From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy: YoungPeople’s Understandings of Gene Technology, 15 Yearson

Jenny Lewis

Published online: 4 August 2012� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Abstract This paper explores knowledge and understanding of basic genetics and gene

technologies in school students who have been taught to a ‘science for all’ National Cur-

riculum and compares 482 students in 1995 (gene technology was a new and rapidly

developing area of science with potential to impact on everyday life; the first cohort of

students had been taught to the National Curriculum for Science) with 154 students in 2011

(genomics had replaced gene technology as a rapidly developing area of science with

potential to impact on everyday life; science as a core subject within the National Curriculum

was well established). These studies used the same questions, with the same age group

(14–16) across the same (full) ability range; in addition the 2011 sample were asked about

stem cells, stem cell technology and epigenetics. Students in 2011 showed: better knowledge

of basic genetics but continuing difficulty in developing coherent explanatory frameworks; a

good understanding of the nature of stem cells but no understanding of the process by which

such cells become specialised; better understanding of different genetic technologies but also

a wider range of misunderstandings and confusions (both between different genetic tech-

nologies and with other biological processes); continuing difficulty in evaluating potential

veracity of short ‘news’ items but greater awareness of ethical issues and the range of factors

(including knowledge of genetics) which could be drawn on when justifying a view or coming

to a decision. Implications for a ‘science for all’ curriculum are considered.

1 Background

With the introduction of the National Curriculum for England in 1989 science, for the first

time, became a compulsory part of the curriculum for all school students up to the age of 16.

The main justification for this was a perceived need to increase scientific literacy within the

general population (NCC 1993). What might be meant by ‘scientific literacy’, why it might

be desirable, whether it was possible or appropriate to try to achieve it through a school

J. Lewis (&)Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, ECS level 10, University of Leeds, LeedsLS2 9JT, UKe-mail: j.m.lewis@education.leeds.ac.uk

123

Sci & Educ (2014) 23:361–379DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9523-z

curriculum and if so how best to achieve it were all contentious issues (Millar 1996; Driver

et al. 1996; Lambert and Rose 1996; Marteau and Richards 1995; Layton et al. 1993;

Rutherford and Ahlgren 1990; Royal Society 1985). One of the few things on which people

seemed to agree was that, as a result of rapid advances in DNA technology, young people

might face choices and decisions about issues related to these technologies in their adult life.

If we wanted to explore the impact of this new science curriculum on the scientific literacy of

young people then their understandings of DNA technology as they came to the end of their

compulsory science education would be a good indicator. How well equipped were they for

engagement with issues that DNA technology might give rise to? A survey of 14–16 year olds

in 1995 aimed to provide a snapshot of this and focussed on the following questions:

• What knowledge and understandings did they have of basic genetics?

• What knowledge and understandings did they have of DNA technologies?

• Did this knowledge and understanding influence their attitudes to different uses of

DNA technology and/or their capacity for reasoned discussion of relevant social and

ethical issues?

Details of this study are summarised in Wood-Robinson et al. (1996).

In the intervening years, rapid advances in the field of genetics and DNA technology

have continued and the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought a revolution

in our understanding of genetics—it is now recognised that gene expression is a complex,

multi-factorial, process and that single gene characteristics are a rarity. This new under-

standing changes, in very fundamental ways, the nature and complexity of genetics related

issues which people may need to engage within their everyday lives. At the same time the

National Curriculum for Science has gone through many changes. In the early years there

was extensive prescription of science content, with minimal reference to the nature of

science or science in society and no expectation that ‘ideas about science’ would be

included in national tests and exams (DES 1991). The most recent version (QA 2007a, b) is

a more flexible curriculum in which ‘how science works’ is integrated into content and

embedded in examination questions.

Given all these changes have there been any corresponding changes in school students’

knowledge and understandings of genetics and gene technology, or their ability to engage

with related social and ethical issues, as they come to the end of their compulsory education?

In 2011 this was explored through a new study of school students aged 14–16 which used the

original questions and tasks, expanded to include some coverage of recent developments.

This paper reports data from both the 1995 and 2011 studies and addresses two questions:

• What knowledge and understandings of basic genetics and gene technologies do school

students have in 2011?

• How does this compare with that of school students in the 1995 sample?

It also considers implications for the development of a school curriculum which can

prepare young people for engagement with genomics and related issues in their adult lives.

2 Methodology

2.1 The Two Samples

The intention of the original (1994–1996) study was to provide a ‘snapshot’ of the 1995

cohort of school students. To make this snapshot as representative as possible a sample of

362 J. Lewis

123

more than 700 school students aged 14–16 was drawn from 12 schools (purposely sampled

to maximise diversity). Within each school the students from three classes, selected by

teachers to represent the range of ability and achievement within the school, participated.

