Bioethics: On the Move in Oregon High Schools
The Oregon Science Teacher, Volume 40, Issue 5, May/June 1999.
by Gregory L. Fowler, Ph.D., Executive Director, Geneforum
Since December, 1998, the word "Peripatetic" (pertaining to the teaching philosophy of Aristotle, who engaged in dialogue while walking about in the Lyceum of ancient Athens) has taken on new meaning for me. Visits in the intervening five months to five Oregon high schools lying in each of Oregon's four geographical quadrants, pre- and post-visit curriculum planning sessions with ten science teachers, and lively classroom discussions about the "new genetics" with more than 350 energized high school students has convinced me Aristotle had the right idea about education.
The Chautauqua-in-the-Schools Program-sponsored by the Oregon Council for the Humanities and targeted at high school students and teachers for expanding and enriching opportunities for humanistic learning and study in the classroom-was my contemporary model. Bioethics, the study of ethical issues in the life sciences fueled by the Karen Ann Quinlan case in the 1970s, Barney Clark's artificial heart in the 1980s, and more recently the "Dolly" cloning affair, and the McCaughey septuplets, has provided the framework for these classroom discussions.
Among the provocative questions that have surfaced are : Do we as a society want to be able to clone ourselves? Are women fully prepared for the moral and emotional repercussions of donor eggs? Should a young woman be fired from her job because she is carrying the gene for the fatal Huntington's Disease? Would humanity be better off in a future where the genetic engineering of human germinal cells (sperms and eggs) is regulated by the government or in one where significant modification is made a readily available option? Is it a good idea to take DNA samples from everyone arrested for-but not convicted of-a crime? And these are but a miniscule sampling of the myriad issues raised by scientific research in the fast approaching "Biotech Century." Like the rest of us, students are beginning to demand answers.
After the Chautauqua program, I noticed a difference in my students. They were really interested, thoughtful, and troubled. Students were arguing genetics and ethics in the halls between classes. They've even started noticing stories in the newspapers or on TV that relate to the issues raised in the Chautauqua. I even had students staying after class or after school to ask questions and debate issues! It's been rejuvenating for everybody. -- B. Bedwell, Science Department Chair, Paisley School (Paisley)
Twenty-four hundred years ago, Socrates showed us that there is a link between intellectual knowledge and ethical growth. At the very least, it seems "incomplete" -- and, perhaps, even irresponsible-to teach the science of genetic engineering without exploring the broad social implications of that technology. Similarly, should an explanation of the chemistry of ozone-layer depletion be considered without also inquiring into its effect on human health and all the associated social and political implications?
Bioethics enriches a life-science curriculum. The discussion of the social issues generated by the deciphering of the human genome, the 80,000 genes encoded by 3 billion chemical bits of our DNA, adds purpose and personal relevance to a complex array of sophisticated scientific technologies. Considering how this massive surge of information will impact each of us personally alerts students to the relevance of the underlying science to their daily lives while also teaching the tools of critical thinking, philosophical argumentation, and ethical debate. In the process, students become aware that their active participation in the conversation makes a difference.
I believe that bioethics is an important topic which should be included in high school science curricula. Daily advancements in, for example), genetics research will require today's students to be the informed and responsible electorate of tomorrow. It is important that students embrace this role by beginning to form a knowledge and values base from which they may participate in societal science decisions. --D. Dewey, Science Instructor, Redmond High School (Redmond)
Bioethics is also a way to introduce "interdisciplinary thought" into non-science classroom instruction.
I would suggest that any social science class could benefit from an informed perspective on the Genome project. The result is relevant, lively instruction that gives both disciplines--biology and social science--more meaning in the classroom. It also honors students with genuine, frontline exposure to issues they will deal with for a lifetime. --J. Harvey, Social Science Teacher, Winema Alternative High School, Chemeketa Community College (Salem)
Science is the organized, well-founded body of knowledge about natural phenomena, a domain of systematic inquiry in which knowledge about natural phenomena is sought. Where science explains and predicts, ethics prescribes not what is done but what ought to be done. Twenty-first century advances in bioengineering, robotics, and computer science have the potential to drastically alter not only the physical makeup of human beings but also how they come into the world.
