Educational

Educational Research
Research
Evolutionary theory as a
guide to socioscientific
decision-making
Troy D Sadler
Indiana University, USA
Evolutionary theory serves as the fundamental cornerstone to all life science; yet students frequently possess
misconceptions regarding evolution or resist learning the idea altogether. This study, which emerged from a
larger project focused on informal reasoning, explores how college students conceptions of evolutionary theory
affect their reasoning in the context of genetic engineering issues. Thirty students, 15 biology majors and 15
non-science majors were interviewed individually and asked about their positions on gene therapy and cloning.
Whereas none of the non-science majors alluded to evolution, many of the biology majors (8 of 15) adopted
evolutionary perspectives as they negotiated genetic engineering issues. Some student responses revealed
misconceptions such as teleological and deterministic interpretations of evolution, but others discussed more
appropriate evolutionary implications, such as reduced genetic variability and the propagation of unfit genes as
a result of cloning. Applications of these findings for both evolution instruction and assessment are discussed.
Key words: Evolution; Genetic engineering; Socioscientific issues; Decision-making

Introduction
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution
(Dobzansky, 1973, p 125). Dobzanskys famous quote sums up
a common belief among biologists: evolutionary theory serves as
the fundamental cornerstone to all life science. Viewed in the
light of evolution, topics as seemingly diverse as palaeontology,
genetics, immunology, and animal behaviour contribute to an
articulated body of knowledge. Despite the fact that evolution
is arguably the most important theory in biology, most research
related to evolution education indicates that students often
resist learning about the idea (Scharmann, 1993; Sinclair and
Baldwin, 1995; Sinclair et al, 1997) and/or hold misconceptions
regarding the theory (Bishop and Anderson, 1990; Demastes et
al, 1996; Jensen and Finley, 1996).
Given the importance of evolutionary theory to the field of
biology, misconceptions related to teleology, Lamarckian evolution, population-level selection, and the origin of new traits
(Bishop and Anderson, 1990; Jensen and Finley, 1996) present
serious challenges to biology educators. However, intervention
studies suggest that student conceptualisations of evolution can
be improved through a variety of instructional strategies
(Scharmann, 1990; Settlage, 1994; Jensen and Finley, 1996).
While these findings can be taken as good news for biology educators, the fact that many students retain relatively nave notions
of evolutionary theory even in the midst of graduate level studies
in biology (Zaim-Idrissi et al, 1993) is disconcerting.
The relatively bleak picture of evolution education has
emerged primarily from research specifically focused on student
ideas concerning evolution. These projects have made use of
quantitative instruments (e.g. Bishop and Anderson, 1990;
Sinclair et al, 1997) and interview protocols (e.g. Scharmann,
68

1990; Zaim-Idrissi et al, 1993) expressly designed to measure

understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory. Given the
centrality of evolution to all biology, it should also be possible to
assess students understandings of evolutionary theory in other
biological contexts. Because evolutionary theory has the potential
to affect how individuals examine and perceive all areas of biology,
successful evolution education should manifest itself not just in
contrived testing situations focused specifically on the topic of evolution, but also in more authentic contexts. For instance, it should
theoretically be possible to see students ideas regarding evolution
as they consider problems associated with molecular biology.
Student perceptions of evolutionary theory may also affect
their responses to some socioscientific issues. The term socioscientific issues characterises issues that emerge from the interface of science and society, and they involve societal issues with
conceptual, procedural, or technological associations with science.
Many socioscientific issues stem from dilemmas involving
biotechnology, environmental problems, and human genetics.
They are typically contentious in nature, can be considered from
a variety of perspectives, and do not possess simple conclusions
(Zeidler, 2003; Sadler, 2004).
This study chronicles how evolutionary theory contributes to
undergraduate student decision-making regarding socioscientific
issues, namely, genetic engineering dilemmas. This research
focus emerged as students were engaged in conversation regarding
cloning and gene therapy. As the students offered arguments for
and against certain genetic engineering applications, it became
evident that many drew heavily upon evolutionary theory to
help shape their positions. This paper addresses the following two
research questions which emerged from a qualitative investigation
of socioscientific decision-making.
Journal of Biological Education (2005) 39(2)

Student decision-making

1. Do biology majors and non-science majors vary in the

extent to which they employ evolutionary theory in their
decisions regarding genetic engineering issues?
2. How are undergraduate student decisions regarding
genetic engineering issues shaped by their perceptions of
evolutionary theory?