All of these students had completed the main genetics component of their course (for full

details of coverage see Lewis and Wood-Robinson 2000). The design of the 1995 study

was complex:

• knowledge and understanding of basic genetics was explored through a combination of

closed and open written questions answered individually and small group discussion

tasks;

• knowledge and understanding of DNA technology was explored using closed and open

written questions answered individually, closed and open written questions answered

after discussion with a partner and some small group discussion tasks;

• engagement with, and attitudes to, issues relating to the use of gene technology were

mostly explored through closed and open written questions answered after discussion

with a partner and small group discussion tasks facilitated by interviewers who

encouraged students to articulate their thinking.

Details of the written questions can be found in Lewis et al. (1997a); details of the

discussion tasks can be found in Leach et al. (1996), Lewis et al. (1997b) and Wood-

Robinson et al. (2000). The sample was stratified across the three different foci and 482

students from the 1995 survey were asked to respond to the questions which were also used

in the 2011 study and which are reported in this paper; these related to knowledge and

understanding of genetics and knowledge and understanding of gene technology.

The 2011 sample of 154 students aged 14–16 was drawn from seven classes with seven

different teachers across three schools. The schools represented urban, suburban and semi-

rural catchment areas and each was asked to select three classes which had been taught the

genetics component of their exam syllabus and represented the full range of ability and

achievement within the school. For reasons linked mostly to timetabling and assessment

pressures only one school was able to offer all three classes; the second offered a high and

a middle achieving group, the third offered a high and a low achieving group. Details of the

two samples are presented in Table 1. For an explanation of the exam options and a

consideration of the changing relationship between curriculum and assessment see the

discussion section.

All students participating in these studies were told about the research projects and their

purposes (in particular that our interest was in students’ ideas and understandings, not their

ability to get the right answer), assured that their responses would be confidential, assured

that any comparisons would be made at the ‘population’ level only (not at the individual,

class or school level) and given time at the end of data collection to ask any questions that

they wanted.

2.2 Data Collection

Data collection was based on written questions in which self reported knowledge claims

based on closed response questions were explored further through open ended follow up

questions. The questions focussed on: knowledge and understanding of basic genetic terms;

knowledge and understanding of gene technologies; awareness and understanding of how

gene technologies can be used—potential, limitations and factors which might influence

this. Each set of questions was drawn from the original (1994–1996) study with extensions,

using a similar format, to probe the students knowledge of more recent developments.

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 363

123

These new questions focussed on stem cells and stem cell technology as this topic was

already embedded within exam syllabuses for this age group. The content and format of the

questions is summarised below (extension questions are in italics). Because these questions

were designed to probe what an individual knows, understands or believes students were

asked to complete them individually, without discussion with peers. Data were collected by

the researcher, working directly with the students; their written responses were not shared

with their class teacher.

2.2.1 Genetic Terminology

Students were asked if they had heard of the following terms and to tick one response (yes,

no or maybe) for each term: gene, DNA, allele, genetic information, the genetic code, stem

cell, epigenetics.

For each term they had heard of they were asked to answer follow up questions, in their

own words:

• ‘How would you describe … (genes, DNA, alleles) …?’

• ‘What are stem cells?’

• ‘Why are … (genes, DNA, alleles, stem cells) … important?’

• ‘What is meant by ‘The Genetic code’?’

• ‘What does ‘epigenetic’ mean?’

2.2.2 Genetic Technologies

Students were asked if they had heard of the following techniques and again asked to tick

one response (yes, no or maybe) for each technique: genetic engineering, cloning, DNA

testing, stem cell therapy.

For each technique they had heard of they were asked to complete follow up statements

in their own words:

• ‘I heard about … genetic engineering, cloning, DNA testing, stem cell therapy… in/

on:’

• ‘I think that … genetic engineering, cloning, DNA testing, stem cell therapy… means:’

• ‘An example of … genetic engineering, cloning, DNA testing, stem cell therapy…would be:’

Table 1 The two samples

The sample Number ofschool students

Number ofschools

Number of classes Exam options

1995 482 8 8 9 high achievers8 9 middle ability8 9 low achievers

24 9 dual award

2011 154 3 3 9 high achievers2 9 middle ability2 9 low achievers

3 9 triple award2 9 dual award (additional)1 9 dual award (applied)1 9 Nationals

364 J. Lewis

123

These examples were chosen as they have been explicitly included in different versions of

the National Curriculum for Science and/or various exam syllabuses. To pick up on any

additional knowledge which the 2011 students might have they were also asked:

• ‘Have you heard of any other genetic techniques?’ (tick: yes/no); ‘If so, please list

these…..’;

• ‘Have you heard of the Human Genome Project?’; ‘If so where did you hear about

it…?’ and ‘What do you know about it…?’.

