Download SCENARIO #1: Nature vs. Nurture

Name: Sarah Jacob
Socratic Seminar on Bioethics
Period: 2
Date:3-2-15
It is hard to talk about the recent DNA technology and genetic engineering without getting into a
discussion. The topics that science has opened up for us now in the present have just as much to do with ethics
and preferences, as with science itself. The topics we will be facing in the future are going to challenge us even
more.
You will be taking part in a class discussion on four different issues. You will be presented with the four
different scenarios today. Your job is to research as much information on each topic as possible, in order to be
able to make valid arguments during the debate.
On the day of the socratic seminar, you will turn in one argument, with supporting research, per question
per scenario (12 total). Your grade for this activity will be divided between your participation within the
discussion, and the written arguments that you turn in.
*****Any student that cannot handle having a mature class discussion on these topics will be disqualified
from the activity (this includes cursing, name-calling, put-downs, physical contact, threatening, or any
other type of offensive behavior towards classmates or the instructor). Once a student is disqualified,
he or she will simply be escorted out of the classroom and receive a ONE. Depending on the severity of
the infraction, a referral might also be written.
******If immaturity within the classroom becomes a greater issue than one or two students, the activity
will be canceled, and the class period will be spent taking notes, or working on a worksheet.
**************
CLASS:
DISCUSSION GUIDELINES
1.
2.
3.
4.
1
SCENARIO #1: Nature vs. Nurture
It is 2010, and Joe Schmoe has been charged with assault. The physical evidence supporting his guilt is
overwhelming and he pleads guilty. In preparation for his sentencing hearing, Joe's lawyer asks him to undergo a
series of genetic tests to determine whether he carries any of four genetic mutations that have been
associated in research literature with violent behavior. The tests, while controversial, show that Joe's DNA
does, in fact, contain all four mutations. Based on these results, Joe's lawyer will argue that Joe should be sent
to a psychiatric facility rather than to state prison. He claims that because Joe's genetic status predisposed
him to this violent act, it would be unfair to sentence him as a criminal for behavior over which he had
essentially no control.
1. If you were the judge at Joe's sentencing hearing, how, if at all, would the results of this
controversial genetic test influence your decision? What if he only had 1 of the 4 mutations
associated with violent behavior?
Joe will still be sent to jail for the price he has to pay for this crime. The point of a crime is that you
know what right from wrong is and you were fully aware of you were doing. The ruling of having the
psychiatrist or physician would be out of mind if he only had 1 of the 4 mutations but, if he had a higher
number than the ruling would still be in question. Joe will be sent to jail either way mutation or not
because he had the understanding from right and wrong. There is no question about that.
"The sensitivity and specificity of the findings are too low for any screening [for] prevention purposes,"
Tiihonen cautioned. "According to the basic principles of forensic psychiatry, any risk factors, such as
genotype or brain injury in car accident, must not have any effect per se on convictions or prison
sentences. The mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of one's deeds, and ability
to control one's behavior, are the only things that matter." – Dr.Jari Tihonen one of the lead doctors on
the study linking mutation to violent behavior.
http://consumer.healthday.com/health-technology-information-18/genetics-news-334/new-researchsuggests-there-may-be-a-violent-crime-gene-693158.html
2
2. If Joe gets sent to prison and tries to get released on parole fifteen years later, should the fact
that he may have a genetic predisposition to violent behavior be used to keep him in prison, even if
his behavior has been consistently good during his incarceration?
If he has been on good behavior through this time period then he should be released in fact but, be kept
under watch. Also he should be visiting the physiatrists or some physician to help control his violent
behavior if he has outbursts due to the mutation in the future.
3. In the future, should all newborn babies be screened to determine if they have genetic mutations
that could be linked to violent behavior?
No I believe that all newborn babies should be screen to determine if they have genetic mutations that
could be linked to violent behavior. The mutation doesn’t prove that these babies will end up violent in
their adolescents or adulthood. It is a mere factor in their life, if they are surrounded in a hostile/
violent environment that also will largely contribute to their actions as well. Screening a baby is a bit
over excessive and unnecessary; it labels such a young child with no control of their mutation as a violent
human that could become a criminal in the future. I believe it should be an option for parents if they
want to know but, should not be a required routine done by the hospital. A label should not be put onto a
child before the crime has not even been committed.
http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v32/n11/full/1301359a.html
3
SCENARIO #2: Inherited vs. Acquired Disease
John Jones has been working in a nuclear power plant for 15 years and has applied for a medical
discharge because of the emergence of tumors in different parts of his body, all of which are attributed to a
genetic condition called Von Hippel LIndau syndrome. In spite of these cancers, John has been an exemplary
employee, having earned numerous awards throughout his career.
