High School Students’ Attitudes Associated with Biotechnology and Molecular Genetics Concepts in Brazil

doi:10.4236/ce.2013.42021

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2013. Vol.4, No.2, 149-153

Published Online February 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.42021

High School Students’ Attitudes Associated with Biotechnology

and Molecular Genetics Concepts in Brazil*

Alexandre de Sá Freire, Márcia Cristina Fernandes Xavier, Milton Ozório Moraes

Genetic Epidemiology and Functional Genomics Research Group Oswaldo Cruz Institute,

Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Email: [email protected]

Received September 3rd, 2012; revised October 7th, 2012; accepted October 18th, 2012

There is an enormous gap between scientific production and scientific education in Genetics and Bio-

technology concerning stem cells, transgenics, genetically engineered medicines and so on. In order to

investigate the knowledge and the perception of these concepts among teenagers, a total of 334 surveys

were distributed to high school students in one private and two state schools in the Rio de Janeiro state,

Brazil. Interviews were also used as a qualitative tool to assess the validity of the data obtained in the

surveys. Students reported clear ideas about transgenics, but not about genetic engineering of recombinant

medication or genomics. The results suggest that when issues are discussed, instead of being explained,

they are better assimilated by students, and that association of information in the press with school classes

may help to spread scientific concepts.

Keywords: Science Teaching; Biotechnology; Opinion; Genetics; Molecular Biology; DNA

Introduction

Since the rise of recombinant DNA technology, molecular

genetics has grown considerably. Terms like molecula r biology

and biotechnology have become more frequently used by the

media and, therefore, became part of everyday life. Such de-

velopment uncovers new issues such as diagnostic tests based

on DNA detection, the use of DNA testing for paternity and

transgenic food development. These themes are escalating fast

enough to create a huge gap between these new discoveries and

the average information discussed in class. Although the media

attempts to fill in this gap by reporting scientific discoveries

and technological innovations, it frequently fails to provide

correct information (Eyck, 2005; Massarani & Moreira, 2005).

In addition, such development is not properly discussed in high

school biology classes.

Dawson and Schibeci (2003) have thrown light on the need

of teaching students about the recent technological discoveries.

The authors said that “we need to prepare students to make

personal and social choices about issues related to Science and

Technology”. Cavanagh et al. (2005) indicate that efforts in

scientific education are still necessary, showing that a signifi-

cant portion of high school students do not know about Bio-

technology. In this context, Jay Lemke (1990) points out that

the science learning process is related to necessity of learning

the science language, i.e., as students learn scientific concepts,

they learn to speak the scientific language.

As a methodological approach, high school students from

both state and private schools were submitted to a survey in

order to assess their background knowledge. Results show that

students have limited view not only about concepts in basic

Genetics, but also in relation to new Biotechological innova-

tions. Results point out that science and technology education

has not been correctly addressed.

Methodology

Design

High school students from one private and two state schools,

all located in the State of Rio de Janeiro, in the cities of

Petrópolis and Angra dos Reis (with more than 150,000 inhabi-

tants) participated in this study. All students were in the third

year of high school and most of them (2 out 3 classes) did not

take formal genetics classe s.

We used quantitative and qualitative approaches comple-

mentarily. In a first approach, students’ attitudes were evaluated

by a quantitative survey and, secondly, interviews were con-

ducted and recorded in order to clarify students’ opinions.

Quantitative Approach: The Survey

The quantitative approach was performed through a survey.

A total of 337 students answered the survey. Among these stu-

dents, 198 were from Colégio Estadual D. Pedro II, 105 from

Colégio Estadual Arthur Vargas (two State schools in Petrópo-

lis and Angra dos Reis, respectively) and 34 students from

Colégio Dom Bosco, a private school in Angra dos Reis. All

students were 16 - 18 years/old irrespective of the school they

attended. No gender bias was observed and our studied popula-

tion had 55% of boys. It is important to notice that, in Brazil,

private schools are generally from middle, higher classes, while

public schools people from lower classes are more prevalent.

The issues in the survey included transgenics, genetic im-

provement, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), human

cloning, stem cells, Genome Project, genetic therapy, molecular

diagnosis, paternity tests, and genetic vaccines. The survey was

constructed with two sets of questions. In the first set, students

were asked to answer whether they agreed with (A), disagreed

with (D) or had neutral opinion (N) about issues concerning

Biotechnology, including their general acceptance, application,

A. DE SÁ FREIRE ET AL.

benefits and risks to society. The second set included five

“yes”/“no” questions with room for students to give examples

of Biotechnological improvement.