2.2.3 Possibilities and Limitations of Gene Technology

The ability to read, evaluate and respond to popular news items about scientific devel-

opments might reasonably be included in any definition of scientific literacy. In addition,

preliminary work for the 1994/6 study made explicit the importance of context when

asking for opinions or views (Lewis and Leach 2006). The students’ views on what is, and

what is not, possible were explored through ‘stop press’ scenarios (renamed ‘News Flash’

to update them a little for the 2011 sample) which described, as if fact, different ways in

which gene technology might be used. Two scenarios were drawn from the original study

(Figs. 1 and 2); a third (Fig. 3) was developed specifically for the 2011 study. These

scenarios described one use which would be impossible to achieve (‘And You Thought It

Was All In Your Jeans’), one which was already in use (‘Milk—the new wonder drug’) and

one which was potentially possible but not generally accepted or in use (‘New Brains for

Old’ replacing the original, ‘Flavr Savr’ scenario).

Similar questions were asked about each scenario:

• Do you think this is a true report? (tick one response; yes or no).

• If ‘yes’, complete the statement: ‘I think this is a true report because: ‘

• If ‘no’, tick one response from the following options: it is possible but not being done;

it will be possible soon; it might be possible some time; it is impossible) and give your

reasons for thinking this (‘because…’.)

2.3 Data Analysis

The main interest was in knowledge and common understandings within the populations as

a whole and whether this had changed in our new genomic era rather than the way

individual students made sense of gene technology across a range of contexts.

Fig. 1 News flash 1

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 365

123

Consequently data analysis was at the level of the whole sample rather than individual

schools, classes or students and was quantitative as well as qualitative.

2.3.1 Approach

The number of students responding to each part of each question was recorded.

Tick responses to each of the closed questions were counted and the frequency of each

response was recorded.

An ideographic coding scheme characterising the range of responses at the population

level was developed for each open question through an iterative process based on analysis

of individual student responses. All student responses were then coded using these schemes

and the frequency of particular responses determined. Coding schemes produced for the

original study and validated at that time through discussion between researchers were used

to code the 2011 data; where new categories emerged from the 2011 data these were added

into the existing coding schemes. The resulting frequencies were then used to:

• characterise the knowledge and understanding of gene technologies within each

population;

Fig. 2 News flash 2

Fig. 3 News flash 3

366 J. Lewis

123

• compare and contrast knowledge and understanding of gene technologies between the

two populations.

Where appropriate, differences (either within or between populations) were tested for

significance using Chi-square with a p value \ 0.05.

The categories used in the coding schemes were overlapping in so far as an individual

response might relate to more than one category and for this reason the frequency of

responses sometimes add up to more than 100 %. For example, in responding to open

questions about ‘genes’ one individual might refer to location, structure and function (in

which case their response would be registered in three different coding category) while

another might refer only to function (so their response would only be recorded in one

coding category).

3 Outcomes

Across both samples students were usually able to answer the fixed response questions but

were not always able to expand on these by giving a response to the open questions. For

this reason, the percentage who gave an open response are reported for each data set.

3.1 Knowledge and Understanding of Terminology

The number of responses to this set of questions were: 477 (1995); 152 (2011).

Responses to the question ‘have you heard of…’, for both years, are summarised in

Fig. 4. The 2011 cohort appear to be generally more aware of this terminology and the

increase in the proportion who had heard of ‘Genetic Code’ and ‘DNA’ is statistically

significant.

The percentage who went on to say something about each term is shown in Table 2. In

general the 2011 cohort appear to be more willing to say something about each term.

Understanding of this terminology is summarised in Table 3 (frequencies are given as a

percentage of those who gave some kind of open response to each term). The number of

responses to open questions about alleles and the genetic code increased substantially

between 1995 and 2011 but were still low when compared with response rates for other

Fig. 4 Percentage reporting they had heard of each term

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 367

123

open questions (alleles: 12 % of whole sample in 1995, 22 % in 2011; the genetic code:

36 % of the whole sample in 1995; 51 % in 2011).

The majority of the 2011 cohort had heard of stems cells and most of these were able to

give a description of stem cells which was compatible with the science but there was no

reference to the process by which such cells became specialised.

Only two people responded to the open question about epigenetics. One described it as

‘the ultimate gene’ the other as ‘something that tampers with or alters the way genes are

processed’.

Table 2 The proportion of those saying something about each term, as a percentage of those who had heardof each term

Gene DNA Allele Stem cell Genetic info Genetic code Epigenetics

1995 83.6 67.1 32.4 N/A 68.1 89.5 N/A

2011 98.6 93.3 52.4 73.2 N/A 90.7 100

Table 3 Understandings of the terminology

Term Category Frequency of response as a% of the open responses

1995 2011

Genes Determining characteristics 59 88

Carrying/passing on information 15 35

Instructions for making enzymes or proteins 0 8

Made up of genetic material/DNA 17 17

Made up of other cell structures e.g.chromosomes or nucleus

34 6

Only found in specific regions of the body e.g.reproductive system

20 \1

Important for control 3 3

DNA Defines living things 30 78

Provides information/instructions (general) 14 18

Provides instructions to make proteins 0 4

Found in specific cells/tissues e.g. blood 19 8

Anthropocentric: provide useful informatione.g. genetic fingerprinting

6 16

Made up of bases 0 2

Alleles Determine characteristics (general) 5 9

Refers to variations of a gene and gene expression 0 19

Stem cell An unspecialised cell N/A 18

Which can develop into any type of cell N/A 49

Refer to our use of stem cells to treat disease N/A 48

Genetic code (unique) information within a person 12 27

The structure or organisation of DNA (general) 10 14

Refer to bases 0 33

Refer to patterns or combinations of bases 0 3

368 J. Lewis

123

3.2 Knowledge and Understanding of Gene Technologies

The number of responses to this set of questions were: 481(1995); 152 (2011).

