Handbook of Research on
Technoethics
Rocci Luppicini
University of Ottawa, Canada
Rebecca Adell
Eck MacNeely Architects, USA

Volume I

InformatIon scIence reference
Hershey • New York

Director of Editorial Content:
Senior Managing Editor:
Managing Editor:
Assistant Managing Editor:
Typesetter:
Cover Design:
Printed at:

Kristin Klinger
Jennifer Neidig
Jamie Snavely
Carole Coulson
Sean Woznicki
Lisa Tosheff
Yurchak Printing Inc.

Published in the United States of America by
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Suite 200
Hershey PA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com
and in the United Kingdom byInformation Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
3 Henrietta Street
Covent Garden
London WC2E 8LU
Tel: 44 20 7240 0856
Fax: 44 20 7379 0609
Web site: http://www.eurospanbookstore.com
Copyright © 2009 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or companies does
not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Handbook of research on technoethics / Rocci Luppicini and Rebecca Adell, Editors.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Summary: “This book traces the emergence of the new interdisciplinary field of technoethics by exploring its conceptual development,
important issues, and key areas of current research. Compiling 50 authoritative articles from leading researchers on the ethical dimensionsof new technologies”--Provided by publisher.
ISBN 978-1-60566-000-4 (hard cover) -- ISBN 978-1-60566-001-1 (ebook)
1. Technology--Moral and ethical aspects. I. Luppicini, Rocci. II. Adell, Rebecca.
BJ59.H36 2009174’.96--dc22
2008007623
British Cataloguing in Publication Data
A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.
All work contributed to this book set is original material. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors, but not necessarily of
the publisher.

If a library purchased a print copy of this publication, please go to http://www.igi-global.com/agreement for information on activating
the library's complimentary electronic access to this publication.



Chapter VI

Education of Ethics of Scienceand Technology Across Cultures
Darryl Macer
Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific (RUSHSAP), UNESCO, Thailand

abstract
This chapter examines some of the cultural variation in the ethical factors associated with the use ofscience and technology. The issues discussed include access to technology, social justice, professional
ethics, and value systems. The appropriate implementation of international standards in ethics of science and technology and bioethics is considered. There is global agreement that persons should betaught the ethics of science and technology, and discussion of new materials and methods is made. The
goals of ethics education as explained in the Action Plan for Bioethics Education developed at the 2006
UNESCO Asia-Pacific Conference on Bioethics Education include knowledge, skills and personal moral
development. The International Bioethics Education Network was initiated in 2004, and the creation of
networks linking research into policy is a cornerstone of efforts for education of ethics at all levels, fromlocal to regional. In the future the use of principles as expressed in the UNESCO Universal Declaration
on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005) will also be analyzed to broaden the description of bioethicalreasoning. There needs to be extension of the evaluation methods and tools.

EtHIcs OF scIENcE aND
tEcHNOLOGYAt the beginning of this chapter we can ask, isthere something unique about ethics of scienceand technology as opposed to ethics itself? All
societies use technology, for clothing, housing,food, energy, health, and most other aspects oflife. The history and development of humankind
is interwoven with the use of technology. Access to technology to advance quality of life is along standing ethical issue, not distinct to social
justice in general. The technical knowledge ofa profession does however convey professional
ethical duties upon the members of a profession
and these are recognized such as medical ethics
or engineering ethics.

Copyright © 2009, IGI Global, distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

Science, the quest for objective knowledgeof our universe, and the method of intellectual
inquiry, experimentation and falsification is amore recent phenomenon. Are there some typesof knowledge that are dangerous for humankind
to learn? The knowledge of gunpowder, dynamite
or atomic weapons is not something that we would
want everyone to apply, and all have been misused
to kill and destroy people and the environment.
The knowledge of psychiatry, physiology, chemistry or even educational methodology can also be
misused. Therefore there are also scientific ethicalissues in the use and consequences of choices
regarding science. Thus ethics for scientists again
can fall into the realm of professional ethics, andthe way that professionals relate to those who lackthat particular form of knowledge.
This chapter will not focus on the deeper
questions that remain on whether humans should
pursue knowledge about everything, but having a
training in science ethics will make practitionersof science aware of some of these dilemmas toconsider in their occupation. If we look at the waythat societies have faced ethical dilemmas arisingin medicine and technology we can see several
important elements in their evolution. Whenmany countries opened their doors (or their doors
were involuntarily opened) to Western society inthe 19th century, it led to the introduction of a
newly emerging scientific paradigm, only part of
the fabric of Western society. The ethical valuesof Western society were also imported in some
aspects, including with Christian missionaries anddemocracies, however while there were different
receptions to these value systems the pursuit ofscience and technology and economic growth
were adopted. However, the ethics of use of science and technology are not intrinsically different
to the ethics of use of technical knowledge thatexisted everywhere, in basic life support services
such as housing, food, medicines and information
sharing. Each country in the world today imports
ideas and goods from other countries, and there isevolution of ethical reflection through the grow-

ing involvement of the public in discussion anddevelopment of the indigenous diversity of ethicaltraditions. As cultures evolve, it becomes impossible to separate which aspects were introduced
from the different sources at what time.

GLObaL caLLs FOr EtHIcs
EDUcatION
In addition to the need for professional ethics,
citizens of all ages need to make ethical decisions
on how they use science and technology and its
products. Opinion surveys in every country they
have been conducted to show global agreement
for the inclusion of more ethical and social issues
associated with science and technology to betaught to students. Member states of UNESCO(the United Nations Educational, Scientific andCultural Organization) in the Universal Declaration on the Protection of the Human Genome
and Human Rights (1997) declared such an educational need, and every member country of theUnited Nations endorsed this in 1998. This call
was repeated by all member states when adopting the 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics
and Human Rights. These calls follow numerous
academic works also calling for this (Reiss, 1999;
Ratcliffe & Grace, 2003).
There is global agreement that persons should
be taught the ethics of science and technology, butthere are not global methods. UNESCO has taken
up some of the challenges of how to translate thisglobal call for bioethics debate and discussion in
culturally appropriate manners. The appropriate
implementation of international standards in ethics of science and technology and bioethics is important, and there have been a range of responses
by states to the three International Declarations
on Bioethics unanimously accepted by UNESCO
General Conference (Universal Declaration on
the Human Genome and Human Rights, 1997;
International Declaration on Human Genetic
Data, 2001; Universal Declaration on Bioethics

