Unit 3 — Science and Ethics

Learning objectives Link to heading

• I can read short ethics-of-science texts (CRISPR, large language models, climate intervention) and identify the consequentialist and deontological moves.
• I can use vocabulary of science ethics (precautionary principle, dual use, informed consent, moratorium, governance).
• I can write a 350-word science-ethics essay with a structured ethical argument.

curriculum framework (“Bildungsplan”) alignment Link to heading

• 3.4.1 / 3.5.1 Soziokulturelles Orientierungswissen / Themen
• 3.4.3.2 / 3.5.3.2 Leseverstehen
• 3.4.3.5 / 3.5.3.5 Schreiben
• 3.4.4 / 3.5.4 Text- und Medienkompetenz

(Sources: https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG/GYM/E1/IK/11-12-LF / https://www.bildungsplaene-bw.de/,Lde/LS/BP2016BW/ALLG/GYM/E1/IK/11-12-BF)

Lead-in story Link to heading

Mr. Yilmaz set three short ethics-of-science texts: one on CRISPR germline editing, one on large language models and academic integrity, one on climate intervention research (stratospheric aerosol injection). The class noticed quickly that all three debates rotated around the same question — who decides what we are not allowed to find out?

1. Activate Link to heading

Ethics scan. With your partner, list 3 scientific research areas you think should be regulated more strictly. Mark each with the strongest argument for and against.

2. Input Link to heading

Reading — Three Ethics Frames (paraphrased) Link to heading

Consequentialism asks what produces the best outcomes? — including risks, who bears them, and across what time horizon. Deontology asks what are we required to do regardless of consequences? — informed consent, dignity, irreversible-harm thresholds. Virtue ethics asks what kind of researcher / institution do we want to be?. Real-world ethics-of-science debates almost always combine all three; pretending the debate is purely consequentialist is itself a philosophical position.*

Vocabulary — science ethics Link to heading

precautionary principle, dual-use research, informed consent, moratorium, governance, irreversibility, externality, stakeholder engagement, transparency, peer review, replication, bioethics committee, IRB.

3. Practise Link to heading

Niveau E — controlled Link to heading

1. Match: precautionary principle → caution under uncertainty; dual use → research with both civilian and military potential; moratorium → temporary halt.
2. T or F: consequentialism rules out informed consent; deontology rules out cost-benefit thinking.

Niveau E — productive Link to heading

3. Build 4 sentences applying consequentialist + deontological + virtue-ethics moves to the CRISPR case.

4. Produce Link to heading

Science-ethics essay, 350 words. Pick one case (CRISPR / LLMs / climate intervention). Build a structured argument with one consequentialist move + one deontological move + one virtue-ethics move + one disagreement / acknowledgement. Use 4 academic discourse markers + 1 cleft.

Sample Link to heading

The CRISPR-Cas9 germline editing debate is instructive precisely because all three major ethics frames push in slightly different directions, and the resulting policy must be assembled from their overlap. The consequentialist case for some forms of germline editing is, on its own terms, strong: if a single safe intervention can prevent Huntington’s disease in a future child, the expected welfare gain is large and the risk profile, with current CRISPR-Cas9 v3 protocols, is modest. By contrast, the deontological objection is also strong: the future child cannot consent, and the principle of informed consent has, since the Belmont Report (1979), been a non-negotiable in human-subject research. Accordingly, the most useful frame here is the precautionary principle — not the strong version (any risk, no action) but the weak version (irreversible-harm thresholds plus stakeholder engagement). The virtue-ethics question — what kind of researcher community do we want? — tilts toward a moratorium-with-review, partly because the researcher community after the He Jiankui case (2018) has, on reflection, agreed that the breach of governance norms was itself the primary harm. It is precisely this institutional self-correction that makes the moratorium-with-review frame defensible. In this regard, the case is not for or against germline editing but for or against doing it inside a peer-reviewed, consent-respecting governance structure. The honest answer is conditional. Some applications, with strong governance, may be permissible; others, without it, are not. The frame is what travels.

5. Reflect Link to heading

• I can identify consequentialist, deontological, and virtue-ethics moves.
• I can use 6+ science-ethics terms.
• I can write a 350-word structured science-ethics essay.

One thing in your notebook: Write one sentence using something you learned in this Unit.

Exam example Link to heading

Part A — Comprehension (~24 BE) Link to heading

Read twice.

“Consequentialism asks what produces the best outcomes; deontology asks what we are required to do regardless of consequences; virtue ethics asks what kind of researcher we want to be. Real debates combine all three.”

1. Consequentialism: ___ . 2. Deontology: ___ . 3. Virtue ethics: ___ . 4. Real debates: ___ .

Part B — Analysis (~18 BE) Link to heading

Read the Three Ethics Frames paraphrase above.

1. Consequentialism’s question: ___ . 2. Deontology’s commitments: ___ . 3. Virtue ethics’ question: ___ . 4. Why combining frames is itself philosophical: ___ .

Part C — Composition (~18 BE) Link to heading

Composition prompt: Apply the three frames to large language models in academic writing in 250 words. Use 2 markers + 1 cleft.

Mediation (~30 BE) Link to heading

Mediation prompt: A 300-word German position paper from a Bioethik-Kommission. Mediate for an English-speaking science-policy reader. (Source provided in class.)

Downloads Link to heading

Common pitfalls Link to heading

• Don’t reduce ethics-of-science to yes / no.
• Precautionary principle has a strong and a weak version — flag which.
• Don’t quote ethics jargon; integrate it.

Further reading / listening Link to heading

• Henry T. Greely, CRISPR People (accessible chapters).
• The Atlantic — Tech Ethics essays.

Downloads

Presentation

Download .pptx

Worksheet

Download .pdf