Responses to the question ‘have you heard of…’, for both years, are summarised in

Fig. 5a. While there is a large and statistically significant increase in the percentage of

students who say they have heard of cloning there is also a statistically significant decrease

in the percentage of those who say they have heard of DNA testing. 32 % of the 2011

cohort said they had heard of other techniques. The production of tissue cultures (11 % of

sample) was listed most frequently, followed by asexual reproduction of some form (9 %).

Gene modification, test tube babies, DNA fingerprinting and embryo screening were also

mentioned.

Responses to the question ‘where did you hear about…’, for both years, are summarised

in Fig. 5b–d (note: the three figures use different scales). The number of students in the

1995 cohort who claimed to have heard about gene technologies in the media was much

higher than the number who claimed to have heard about them at school—despite the

inclusion of genetic engineering and cloning in the school curriculum (DES 1991). Of

those who were explicit about the media source the majority referred to fiction (78 ref-

erences, mostly to science fiction, compared with 32 references to factual programmes or

articles). In contrast, the 2011 cohort were far more likely to have heard about the different

technologies at school. These differences between the two cohorts were statistically

significant.

The proportion of those saying something about each technique, as a percentage of

those who had heard of each technique is shown in Table 4. For DNA Testing and Stem

Cell Therapy in particular, the open questions seemed to stimulate their thinking, so that

more students answered the open questions than said they had heard of the technique.

Understanding of these techniques is summarised in Table 5 (frequencies are given as a

percentage of those who gave some kind of open response to each term). The 2011 sample

were much more likely to confuse genetic engineering with a range of other techniques

such as selective breeding, cloning, in vitro fertilisation and sperm donning and to confuse

DNA testing with genetic engineering or actual fingerprinting. Only 5 % of the 2011

sample reported having heard of the Human Genome Project and the few who went on to

give any explanation referred (in very general terms) to its importance in medicine and in

helping us to learn more about the human body: ‘When scientists map out the entire human

genome for medical use and to know more about the human body’.

3.3 Possibilities and Limitations of Gene Technology

The number of students giving a tick response for each ‘News Flash’ and the number of

these who went on to give their reasons are shown in Table 6.

Responses to ‘Do you think this report is true?’ are summarised for each of the three

‘News Flash’ scenarios in Fig. 6a–c. Students were given 5 options (1 = this is true; 2 = it

is possible but not being done; 3 = it will be possible soon; 4 = it might be possible some

time; 5 = it is impossible) and asked to select just one. Those that gave no tick response

but chose to give an open response were classified as ‘not sure’. There was a statistically

significant difference in the distribution of responses across these categories for two of the

‘News Flash’ reports: ‘…. All In Your Jeans’ and ‘Milk—the new wonder drug’. In

particular, in response to ‘…. All In Your Jeans’ the 2011 cohort showed a large increase in

those thinking that it was possible but not being done and a decrease in those thinking that

it wasn’t possible yet but would be sometime soon; in response to ‘Milk—the new wonder

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 369

123

drug’ the 2011 cohort showed a decrease in those who were not sure and a large increase in

those thinking it might be possible at some time. The implications—that they are more

aware of what is/might be possible but also more aware of potential restrictions—are

supported by analysis of their justifications.

a

b

c

d

Fig. 5 a Percentage reportingthey had heard of each technique.b Percentage reporting they hadheard of the technique in inschool. c Percentage reportingthey had heard of the techniquein the media. d Percentagereporting they had heard of thetechnique elsewhere

370 J. Lewis

123

Table 4 The proportion of those saying something about each technique, as a percentage of those who hadheard of each technique

Genetic engineering Cloning DNA testing Stem cell therapy HGP

1995 87.3 85.6 83.0 N/A N/A

2011 96.1 92.9 105.8 124.0 37.5

Table 5 Understandings of the techniques

Technique Category Frequency of response as a% of the open responses

1995 2011

Genetic engineering Change, manipulate or edit genes 19 58

Produce new or novel organisms to order 20 6

To improve/make something better 0 24

Refers to attitudes 8 \2

Confused with other techniques or their products 5 23

Cloning Copying genes, genetic information, living things 9 59

Coping something (not specific/not biological) 23 17

Making something (no indication of copying) 3 5

Refers to attitudes 2 0

Confused with other techniques or their products 3 \2

DNA testing To compare or identify something (people or diseases) 21 60

To find out more about DNA or genes 16 15

Refers to attitudes 0 0

Confused with other techniques or their products 2 9

Stem cell therapy To treat illness or repair damaged tissues/organs N/A 51

Refers to attitudes N/A 0

Confused with plant biology N/A 2

Confused with other technologies N/A 2

Table 6 Numbers responding to the ‘News Flash’ scenarios

‘… all in your jeans’ ‘Milk the wonderdrug’