Statistical Analyses

In order to assess the consistency of answers from the first

set of questions when compared to the second one, we analyzed

the joint distribution of the data from the two sets of questions

by creating 2 × 2 contingency tables. The statistical signifi-

cance of the cross tabulations was measured by Chi-square tests

considering the significance level of p < 0.05 (Graphpad Instat

6.0).

Qualitative Approach

Answers to the surveys have provided important information,

but raised some inconsistencies which we tried to resolve

through semi-structured interviews. These interviews allowed

in-depth exploration and granted flexibility for students to ex-

press themselves freely and solve ambiguities.

These interviews were in the number of three and were car-

ried out with three groups of students, each one from a different

class with five, six and eight students, respectively. The inter-

views were carried out in a lower class students’ state school.

First, there were four girls and just one boy. At the second,

there were three boys and three girls. In the last interview, there

were three boys and five girls. Students were between 17 and

18 years old and came from lower classes. Interviews were

recorded and fully transcribed. We used key sentences to rep-

resent the students’ general view on each subject.

Results

We assumed that students’ opinions could be influenced by

their socioeconomical condition, since students from private

schools are generally from high-income families, while students

from state schools usually come from low-income families. In

comparing both contexts, scientific education and access to the

internet and to laboratories vary significantly. This factor may

have influenced the opinions obtained in this study. To prevent

this bias, analyses were performed separately and as there was

not significant variation between the two contexts, high-income

and low-income students (data not shown), and results here

embody all students:

Answers for the first set of questions of the survey are pre-

sented in Table 1. In some cases, students showed clear opin-

ions. For instance, 62% of the students did not agree with hu-

man cloning for biotechnological social improvement, but, in

relation to DNA paternity tests, most of the students (82%)

agreed with their use. Diagnostic tests based on DNA technol-

ogy were considered acceptable for 58% of the students. Other

results, such as Genetic Therapy, Genetically Modified Organ-

isms, stem cells and Genetic Vaccines had a “neutral” rate of

around 40%.

The “yes” and “no” answers to the second block of questions

are presented in Table 2. The majority of the students reported

that they have not eaten transgenic food (76%), while 65%

showed to have no restrictions to eating transgenics, and 63%

said they had no restriction about the application of genetically

engineered medicine. Nevertheless, 79% of the students believe

that the results of the Genome Project make the prognosis of

cancer possible.

Table 1.

Answers for the firs t set of questions on t he survey.

Students opinion

Biotech advance A D N Total

Transgenics 156 (47%) 80 (24%) 93 (29%)329

Genetic im provement 228 (69%) 31 (9%) 71 (22%)330

GMO 152 (46%) 52 (16%) 124 (38%)328

Human clonin g 73 (22%) 206 (62%) 51 (16%)330

Stem cells 178 (55%) 22 (7%) 126 (39%)326

Genome pro ject 187 (56%) 34 (10%) 110 (33%)3 31

Genetic therapy 159 (49%) 37 (11%) 131 (40%)327

DNA diagnostic tests 176 (59%) 29 (10%) 94 (31%)299

DNA paternity test 270 (82%) 13 (4%) 44 (14%)327

Genetic va ccines 174 (53%) 34 (10%) 122 (37%)330

A—agree; D—disagree; N—neut ral.

Table 2.

Answers to “yes” or “no” questions regarding the issues in everyday

situations.

Questions

Yes No Total

Have you e aten

transgenic food? (1) 79

(24%) 248

(76%) 327

Do you have restriction s t o

eating transgenic food? (2) 110

(35%) 206

(65%) 316

Have you ever used any

genetically engineered medicine? (3) 18

(5%) 311

(95%) 329

Would you have any restriction

in using genetically engineered medicine? ( 4) 121

(37%) 209

(63%) 330

Is it possible to perform cancer prognosis

tests using data from Genome Projects? (5) 257

(79%) 69

(21%) 326

Table 3 shows contingency tables created to evaluate the

coherence of the answers collected in the two sets of questions,

(Table 3). These data show that, for some issues, students’

attitudes are consistent as tested by the statistical analysis. For

example, the comparison of students’ opinions about restric-

tions to the use of transgenic food (“yes” or “no” questions) and

the acceptability of this product as a biotechnological advance

showed a significant number of students with no restrictions;

they also agreed with the usefulness and benefits of this kind of

food (p-value < 0.001). The opposite association is also true,

meaning that students with restrictions to eating transgenic food

do not agree with their social benefits. In addition, students that

found diagnostic tests based on DNA technology to be a social

and health improvement for society also stated that access to

data from the human Genome Project facilitates the develop-

ment of diagnostic tests for cancer (p-value < 0.01).