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Culturesand Human Rights, 2005). Although bioethics
education was called for by all states that signed
the 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human
Genome and Human Rights, in article 20, it isstill to be realized:“20. States should take appropriate measures topromote the principles set out in the Declaration,
through education and relevant means, inter alia
through the conduct of research and training ininterdisciplinary fields and through the promotionof education in bioethics, at all levels, in particular
for those responsible for science policies.“
Freedom of expression is one of the working
methods of critical ethical reflection. Article 19 of
the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
upholds the “freedom to hold opinions without
interference.” Article 21 of Universal Declarationon the Human Genome and Human Rights 1997
reads “States should … also undertake to facilitateon this subject an open international discussion,
ensuring the free expression of various sociocultural, religious and philosophical opinions.”
We can ask how communities can be involved
in discussion of ethics of science and technology.
In all societies there is a transition from paternalism to informed consent to informed choice.
Unless we can educate citizens the choices they
make will not be informed. This transition frompaternalism to choice creates the space for discussion in communities of what principles they
consider important in making choices. We have tobuild capacity to ensure that the choices are more
informed. We need to consider different life views
each of us can have when confronted with moral
dilemmas. Some believe that there is a right anda wrong choice to be made for a person’s actionin each moral dilemma, and that they can also tellothers what is morally right or wrong.

GOaLs OF EtHIcs EDUcatIONand technology should be incorporated into thelong standing value education that is implicit inevery human society. We learn how to relate to others as we grow up in families, schools and society(Rest, 1986). There have been different schemes
elaborated for how we could define someone as
being morally mature. There is agreement that theaim of teaching ethics is to develop the student’s
ability to recognize and analyze ethical issues inorder to be able to reach decisions on how to act
ethically (COMEST, 2004).
In discussions that have occurred in the International Bioethics Education Network in Asiaand the Pacific there has been a consensus thatthe theory of moral development developed by
Lawrence Kohlberg, and what has come to becalled Kohlberg’s stages of moral development,does not universally apply when teaching bioethics. The problems are not only with non-Western
students, but researchers in Australia and New
Zealand have also found that it does not serve
as a model. Kohlberg’s (1969) theory holds that
moral reasoning, which he thought to be the basis
for ethical behavior, has developmental stages
that are universal. He followed the developmentof moral judgment beyond the ages originallystudied by Jean Piaget looking at moral development throughout life, and created a model basedon six identifiable stages of moral development(Scharf, 1978). It is still useful however to describe
these stages, while recognizing that in different
cultures the order of what we would call the mostmature values differs.
Kohlberg’s six stages were grouped into
three levels: pre-conventional, conventional, andpost-conventional. He claimed it is not possible
to regress backwards in stages nor to ‘jump’stages; each stage provides new perspective andis considered “more comprehensive, differentiated, and integrated than its predecessors.” A
brief explanation follows.

It is important that different nations develop concrete plans for how education in ethics of scienceEducation of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

Level 1: Pre-conventional
The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is
especially common in children, and said to be up
to the age of 9 in U.S. children he studied, although
adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning.
Reasoners in the pre-conventional level judge themorality of an action by its direct consequences.
The pre-conventional level consists of the firstand second stages of moral development, andare purely concerned with the self (egocentric).
In stage one (obedience), individuals focus on the
direct consequences that their actions will have forthemselves. For example, an action is perceived
as morally wrong if the person who commits itgets punished. In addition, there is no recognition
that others’ points of view are any different fromone’s own view.
Stage two is a self-interest orientation, rightbehavior being defined by what is in one’s own
best interest. Stage two reasoning shows a limited
interest in the needs of others, but only to a point
where it might further one’s own interests, suchas “you scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours.”
In stage two, concern for others is not based on
loyalty or intrinsic respect. Lacking a perspectiveof society in the pre-conventional level, this should
not be confused with stage 5 (social contract)
as all actions are performed to serve one’s own
needs or interests.

Level 2: conventional
The conventional level of moral reasoning istypical of adolescents (age 9+ years) and adults.
Persons who reason in a conventional way judge
the morality of actions by comparing these actions to societal views and expectations. The
conventional level consists of the third and fourthstages of moral development. In stage three, theself enters society by filling social roles. Individuals are receptive of approval or disapproval fromother people as it reflects society’s accordance withthe perceived role. They try to be a good boy orgood girl to live up to these expectations, having
learned that there is inherent value in doing so.
Stage three reasoning may judge the morality ofan action by evaluating its consequences in termsof a person’s relationships, which now begin to
include things like respect, gratitude and thegolden rule. Desire to maintain rules and authority
exists only to further support these stereotypicalsocial roles.
In stage four, it is important to obey laws andsocial conventions because of their importancein maintaining a functioning society. Moral reasoning in stage four is thus beyond the need forapproval exhibited in stage three, because theindividual believes that society must transcend
individual needs. If one person violates a law, perhaps everyone would - thus there is an obligation
and a duty to uphold laws and rules. As a culturalobservation, this is a very common attitude in
Asian and Pacific communities.

Level 3: Post-conventional
The post-conventional level, also known as theprincipled level, consists of stages five and six ofmoral development. Realization that individuals
are separate entities from society is importantin North American society where Kohlberg
developed his theory and so he judged it to be ahigher level of morality. In that culture one’s own
perspective should be viewed before the society’s
is considered. Interestingly, the post-conventional
level, especially stage six, is sometimes mistaken
for pre-conventional behaviors. In stage five, individuals are viewed as holding different opinions
and values, all of which should be respected andhonoured in order to be impartial. However heconsidered some issues are not relative like lifeand choice. Laws are regarded as social contracts
rather than dictums, and those that do not promote
general social welfare should be changed whennecessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest
number of people (a utilitarian view).

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

In stage six, moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles.
Decisions are made in an absolute way rather thanin a conditional way. In addition, laws are valid
only insofar as they are grounded in justice, andthat a commitment to justice carries with it anobligation to disobey unjust laws. While Kohlberg
insisted that stage six exists, he had difficultyfinding participants who use it.