‘New brains forold’

1995 2011 1995 2011 1995 2011

Number of students giving a tickresponse

304 141 304 127 N/A 127

Number of students giving reasons 149(49 %)

135(98 %)

128(42 %)

110(87 %)

N/A 112(88 %)

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 371

123

a

b

c

Fig. 6 a Percentage giving each response for ‘…in your jeans!’. b Percentage giving each response for‘milk the wonder drug’. c Percentage giving each response for ‘new brains for old’

372 J. Lewis

123

The students’ justifications for their response to each News Flash are reported as a

percentage of those who gave a reason and are summarised in Table 7. These are broken

down further for the 2011 sample under three headings: True [T]; Possible [PS—a con-

flation of all ‘possible’ options]; Not Possible [NP]—see Table 8. A more detailed look at

the justifications used by the 2011 sample showed that:

• Generally students were optimistic about what science can achieve with more than

twice as many giving a positive slant (‘every day different things are being discovered

in science and this would be possible because things keep getting discovered’) than a

negative one (‘our technology is not near enough advanced to help cure the brain.

Especially from a simple thing like a shot of cells’)

• Ethical or moral issues were seen as a major reason why something might be possible

eventually but wasn’t being done now (because…’of human rights, though they will get

rid of diseases and illnesses’; ‘….of ethical reasons. Many would think—including I—

that it is simply not right. Not natural. I’m not a religious person but some would say it

is against Gods will’).

• There was also a view, specifically relating to ‘… all in your jeans’, that such a use of

technology was illegal.

• When drawing on their personal knowledge to support their views, most restricted

themselves to ‘I’ve heard of it’ or ‘I haven’t heard of it’ but up to one-third (depending

on the context) made links with other techniques they had heard of (‘I have heard of

Table 7 Summary of reasons as a percentage of all open responses to each ‘News Flash’

Reasons related to: ‘.. all in yourjeans’ %

‘Milk the wonderdrug’ %

‘New brains forold’ %

1995 2011 1995 2011 1995 2011

Personal knowledge 14 19 5 21 N/A 33

Views of science of and what it can achieve 29 30 16 37 N/A 28

Understandings of genetics 4 21 \1 16 N/A 17

Moral and ethical perspectives 9 32 2 10 N/A 7

Table 8 Breakdown of 2011 reasons by tick response

Reasons related to: ‘… all in yourjeans’ %

‘Milk the wonderdrug’ %

‘New brains forold’ %

T PS NP Total T PS NP Total T PS NP Total

Personal knowledge 13 6 0 19 6 14 1 21 13 20 0 33

Views of science of and what it can achieve 2 27 \1 30 2 35 0 37 0 24 4 28

Understandings of genetics 7 10 4 21 2 5 9 16 11 4 2 17

Moral and ethical perspectives 3 29 0 32 1 8 1 10 0 7 0 7

Other views

It’s illegal 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

It’s risky \1 2 0 \3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

T true (code 1), PS possible (codes 2–4 combined), NP not possible (code 5)

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 373

123

this before and could believe some parents would do this. It s just like genetic

engineering’) and a few introduced caveats (‘I think it is being done but it doesn’t fully

cure the brain’).

• More than half of those using their understanding of genetics to justify their view

showed a correct understanding of the science but several (particularly in response to

‘… all in your jeans’) expressed a view that was incompatible with their science

explanation (‘I think you can choose your babys gender but don’t think you can choose

any of that other stuff and I don’t think intelligence is inherited’; given as a justification

for why ‘… all in your jeans’ was true)

• A number of students combined reasons to build an argument based on multiple

perspectives to support their view (‘I have heard of the term designer babies, however I

don’t think that intelligence is genetical and I also think that it would cost more and

there are ethical issues‘; given as a justification for why ‘… all in your jeans’ was

possible but not being done).

4 Discussion

The 2011 cohort showed a greater awareness of genetic terminology common to both

surveys (particularly ‘genetic code’ and DNA) and a more secure understanding of the

structures and processes that these terms represent. For example, at a basic level they were

more aware of the link between genes or DNA and characteristics, more likely to refer to

instructions or information embedded within genes or DNA and much less likely to suggest

that genes and DNA are only found in particular cells or tissues in the body. Unlike the

1995 cohort there was evidence across a number of questions that at least some of this

cohort were aware of a relationship between DNA, bases and protein production, although

they rarely demonstrated a scientifically valid understanding of this relationship (‘DNA

controls the reactions made by amino acids in the body’). Many still seemed to equate the

genetic code with the genome, and to see this as a set of instructions unique to each

individual (‘Develops your features and characteristics making everyone individuals’).