According to some experts, the human body, virtually unchanged for thousands of years, may be about to undergo a bewildering variety of modifications. If these predictions are correct, 21st century technology may stretch the very meaning of the word "human" beyond all previous limits.
Perhaps we can only guess at the cultural, legal, and ethical questions this will raise. But there will have to be inspired, logical thinking about the nature of humanity if our children and grandchildren are to deal with these challenges.
The OSTA listserv has been buzzing lately with a lively "Physics first" discussion aimed at prioritizing the high school science curriculum in the areas of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Independent of the final weighting, however, I vote for a "Bioethics- throughout" approach since in addition to improving scientific literacy in all three disciplines, bioethical exploration represents a great opportunity to teach students to reason clearly and logically, to be tolerant and respectful of the views of others, to learn how to make determinations about right and wrong, and to carefully assess the consequences an action might have on others.
Ultimately, achieving some measure of understanding about the ethical dilemmas we face is not a burden that falls entirely on our institutions of higher learning, our churches, and our government. Each of us must find our own answers, but that doesn't mean we have to face the challenge of discovery entirely on our own.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their directions."
Bioethics is on the move in Oregon. Aristotle showed us the way. More recruits are needed.
References:
1. L. Muha, Biography Interview, "Dr. Arthur Caplan," Biography/April 1998
2. L. Wolpert, "Is science dangerous?" Nature/Vol. 398/25 March 1999
3. The Christian Science Monitor, Thursday, April 1, 1999
4. B. Jennings, K. Nolan, C. Campbell, S. Donnelley, "New choices, new responsibilities: Ethical issues in the life sciences. A teaching resource on bioethics for high school biology courses."
About the Author
As a Chautauqua-in-the-Schools Scholar for the Oregon Council for the Humanities, Greg Fowler lectures (by invitation) throughout the state on the science and social implications of the new genetics. A university biology (genetics) professor for 30 years, he is presently founding and directing Geneforum, a new nonprofit, public interest organization that works to involve communities in the genetic science policy process through grassroots education and Internet dialogue.
Article
by Gregory L. Fowler, Ph.D., Executive Director, Geneforum
Since December, 1998, the word "Peripatetic" (pertaining to the teaching philosophy of Aristotle, who engaged in dialogue while walking about in the Lyceum of ancient Athens) has taken on new meaning for me. Visits in the intervening five months to five Oregon high schools lying in each of Oregon's four geographical quadrants, pre- and post-visit curriculum planning sessions with ten science teachers, and lively classroom discussions about the "new genetics" with more than 350 energized high school students has convinced me Aristotle had the right idea about education.
The Chautauqua-in-the-Schools Program-sponsored by the Oregon Council for the Humanities and targeted at high school students and teachers for expanding and enriching opportunities for humanistic learning and study in the classroom-was my contemporary model. Bioethics, the study of ethical issues in the life sciences fueled by the Karen Ann Quinlan case in the 1970s, Barney Clark's artificial heart in the 1980s, and more recently the "Dolly" cloning affair, and the McCaughey septuplets, has provided the framework for these classroom discussions.
Among the provocative questions that have surfaced are : Do we as a society want to be able to clone ourselves? Are women fully prepared for the moral and emotional repercussions of donor eggs? Should a young woman be fired from her job because she is carrying the gene for the fatal Huntington's Disease? Would humanity be better off in a future where the genetic engineering of human germinal cells (sperms and eggs) is regulated by the government or in one where significant modification is made a readily available option? Is it a good idea to take DNA samples from everyone arrested for-but not convicted of-a crime? And these are but a miniscule sampling of the myriad issues raised by scientific research in the fast approaching "Biotech Century." Like the rest of us, students are beginning to demand answers.