After evaluating the qualitative data obtained from the inter-

views, it became clear that some students had restrictions to the

use of transgenic food, and that they were aware of the risks to

the environment, supporting their views about this issue in the

survey. Also, they showed more consistent knowledge of the

theme. Some of their opinions indicate that they continually

argue about the potential harm of transgenic food and would

prefer that their use was limited until it is guaranteed these

products to be harmless.

150

A. DE SÁ FREIRE ET AL.

Table 3.

Data crossing between answers given to “yes” or “no” questions and the students’ attitudes related to Biotechological advances.

2nd set of questions 1st set of questions bio t echnological advance

Eat transgenic food Transgenics

Restrictions (2) Disagree Agree Total p value

Yes 48 (59%) 41 (27%) 89 0.0001

No 33 (41%) 109 (73%) 142

81 150 231

Cancer test with genome (5) DNA diagnostics tests

Disagree Agree

Yes 14 (54%) 145 (79%) 159 0.0123

No 12 (46%) 39 (21%) 51

26 184 210

Cancer test with genome (5) Genome project

Disagree Agree

Yes 24 (73%) 156 (82%) 180 0.2266

No 9 (27%) 33 (18%) 42

33 189 222

Genetic vaccines

Restrictions to genetic engineered me dicine (4) Disagree Agree

Yes 13 (39%) 57 (32%) 70 0.5472

No 20 (61%) 118 (68%) 138

33 175 208

Genome project

Restrictions to genetic engineered me dicine (4) Disagree Agree

Yes 10 (30%) 55 (29%) 65 1.0000

No 23 (70%) 133 (71%) 156

33 188 221

Nevertheless, no other association between questions from

the first and the second sets were observed. It seems that stu-

dents are not confident enough about the concepts we were

arguing in relation to the Genome Project and genetic engi-

neering of medicines. These issues are obviously not deeply

discussed and debated in the media, and thus students had dif-

ficulty in understanding this kind of information. Lack of asso-

ciation was also observed in the joint distribution of the data on

detection of cancer test versus Genome Project (item 5, Table

3).

Once again, qualitative analysis helped us to understand stu-

dents’ attitudes. When asked about the Genome Project, they

did not know what it really was. Their opinions showed a very

basic, narrow-minded and deterministic vision about the subject:

that the Genome Project was a fancy technique to fix people

with genetic or complex diseases. Consequently, they were

unable to correlate Genome Project to their uses. Questions

concerning students’ opinions about genetic engineering of

medicines clearly demonstrated that they did not have any idea

about the subject:

Student: By the way, those compounding pharmacies have

anything to do with that? [2 seconds] those drugstores where

you go and order, and you give the receipt and they make the

medicine you need?

Moreover, several students addressed the idea that they were

not prepared to understand the Biotechnological improvements

that come to society. They also pointed out difficulties with the

language used in the media to diffuse the scientific discoveries

and scientific knowledge. Most of students’ speeches addressed

the general idea that scientists speak their own complicated

language among themselves, creating confusing theories from

very simple hypotheses or scientific product:

Student 4: And they talk in such a language, a very difficult

language.

Student 2: And they talk about transgenics...

Student 4: And they speak in a medical language.

Student 1: Scientific language.

Student 4: Yes, scientific, and they talk and one could say

“what did he say?” sometimes it’s a simple thing, easy, and they

make it complicated … the language … I think.

Student 3: It has been broadcasted, but their broadcasting is

not...

Student 4: The language is very...

Finally, some students clearly showed their inability to

“speak Science” (Lemke, 1990), and their difficulties in under-

standing its basic concepts. Students also indicated that, most of

A. DE SÁ FREIRE ET AL.

the time, they tried to answer the survey and the questions in

the interviews with “guesstimations” because they did not

really know what they were discussing, especially concerning

the Genome Project and genetic engineering of medicines.

Discussion

Many pieces of information concerning concepts in Bio-

technology are present in the daily news as well as in TV shows

and movies, such as the use of DNA in criminal justice cases or

paternity identification; and human cloning in films and in the

press (Jensen et al., 2008), for example, are generally perme-

ated with dangerous ideas and hope (such as finding the cure to

some genetic diseases just by concluding the Genome Project).

Also, there are contradictory views in the media and in movies

in relation to transgenics. All this misleading information usu-

ally creates confusion to the population in general. Most films,

for example, portray only the negative, the unethical and the

immoral aspect of human cloning, while the media points out

the fact that it can be used to save lives of people with genetic

diseases (Jensen et al., 2008). In spite of that, students have

clear opinions on a few matters. The results of the survey show

an approval of paternity tests (82%) and a rejection of human

cloning (62%), indicating that highly covered issues generally

follow the dominant and polar “good and bad” ideologies. Thus,

our data had internal “positive controls” that helped us analyze

the second set of answers.