Students across both years found the concept of an allele difficult, as judged by the limited

number of responses, but students in 2011 who did give some explanation or description

showed a developing understanding of alleles and their potential influence on character-

istics, referring to variations of a gene, pairs of genes, dominant and recessive relationships

and genotypes and phenotypes (‘it is two copies of the same instruction’; ‘They are the

different strands of DNA (?) that determine a persons characteristics (e.g. blue eye allele).

Some are dominant and some are recessive.’). There was very little evidence of these ideas

in responses from the 1995 cohort. Over all, despite this greater breadth of knowledge and

ideas about terminology the 2011 cohort seemed to experience the same difficulties as the

1995 sample in using this to develop a coherent explanatory framework—something which

they might apply across a range of contexts and could build on as and when a need arose.

The picture was not quite so clear cut when looking at gene technologies. A substan-

tially greater percentage of the 2011 cohort showed a better understanding of each tech-

nique than the 1995 sample (Table 5) but the high proportion of students who weren’t sure

they had heard of the technique but then went on to say something (Table 4) suggests that

for many this knowledge was insecure and tentative. In 2011 there was a significant

increase in the number who had heard of cloning, more than half of these went on to

answer the open questions and their responses were generally compatible with a basic

374 J. Lewis

123

understanding of cloning—some even described the process used to produce Dolly the

Sheep in some detail. At the same time, there was a significant decrease in the number who

had heard of DNA testing. Given the frequency of references to this technique in the

media, from police dramas and soaps to news and popular science programmes this

response was surprising but perhaps relates to the significant increase in the role of the

school as the source of information about genetic technologies for the 2011 cohort. More

than 80 % of both cohorts reported that they had heard of genetic engineering but there was

a difference in emphasis in relation to purpose—while the 1995 cohort emphasised novelty

or making something new to order the 2011 cohort emphasised improving or making

something better. There was also a difference in understanding, with a much higher pro-

portion of the 2011 cohort giving a description compatible with the science (58 % of

responses compared with 19 % in 1995). Despite this, nearly a quarter of responses in 2011

confused genetic engineering with a wide range of other techniques. The design of this

study doesn’t give any direct insights as to why that might be but is a further indication that

their knowledge about these techniques is not very secure. There was no ambiguity about

their limited awareness and understanding of the Human Genome Project—only 5 % had

heard of this and about one-third of these (\2 % of the cohort) went on to say something.

Most of the 2011 cohort had heard of stem cells and most of these correctly understood

the particular and useful characteristics of stem cells—almost 40 % of the cohort described

them as unspecialised cells which could (be made to) develop into any type of cell or tissue

and a similar number also recognised that as a result they could be used to treat disease,

provide skin grafts etc. A few also recognised the ethical implications (‘Unfortunately, the

best type of stem cell is the embryonic cell’). Despite their awareness of how stem cells

might be used these students seemed unsure about their awareness and understanding of

stem cell therapy. More students said something about stem cell therapy (44 % of the

cohort) than initially said they had heard of it (35 % of the cohort); of those who said

something about half (*22 % of the cohort) gave a scientifically valid description. There

was no indication that these students were aware of the basic processes by which stem cells

became specialised. A simple explanation of epigenetics could have helped them to

understand this process and given them a starting point for thinking about genomics but

only 2 students reported that they had heard the term and just one student was able to give

an explanation which was broadly compatible with the science.

In writing about stem cells there was a strong tendency to express themselves in

anthropocentric ways (‘Cells that can be made to do anything’; ‘these can be told to

become a type of cell and cure genetic diseases’). This was also noticeable when they were

writing about DNA.

Both cohorts found it difficult to use their knowledge to evaluate the possible truth-

fulness of the News Flash items. Although the 2011 cohort demonstrated a greater

knowledge and understanding of genetics when giving reasons for their decisions they

didn’t seem able to use this knowledge effectively when coming to a view. Within the

combination of characteristics set out in the first scenario (‘… All In Your Jeans’) only

gender and (possibly) some genetic diseases can be identified with any confidence and it is

extremely unlikely that height and IQ, being multifactorial, could ever be selected for

yet almost half the students, in both cohorts, thought it was ‘true’ or ‘possible but not being

done’—despite sometimes stating that IQ is not genetic/can’t be selected for. In 2011 there

was a decrease in those saying it was true and a big increase (from 15 to 32 %) in those

saying that it was possible but not done. This might reflect the greater awareness of ethical

issues shown by these students, many of whom cited ethical objections and a belief that it

was illegal as their reasons for thinking this.

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 375

123

The second scenario (‘Milk—the new wonder drug’) summarised a technique that had

already been in use for over a year when the first cohort were questioned in 1995 but only

*20 % of either group thought it was ‘true’ or ‘possible but not being done’ while a

similar proportion of both groups thought it was impossible. The 2011 cohort had a more

positive long term view with more than 40 % saying that it might be possible ‘sometime’

(but not soon). These responses suggest that the whole idea is counter-intuitive to many of

the students. In part this might be linked to particular understandings of the words ‘drug’

and ‘medicine’ but it might also be linked to a belief that it isn’t possible to put genes from

a human into another animal (Lewis et al. 1997b).