After the Chautauqua program, I noticed a difference in my students. They were really interested, thoughtful, and troubled. Students were arguing genetics and ethics in the halls between classes. They've even started noticing stories in the newspapers or on TV that relate to the issues raised in the Chautauqua. I even had students staying after class or after school to ask questions and debate issues! It's been rejuvenating for everybody. -- B. Bedwell, Science Department Chair, Paisley School (Paisley)
Twenty-four hundred years ago, Socrates showed us that there is a link between intellectual knowledge and ethical growth. At the very least, it seems "incomplete" -- and, perhaps, even irresponsible-to teach the science of genetic engineering without exploring the broad social implications of that technology. Similarly, should an explanation of the chemistry of ozone-layer depletion be considered without also inquiring into its effect on human health and all the associated social and political implications?
Bioethics enriches a life-science curriculum. The discussion of the social issues generated by the deciphering of the human genome, the 80,000 genes encoded by 3 billion chemical bits of our DNA, adds purpose and personal relevance to a complex array of sophisticated scientific technologies. Considering how this massive surge of information will impact each of us personally alerts students to the relevance of the underlying science to their daily lives while also teaching the tools of critical thinking, philosophical argumentation, and ethical debate. In the process, students become aware that their active participation in the conversation makes a difference.
I believe that bioethics is an important topic which should be included in high school science curricula. Daily advancements in, for example), genetics research will require today's students to be the informed and responsible electorate of tomorrow. It is important that students embrace this role by beginning to form a knowledge and values base from which they may participate in societal science decisions. --D. Dewey, Science Instructor, Redmond High School (Redmond)
Bioethics is also a way to introduce "interdisciplinary thought" into non-science classroom instruction.
I would suggest that any social science class could benefit from an informed perspective on the Genome project. The result is relevant, lively instruction that gives both disciplines--biology and social science--more meaning in the classroom. It also honors students with genuine, frontline exposure to issues they will deal with for a lifetime. --J. Harvey, Social Science Teacher, Winema Alternative High School, Chemeketa Community College (Salem)
Science is the organized, well-founded body of knowledge about natural phenomena, a domain of systematic inquiry in which knowledge about natural phenomena is sought. Where science explains and predicts, ethics prescribes not what is done but what ought to be done. Twenty-first century advances in bioengineering, robotics, and computer science have the potential to drastically alter not only the physical makeup of human beings but also how they come into the world.
According to some experts, the human body, virtually unchanged for thousands of years, may be about to undergo a bewildering variety of modifications. If these predictions are correct, 21st century technology may stretch the very meaning of the word "human" beyond all previous limits.
Perhaps we can only guess at the cultural, legal, and ethical questions this will raise. But there will have to be inspired, logical thinking about the nature of humanity if our children and grandchildren are to deal with these challenges.
The OSTA listserv has been buzzing lately with a lively "Physics first" discussion aimed at prioritizing the high school science curriculum in the areas of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Independent of the final weighting, however, I vote for a "Bioethics- throughout" approach since in addition to improving scientific literacy in all three disciplines, bioethical exploration represents a great opportunity to teach students to reason clearly and logically, to be tolerant and respectful of the views of others, to learn how to make determinations about right and wrong, and to carefully assess the consequences an action might have on others.
Ultimately, achieving some measure of understanding about the ethical dilemmas we face is not a burden that falls entirely on our institutions of higher learning, our churches, and our government. Each of us must find our own answers, but that doesn't mean we have to face the challenge of discovery entirely on our own.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their directions."
Bioethics is on the move in Oregon. Aristotle showed us the way. More recruits are needed.
References:
1. L. Muha, Biography Interview, "Dr. Arthur Caplan," Biography/April 1998
2. L. Wolpert, "Is science dangerous?" Nature/Vol. 398/25 March 1999
3. The Christian Science Monitor, Thursday, April 1, 1999
4. B. Jennings, K. Nolan, C. Campbell, S. Donnelley, "New choices, new responsibilities: Ethical issues in the life sciences. A teaching resource on bioethics for high school biology courses."
About the Author
As a Chautauqua-in-the-Schools Scholar for the Oregon Council for the Humanities, Greg Fowler lectures (by invitation) throughout the state on the science and social implications of the new genetics. A university biology (genetics) professor for 30 years, he is presently founding and directing Geneforum, a new nonprofit, public interest organization that works to involve communities in the genetic science policy process through grassroots education and Internet dialogue.