Methods
Sample
This research was conducted as a part of a larger project (Sadler
and Zeidler, 2005a; Sadler and Zeidler, 2005b) designed to
explore informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues.
Sampling procedures were determined, in part, to address the
needs of the larger research project. As such, 15 non-science
majors who had scored relatively poorly on a genetics test and
15 biology majors who had scored relatively well on the same
test defined the sample.
The participants were solicited from a variety of science and
non-science courses. Data collection took place at the beginning
of a semester and none of the class periods prior to data collection
focused specifically on evolution or genetic engineering. Eight
females and seven males comprised each group. The participants
predominately classified themselves as White, but the sample
also included Black, Hispanic, and Asian individuals. Just over half
of the participants classified themselves as Christian or Catholic;
the other participants reported various religious affiliations
including Islam, Hinduism, Greek Orthodoxy, and Atheism. All
of the participants were upper division (junior or senior level)
students enrolled in a large public university in the Southeastern
United States.
Interviews
Each student participated in two individual interviews. The
interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes and were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis. During the first interview,
participants responded to six genetic engineering scenarios:
three related to gene therapy and three related to cloning. The
participants read a written prompt for each scenario and then
responded to a series of questions designed to elicit their positions
and rationales for each scenario. The participants were asked to
decide on the appropriateness of gene therapy for: 1. eliminating
Huntingtons disease; 2. correcting nearsightedness; 3. improving
intelligence. They were also asked to decide on the appropriateness
of: 4. reproductive cloning; 5. cloning a deceased child; 6. therapeutic cloning.
At the outset of each interview, the interviewer discussed the
hypothetical nature of these scenarios. For instance, preceding
discussion of the gene therapy for intelligence scenario, the
interviewer said, many factors contribute to intelligence and it
is likely that some genes contribute to a persons intelligence. If
scientists found a gene that contributed to human intelligence
and could safely target it for gene therapy, do you think it would
be appropriate to do so? During the second interview, which
occurred approximately one week following the first, participants were asked to reflect on their initial responses as well as
my interpretation of their responses as a means of member
checking (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Refer to Sadler and Zeidler
(2005a) for more details of the interview protocols.

Journal of Biological Education (2005) 39(2)

Sadler

Data analysis
Data analysis was consistent with inductive analyses as described
by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and the Constant Comparative
Method described by Glaser and Strauss (1967). In short, this
process entailed recognising emergent themes in the data, forming
a tentative taxonomy of these themes and then searching through
the interview transcripts for evidence as a means of grounding
the proposed categories in the data. Assessing the extent to which
evolutionary theory contributed to student reasoning patterns
was not an a priori goal of the research project; but rather, this
theme emerged directly from the data. After the theme surfaced
in initial perusals of the data, the entire data set was examined
with the intent of highlighting episodes of student reasoning
influenced by evolutionary theory.
Several measures were taken to improve the trustworthiness
of these analyses. The second interviews allowed participants to
check the interpretations of their responses and clarify potential
misunderstandings or misinterpretations. A comprehensive audit
log was maintained to track raw data and the development of
qualitative taxonomies. Finally, a peer debriefer (Lincoln and
Guba, 1985) independently examined the transcripts, audit log,
and emergent classification schemes to ensure analytic credibility.

Results
None of the non-science majors made comments indicative of
an evolutionary perspective; however, several of the biology
majors (eight of 15) displayed reasoning which was influenced
by evolutionary theory. Towards the end of one science majors
first interview, the participant explicitly discussed the fact that
his ideas regarding evolution shaped his decisions about genetic
engineering: My ideas might be a little different from a lot of
others; I try to look at things from an evolutionary perspective.
(Student 23). Despite his notion that his ideas were unique, many
of this students peers, who had studied college level science,
adopted similar perspectives.
The influence of evolutionary theory emerged in a few different
ways among the biology student interview transcripts. Individual
instances were compared across interviews in order to detect
more general patterns which characterised the reasoning of multiple individuals. The general patterns were organised in a taxonomy
in order to link related ideas. This classification scheme is presented as a means of capturing the complexity of the emergent
interactions among socioscientific decision-making and evolutionary theory. The taxonomy is detailed in the text below and a
general overview is presented in Figure 1.
All of the responses reflective of evolutionary perspectives
were divided between those in which participants: (I) equated
evolution to an inviolable natural order; and (II) based decisions
on perceived evolutionary consequences. The first category is
displayed in the interview excerpts which follow.
(I) Participants equate evolution to an inviolable
natural order.
Tampering [with genetics as in genetic engineering]
breaks the natural creation of what is supposed to happen
through evolution. (S30)
I think that God made us different for a reason and millions
of years of evolution has made us the way we are for a reason. I do not think it would be a good idea to just change
somethingfor selfish purposes. (S27)
69