Implications
After Kohlberg’s stage 4, the transition from stage
four to stage five, people have become disaffectedwith the arbitrary nature of law and order reasoning and he said they become moral relativists.
This transition stage may result in either progress
to stage five or in regression to stage four. As
has become clear during the bioethics education
project, there is such a range of cultural, family
and school value systems across the world, thatstudents of one age in one country will most likely
be in different stages at different times, even if
all persons did follow this progression from stage
1 to stage 6 in moral reasoning, and not revert
back to other levels. Stage six would correspondto a person that followed the textbook bioethicsof Beauchamp and Childress (1995), or the longer
list of principles found in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UNESCO,2005). Macer (1998) has argued that bioethics islove of life, and that principalism based on following the standard ethical principles alone is not
sufficient as an explanation of why people behave
the way they do. The role of religious values isalso obviously important, as concepts like karma
and removal of oneself from the matters of theworld do affect the values systems people use
when approaching moral dilemmas.

bIOEtHIcaL MatUrItY
The goals are linked to the methods and criteriathat will be used to evaluate the materials andstudent responses, and evaluation is discussed
below. One concept that has been used by Maceris whether students demonstrate “bioethical maturity” in some way. “Bioethical maturity assumes
a certain level of recognition of weighing up the
different arguments that can be used to discuss
an issue, the different ethical frameworks thatcan be used, and comparisons and balancing of
the benefits and risks of the dilemmas” (Macer,2002). This process also gives an indication as tohow many different ideas people have, and theway they understand the dilemmas, and methods
to study this are developing in the behaviourome
project (Macer, 2002; 2004b). Prior to consideringother issues, setting the goals is central.
A detailed listing of goals that are common
between many educators is found in the Action
Plan for Bioethics Education developed at the 2006
UNESCO Asia-Pacific Conference on Bioethics
Education (RUSHSAP, 2006). There has beensignificant research that has shown that there are
a number of goals of ethics education including
those listed here:a.

b.

Knowledge
Development of trans-disciplinary content
knowledge
Understanding the advanced scientificconcepts
Being able to integrate the use of scientificknowledge, facts and ethical principles andargumentation in discussing cases involving
moral dilemmas;
Understanding the breadth of questions
that are posed by advanced science andtechnology
Understanding cultural values
Skills (capacity building in skill acquiring
should be multi faceted or many sided, andthe goals include)
Balancing benefits and risks of Science andTechnology
Being able to undertake a risk/benefit analysis

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Culturesc.

Develop critical thinking and decision making skills and reflective processes
Develop creative thinking skills
Develop foresight ability to evade possible
risks of science and technology
Skills for developing “informed choice”
The required skills to detect bias in scientificmethod, interpretation and presentation ofresearch results
Personal moral development
Understanding better the diversity of viewsof different persons
Increasing respect for all forms of life
Elicit a sense of moral obligation and values
including honesty and responsibility
Being able to take different viewpoints
to issues including both biocentric andecocentric worldviews rather than only
anthropocentric perspectives.
Increasing respect for different people andculture, and their values
Developing scientific attitudes, reflective
processes, and an ability for holistic appraisal, while not ignoring the value for
reductionist analysis.
Knowledge about bias in the interpretationand presentation of research results, benefits
and risks of technology and bioethical issues, and how to detect bias
Exploration of morals/values (values clarification)
Values analysis and value based utilizationof our scarce natural resources. (RUSHSAP,2006)

Many of these goals apply to ethics educationand (education) development of critical thinking
in general. Descriptive ethics is to describe theway people view life, their moral interactions
and responsibilities. If we attempt to understandthe way we as human beings think, then we must
look at the views of all in a society – not just anelite of the “philosophers” or “politicians”, to have
ethics for the people by the people. The evolution

0of considerations of ethics has witnessed increasing importance being place on descriptive ethics
approaches, as societies become more democratic.
As persons realize that ethical concepts haveancient roots in all cultures of the world, and thatmany persons have interesting views on the questions, the field has become richer, and there is still
a lot of human knowledge that can be applied toassist in discussing modern technology.
Interactive ethics is discussion and debate
between people about descriptive and prescriptive/normative ethics. Consensus is possible after
recognition of the relationships between different
persons, to try to preserve social harmony. Thisconsensus building is seen even in countries thathave structured paternalism affecting relationships between persons. Public discussion of the
ethics of science and technology in many societies
aided by the media. Participation of the public in
the societal decision-making process regarding
new technology is essential. Community engagement is not only a question of knowing what isgoing on, but for a new technology to be acceptedby the public, it is crucial to perceive the choice
and influence.
How can ethics be central in a dialogue between
common cultures of technophiles and technophobes? A persons’ ethic is developed based on
their own and other people’s opinions that grows
as we face various dilemmas through our life. To
have a balanced opinion from the community, it
is important to hear from persons in a range of
positions with different occupations. This common social goal has developed hand in hand withthe emergence of increased media attention inpluralistic democracies to display the divergent
views on science and technology.

EMPOWErING EDUcatOrs
The appropriate response to the call for ethics
education in science and technology, and to thecommon goals, demands education of teachers

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

to apply these culturally. There is a common
goal to develop the decision making ability at
all levels of society, to develop sound original
research appropriate to each culture, and enable
more informed policy-makers, so our society canevolve ethically with the demands of the times.
All sectors of society are faced with ethical issues
in the pursuit of their duties. Critical to building
the capacity of society for this open reflection on
bioethics are educators. The task of an educator
includes empowering their students/learners todevelop their maturity as individuals as well as
being able to be cooperative members of changing
societies. Learners, as we all should be, need to
be prepared so they are able to apply knowledge
to make good decisions during their life. How can
we train educators and sustain their motivation totake upon this task? How can we create communities that are able to consider all sides of ethicaldebates? Practicality is essential if teachers are
expected to continue teaching, and students willcontinue their interest in the matter.
The turbulent times of today have challenged
some of the traditional structures in the relationships between human beings within their society,with nature and God. How can we empower citizens to make a special contribution in the wider
context of constructing a mature society? Maturemeans a person, or a society that can balance thebenefits and risks of alternative options, and makewell-considered decisions, and talk about it. A
mature society is one that has developed someof the social and behavioural tools to balancethese bioethical principles, and apply them to
new situations raised by technology.
Despite a growing interest in education of
ethics, one of the major concerns that teachers
have is the lack of suitable teaching materials for
ethics education. Integration of scientific facts
is also important in moral reasoning. Scienceeducators discovered during the last few decadesthat the most efficient way to educate science isto discuss the science together with examples oftechnology and put the facts into the social con-text. The science, technology and society (STS)approach to education, was developed based on
research which found students learn more science
when the science is placed in its social context(Yager, 1990; Ramsey, 1993). Advances in biology
and medicine have led to another pressure upon
educators, namely how students can be preparedto face the ethical dilemmas that the technology
often raises. The ethical issues associated withbiology are generally grouped under the phrase“bioethics.”
Bioethics is one part of the approach of STS,and a survey of bioethics teaching is also one
method to measure the extent that society issues
are included (Macer et al., 1996; Macer, 1999).
In general there are less teachers using STS
approaches in Asia than in the USA (Kumano,
1991), and Australasia (Asada et al. 1996), but it
is growing still. Even within one country, such as
the USA, there are a diversity of views on how todeliver efficient education of social issues and eventhe science itself (Waks & Barchi, 1992). STS approaches are integrated into a broad participatory
paradigm of education across all subjects.
UNESCO is attempting to generate sustainable ethics teaching and promotion programmes,
supported by developing comprehensive databasesof experts, existing professional networks, international legal instruments, national legislation,
codes of ethics, institutions, and current teaching
curriculum and research activities in bioethics (tenHave, 2006). Networking partners in the development of ethics teaching in the region is ongoing,
and the UNESCO Asia-Pacific School of Ethics
was founded in 2006 to bring together many active
institutions and individuals who are collaborating to develop research on ethics of science andtechnologies from a wide range of cultures. Halfof the members are actively involved in bioethics
education, including ethics of science and technology, environmental ethics and medical ethics. The
assembly and maintenance of on-line free accessteaching resources, adaptations and translations
into different languages, and links to all regionalEducation of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

