How to Investigate a Bioethical Issue (Unit 2) (VCE SSCE Biology): Revision Notes
How to Investigate a Bioethical Issue (Unit 2)
Introduction
For Unit 2 Outcome 3 in VCE Biology, you must identify, analyse, and evaluate a bioethical issue related to one of three topics: genetics, reproductive science, or adaptations beneficial for survival. This investigation requires you to conduct independent research, gather evidence, and present your findings in an appropriate format such as a digital presentation, oral presentation, or written report.
The investigation process is divided into four key areas:
- Understanding the task
- Scientific evidence
- Scientific communication
- Analysing and evaluating a bioethical issue
Understanding the task
Choosing a biological issue
Your first step is to select a current bioethical issue related to one of the following areas from Unit 2:
- Genetics
- Reproductive science
- Adaptations beneficial for survival
When choosing your issue, consider which topics interested you most during your studies. Think about:
- Specific questions you had about certain topics
- How particular issues impact your own life
- How government regulates the research
- Current areas of research that raise bioethical questions
Almost all biological research involves social, economic, and political implications. Your task is to identify one of these implications and develop it into a bioethical issue worth investigating.
Formulating a research question
Once you've chosen your bioethical issue, transform it into a testable research question. This question should:
- Address a bioethical concern
- Be testable and binary (allowing you to reach a specific conclusion)
- Be specific enough to answer thoroughly
Example Research Question: Cloning Technology
Instead of asking "Is cloning ethical?", formulate a specific, testable question:
"How can we ensure that access to cloning technologies is fair and equitable between all Australian agricultural producers?"
This question:
- Involves the bioethical concept of justice
- Considers access and fairness
- Addresses different stakeholders
- Can be thoroughly investigated and answered
Understanding success criteria
Your final report should demonstrate comprehensive understanding and analysis across several key areas.
What Your Report Must Include:
- Thorough explanation of core biological concepts relevant to your area
- Discussion of different opinions and viewpoints about your bioethical issue
- Analysis of legal, social, economic, and ethical implications
- Effective use of models and graphs to explain ideas and concepts
Stage 1: Scientific evidence
Establishing a logbook
Before beginning your research, set up a logbook to track your progress and sources. Your logbook is essential for maintaining research integrity and authenticity.
Your logbook should:
- Record sources in chronological order
- Include full details of each source (date retrieved, author, title, link, reference)
- Contain personal notes about key findings
- Help you authenticate your secondary data
There is no set format—use whatever system works best for you, whether handwritten notes or typed records with links.
Distinguishing between primary and secondary data
Understanding the difference between data types is crucial for your investigation:
Primary data refers to results collected from experiments, interviews, or surveys undertaken by the researchers themselves.
Secondary data refers to results from sources other than the researcher's own investigations, which may be discussed or leveraged by the researchers in the course of their own research.
Critical Requirement:
In your final report, you must explicitly mention when, where, and why you use each type of data. This demonstrates your understanding of data sources and strengthens the credibility of your investigation.
Discussing the nature of evidence
Not all studies provide the same level or type of evidence. When evaluating sources, it's essential to identify whether information is evidence, anecdote, or opinion—each carries different weight in scientific research.
Evidence refers to primary and/or secondary data given in support of a position. This will typically be empirical and measurable, and obtained within the context of a formal research environment. Evidence from controlled clinical trials with large, randomised samples is stronger than evidence from small case studies.
Anecdote is a more informal type of evidence involving a personal account or report of a previous experience that may provide a certain level of support for a position. Anecdotal evidence typically lacks objective documentation, large sample sizes, and controlled research environments.
Opinion refers to the personal belief or viewpoint of an individual, and is typically yet to be verified or deemed as fact. An opinion may be based on evidence or anecdote but rests on grounds insufficient to arrive at complete certainty.
Using Different Types of Evidence:
While opinions are the weakest form of evidence, they can be useful starting points for guiding your research into more rigorous scientific and legal literature. Think of them as the beginning of your investigation journey, not the end.
Discussing the quality of evidence
Validity and authority of data
Judge the quality of your evidence using these critical measures—often remembered as the RRV framework:
Repeatability: Can the investigation be repeated by the same person using the same method and still obtain the same results?
Reproducibility: Can other scientists follow the same method and get the same results?
Validity: Does the research actually measure what it claims to measure? In other words, is the data answering the research question?
Additionally, check whether data has been peer-reviewed and is supported by other researchers. Even if evidence is not anecdotal or opinion-based, it must still be repeatable, reproducible, and valid to be considered reliable.