Student decision-making

Sadler

Responses Reflective of
Evolutionary Perspectives

I) Participants equate
evolution to an inviolable
natural order

A) Gene
Therapy (GT)

a) GT may not alter

human evolution

b) GT could alter
human evolution

II) Participants base

decisions on perceived
evolutionary consequences

B) Cloning
(CL)

c) CL can erode
genetic diversity

d) CL can propagate
unfit genes/offspring

Figure 1. Emergent taxonomy of student responses.

These quotations and others reveal a tendency for some students to equate biological evolution with a natural order of life
on earth that should not be disrupted. This position is consistent
with student attempts to reconcile ideas about biology and religion
observed in other research ( Sinclair and Baldwin, 1995; Brem
et al, 2003). These quotes also reveal a misconception frequently
reported in evolution education literature: teleology. Many students representing a variety of age groups, including some of the
college students in this sample, think of evolution as a process
by which predetermined outcomes are achieved (Bishop and
Anderson, 1990; Demastes et al, 1996; Jensen and Finley, 1996).
This notion, of course, is completely contradictory to scientific
explanations of evolution.
It should be noted that while the non-science participants did
not invoke evolution to explain the importance of preserving
the natural order, many certainly did reject genetic technologies
on those grounds, which is consistent with previous research on
decision-making in the context of genetic engineering issues
(Sadler and Zeidler, 2004). In this respect, the biology majors
displayed a similar pattern of reasoning compared to their nonscience major peers, but used evolution as a means of explaining
the generation of the inviolable natural order.
Comments revealing a tendency to base decisions on the perceived evolutionary consequences of a particular genetic engineering technology formed a second major category in the taxonomy. This, in turn, was subdivided based on the issues to which
students responded: (a) gene therapy and (b) cloning. In these
cases, participants referred to specific evolutionary consequences
of a particular genetic engineering technology. Because of the
contextual nature of the scenarios, the consequences students
pondered depended on the scenario to which they were
70

responding. In the context of gene therapy, students based their

decisions on how the technologies might or might not alter the
trajectory of human evolution. Interview excerpts to support
these categories are below.
(a) Gene therapy may not alter human evolution
When you use gene therapy to fix these problems [diseases
like Huntingtons disease], it is kind of like artificial selection
because naturally, you would breed those genes out. (S23)
It [performing gene therapy for nearsightedness] is not
like youre trying to weed people out. Maybe like when
the hunters and gatherers maybe then people should not
survive with nearsightedness but now we can correct it
[by other means] so [gene therapy for nearsightedness] is
OKIt is just another form of correction. (S24)
(b) Gene therapy could alter human evolution
From an evolutionary aspect, eliminating Huntingtons
disease or smallpox or anything like that is changing the
way things are because those who are going to survive that
are going to be stronger. (S25)
I guess [gene therapy for intelligence] would force an evolutionary change that would improve the human race. (S28)
The participants who offered the first set of interview quotes
just listed (a. gene therapy may not alter human evolution) and
others like them expressed approval of gene therapy in some contexts because they did not perceive any evolutionary consequences
of the actions. For these individuals, it seemed as though the extent
to which procedures would artificially alter the evolutionary
trajectory of humans served as a litmus test for approving the
use of a technology.
Journal of Biological Education (2005) 39(2)