laws and guidelines related to professional ethics,
including environmental ethics, ethics of sustainable development, bioethics, science ethics andcyber ethics have been made at RUSHSAP. The
lessons learnt provide some key areas for future
attention and priority setting.
There have been different materials produced
for teaching ethics (Jarvis et al. 1998; Levinson
and Reiss, 2003). A growing compilation of open
access teaching materials in different languages
is available (Macer, 2004a; Macer, 2006). There
are a wide range of materials to teach ethics, anddiversity is to be applauded from a cultural perspective. Even before calls for inclusion of ethics
of science and technology made by UNESCO
Declarations, in a variety of textbooks in India
and Japan we can see numerous ethical issues
being included, however, there was little depth tothe materials (Bhardwaj and Macer, 1999). The
World Commission on the Ethics of Science andTechnology (COMEST) (2004) suggested that
there be some core essentials including making
students familiar with the structure of normativeargumentation, basic ethical norms and principles,
types of ethical theories, ethical issues arisingin different fields of science and technology,
and especially related to the expected professionof the students in the case they are pursuing aprofession such as engineering ethics (Chachra,2005), or medicine. It is also important to teachabout research ethics, and in some countries that iscompulsory for graduate students (Eisen & Parker,
2004), or for students using animals for example.
There are also a range of levels at which ethics canbe taught, with many countries requiring someethics in high school science classes. For example
already in 1993 it was found that ethics of science was being widely taught in science classes
in Australia, Japan and New Zealand (Asada etal. 1996; Macer et al. 1996), India (Pandian andMacer, 1998), and in 1997 in Singapore chemistry classes (Macer and Ong, 1999). Universities
are also introducing ethics subjects to varying
degrees, from general courses to specializedcourses (Zaikowshi & Garrett, 2004). COMEST(2004) recommended that all universities introduce ethics teaching as elementary ethics for all
students, advanced courses for specific subjects
in postgraduate education, and courses that leadto postgraduate degrees in ethics. In the future wewill also have consensus on the core values to be
included in courses for professional ethics.

PartIcIPatION
Moral dilemmas face every one of us. There
have been numerous books written to explain
moral theories and how these can be applied todilemmas we face in medicine, daily life and arange of professions (Scharf, 1978). Interactive
ethics classes with experts can be useful (Sass,
1999). Critical thinking capacity is essential for
empowering persons to cope with changing times.
Participation can promote the creation of ideas
and individuality, which we all need in the eraof globalization.
Bioethics is not about thinking that we canalways find one correct solution to ethical problems. A range of solutions to moral dilemmas
are often possible, although there are some inappropriate solutions to moral dilemmas, suchas to always believe you are right and others arealways wrong. Ethical principles and issues need
to be balanced. Many people already attempt todo so unconsciously. The balance varies more
between two persons within any one culture thanbetween any two.
We can often hear complaints from teachersthat there are too many students in a class so
there is no way to let the students talk. While
there are different ways to describe the participation of students, in a lecture for 800 students
compared to 32 or 10 students, class-size is not
an insurmountable barrier to participatory learning. In the case of large classes there are methods
that can be used to improve the participation of
students such as talking in pairs while sitting inEducation of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

the class, or working in small groups of threeor more persons to discuss particular questions
from the text.
While if everything is equal we would preferless students in a class, a student will probably
learn more in a class that has other students
than themselves. Interactive responses between
students and teachers are important in learning,for not only those asking questions but for all
those listening. Some moral exercises provide
an opportunity for each person to clarify theirthinking on the question being asked. At the endof the exercise the teacher can ask students how
their views have developed over the course of theexercise. They also will have been able to listen
to others’ views. There mare many interactive
discussion methods that can be used in classes
with many persons.
One participatory method that can be used
is to get students to stand in a line to form acontinuum line based on their view between
two extremes along a moral continuum. Aftersome students give their explanations for why
they are standing at that point in the line thenstudents may move to the appropriate point in
the moral continuum. Then after some time amodified question can be given and the students
asked to move along the continuum to their new
positions. This can include a transition from an
abstract question, such as whether they support
the use of reproductive human cloning, to a personal question, such as whether they would use
reproductive cloning if that was the only way forthem to have a genetically related child. The line
could be in a U shape or straight. The U shapeallows all students to see each other more easily(and listen to each other) in the case of a larger
number of students. A series of examples canalso be described on cards and these cards are
given to groups of students to discuss and sort
into a paper card continuum on their desk, andthen explain the rationale to others.
Student debates and presentation of reports canallow more in-depth analysis of issues by students,

whether as individuals or in small groups, andthen the debates can occur within the same class,between different classes, institutions or evencountries by the use of video conferencing.