The results seem to have been influenced by a popular Bra-

zilian soap opera, The Clone, exhibited a few years earlier

(2002). It emphasized the negative aspects of cloning, espe-

cially human cloning, and showed the possibility of human

cloning as something relatively easy to be done. A study using

a focal group of high schools students in Brazil analyzed this

soap opera corroborating our data indicating that, in fact, few

issues in Biotechnology and Molecular Genetics could be de-

bated properly and analyzed by students (Moreira & Mas-

sarani, 2008). Indeed, in the past years in Brazil, popular TV

shows have exhibited situations where families discuss the

paternity issue, and DNA test is the motif of these TV programs.

In addition, news programs frequently show paternity and

criminal cases were DNA tests could be applied to solve such

cases. Although such discussion has been raised by mass media,

scientific issues tend to show too superficially, leading to an

oversimplified view of Biotechnological issues (Massarani,

2005). In addition, the media often portrays a bias point of view

about scientific discoveries. Such approach does not allow peo-

ple in general to develop critical thinking about Biotechnology

(Jensen, 2008; Lind-Balta, 2006; Harms, 2002).

In this regard, it is clear that students were able to identify

some concepts linked to biotechnology a n d genet ic engineering,

such as transgenic food and DNA diagnostic tests. However,

this ability was restricted to these two themes while, for other

topics, the students’ ideas were limited to abstract and errone-

ous conceptions about issues like the Genome Project. Al-

though we did not ask this question explicitly, it was possible to

notice from the interviews, that the students acquire their notion

on biotechnology information through the media more often

than from school classes. It is assumed that school is probably a

better place to discuss these issues in-depth; that the educa-

tional institution has the most important role in individual de-

velopment and should provide an environment for the students

to develop understanding about new concepts and technologies.

But that is not what can be noticed most of the times schools do

not provide adequate infrastructure, classes have much more

students than it should, there is not sufficient time to teach what

is in the school program, and due to many issues (which will

not be discussed here) teachers are not well prepared to work

with the new issues concerning concepts in Biotechnology.

Other studies corroborate to this view. Ramón et al. (2008)

analyzed students’ knowledge about Biotechnology issues, and

Šorgo and Dolinšek (2009) focused his work on teachers’

knowledge about these topics. Both articles identified the need

of discussing the new issues in Genetics and Molecular Biology

in school, and teachers’ lack of fluency concerning Biotech-

nology issues. Our data endorse the conclusions of these previ-

ous publications. Possibly, the introduction of more Genetics

and Molecular Biology issues in school books could help stu-

dents and teachers cope with this new area.

Some basic concepts presented to students in the first year of

high school are necessary for the understanding of Genetics and

Evolution. Also, other Biotechnological issues need to be dis-

cussed in the third year. Assuming that the student learns from

what he knows about, it is necessary to present and discuss

objectively students’ difficulties about the concepts in Bio-

technology. Such difficulties are well exemplified in the stu-

dent’s speech: “Can we express ourselves sincerely? … we an-

swered based on what we could deduce here.” It is clear that

they have never discussed the new Biotechnologies properly.

So, they have no way of having concepts in Biotechnology

settled.

Unfortunately, the learning-teaching process is still based on

outdated educational books and mostly solely on lecture classes,

which tends to lead to a shallow notion of important Biotech-

nological concepts. It would, therefore, be a difficult task for

these students to behave as critical and active citizens in a con-

stantly changing society.

It was also noticed that students often mentioned that scien-

tific language sounds unfamiliar. This occurs because they have

not been in contact with scientific terminology. Thus, they

cannot understand some important relationships between some

Biotechnological advances, such as the Genome Project, ge-

netically engineered medicines and Genetic Vaccines. The su-

perficial level of students’ knowledge in such matters became

clear as they get in touch with the scientific language. It is

properly exemplified when a student expresses their miscon-

ception about genetically engineered medicine, making it a

synonym of designed-medicines in drugstores.

Teachers were questioned about their sources of information

for class planning (Xavier et al., 2006) and it was verified that

their major source was the school textbook, which is used by

students for classes as well as for studying for tests. The text-

book, as told previously, does not present up-to-date and con-

textualized contents.