John learns that some co-workers who developed cancer were eligible for a substantial compensation
from the employer. The company regulations governing qualification for the compensation package exempt
diseases that are “hereditary and/or genetic” on the assumption that these diseases were incurred prior to
employment with the company. Without this additional compensation, John’s medical benefits do not cover a
majority of his medical expenses and he is very concerned about how he will support his family.
1. Is it fair for employers to differentiate between employees who have a condition with a known
genetic basis and those with a medical condition not identified as genetic?
It is not fair for employers to differentiate between the two. They are basing on “assumption” that the disease
was acquired before working at the plant.
2. Should employers hire individuals with a known medical condition? Should they be required to
cover their medical benefits?
3. When is it acceptable for employers to use genetic information as a determinant in the hiring
process?
4
SCENARIO #3: DNA testing – to free people or to catch people?
The Innocence Project, founded in 1992, is an effort by various professionals to help prisoners who
were wrongfully convicted of their crime to be proven innocent through DNA testing. Many of these prisoners
were convicted decades ago, when DNA testing was either in its infancy (and not widely used) or before it was
even discovered as a forensic technique. DNA profiling evidence is one of the strongest evidence that can be
brought up in a case, and it could either eliminate suspects from the pool of suspects, or it could go toward
proving someone’s involvement in a crime. Although widely used in current forensic cases, DNA testing is a
relatively recent procedure that has now become standard. The Innocence Project hopes to facilitate DNA
testing on many cases that never had it done to begin with, in order to have more definitive evidence for or
against the person’s guilt.
To date, 289 people have been exonerated, many of whom were at the time sitting on death row. The
task of finding evidence for old cases (which many times has been destroyed or is no longer useable) and doing
DNA profiles is a time consuming one and also one that requires much funding. Because of this, the Innocence
Project requires funding from various sources and fundraising events.
There is another effort, mainly headed by America’s Most Wanted host John Walsh, to set up a national
DNA database to store the genetic information of criminals. Initially, it started out as an effort targeted at
convicted felons, but has since moved to make the DNA database more general, including the DNA profile of
anyone who is arrested (without them needing to first be convicted of the crime). Two years ago, this effort
was backed by President Obama. To those that are more interested in lowering crime rate, this was a huge step
in the right direction. However, the same news were disappointing to criminal-justice reformers, who view it
more as an unnecessary invasion of privacy.
1. Do you think that people that have served time in prison, and have since been proven innocent
thanks to DNA testing, have a right to sue law enforcement for failing to identify their innocence
in the past, keeping in mind that modern techniques were not available then? Why or why not?
2. How can the government/society “make it up” to the people who were wrongly convicted, when they
miss out on decades of regular life, and as they struggle to reinstitute themselves into society?
3. Do you think that there should/should not be a national DNA database for anyone arrested but
not necessarily convicted of a crime? Why or why not?
4. Should law enforcement’s interest in solving crimes override people’s right to privacy?
5
SCENARIO #4: One for the Other
Anna and Carlos' first child Vincent suffers from a rare form of cancer. Doctors explain to Anna and
Carlos that chemotherapy could potentially cure Vincent's type of cancer, but there is no guarantee this mode
of treatment would work in his particular case. Another option is a bone marrow transplant, which involves killing
Vincent's cells that do not work correctly and replacing them with healthy cells from someone else. If
successful, the bone marrow transplant could cure Vincent of the cancer. However, for this treatment to work,
the donor's tissue type would have to be a very close match to Vincent's, which is very rare.
Anna and Carlos desperately want Vincent to have a bone marrow transplant, but neither of their tissue types
are close enough to Vincent's to work. The doctor tells them they could have a second child, and, if this child's
cells match Vincent's, the new baby could donate cells from its umbilical cord blood to complete a bone marrow
transplant.
Anna and Carlos decide to go ahead and have a second child, whom they name Thomas. At the time of Thomas'
birth, doctors collect the blood from his umbilical cord for possible use in Vincent's bone marrow transplant.
The parents are overjoyed to learn that the baby's tissue is indeed a good match for Vincent's, but doctors
caution that this treatment, while more successful than chemotherapy, still does not guarantee a cure. They
caution that Vincent may need further tissue donations from Thomas later in life that require more invasive
procedures, such as removal of bone marrow or organ donations, such as a kidney transplant.
1. What do you think of Carlos and Anna's decision to have a second child to try and help Vincent?
2. What would you think if Vincent needs a second bone marrow donation when Thomas is 8, and
Thomas decides he doesn't want to participate because he is afraid of the needles involved?
6