Sources of possible errors
Research can be affected by various types of errors that impact the quality and reliability of findings. Understanding these errors helps you critically evaluate sources and strengthen your own methodology.
Three Types of Errors (PSR):
Personal errors arise due to mistakes or miscalculations made by the researcher themselves, such as:
- Counting incorrectly
- Rounding to the wrong decimal place
- Labelling samples incorrectly
Systematic errors cause results to differ from the true value by a consistent amount each time, typically due to:
- Faulty equipment or calibration
- Affecting the accuracy of the experiment
- Cannot be minimised through replication
Random errors affect the precision of findings and are caused by:
- Unpredictable variations in the measurement process
- Estimating quantities by reading between lines on a measuring cylinder
- Other uncontrollable fluctuations
Sources of possible bias
Beyond errors, bias can significantly impact research validity. Identifying bias in your sources is crucial for evaluating the strength of evidence.
Three Types of Bias (CSP):
Confirmation bias refers to the tendency of researchers to only search for and/or include information that supports their personal beliefs, hypothesis, or research aim.
Selection bias refers to situations where research participants are not properly randomised, meaning the sample is not appropriately representative of the wider population the research hopes to draw conclusions about.
Publication bias refers to situations where the outcome of a study determines whether it is published, not just the quality of the research. Journals often publish studies with significant or positive findings more frequently than those with negative or non-significant results. This means published literature may not properly represent all available evidence.
Methods for analysing, organising, and evaluating
Analysis
To analyse data effectively, you need to critically examine the relationship between your research question and the data you've collected:
- Compare the purpose of your investigation with the type of data obtained
- Understand your research question and what data is needed to answer it
- Consider the pros and cons of each study through measures such as sample size, reproducibility, and validity
- Identify which studies are relevant to your research question and which are not
Organisation
Organising data involves displaying key findings effectively. This typically means transforming data into tables, line graphs, or bar charts to highlight trends, patterns, or relationships. Consider which format best communicates your findings to your audience.
Evaluation
Once you've analysed and organised data, the evaluation stage requires you to make judgements about the quality and implications of your findings:
- Evaluate the strength of your findings
- Determine whether your research question is supported or not
- Judge research quality based on validity, authority, and other quality measures
- Comment on potential sources of error or bias
- Note whether researchers have acknowledged these limitations
Good Evaluation Practice:
Strong evaluations don't just describe what researchers found—they critically assess how reliable those findings are and whether the methods used were appropriate for answering the research question.
Stage 2: Scientific communication
Defining key biological concepts
A successful investigation requires clearly defining the scope of your study and communicating key biological concepts. This involves:
- Defining relevant key terms
- Explaining difficult biological concepts that underpin your area of study
- Using appropriate biological terminology
- Providing background information your reader needs to understand your research
Example: Defining Concepts for Cloning Research
If discussing cloning technologies in agriculture, you must explain:
- What cloning is (the biological process)
- What technologies are currently used (specific methods and techniques)
- What "agricultural use" means (the practical applications)
- Any other important background information your audience needs
This ensures your reader has the foundational knowledge to understand your investigation.
Understanding characteristics of effective communication
Effective scientific communication depends on identifying your audience and using appropriate tone and formality. Your investigation should be tailored to who will be reading or viewing it.
Consider these questions when preparing your communication:
- Have I presented difficult concepts in an accessible way for my audience?
- Is the length of my investigation appropriate? Have I been as concise as possible?
- Have I framed my research question in a way that makes sense to my audience?
- Have I discussed the implications of my research in a way that is relevant to my chosen audience?
Deciding on data representation
Choose how to represent your collected data most effectively. Depending on your teacher's instructions, this might involve:
- A presentation
- An essay
- A poster
- A video
- Other presentation styles
Tips for Effective Data Representation:
Consider using tables and/or graphs, weighing the benefits and limitations of each representation style. Break information into subheadings and support complex ideas with diagrams and flowcharts to make your investigation engaging and easy to follow.
Considering outside influences
Be aware of the external factors that shape and influence your research question. These factors often determine how bioethical issues are understood and addressed in real-world contexts.
Social factors involve a person's lifestyle, including potential discrimination, prejudice, or disadvantage based on race, gender, ethnicity, social class, or sexual orientation.
Economic factors involve money and the use of goods and services. Consider how your research might be applied at larger scale and any economic challenges this could entail, such as time investment and cost.
Political factors involve government policy or messaging. Consider recent political discussion surrounding your research topic and current government policies about its application.
Legal factors involve current legalities and regulatory bodies that dictate research and applications. This includes relevant laws, acts, and regulations you may need to research and mention in your report.