Student decision-making

In the first quote, Student 23 reasoned that gene therapy for

Huntingtons disease or other life-threatening diseases would just
speed the process of evolution because the deleterious, diseasecausing alleles would eventually be bred out of the population
anyway. Student 24 offered similar logic in terms of the acceptability of a procedure because it would not change the course of
human evolution. She reasoned that because traits like nearsightedness can be corrected by other means and therefore do not
contribute to the survival of an individual, it is acceptable to
manipulate those traits via gene therapy.
The other category (b. gene therapy could alter human evolution) emerged from participant statements which implied a focus
on how the technologies would affect human evolution. In contrast
to the individuals who rejected genetic engineering because of
its effects on the natural order of life achieved through evolution,
the students forming this category embraced gene therapy
because of its ability to enhance human populations through
artificial selection.
Students who applied evolutionary perspectives to cloning
scenarios consistently opposed use of the technology. They
expressed concern over cloning because of its potential to erode
genetic diversity and to propagate unfit genes and offspring. The
quotes below exemplify these categories of responses.
(c) Cloning can erode genetic diversity
The genetic similarities [that result from reproductive
cloning] could be bad from an evolutionary standpoint.
The same people could be affected by the same disease.
You need some kind of genetic variation in the population
to ensure some kind of stability. (S25)
The diversity of genetic material has brought us to where we
are, and cloning would reduce that diversity. Whether you
believe in evolution or not, even today there are isolated
cases of survival of the fittest. It is because of diversity in
genetic material and thats what keeps making advances in
humanity and nature. (S22)
(d) Cloning can propagate unfit genes and offspring
If you take this from natures point of view. If an individual
does not have the ability to have children, any animal, that
means there is something wrong with the organism. So
whatever they pass on to the next generation, it is still going
to be somehow affected. (S26)
People who cant have children shouldnt clone because
then they are just passing on genes that are not fit to survive. (S24)
These cases and those they represent reveal how students use
evolutionary considerations to shape their decision-making in
cloning contexts. Both students 22 and 25 discuss the implications
of cloning as a replacement for sexual reproduction. Their concern
over the effect of reduced genetic variability due to cloning on
the evolutionary trajectory of human populations is debatable,
but the assertion that cloning would reduce genetic variability relative to sexual reproduction is appropriate. The quotes illustrative
of the final category (d. cloning can propagate unfit genes and
offspring) suggest that cloning for the purpose of overcoming
reproductive difficulties only perpetuates the existence of deleterious alleles. Participants holding this view frequently talked
about how cloning under these circumstances dooms the offspring to continued reproductive problems.
Journal of Biological Education (2005) 39(2)

Sadler

Discussion
Given the fundamental significance of evolutionary theory for
all biological sciences, it is encouraging that many students considered the evolutionary implications of their decisions in the
context of socioscientific issues. The finding that only the biology
majors, to the exclusion of the non-science majors, expressed
evolutionary perspectives is not surprising nor is it cause for
great concern considering that the interviews did not specifically
attempt to elicit participant ideas related to the evolutionary
implications of their positions.
Given the fact that the interview protocols did not direct participants to address evolutionary implications, it was not surprising
that the non-science majors failed to mention these issues in
their discussions of genetic engineering. In fact, the finding that
over half of the science majors did invoke evolutionary theory
was unexpected, particularly in light of the relatively pessimistic
findings reported across the literature in evolution education
(Bishop and Anderson, 1990; Zaim-Idrissi et al, 1993; Settlage,
1994; Sinclair et al, 1997).
The results of this study complement those of Brehm et al
(2003) which suggest that individuals interpretations of evolutionary theory can alter the manner in which they consider personal and social issues. Brehm et al (2003) investigated the
effects of student conceptions of evolution on issues such as
racism, self-determination, selfishness, and spiritual beliefs. The
current study reveals that perspectives on evolution can also
influence socioscientific decision-making, particularly in the
context of genetic engineering.
A disturbing trend reflected in both of these research projects
as well as Zaim-Idrissi et al (1993) is the propensity for students
to think of evolution in a deterministic manner. The students in
the current study who equated evolution to an inviolable natural
order as well as those who rejected genetic technologies on the
basis of whether or not they altered human evolution seem to
think of evolution in terms of progress. They are reticent to support
policies or practices which might interrupt the progress of
human evolution. However, biological evolution is progressive
only in a temporal sense, i.e. evolution characterises the change
of populations over time. It is inappropriate to think of evolution
as a guided process of improvement, enhancement, or the development of complexity (Gould, 1996).
The results reported here are encouraging because they indicate
that some students actively embrace evolutionary theory as a
framework for conceptualising problems related to biology. In fact,
some raised legitimate concerns regarding genetic engineering,
motivated by their understanding of evolutionary theory, such
as a reduction of genetic variability and the promulgation of
deleterious alleles. However, several students, all of whom had
completed extensive work in college biology courses, reflected
deterministic and teleological views of evolution. Given the
qualitative nature of this study and the relatively low sample size,
reporting percentages of individuals comprising any of the categories which emerged from the research would be inappropriate
and potentially misleading because the relative proportions would
not be generalisable. However, the discourse patterns displayed
suggest that misconceptions frequently found in younger learners
(Bishop and Anderson, 1990; Demastes et al, 1996; Jensen and
Finley, 1996) persist even in college-aged students who have
chosen to study biological sciences.
71