Finally, we understand that our approach have limitations

since we studied only three schools, although in different loca-

tions in Rio de Janeiro state. However, it is difficult to extrapo-

late our results to other states in Brazil and even other munici-

palities in Rio. Also, we tried to better comprehend differences

between public and private schools and, in our hands, we did

not capture such differences that could also be accounted for

small sample size we used specially concerning the number of

private students enrolled. Nevertheless, our data are consistent

since we used different methodologies and have been corrobo-

rated by others in Brazil (Massarani, 2005).

152

A. DE SÁ FREIRE ET AL.

Based on the results, we conclude that high school students

do not have proper contact with biotechnology issues at school.

Although they may get into contact with biotechnology ad-

vances through TV shows or the media, they still demonstrate

misconceptions. The scientific language is a barrier because of

the lack of an in-depth discussion about scientific discoveries in

biotechnology. Anyway, the results presented herein are con-

sistent with the lack of discussion of biotechnological issues in

school classes. Therefore, changes show to be not only urgent

but also extremely important.

REFERENCES

Araújo-Jorge, T., Cardona, T., Mendes, C., Henriques-Pons, A., Mei-

relles, R., Coutinho, C., Aguiar, L., Meirelles, M. N., Castro, S.,

Barbosa, H., & Luz, M. (2004). Microscopy images as interactive

tools in cell modeling and cell biology education. Cell Biology Edu-

cation, 3, 99-110. doi:10.1187/cbe.03-08-0010

Cavanagh, H., Hood, J., & Wilkinson, J. (2005). Riverina high school

students’ views of biotechnology. Electronic Journal of Biotechnol-

ogy, 8, 121-127. doi:10.2225/vol8-issue2-fulltext-1

Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school

students’ attitudes towards biotechnlogy processes. Journal of Bio-

techological Education, 38, 7-11.

doi:10.1080/00219266.2003.9655889

De Mattos, J. C. P. , Dan tas, F. J. S., Cald eiras-d e-A raú j o , A. , & Mo r aes,

M. O. (2004). Agarose gel eletrophoresis system in the classroom.

Biochemistry and Molecular B iology Education, 32 , 254-257.

doi:10.1002/bmb.2004.494032040382

Eyck, T. T. (2005). The media and public opinion on genetics and

biotechnology: Mirrors, windows, or walls? Public Understanding of

Science, 14, 305-316. doi:10.1177/0963662505052888

Gelbart, H., & Yarden, A. (2006). Learning genetics through an authen-

tic research simulation in bioinformatics. Journal of Biological Edu-

cation, 40, 107-112. doi:10.1080/00219266.2006.9656026

Harms, U. (2002). Biotechnology education in Schools. Electronic

Journal of Biotech n ology, 5, 205-211.

doi:10.2225/vol5-issue3-fulltext-i03

Jensen, E. (2008). The Dao of human cloning: Utopian/dystopian hype

in the British press and popular films. Public Understanding of Sci-

ence, 17, 123-143. doi:10.1177/0963662506065874

Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values.

Stanford: Ablesc/JAI Publishing Corporation.

Lind-Balta, E. (2006). Using literature and innovative assessments to

ignite interest and cultivate critical thinking skills in an under-

graduate neuroscie nce course. Life Sc i en ce s Education, 5, 167-174.

doi:10.1187/cbe.05-08-0108

Massarani, L., & Moreira, I. C. (2008). Not in our genes! Um estudo de

caso com jovens do ensino médio no Rio de Janeiro. Alexandria Re-

vista de Educação em Ciência e Tecnologia, 1, 51-76.

Massarani, L., & Moreira, I. C. (2005). Attitudes towards genetics: A

case study among Brazilian high school students. Public Understand-

ing of Science, 14, 201-212. doi:10.1177/0963662505050992

Peters, M. W., Smith, M. F., & Smith G. W. (2002). Use of critical

interactive thinking exercises in teaching reproductive physiology to

undergraduate students. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 862-865.

Peters, V., & Vissers, G. (2004). A simple classification model for

debriefing simulation games. Simulation and Gaming, 35, 20-83.

doi:10.1177/1046878103253719

Ramón, D., Diamante, A., & Calvo, M. D. (2008). Food biotechnlogy

and education. Ele tronic Journal of Biotechnology, 11, 1-5.

Sorgo, A., & Ambrozic-Dolinsek, J. (2009). The relationship among

knowledge of, attitudes toward and acceptance of genetically modi-

fied organisms (GMOs) among Slovenian teachers. Electronic Jour-

nal of Biotechnology, 12, 1-13. doi:10.2225/vol12-issue4-fulltext-1

Xavier, M. C. F., Freire, A. S., & Moraes, M. O. (2006). A nova

(moderna) biologia e a genética nos livros didáticos de biologia no

ensino médio. Ciência e Educação, 12, 275-289.