Lesson at a Glance | He Tirohanga Whakamua
Ngā Whāinga Ako | Learning Intentions
Students will know
- Utilitarianism (Consequentialism): Ethical decisions judged by net outcomes—maximising benefits for the greatest number (e.g. saving endangered species from extinction).
- Deontology (Duty Ethics): Ethical decisions judged by adherence to moral duties or intrinsic rules regardless of outcomes (e.g. belief that altering wild species DNA is inherently unethical).
- The 4 Bioethical Principles: Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, and Justice.
Students will demonstrate
- By evaluating the ethics of CRISPR gene drives through both Utilitarian and Deontological lenses.
- By completing Section 3 of their Level 3 Biology Socio-Scientific Report Portfolio.
Do Now | Tīmatanga Whakaaro (10 min)
Ethical Trade-off Prompt:
"Introduced predators — rats, stoats and possums — are a leading cause of native bird decline in Aotearoa (if you quote a national figure for annual bird deaths in your report, cite the specific DOC or peer-reviewed source it comes from). If releasing a gene drive eradicates possums completely, removing one of those predation pressures, but carries some risk of spreading to Australia where possums are native — a risk that has not been measured because no possum gene drive has been trialled outside containment — is it ethically justified?"
Unpack: A Utilitarian weighs the reduced predation pressure on native birds against the potential Australian damage. A Deontologist examines whether humanity has a moral right to engineer extinction or cross species boundaries.
Core Ethical Frameworks in Bioethics (15 min)
Focuses on net outcomes. Eliminating invasive predators prevents mass avian suffering and prevents ecosystem collapse (Beneficence > Non-Maleficence).
Focuses on moral duties. Argues that permanently modifying wild genomes breaches ecological integrity and creates irreversible moral hazards.
The 4 Bioethical Principles (15 min)
The right of an individual, community, or iwi/hapū to make their own informed decisions about what happens to their environment, taonga, or body. Applied here: does a community get a real say before a gene drive is released near them?
The duty to act for the benefit of others. Applied here: protecting native bird populations from predation is a beneficent goal.
The duty to avoid causing harm. Applied here: an irreversible gene drive that spreads beyond its intended range or population could cause unintended ecological harm.
The fair distribution of benefits and burdens. Applied here: who decides, who benefits, and who bears the risk if something goes wrong — and is that distribution fair?
📁 Socio-Scientific Report Portfolio — Section 3: Ethical Frameworks
Students open their Level 3 Biology Portfolio and complete Section 3:
Section 3 Requirements:
1. Ethical Matrix Table: Evaluate your target issue using the 4 Bioethical Principles (Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Justice).
2. Utilitarian vs Deontological Analysis: Write a comparative 2-paragraph analysis explaining how each framework justifies opposing stances on gene editing.
3. Excellence Precautionary Principle Evaluation: 1-paragraph explanation of the Precautionary Principle ("lack of full scientific certainty shall not postpone cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation").
Exit Verification | Ka Mutu Hoki (5 min)
Exit Check:
"My Section 3 contrasts Utilitarian arguments (reducing predator-driven bird losses) against Deontological concerns (intrinsic sanctity of species genomes) using bioethical principles."
Teacher Planning & NCEA Alignment
NCEA Level 3 Biology Alignment (3 Credits Internal):
- Ethical Perspectives: Evaluate diverse social and ethical perspectives using established bioethical frameworks.
- Critical Reasoning: Analyse trade-offs between risks, benefits, duties, and rights.
Vocabulary: Bioethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology, Beneficence, Non-Maleficence, Autonomy, Justice, Precautionary Principle.