EvaLUatION
Researchers and educators need to work together
to research into appropriate teaching methods fordifferent target groups, to assess the effectivenessand impact (both positive and negative) of ethics
education. Generating sustainable ethics teachingand promotion programmes is a method in itself,
required by education planners.
Developing evaluation methods for effectiveness of education of ethics of science and technology is urgently required in many dimensions suchas: knowledge, skills, and personal values. Thereis needs to be continued research into appropriate
assessment methods for the curriculum, as well
as research into assessment methods for student
learning outcomes, and research on assessmentof practices including student, professional andpublic attitude towards bioethical issues (Van
Rooy & Pollard, 2002ab). Evaluation should be
authentic, comparative and ongoing to give a
better estimate of the way bioethics is received
in each group. It is better to use essays and creative writing, or oral debate, as an examination
rather than multiple choice response questions
that merely test memory. Moral dilemmas also
often have more than one correct answer, making it difficult to judge one answer as correct andothers as incorrect.
For more than 60 years it has been recordedthat both quantitative and qualitative data areimportant in social science research, as was saidby Merton and Kendall (1946), “Social scientists
have come to abandon the spurious choice between
qualitative and quantitative data: they are concerned rather with the combination of both whichmakes use of the most valuable features of each.
The problem becomes one of the determining atEducation of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

which points they should adopt the one, and atwhich the other, approach”. Thus an appropriate
methodological tool should contain methods toutilize and assess both types of data.
One important goal of teaching about bioethical issues is to get students to critically evaluate
the issues (Conner, 2003). In a Mexican case(Rodriguez, 2005), bioethics classes were used
as a way to improve the general behaviour andstudy aptitude of students. Each institution is
likely to put a different amount of emphasis oneach goal. Also, different activities are likely toenable some goals to be met and not others (Macer,
2004c). Therefore we do not need to assess all
the institutional objectives when evaluating the
success of the trials. Instead, case studies of how
students and teachers responded were also sought
to give a wider descriptive account of various
approaches.
Kohlberg used moral dilemmas to determine
which stage of moral reasoning a person uses.
The dilemmas were short stories that describe
situations in which a person has to make a moral
decision, yet they provide no solution. The participant is asked what the right course of action
is, as well as an explanation why. This style isstill commonly used as case-based ethics teaching. There is a need to develop more cases for
dialogues between different cultures and casesin broader issues of technology ethics, althoughsome have been compiled.
A dilemma that Kohlberg used in his original
research was the druggist’s dilemma:

the money, but he could only get together about$ 1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the
druggist that his wife was dying and asked him tosell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist
said: “No, I discovered the drug and I’m goingto make money from it.” So Heinz got desperate
and broke into the man’s store to steal the drugfor his wife. (Kohlberg, 1969)

Heinz Steals the Drug in Europe. A woman wasnear death from a special kind of cancer. There
was one drug that the doctors thought might saveher. It was a form of radium that a druggist in thesame town had recently discovered. The drug was
expensive to make, but the druggist was charging
ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He
paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 fora small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow•Should Heinz break into the laboratory to steal
the drug for his wife? Why or why not?
Like many cases of bioethics, from a theoretical point of view, it is not important what theparticipant thinks that Heinz should do. The abovecase is quite relevant to global debates going on
regarding the interpretation of the Doha Declaration on the compulsory licensing of genericcopies of patented medicines, which raises conflicts between countries and the pharmaceuticalindustry. The point of interest is the justificationthat the participant offers. Below are examples ofpossible arguments that belong to the six stages. It
is important to keep in mind that these arguments
are only examples. It is possible that a participant
reaches a completely different conclusion using
the same stage of reasoning:
•

•

•

•

Stage one (obedience): Heinz should not steal
the medicine, because he will consequently
be put in prison.
Stage two (self-interest): Heinz should steal
the medicine, because he will be much happier if he saves his wife, even if he will haveto serve a prison sentence.
Stage three (conformity): Heinz should steal
the medicine, because his wife expects it.
Stage four (law-and-order): Heinz should
not steal the medicine, because the law
prohibits stealing.
Stage five (human rights): Heinz should
steal the medicine, because everyone has aright to live, regardless of the law. Or: Heinzshould not steal the medicine, because thescientist has a right to fair compensation.

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures•

Stage six (universal human ethics): Heinzshould steal the medicine, because saving ahuman life is a more fundamental value thanthe property rights of another person. Or:
Heinz should not steal the medicine, becausethat violates the golden rule of honesty andrespect.

One criticism of Kohlberg’s theory is that it
emphasizes justice to the exclusion of other values.
As a consequence of this, it may not adequately
address the arguments of people who value othermoral aspects of actions more highly. His theory
was the result of empirical research using only
male participants (aged 10, 13, and 16 in Chicago in the 1960s). Gilligan (1993) argued that
Kohlberg’s theory therefore did not adequately
describe the concerns of women. She developed
an alternative theory of moral reasoning that isbased on the value of care. Among studies of
ethics there is a tendency in some studies to findfemales have higher regard for ethics theories(Ford and Richardson, 1994). Gilligan’s theory
illustrates that theories on moral development do
not need to focus on the value of justice. Other
psychologists have challenged the assumptionthat moral action is primarily reached by formal
reasoning. People often make moral judgments
without weighing concerns such as fairness,law, human rights and abstract ethical values.
If this is true, the arguments that Kohlberg andother rationalist psychologists have analyzed areoften no more than post hoc rationalizations of
intuitive decisions. This would mean that moral
reasoning is less relevant to moral action than it
seems (Crain, 1985).
In current assessment of students there is atrend from merely making lists of many examples,or listing the positive and negative sides of anargument towards making students exhibit theirreasoning as well. One of the common goals ofschool education is that students can produce agood argument. Stephen Toulmin’s model has
become popular in development of students’argumentation skills (Toulmin et al. 1984). To
create an argument a person needs to state theirclaim, then support it with facts (data) that arearranged logically. For each fact, they should givethe evidence for the fact (warrant), and for eachwarrant, state the quality of its validity (backing).
Then for each warrant and its backing, people
should think of an opposing point of view (rebuttal). They then consider further possible warrants
and backing for the rebuttals. At the end then they
review, having argued the rebuttals, do they needto qualify their original claim?
The mental mapping project, or human behaviourome project (Macer, 1992) identified 9classes of ideas, and attempts to explain the linkages between ideas in the construction of moral
choices by different persons (Macer, 2002). The
practical applications of that model are yet to reacha stage at which teachers could simply assess themoral development of their students. The Ideas,
Evidence and Argument in Science Education(IDEAS) project of Osborne et al. in the UK[http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/education/ideas.
html], has as its goal the assistance of teachers
in developing their skills to teach about ideas,
evidence and argument in science. The materials they wish to develop include worksheets andvideo clips to enable teachers to teach children
to develop and evidence scientific argument. The
IDEAS project suggests the following criteria
can be used in evaluating students’ arguments.
Is there a claim? Does the argument have data to
support the claim? Does the argument link thedata to the claim? Are there further justifications
to support the case? Is there any anticipation of acounter argument and how it could be opposed?
Case studies have long been used in medical ethics teaching (Doyal et al., 1987).
Ratcliffe and Grace (2003) outline the knowledge, understanding and skills that students
studying ethical issues in science acquire and thatcan be used to design assessment questions. Theylisted several different levels of knowledge:Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

•

•

•

Conceptual knowledge: Learners can demonstrate understanding of: underpinningscience concepts and the nature of scientificendeavour; probability and risk; the scope of
the issue – personal, local, national, global,
political and societal context; and environmental sustainability.
Procedural knowledge: Learners can engage successfully in: processes of opinion
forming/decision making using a partial andpossibly biased information base; cost-benefit analysis; evidence evaluation including
media reporting; and ethical reasoning.
Attitudes and beliefs: Learners can: clarify
personal and societal values and ideas of
responsibility; and recognize how values
and beliefs are brought to bear, alongsideother factors, in considering socio-scientificissues.