Referencing correctly
When using others' work to support your research, provide references outlining the source and where the original work can be found. Check with your teacher about which referencing format to use.
Harvard referencing style
A commonly used scientific referencing convention includes two key components:
In-text citations: Smaller versions of the full citation used when directly quoting or paraphrasing a source in the body of your report.
Format: (Last name, year of publication)
Example In-Text Citation:
"There are, in mankind, two kinds of heredity: biological and cultural." (Ayala, 2015)
Reference lists: Located at the end of your report, including full citations for all sources used. List these in alphabetical order by main author's last name, and if multiple sources by the same author, by year of publication.
Format: Last name, First Initial(s). (Year published). Title. City: Publisher, Page(s).
Example Reference List Entry:
Ayala, F.J. (2015). Cloning humans? Biological, ethical, and social considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, [online] 112(29), pp.8879–8886.
Stage 3: Analysing and evaluating a bioethical issue
Sharpening your bioethical toolkit
Effective analysis of bioethical issues involves actively considering varied perspectives. Use multiple bioethical concepts to explore issues through different lenses. These bioethical "tools" can be used individually or together to consider all aspects of a bioethical concern.
Why Multiple Perspectives Matter:
A robust bioethical analysis considers an issue from multiple angles. What might seem beneficial from one perspective (e.g., consequences) might raise concerns from another (e.g., respect for individual autonomy). Using multiple bioethical approaches ensures a comprehensive evaluation.
Approaches to bioethics
There are three main approaches to analysing bioethical issues, each emphasising different aspects of ethical decision-making:
Consequences-based approach aims to maximise positive outcomes while minimising negative outcomes.
Duty/rule-based approach promotes the responsibility of the agent above all else, placing importance on following well-established rules and guidelines.
Virtues-based approach emphasises the individual goodness of the agent and promotes acting in accordance with values of a "moral" person, such as honesty and compassion.
Bioethical concepts
Five key concepts form the foundation of bioethical analysis. Remember these using the mnemonic I Just Bring No Respect:
Integrity encourages a full commitment to knowledge and understanding as well as honest reporting of all sources of information and results.
Justice encourages fair consideration of competing claims and ensures there is no unfair burden on a particular group from an action.
Beneficence encourages maximisation of benefits while minimising risks and harms involved in taking a particular position or course of action.
Non-maleficence discourages causing harm—or when harm is unavoidable, ensures harm is not disproportionate to benefits from any position or course of action.
Respect encourages acknowledgement of the intrinsic value of living things and considers welfare, beliefs, customs, and cultural heritage of both individuals and collectives.
Remember:
Any bioethical approach or concept can be used to both support and/or undermine a position. This is why considering multiple perspectives is essential—the same bioethical concept might lead to different conclusions depending on how it's applied and what aspects are emphasised.
Assessment criteria
A high-performing investigation demonstrates excellence across multiple criteria:
Issue identification:
- Direct relevance to genetics, reproductive science, or adaptations
- Topical relevance to current bioethical debates
Research question:
- Direct relation to the chosen issue
- Testable and binary format
Biological concepts:
- Deep understanding of biological concepts relevant to chosen area
- Clear explanations using appropriate terminology
Influences:
- Comprehensive outline of social, economic, legal, and ethical factors
- Thoughtful analysis of how these factors interact
Opinions:
- Impartial presentation of all major opinions
- Supported with evidence and appropriate sourcing
Errors/bias:
- Detailed discussion of potential errors or sources of bias in research used
- Critical evaluation of limitations
Conclusions:
- Sound conclusion based on strong evaluation of research
- Clearly answers the research question
Formatting:
- Interesting and engaging presentation
- Includes diagrams and visuals where appropriate
References:
- Numerous correctly sourced references from reputable and varied sources
- Evidence of logbook use during research
Key Points to Remember:
- Start by establishing a comprehensive logbook to track all your research sources and progress
- Distinguish clearly between primary and secondary data, and between evidence, anecdote, and opinion
- Evaluate evidence quality using the RRV framework: repeatability, reproducibility, and validity
- Look for potential errors (personal, systematic, random) and bias (confirmation, selection, publication) in all sources
- Use your bioethical toolkit—approaches (consequences, duty, virtues) and concepts (integrity, justice, beneficence, non-maleficence, respect)—to analyse your issue from multiple perspectives
- Consider social, economic, political, and legal influences on your bioethical issue
- Use appropriate referencing conventions throughout your investigation and maintain accurate citations
- Remember: the strongest investigations demonstrate critical thinking, multiple perspectives, and evidence-based conclusions