An exploration of how gender, political affiliation, or religious identity is associated with comfort and perceptions of controversial topics in bioethics.

Abstract

Bioethics is an important aspect of understanding the relationship between science and society, but studies have not yet examined undergraduate student experiences and comfort in bioethics courses. In this study, we investigated undergraduate bioethics students' support of and comfort when learning three controversial bioethics topics: gene editing, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide (PAS). Furthermore, student identity has been shown to influence how students perceive and learn about controversial topics at the intersection of science and society. So, we explored how students' religious affiliation, gender, or political affiliation was associated with their support of and comfort when learning about gene editing, abortion, and PAS. We found that most students entered bioethics with moderated viewpoints on controversial topics but that there were differences in students' tendency to support each topic based on their gender, religion, and political affiliation. We also saw differences in student comfort levels based on identity: women reported lower comfort than men when learning about gene editing, religious students were less comfortable than nonreligious students when learning about abortion and PAS, and nonliberal students were less comfortable than liberal students when learning about abortion. Students cited that the controversy surrounding these topics and a personal hesitancy to discuss them caused discomfort. These findings indicate that identity impacts comfort and support in a way similar to that previously shown in the public. Thus, it may be important for instructors to consider student identity when teaching bioethics topics to maximize student comfort, ultimately encouraging thoughtful consideration and engagement with these topics.