There is a consensus among many Western
scholars that the balancing of four main bioethical principles, which are autonomy, justice,beneficence and non-maleficence, is central tomaking better decisions (Beauchamp and Childress, 1994). Autonomy includes ideas such as
respect for privacy, respect for personal choice.
Justice is to respect the autonomy of others, andto treat persons equally. Beneficence is to try to
do good, and non-maleficence is to avoid harm.
When solving or trying to reach a consensus aboutbioethical problems, these four main principles canbe a good guide in balancing which ideas should
be mostly weighed. One measure of bioethics
education could then be whether students are able
to use these principles in decision-making, which
was examined by presence of these keywords in
discourse (oral or written).
Reaching a good decision is often difficult,which also may not be the same if made in different times and situations. Another approachthat is common in education is to teach learners
to break down ethical dilemmas into manageable
problems, for example, the separation of action,

consequence and motives connected to a moral
decision. This separation is reflected on the different bioethical theories. Utilitarianism is an
example of a bioethical theory, which looks at
the consequences of an action, and is based on
the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill. This principle asserts that we ought always
to produce the maximal balance of happiness orpleasure over pain, or good over harm, or positive value over disvalue. Utilitarianism can bethen broken down into rule utilitarianism, and act
utilitarianism. “A rule utilitarian may use moral
rules as authoritative instrumental rules, so themorally right action is conformity to a system ofrules, and the criterion of the rightness of the ruleis the production of as much general happiness as
possible” (Macer, 1998a). Act utilitarians on theother hand, look at the particular act only, andobject to moral rules to be only an approximate
guides, which could be broken if maximal good
is not obtained. Another example of a bioethicaltheory is rights based theories of Immanuel Kant,
and human rights law (Beauchamp and Childress,
1994; Macer, 1998a). The use of utilitarian-style
logic and rights arguments were also examinedamong the discourse.

NEtWOrKING
The International Bioethics Education Network
was initiated in 2004, and the creation of networks
linking research into policy is a cornerstone ofefforts in all levels, from local to regional. List
serves function in English for educators and students, and persons from a wide range of countries
have tried these resources, and contributed to thisproject over the past years:••

Education listserve: <http://groups.yahoo.
com/group/Bioethicseducation/>
Student listserve: <http://groups.yahoo.
com/group/ Bioethics_for_students/>

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

Networking among teachers interested in
ethics of science and technology is essential for
improving the quality of the way that ethics istaught, and also strengthening the motivation ofteachers who are still often isolated. There aremany teachers who will teach ethics of science atearly levels, and successful methods for 12 year
olds have also been described (Macer at el., 1997).
There are considerable challenges in teachingeven topics with a long tradition of debate suchas the ethics of biotechnology (Hendrix, 1993;
Lock and Miles, 1993; Bryce, 2004).

FUtUrE NEEDs
In the future the use of principles as expressed in
the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics
and Human Rights (2005) will also be analyzed tobroaden the description of bioethical reasoning.
There will also be identification of other goals
from not only modern Western society but othervalue traditions. As with the above examples ofquestions that Kohlberg used for the linkage ofstudent arguments to moral stages of development, there are a number of ways that could be
developed into evaluation tools for assessmentof bioethics education. We need to repeatedly
examine criteria that could be used to measure thesuccess of education of ethics, and the effectiveness of different forms of education for making
mature citizens.
There needs to be extension of the evaluation methods and tools to look for presence ofother concepts such as virtue ethics for example.
Classroom observations, audio and video taperecordings, and written essays and homework
done by the students can all be collected, but
new methods for discourse analysis need to beresearched. Text analysis of the reports for keywords was undertaken, extending categorization
methods that have been developed (Maekawa &Macer, 2005). This feedback should be used tocontinually modify the texts and accompanying

questions and materials for teachers. Anotherway to assess the usefulness of the materials fordeveloping ethical principles in making ethicaldecisions was to look for key words and concepts
in the answers students give to oral questions.
Knowledge that educators want to impart
includes knowledge of the science/technology
content, knowledge of reflective processes (individual views), exploration of morals/values(values clarification), knowledge about bias andhow to detect it (values analysis), knowledge about
political agendas, for example (Conner, 2004).
Recently, Sadler and Zeidler (2005) showed thattertiary students frequently relied on combinationsof rationalistic, emotive and intuitive knowledge
as they worked to resolve scenarios about genetic
engineering. Persons at all levels do mix ideas
in different ways (Macer, 2002) and this wasshown in the evaluation report that is an outputof this project.
Evaluation must be done ethically (Alderson &Morrow, 2003), and there are a variety of methods
in research which can be applied for evaluation
depending on the style of class and purpose (Cohenet al., 2003). It is very important to examine thefuture direction of bioethics education and how
this might enable people to question scientificendeavours and what impact their moral decisions will have on them as individuals and upon
their societies. The skills that are required to do
this involve the ability to identify existing ideas
and beliefs, listen to others, be aware of multiple
perspectives, find out relevant information andcommunicate the findings to others. These skills
cannot be ‘given’ to students through a didactic
approach to teaching, where the teacher imparts
the knowledge. Instead, students need to experience situations that will allow them to developthese skills through interacting with the teacher
and with each other. This project allows sharingof cases and experience in a range of cultures
as well.
When bioethics is applied to professional
behaviour, such as in medical ethics, methods

