiations in scientific arguments producing group consensus (Governor et al., 2021).…”

CRISPR/Cas9 systems: Delivery technologies and biomedical applications

“…The translation of CRISPR/Cas9 towards in vivo gene editing presents significant challenges that need to be tackled, including concerns regarding specificity, safety, and efficient delivery. Additionally, research studies have raised apprehensions about the promotion of CRISPR/Cas9 applications, touching upon aspects such as safety, ethics, social fairness, and the risks associated with transgenic manipulation [207] , [208] , [209] , [210] . Consequently, it is crucial to establish a comprehensive legal framework that ensures the secure and equitable utilization of gene editing technology.…”

Strengthening science education through attention to student resources: A conceptualization of socioscientific capital

“…The importance of the non‐scientific aspects of SSC cannot be underestimated. Teachers need to be sensitive to the value of the multiple ways of knowing that students bring to SSI‐based teaching (Balgopal et al, 2017; Hodson, 2020; Seiter & Fuselier, 2021; Tolbert et al, 2018) and they need to “foster classroom environments that encourage the expression of diverse perspectives even when those perspectives are not consistent with traditional notions of science” (Zeidler et al, 2005, p. 369). Awareness of the wide variety of students' SSI‐related resources is necessary in order to adapt SSI‐based teaching and learning to the resources that students bring with them.…”

“…When studying knowledge as a student resource in SSI‐related learning and decision‐making, researchers have often focused on prior content knowledge or what is termed school knowledge or subject‐matter knowledge (Baytelman et al, 2020; Christenson & Chang Rundgren, 2015; Sadler & Donnelly, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Seiter & Fuselier, 2021). Prior content knowledge enhances the quality of students' reasoning about SSI (Baytelman et al, 2020; Chang et al, 2020; Lewis & Leach, 2006; Sadler & Zeidler, 2005; Von Aufschnaiter et al, 2008) and has a positive effect on learning gains (Hadjichambis et al, 2016).…”