The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas
Abstract
The ability to negotiate and resolve socioscientific issues has been posited as integral components of scientific literacy. Although philosophers and science educators have argued that socioscientific issues inherently involve moral and ethical considerations, the ultimate arbiters of morality are individual decision‐makers. This study explored the extent to which college students construe genetic engineering issues as moral problems. Twenty college students participated in interviews designed to elicit their ideas, reactions, and feelings regarding a series of gene therapy and cloning scenarios. Qualitative analyses revealed that moral considerations were significant influences on decision‐making, indicating a tendency for students to construe genetic engineering issues as moral problems. Students engaged in moral reasoning based on utilitarian analyses of consequences as well as the application of principles. Issue construal was also influenced by affective features such as emotion and intuition. In addition to moral considerations, a series of other factors emerged as important dimensions of socioscientific decision‐making. These factors included personal experiences, family biases, background knowledge, and the impact of popular culture. The implications for classroom science instruction and future research are discussed. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 88:4–27, 2004; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/.sce10101
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Lincoln, Y. S., Guba, E. G., & Pilotta, J. J. (1985) · International Journal of Intercultural Relations · doi:10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · Cited by 45,787
In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development.
Johnson, M. M., & Gilligan, C. (1983) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2067520 · Cited by 11,111
In A Different Voice: Psychological Theory And Women's Development
Gilligan, & Carol, C. (1982) · Cited by 10,869
National Science Education Standards
Shea, J. H. (1995) · Journal of Geological Education · doi:10.5408/0022-1368-43.2.102 · Cited by 7,888
(1984) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 6,312
The National Science Education Standards
McComas, W. F. (2014) · The Language of Science Education · doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-497-0_58 · Cited by 2,877
Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice
Hoffman, M. L. (2000) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511805851 · Cited by 2,788
The Development of Social Knowledge. Morality and Convention
Eggleston, S. J., & Turiel, E. (1985) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121515 · Cited by 2,647
Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice
Raboteg-Saric, Z., & Hoffman, M. L. (2001) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/3089337 · Cited by 2,410
Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/(sici)1098-237x(200005)84:3<287::aid-sce1>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 2,323
Cited by
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005) · Science Education · doi:10.1002/sce.20023 · Cited by 466
Self-citationKarahan, E. (2023) · International Journal of Science Education · doi:10.1080/09500693.2023.2200887 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L.
- Venue
- Science Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-12-03
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-27
- ISSN
- 0036-8326 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-237X
- OpenAlex
- W2053408794
- Cited by
- 502
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 52.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sce.10101
- The paper
- Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.