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

to evaluate have included the way students
conduct a patient examination (http://wings.buffalo.edu/faculty/research/bioethics/eval.html).
In Buffalo University Bioethics program (Singer
et al., 1993), they applied the technology of theobjective structured clinical examination (OSCE)(Cohen et al., 1991) using standardized patients tothe evaluation of bioethics. Methods to evaluate
the clinical-ethical abilities of medical students,
post-graduate trainees, and practising physiciansthat have been used include multiple-choice andtrue/false questions (Howe and Jones, 1984), casewrite-ups (Siegler et al, 1982; Doyal et al., 1987;
Redmon, 1989; Hebert et al., 1990), audio-taped
interviews with standardized patients (Miles etal., 1990), and instruments based on Kohlberg’s
cognitive moral development theory (Self et al.,1989). Pre and post teaching interventions arealso a method that can be used (Oka & Macer,
2000). These can be applied to other professional
ethics and research ethics guidelines. There canbe monitoring of the behaviour of scientists who
have completed courses, and examination of casesof misconduct to assess whether the persons felt
they lacked some ethics education.
The reliability and validity of evaluation methods have seldom been examined, and research into
these elements also must be developed. Auvinen
et al. (2004) applied the use of Kohlberg’s stagesof moral development to assess ethics teachingin nursing students in Finland, and they foundsignificantly higher ethical maturity when nurses
actually had to deal with ethical dilemmas in theirpractical training in clinics.

cONcLUsION
There are a range of goals of ethics education for
science and technology. The goals of ethics range
from increasing respect for life; balancing benefits
and risks of science and technology; understanding better the diversity of views of different
persons; understanding the breadth of questions

that are posed by advanced science and technology; being able to integrate the use of scientificfacts and ethical principles and argumentation in
discussing cases involving moral dilemmas; andbeing able to take different viewpoints such as
biocentric and ecocentric perspectives. We do notneed to achieve all goals to consider a class to be
successful, and different persons, professions andcommunities put a different amount of emphasison each goal.
It is important at all levels we need to research
how to evaluate whether the teaching is having
any impact or not. Because investigating ethicalissues is complex, the educators need to consider
what knowledge needs to be developed in orderfor students to make sense of moral issues, tobe able to critically evaluate them and to takemore ethical action based on this knowledge.
In experience with trying to get evaluation andfeedback however, despite positive comments thatteachers may provide in person, very few evaluation reports from student and teacher feedback
are returned (Macer, 2006). There is still a needfor analysis of reports and discourse in order togain a greater impression of how student values
changed, and a suggested coding frame is made.
It can be extended case-by-case to add new keywords and concepts which are important for the
specific research goals of the evaluation, as wellas topic-specific goals.
Pre and post questionnaire surveys about specific topics relating to the content of the lectureor teaching intervention (Maekawa and Macer,2004) can be useful to measure change, however,report and discourse analysis may provide a morereliable judgment because the object is to see theuse of ethical principles and moral reasoning
all the time, and not just being written for tests
by students. There are several different ways toassess learning in bioethics. There need to be assessment methods to map to the different goals. A
mix of qualitative and quantitative methodology
can help in the monitoring of ethical maturity,and qualitative discourse analysis will assist this(Dawson and Taylor, 1997).

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

The Action Plan for Bioethics Education developed in 2006 in Asia and Pacific (RUSHSAP,
2006) addressed recommendations to educators,
researchers, universities and government. Thereis room at all levels to develop a practical climate
for greater education of the ethics of science andtechnology. In conclusion we can say that despite
the overwhelming consensus that education of
professional ethics is essential, we still have a long
way to go to being confident that ethics educationachieves the goals it is conducted for, and more
research and trials are necessary in every culture
and field of science and technology.

rEFErENcEs
Alderson, P. & Morrow, V. (2004) Ethics, social
research and consulting with children and young
people. London: Barnardo’s.
Asada, Y., Akiyama, S., Tsuzuki, M., Macer, N.
Y. & Macer, D. R. J. (1996). High school teachingof bioethics in New Zealand, Australia, and Japan.
Journal of Moral Education, 25, 401-420.
Auvinen, J. et al. (2004). The development of moral
judgment during nursing education in Finland.
Nurse Education Today, 24, 538-46.
Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics. Fourth Edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bhardwaj, M. & Macer, D. (1999). A comparisonof bioethics in school textbooks in India andJapan. Eubios Journal of Asian & International
Bioethics, 9, 56-9.
Bryce, T. (2004). Tough acts to follow: the challenges to science teachers presented by biotechnological progress. Int. J. Science Education,
26, 717-733.
Chachra, D. (2005). Beyond course-based engineering ethics instruction: Commentary on “Top-ics and cases for online education in engineering”.
Science & Engineering Ethics, 11(3), 459-62.
Cohen, L., Manion L. & Morrison K. (2003). Research methods in education. 5th Edition. London:
Routledge Falmer.
Cohen, R., Singer P. A., Rothman A. I., & Robb,
A. (1991). Assessing competency to address
ethical issues in medicine. Academic Medicine,66, 14-5.
COMEST (The World Commission on the Ethics
of Scientific Knowledge and Technology). (2004).
The teaching of ethics. Paris: UNESCO.
Conner, L. (2003). The importance of developing
critical thinking in issues education. New Zealand
Biotechnology Association Journal, 56, 58-71.
Conner, L. (2004). Assessing learning about social and ethical issues in a biology class. School
Science Review, 86(315), 45-51.
Crain, W.C. (1985). Theories of development.
New York: Prentice-Hall.
Dawson, V. & Taylor, P. (1997). The inclusionof bioethics education in biotechnology courses.
Eubios Journal of Asian & International Bioethics, 7(6), 171-175.
Doyal, L., Hurwitz, B., Yudkin, J. S. (1987).
Teaching medical ethics symposium: Medical
ethics and the clinical curriculum: A case study.
Journal of Medical Ethics, 13, 144-149.
Eisen, A. & Parker, K.P. (2004). A model forteaching research ethics. Science & Engineering
Ethics, 10(4), 693-704.
Ford, R. C. & Richardson, W. D. (1994). Ethicaldecision making: A review of the empirical literature. J. Business Ethics, 13, 205-21.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