‘New Brains for Old’ set out the current situation in relation to stem cell technology.

Although the techniques are theoretically possible legal and ethical reservations have

limited opportunities to put theory into practice and reliable evidence of stem cells being

successfully used in this way are difficult to find. Generally the 2011 cohort seemed to feel

more comfortable with this scenario, although a few thought it was too ridiculous to

engage with. Almost 30 % thought it was a true report, mostly drawing on personal

knowledge (general) and knowledge of genetics to justify their view but despite the

important influence of ethical considerations on the use of this technology they were less

likely to raise ethical issues when giving their reasons.

Although the knowledge of students in 2011 seemed insecure at times, there was little

evidence of them developing coherent explanatory frameworks and they had some diffi-

culty applying their developing knowledge of genetics when evaluating the scenarios and

coming to a view they seemed to be more confident in their knowledge (as evidenced by

their greater willingness both to respond to the questions and to give their reasons) and to

have a better understanding of basic genetics—which they frequently applied when

explaining or justifying their tick responses. This suggests that gene technology, including

stem cell technologies, has become well established within the 14–16 curriculum for

science in England. There was also evidence that the emphasis on ‘How Science Works’

within this curriculum was having an impact, with students in 2011 showing greater

awareness of social and ethical issues and how to present a ‘balanced’ argument, including

different perspectives and caveats—something which was unusual in the 1995 responses to

the ‘News Flash’ scenarios. Responses which set out a range of different factors which

might influence the probability of a technique being both possible and acceptable (as

illustrated earlier) were less common and only found in the 2011 sample.

To some extent these ‘gains’ were a little surprising. Although the curriculum is set

nationally by the government it is interpreted by the exam boards, in preparation for the

external exams which mark the end of lower secondary education (the GCSE’s—General

Certificates in Secondary Education). When the National Curriculum was first introduced

virtually all students in state schools (including the original 1995 cohort) took the same

type of exam—dual award science, equivalent to two GCSE’s. Since then there have been

many changes, resulting in much greater diversity of exam options and this was reflected in

the options being taken by the new (2011) sample—triple award in separate sciences (3

GCSE’s: biology, chemistry and physics), dual award in science (2 GCSE’s: core science

and additional science), dual award in science (2 GCSE’s: core science and applied sci-

ence, a more vocational option) and ‘Nationals’ in science (a vocational qualification

intended to have parity with GCSE’s). There is a corresponding diversity in content across

these different qualifications so that the extent to which the curriculum could be considered

truly ‘National’ has become open to question, so it is re-assuring to find that knowledge of

basic genetics has increased to such an extent across the full range of students and courses.

376 J. Lewis

123

5 Implications for the Curriculum

One reason for including science as a core subject in the national curriculum was the

perceived need to increase scientific literacy within the general population. It is clear from

the results of this study that as understanding of genetics and its potential applications has

continued to develop within the science community there has been a trickle-down effect

into schools. Fifteen years after the first cohort of secondary students completed the

national curriculum for science there is some evidence of enhanced knowledge—of basic

genetics; of gene technologies and their limitations; of the issues and concerns which such

technologies can give rise to—across the student population. Evidence of an enhanced

ability to apply this knowledge in everyday situations is more limited. Despite a broader

knowledge base there is still no evidence of students developing coherent explanatory

frameworks which they can apply to new situations or contexts; despite greater awareness

of issues and concerns relating to the use of different gene technologies and the range of

criteria which might be considered when coming to a view about these, very few students

moved beyond uncritical presentation of alternative views to demonstrate a critical eval-

uation of different views. These are outcomes that might be predicted for a curriculum

strongly driven by a narrow view of assessment based on closed questions with short

answers.

The 2011 cohort mostly demonstrated a traditional view of genetics (one gene; one

protein). Does this matter? It could be argued that a ‘traditional’ model of genetics pro-

vides a good starting point for developing an understanding of the complexities of

genomics but there was little evidence that these students had any awareness of genomics,

despite the potential offered by the inclusion of stem cells. Perhaps it is unreasonable to

expect this. Fifteen years ago most students’ knowledge of genetics was weak and frag-

mented (not one of the 1995 sample made any link between genes or DNA and the

production of proteins). Genomics is a relatively new and rapidly developing field—

perhaps in 15 years time it will be equally commonplace in the classroom and students will

demonstrate a developing understanding of its complexities. Within the existing UK

curriculum, developing the teaching of stem cells to include a simple explanation of the

process of specialisation and re-enforcing this with a more explicit explanation of stem cell

therapy could provide an accessible first step towards developing a genomics perspective.

More generally there is a growing concern that, given the pace of developments and the

potential impact on our daily life, genomics needs to be explicitly embedded within the

core curriculum (see for example: Nowgen 2011; Boerwinkel and Waarlo 2009, 2011).