Student decision-making

Educational implications
The findings presented herein suggest that students understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory can significantly
influence how they negotiate and resolve socioscientific issues.
Based on these results, it is recommended that evolution instruction
include explicit attention to how evolution can or cannot be
used in the context of social dilemmas. This recommendation is
particularly important because many of the interpretations of
evolutionary implications revealed in the study are not necessarily
consistent with scientific explanations of evolution and these
interpretations can affect decision-making. For instance, interpreting evolution as a deterministic, rather than stochastic, process
can lead to decisions seemingly rooted in but actually contradictory to evolutionary theory. Considering that upper division
college biology majors offered these perspectives, it is not unreasonable to think that similar problems may arise among students
with less science training, including college students who have
chosen to concentrate on other disciplines and younger learners.
This research also identifies an additional educational recommendation: assessments of student understanding of evolution
should be made in a variety of contexts. It is common practice in
science classrooms to cover a unit of content material, administer
a test of that content material, and then move on to the next
topic. The participants who revealed misconceptions regarding
evolution or applied evolutionary theory in somewhat questionable
manners had all successfully completed extensive college-level
biology courses. Throughout their high school and college careers,
they had probably taken many tests on the topic of evolution;
and given the fact that they were enrolled in upper division biology classes, the students had probably performed reasonably
well on these tests. Because evolutionary theory is so important
to understanding all life science (Dobzhansky, 1973), accurate
and robust assessments of student conceptions of evolution are
pivotal to improving biological education. This study reveals
that assessing student understanding of evolutionary theory in
novel contexts such as socioscientific issues is possible, and the
results suggest that these contextual assessments may significantly
enhance the picture of student conceptions of evolution.

References
Bishop B A and Anderson C W (1990) Student conceptions of natural
selection and its role in evolution. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 27, 415-427.
Brem S K, Ranney M and Schindel J (2003) Perceived consequences of
evolution: college students perceive negative personal and social
impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87, 181-206.

72

Sadler

Demastes S S, Good R G and Peebles P (1996) Patterns of conceptual

change in evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 581597.
Dobzhansky T (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evolution. The American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
Glaser B G and Strauss A L (1967) The discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago: Aldine.
Gould S J (1996) Full House: The spread of excellence from Plato to
Darwin. New York: Harmony Books.
Jensen M S and Finley F N (1996) Changes in students understanding
of evolution resulting from different curricular and instructional
strategies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 879-900.
Lincoln Y S and Guba E G (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Sadler T D (2004) Informal reasoning regarding socioscientific issues: A
critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41, 513-536.
Sadler T D and Zeidler D L (2004) The morality of socioscientific
issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas.
Science Education, 88, 4-27.
Sadler T D and Zeidler D L (2005a) Patterns of informal reasoning in
the context of socioscientific decision-making. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 42, 112-138.
Sadler T D and Zeidler D L (2005b) The Significance of Content
Knowledge for Informal Reasoning Regarding Socioscientific Issues:
Applying Genetics Knowledge to Genetic Engineering Issues. Science
Education 89, 71-93.
Scharmann L C (1990) Enhancing an understanding of the premises of
evolutionary theory: The influence of a diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90, 91-100.
Scharmann L C (1993) Teaching evolution: Designing successful
instruction. The American Biology Teacher, 55, 481-485.
Settlage J (1994) Conceptions of natural selection: A snapshot of the
sense-making process. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 449457.
Sinclair A, Pendarvis M P and Baldwin B (1997) The relationship
between college zoology students beliefs about evolutionary theory
and religion. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30,
118-125.
Sinclair A S and Baldwin B (1995) High school biology students beliefs
about evolutionary theory and religion. Research in the Schools, 2(2),
31-38.
Zaim-Idrissi K, Desautels J and Larochelle M (1993) The map is the
territory! The viewpoints of biology students on the theory of evolution. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 39, 59-72.
Zeidler D L ed. (2003) The role of moral reasoning and discourse on socioscientific issues in science education. Netherlands: Kluwer.

Troy D. Sadler is an Assistant Porfessor of Science Education at

Indiana University School of Education, 201 N Rose Avenue
3002, Bloomington, IN 47405-1006. Tel: + 1 812 856-8145. Fax: +
1 812 856-8116. Email: tsadler@indiana.edu

Journal of Biological Education (2005) 39(2)