Hebert, P., Meslin, E. M., Dunn, E. V., Byrne, N.,
Reid, S.R. (1990). Evaluating ethical sensitivity
in medical students: Using vignettes as an instrument. J. Medical Ethics, 16, 141-145.
Hendrix, J. R. (1993). The continuum: A teachingstrategy for science and society issues. American
Biology Teacher, 55, 178-81.
Jamieson, D. (1995). Teaching ethics in scienceand engineering: Animals in research. Science& Engineering Ethics, 1, 185-6.
Jarvis, S., Hickford, J. & Conner, L. (1998).
Biodecisions. Lincoln: Crop & Food ResearchInstitute.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: thecognitive-developmental approach to socialization. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
Kumano, Y. (1991). Why does Japan need STS: A
comparative study of secondary science education
between Japan and the U.S. focusing on an STS
approach. Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc., 11, 322-30.
Levinson, R. & Reiss M. J. (eds). (2003). Key issues in bioethics: A guide for teachers. London:
Routledge-Falmer.
Lock, R. & Miles, C. (1993). Biotechnology andgenetic engineering: students’ knowledge andattitudes. J. Biological Education, 27, 267-72.
Macer, D. R. J. (1994) Bioethics for the people
by the people. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.
Macer, D. R. J., Asada, Y., Tsuzuki, M., Akiyama,S., & Macer, N. Y. (1996). Bioethics in highschools in Australia, New Zealand and Japan.
Christchurch: Eubios Ethics Institute.
Macer, D., Obata, H., Levitt, M., Bezar, H. &Daniels, K. (1997). Biotechnology and young
citizens: Biocult in New Zealand and Japan. Eubios Journal of Asian & International Bioethics,
7, 111-114.

00

Macer, D. R. J. (1998). Bioethics is love of life:
An alternative textbook. Christchurch: Eubios
Ethics Institute.
Macer, D. & Ong, C.C. (1999). Bioethics education
among Singapore high school science teachers.
Eubios Journal of Asian & International Bioethics, 9, 138-144
Macer, D. R. J. (2002). The next challenge is to
map the human mind. Nature, 420, 121.
Macer, D. R. J., ed., (2004a). Bioethics for informed
citizens across cultures. Christchurch: Eubios
Ethics Institute.
Macer, D. R. J., ed. (2004b). Challenges for bioethics from Asia. Christchurch: Eubios Ethics
Institute.
Macer, D. R. J. (2004c) Bioethics education for
informed citizens across cultures. School Science
Review, 86(315), 83-86.
Macer, D. R. J., ed. (2006). A cross-cultural
introduction to bioethics. Christchurch: Eubios
Ethics Institute. Retrieved from http://eubios.
info/ccib.htm, http://www.unescobkk.org/index.
php?id=2508
Maekawa, F. & Macer, D. R. J. (2005). How
Japanese students reason about agricultural
biotechnology. Science & Engineering Ethics,
10(4) 705-716.
Merton, R. K. & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focusedinterview. American J. Sociology, 51, 541-7.
Miles, S. H., Bannick-Mohrland, S. & Lurie, N.
(1990). Advance-treatment planning discussions
with nursing home residents: Pilot experience
with simulated interviews. Journal of Clinical
Ethics, 2, 108-112.
Oka, T. & Macer, D. R. J. (2000). Change in highschool student attitudes to biotechnology in response to teaching materials. Eubios Journal of
Asian & International Bioethics, 106, 174-9.

Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

Pandian, C. & Macer, D. R. J. (1998). An investigation in Tamil Nadu with comparisons toAustralia, Japan and New Zealand. In AzariahJ., Azariah H., & Macer D.R.J. (Eds.), Bioethics
in India (pp. 390-400). Christchurch: Eubios
Ethics Institute.
Ramsey, J. (1993). The science education reformmovement: Implications for social responsibility.
Science Education, 77, 235-58.
Ratcliffe, M. & Grace, M. (2003) Science forcitizenship: Teaching socio-scientific issues.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Reiss, M.J. (1999). Teaching ethics in science.
Studies in Science Education, 34, 115-140.
RUSHSAP (Regional Unit for Social & Human
Sciences in Asia & the Pacific, UNESCO). (2006).
Action Plan for Bioethics Education. Developed
at the 2006 UNESCO Asia-Pacific Conference
on Bioethics Education. Found at http://www.
unescobkk.org/index.php?id=apse
Rest, J. R. (1986). Moral development: Advancesin research and theory. New York: Praeger.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patternsof informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching, 42(1), 112-138.
Sass, H. M. (1999). Educating and sensitizing
health professionals on human rights and ethical considerations: The interactive role of ethics
and expertise. International J. Bioethics, 10(3),69-81.
Self, D., Wolkinsky, F.D. & Baldwin, D.C. (1989).
The effect of teaching medical ethics on medical
students’ moral reasoning. Academic Medicine,64, 755-9.
Scharf, P. (1978). Moral education. Davis, CA:
Responsible Action.
Siegler, M., Rezler, A. G., & Connell K. J. (1982).
Using simulated case studies to evaluate a clini-

cal ethics course for junior students. Journal of
Medical Education, 57, 380-385.
Singer, P. A., Cohen, R., Robb, A., & Rothman,
A. I. (1993). The ethics objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). J Gen Intern Med, 8,
23-8.
Ten Have, H. (2006). The activities of UNESCO
in the area of ethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics
Journal, 16(4), 333-352.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1984). An
introduction to reasoning (Second edition). New
York: Macmillan.
UNESCO (1997). Universal Declaration on theProtection of the Human Genome and Human
Rights. UNESCO.
UNESCO (2005) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO.
UNESCO. Ethics home page. http://www.unesco.
org/ethics
Van Rooy, W. & Pollard, I. (2002a). Teaching andlearning about bioscience ethics with undergraduates. Education & Health, 15(3), 381-385.
Van Rooy, W. & Pollard, I. (2002b). Stories fromthe bioscience ethics classroom: Exploring undergraduate students’ perceptions of their learning.
Eubios Journal of Asian & International Bioethics, 12, 26-30.
Waks, L. J. & Barchi, B. A. (1992). STS in U.S.
school science: Perceptions of selected leaders
and their implications for STS education. Science
Education, 76, 79-90.
Yager, R. (1990). Science/technology/society
movement in the United States: Its origin,evolution, and rationale. Social Education, 54,
198-201.
Zaikowshi, L. A. & Garrett, J. M. (2004). A
three-tiered approach to enhance undergraduate
education in bioethics. BioScience, 54, 942-9.

0Education of Ethics of Science and Technology Across Cultures

KEY tErMs
Bioethics: This is a field concerned withethical implications within medicine and medical research.
Education: This describes the process andact of acquiring knowledge.
Ethics of Science and Technology: This isa field concerned with ethical study of scienceand technology.
Evaluation: This is a set of procedures
designed to measure or account for changes inlearning or performance.

0

Medical Ethics: This is a field of applied
ethics concerned with moral and ethical values
in medicine.
Moral Development: This concerns changes
in individual values that occur during development.
UNESCO: UNESCO is a specialised technicalintergovernmental agency of the United Nations,focusing on promotion of education, culture,social and natural sciences, and communicationand information.