---

Using Case Studies to Teach Bioethics in the Science Classroom

Clark Wolf, Director of Bioethics, Iowa State University

It’s a dangerous job, but it must be done, nonetheless.  In teaching ethics, bioethics or science ethics to scientists, there are many hazards to be avoided- and many pitfalls to catch the unwary.  Following are a few closely related dangers that face any teacher with the temerity to introduce ethics as a subject in the science classroom.
 
1) Appropriate and respectful representation of plural views where subject matter is controversial.  Some ethical issues can be regarded as quite basic  For example, it is simply wrong to falsify data in order to advance a career in science.  But in many contexts, the subject matter covered in an ethics class is controversial, and people may not agree even when they are all fully informed, earnest and thinking carefully and clearly.  For example, people disagree about human genetic engineering.  It is a mistake to present this disagreement as if one side of the debate were simply ignorant.  Indeed, it is characteristic of the most interesting problems that there are intelligent and informed people on different sides.
 
But as teachers, we typically come to bioethics problems with our own views and, to some extent, with our own agenda.  The attendant danger is clear.  Instead of presenting different views fairly, with appropriate representation for the reasons that lie behind each of them, unwary ethics teachers may be tempted to present their own views as if theirs were the only reasonable or rational view.  This is a misrepresentation, and the result can be unfortunate for students.  Students whose views are different from the views of their teacher may feel slighted and may justly feel that their values have been disparaged and misrepresented. 
 
This problem is closely related to two others, discussed below.  It is imperative that teachers respect their students’ freedom of conscience, and that teachers should not simply use the classroom as an opportunity to proselytize.
 
2) Respect for student’s freedom of conscience.  In many contexts, students are not really at liberty to disagree with their teacher.  A student can’t claim that she or he doesn’t accept the quadratic formula because it’s not consistent with her culture or values.  But where the subject of discussion is ethics, students have an important right to make their own decisions and to frame their beliefs in light of their own values and conscience.  For example, in a class discussion of research involving human fetal stem cells, students should be encouraged to state their own views about the subject and to explain the reasons that support their view.  Students can be required to understand the subject and can be held accountable for misrepresentation of the underlying science, for example.  But those who have a clear understanding of the relevant issues must be free to form their own views, even if their views differ from those of the teacher.
 
3) Proselytism.  These issues are closely related to another very serious danger.  One way for ethics teaching to falter is for the teacher to use the class as an opportunity to proselytize or indoctrinate students.  It is easy to see why some teachers fall prey to this temptation.  We hold our own values dear.  When we engage in discussion of ethical issues, we often hope to persuade others that our own views are the right ones. 
 
4) Anger, loss of control and chaos.  Finally, it is dangerous to introduce ethics in the classroom because people may be highly sensitive about ethical issues and may become angry when challenged.  In the worst case, anger may flash in classroom discussion and it may be difficult for a teacher to maintain appropriate control of the class.  Free-wheeling discussion can break down into chaos.
 
What is a conscientious teacher to do?
 
How can these dangers be avoided?  The easy way to avoid them is to entirely avoid discussion of ethics and ethically controversial issues.  This is an easy solution, but it is not a sophisticated one.  Students need to learn how to argue for their own views and how to disagree in the context of a discussion without becoming angry or disagreeable.
 
In her recently completed Masters thesis, ISU bioethics student Sarah Heuer has persuasively argued that the case study method is an effective and appropriate way for teachers to address ethical issues in the classroom while avoiding the problems mentioned above.  In the case studies she has developed, as in others that can be found on the ISU Bioethics Program web site (http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/), students are assigned to read background material on a controversial ethical topic.  Then they are asked to provide an articulate defense of a position that may or may not represent their own views and values.  In order to do this, they must gain a fairly rich understanding of the problem under consideration and of the reasons that support one response to the problem.  In the context of a moderated debate, students must represent the view to which they have been assigned and should be prepared to raise objections and formulate arguments relevant for the evaluation of alternative views.
 
For example, in her case study examining the Canadian court case “Monsanto vs. Schmeiser,”  Heuer assigns one group of students to represent the position of Percy Schmeiser, the farmer who was sued by Monsanto Corp. for violation of their intellectual property (IP)  rights.  Schmeiser was accused of growing Monsanto’s patented glyphosate resistant canola, without paying the required licensure fee.  Other groups must represent Monsanto Corporation, another biotech company with an interest to maintain strong IP rights, and a group of organic farmers who are concerned that they may be held responsible for violating intellectual property rights if patented pollen blows on to their canola plants.
 
In the course of discussion, different views will be aired and different claims will be brought up in discussion.  Ideally, students should gain (1) an understanding of different views and of the arguments that support them, (2) an articulate knowledge of the facts of the case and different parties’ representation of those facts, and (3) experience making arguments and supporting claims in a context of friendly and open debate. 
 
Where students have been assigned to defend a position, whether or not it is the one they hold, there are some additional advantages.  First, students learn to evaluate arguments, and discussion is less likely to break down in angry chaos.  Second, students may feel less self-conscious presenting or evaluating views when they need not represent them as their own. 
 
Case studies don’t solve all problems one might encounter when teaching ethics.  There is still a risk that discussion may sometimes break down or that participants may still become angry when others raise objections.  But even these risks are manageable if instructors adopt the role of moderator to help students through the exercise.  The benefits of the exercise are crucial.  Science students gain a great deal when they are introduced to issues in the ethics of scientific practice and when they learn to evaluate ethical aspects of new technologies. 
 
The ISU collection of Bioethics Case studies can be accessed on line at: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/cs2.htm
 

---

Bioethics in Brief