This raises important questions about the design of a genomics curriculum for scientific

literacy. Findings from this study suggest that it will not be enough to think about content

(for example, identifying a basic set of ideas which are accessible to all students and can

prepare them for future engagement with genomics) but also how it is taught (how students

can move from piecemeal accumulation of factual knowledge to the development of

coherent understandings which can be applied across a range of contexts; how to develop

skills of critical evaluation, decision making and reasoned argument in relation to

genomics) and how it might be assessed (how to ensure that the intended curriculum is not

reduced to those elements which can most easily be assessed). It also raises questions about

the sorts of professional development which can support science teachers in achieving the

intended goals of scientific literacy. Levinson and Turner (2001) found that the majority of

science teachers, while believing that students should have the opportunity to explore

issues related to biomedical science, felt that the science teacher’s role was to present the

facts and not to deal with social or ethical issues. Student responses in the present study

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 377

123

suggest that science teachers are still uncomfortable with the inclusion of social and ethical

issues in the science curriculum and deal with these by identifying ‘for’ and ‘against’

statements which students can combine to produce a ‘balanced’ view. The recent Nowgen

report (2011) also shows that most science teachers feel they lack the necessary subject

knowledge and expertise to teach about genomics and related issues and need additional

training and developmental time.

Perhaps the most immediate concern is the need to support the development of coherent

conceptual frameworks which would enable students to use their basic knowledge, as and

when they need, in their adult lives.

Acknowledgments The author would like to acknowledge the support and direction of the original projectteam (Ros Driver, Colin Wood-Robinson and John Leach), the advice of Ed Wood and the initial fundingfrom the Wellcome Trust. Without all of this the initial study would never have taken place. I would alsolike to thank all the teachers who gave their (and their students) time very willingly—even in the current,exam orientated environment; the University of Leeds for providing the funds which enabled me to revisitstudents’ ideas, 15 years on; and Matt Homer for the statistical analysis.

References

Boerwinkel, D. J., & Waarlo, A. J. (Eds.) (2009). Rethinking science curricula in the genomics era. Utrecht:CD-B Press.

Boerwinkel, D. J., & Waarlo, A. J. (Eds.) (2011). Genomics education for decision making. Utrecht: CD-BPress.

Department of Education and Science. (1991). Science in the national curriculum. London: Department ofEducation and Science and the Welsh Office, HMSO.

Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people’s images of science. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Lambert, H., & Rose, H. (1996). Disembodied knowledge? Making sense of medical science. In A. Irwin &B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding Science? The public reconstruction of science and technology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Layton, D., Jenkins, E., Macgill, S., & Davey, A. (1993). Inarticulate science? Perspectives on the publicunderstanding of science and some implications for science education. Driffield: Studies in Education.

Leach, J., Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1996) Young people’s understanding of, and attitudes to, ‘thenew genetics’ project. Working paper 5: Opinions on and attitudes towards genetic screening: Pre-natal screening (cystic fibrosis). University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and MathematicsEducation, Learning in Science Research Group.

Levinson, R., & Turner, S. (2001). Valuable lessons: Engaging with the social context of science in schools.London: Wellcome Trust.

Lewis, J., Driver, R., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1997a) Understanding genetics: materials forinvestigating student’s understanding, with some suggestions for their use in teaching. University ofLeeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, Learning in Science Research Group.

Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2006). Discussion of socio-scientific issues: The role of science knowledge. Inter-national Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1267–1288.

Lewis, J., Leach, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (1997b) Young people’s understanding of, and attitudes to, ‘thenew genetics’ project. Working paper 7: Opinions on and attitudes towards genetic engineering:Acceptable limits. University of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education,Learning in Science Research Group.

Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance—do studentssee a relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177–195.

Marteau, T. M., & Richards, M. P. M. (1995). The troubled helix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Millar, R. (1996). Towards a science curriculum for public understanding. School Science Review, 77(280),

7–18.National Curriculum Council. (1993). Teaching science at key stages 3 and 4. London: HMSO.Nowgen, (2011). Genomics in schools: An interim report from the Nowgen schools genomics programme.

Manchester: Biomedical Research Centre.

378 J. Lewis

123

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007a). The national curriculum: Science. KS3 accessible at:http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/q/science%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20key%20stage%203.pdf.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2007b). The national curriculum: Science KS4 accessible at:http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/q/science%202007%20programme%20of%20study%20for%20key%20stage%204.pdf.

Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science. London: The Royal Society.Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Science for all Americans NewYork. NY: Oxford University Press.Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J., Driver, R., & Leach, J. (1996) Young people’s understanding of, and

attitudes to, ‘the new genetics’ project. Working paper 1: Rationale, design and methodology. Uni-versity of Leeds, Centre for Studies in Science and Mathematics Education, Learning in ScienceResearch Group.

Wood-Robinson, C., Lewis, J., & Leach, J. (2000). Young people’s understanding of the nature of geneticinformation in the cells of an organism. Journal of Biological Education, 35(1), 29–36.

From Flavr Savr Tomatoes to Stem Cell Therapy 379

123