Moral Schemas in Articulation and Intuition: How Religious People Evaluate Human Reproductive Genetic Technologies

Abstract

As new and more effective human reproductive genetic technologies (RGTs) rapidly develop, religious voices remain an important part of public discussion about the moral standing of such technologies. Here, we compare how individuals from different religious traditions evaluate disease RGTs (detecting genetic diseases in vitro) when compared to enhancement RGTs, allowing parents to select features of a child. Findings are gleaned from analysis of 270 interviews with individuals from 23 Christian, Muslim, and Jewish religious organizations, with supporting data from a national survey of more than 10,000 Americans. We find that respondents engage in clearly defined discursive moral reasoning to evaluate the propriety of disease RGTs while moral intuitions manifest themselves in responses to enhancement RGTs. We argue that schemas provide resources for moral discourses while also shaping moral intuitions expressed through emotions. Our results have implications for how religious people respond to new technologies when their institutional and denominational structures do not have readily discernable moral frameworks to guide responses.

Mapping Cultural Schemas: From Theory to Method

“…Arguably the most influential export from cognitive scientific work has been the schema concept, which now holds a central place in sociological theory and research. Schemassets of cognitive associations, developed over repeated experience, that represent information and facilitate interpretation and action (DiMaggio 1997;Strauss and Quinn 1997;Vaisey 2009)-are increasingly adopted as a theoretical explanation for how culture influences individual action and belief, not only in cultural sociology (Cerulo 2014;Goldberg 2011;Lizardo 2004;Lizardo et al 2016;Lizardo and Strand 2010;McDonnell, Bail, and Tavory 2017), but also in social psychology and demography, as well as the sociologies of religion, gender, race, morality, and work and occupations (e.g., Bachrach 2014; Cech and Blair-Loy 2014; Ecklund and Lee 2011;Ecklund et al 2017;Edgell 2012;Farrell 2011;Gerstel and Clawson 2014;Gorman 2005;Hunzaker 2014;Miles 2014;Ray 2019;Turco 2010). However, this increased prevalence of schema-related work has not been indicative of a coherent or cumulative line of research and theory development regarding culture in sociology (Patterson 2014).…”

Can Religiosity Be Explained by ‘Brain Wiring’? An Analysis of US Adults’ Opinions

“…Much research has illuminated the centrality of religion in shaping attitudes around a myriad of scientific and technological findings and issues. Some of this work has focused on morally-charged scientific issues such as abortion, the use of human embryonic stem cells, and reproductive genetic technologies (Ecklund et al 2017;Emerson 1996;Evans 2002;Evans and Hudson 2007). Other research has focused on how religion shapes attitudes towards scientific claims that seem to undermine the plausibility of certain religious tenets, such the age of the earth or the origins of life (Baker 2013;Hill 2014;Ecklund and Scheitle 2018).…”

Beliefs About Evolution and Educational Attainment

“…A related, and perhaps more common, explanation for why believing in creationism impacts educational attainment is epistemological conflict. Previous studies have argued that conservative Protestants and biblical inerrantists view sources of knowledge other than the Bible (or nonconservative Protestant interpretations of the Bible) as untrustworthy (Ecklund et al 2017;Sherkat 2010), and creationists are so concerned with the matter because their identity as biblical literalists is tied to it (Guhin 2016;Numbers 2006;Worthen 2014). Absolute truth is revealed in the Bible, and scientific theories or discoveries that contradict a literalist interpretation of the Bible cannot be accurate (Darnell and Sherkat 1997).…”