You are on page 1of 33

Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Higher Education Division

Unit Outline
SOC30002 Genetics and Society
SOC60002 Genome: Biotechnology and Society
Semester 2, 2015
Unit Convener: Dr Hadi Sohrabi

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
The Unit
In June 2000, at the dawn of the new millennium, scientists announced that they
had mapped the entire human genome. It was a rough draft only. Even so, ten
years before the project had seemed a distant goal. Now it seemed as if human
beings were on the brink of a whole new adventure.
In fact the Human Genome Project was just the most visible and symbolic part of
a much larger surge of innovation in the life sciences. The biotechnology
revolution was closely associated with the information revolution of the 1980s

and 1990s. The Human Genome Project itself was only possible because of the
enormous growth in capacity of computers to process information.
The biotechnology revolution creates choices where once there were none. Every
week we see new media controversies arise as we struggle to consider the social
and ethical implications of these choices. Consider, for example, media
controversies about infertility treatments, stem cell research, genetically
Page 1
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
modified foods, medical travel to developing countries such as India and Thailand
and genetic engineering.
Some social groups and organizations are critical of the direction our society is
taking. For example, some religious groups are entrenched critics of stem cell
research and therapeutic cloning. Other social groups and organizations see the
new technologies as the dawn of a new age of hope and prosperity. Scientists and
patient groups are the most sustained advocates of the new technologies.
This unit provides an introduction to the biotechnology revolution and its social
implications. It will prepare students to play an active part in forging the new
ethical framework and social policy for the future.

Page 2
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
UNIT DETAILS
Unit Code

SOC30002 and SOC60002

Unit Name

Genetics and Society, and Genome:


Biotechnology and Society

Contact Hours

One lecture x 2.0 hours per week


One tutorial x 1.0 hours per week

Lecture and tutorial times

Lecture:
Tutorials:

Credit Points

12.5 credit points

Tuesdays 10.30-12.30 EN 102


See your timetable

UNIT LEARNING OUTCOMES


After studying this unit students will be able to:
1.

Assess the main social implications of the biotechnology revolution

2.

Identify relevant theoretical perspectives pertaining to a sociological


understanding of the biotechnology revolution

3.

Distinguish a sociological approach to genetic technologies from genetically


determinist approaches

4.

Communicate sociological ideas, principles and knowledge about


biotechnologies in oral and written form

GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES
Students can expect to acquire or improve the following generic skills:

The development of competencies in oral and written expression;

The acquisition of skills in conducting library-based research, critical analysis and


clear argument;

The ability to apply abstract ideas and concepts to specific substantive issues;

The ability to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of competing and
complex arguments.

TEACHING STAFF
Unit Convener and Lecturer
Other teaching staf
Hadi Sohrabis office location

Dr Hadi Sohrabi
AS303 (by appointment)

Page 3
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
Hadi Sohrabis contact
details
Consultation arrangements

Email: msohrabihaghighat@swin.edu.au

Please email Hadi to make a consultation time.

LEARNING AND TEACHING METHOD


You should expect to spend, on average, twelve and a half hours total time a week
(formal contact time plus independent study time) on a 12.5 credit point unit.
Attendance and
participation
requirements

Attendance at lectures and attendance/participation


in tutorials is expected. Tutorial attendance and
participation will be taken into account in the review
of borderline grades. Lectures and tutorials
complement each other and students will be
examined on material covered in both.

Tutorial preparation
requirements

Prescribed reading for each tutorial is in the unit


guide.

Teaching approach

Students are encouraged to connect sociology to


current events and their own lives. The approach is
learner-centred and assumes that students learn best
by seeking information, asking questions and by
drawing on past experiences.

LEARNING MATERIALS
Unit Texts

Readings are all available through online


links from the SOC30002 BlackBoard site
and should be either read online or printed
off for reading each week.
Pilnick, A. (2002) Genetics and Society, Open
University Press, Maidenhead. This is not a set text
but it is a particularly good introduction to
sociological concepts in this field and highly
recommended for students with no background in
sociology. There are copies on reserve in the
library.

Other references you


may find useful

Atkinson, P., Glasner, P. and Lock, M. (eds.) The


Handbook of Genetics and Society, Routledge,
Hoboken.
Australian Law Reform Commission Canberra,
Commonwealth of Australia. (2003). Essentially
Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic
Information in Australia. http://www.alrc.gov.au/
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2002).
Biotechnology - The Making of a Global
Controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2003), Our Post-human Future:
Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution,
New York: New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Page 4
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
(multiple copies in Swinburne library)
Peterson, A., & Bunton, R. (2002). The New Genetics
and the Public's Health. London and New York:
Routledge.
Rifkin, J. (1998). The Biotech Century: How Genetic
Commerce Will Change the World. London,
Phoenix.
Tutton, R. (2009) Social Aspects of Genetic Testing
Technologies, Sociology Compass, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp.
972985. (Good survey article that introduces key
authors and concepts in the sociological genetic
testing field).
Winston, M. (2002). Travels in the Genetically
Modified Zone. Melbourne, Scribe Publications.
Blackboard Site for this Unit of Study
Important information concerning this unit of study is placed on the Swinburne
learning management system (Blackboard iLearn), accessible via
http://ilearn.swin.edu.au/
It is your responsibility to access on a regular basis:

Blackboard iLearn for each of the units of study you are enrolled in this
semester (particularly the Announcements section)

Your Swinburne email account (either through webmail or


MySwinburne). If you access your email through a provider other than
Swinburne, it is your responsibility to ensure that your Swinburne email can
be redirected to your private email address. For the latest advice about how
to do this, please visit: http://live.swinburne.edu.au/redirect.html

ASSESSMENT
Minimum requirements for passing this unit
To pass this unit, you must have attempted all major assessment components plus
achieved an aggregate mark for the unit of 50% or more. The major assessment
components are those listed below that carry a weighting of at least 10% of the
total mark available.
Students must retain all assessed material that contributes to the final result up
until such time as the final results are published.
Assessment in this unit is in accordance with the guidelines set out in Procedures
Relating to Student Assessment and Appeals (Higher Education Division, Swinburne
University of Technology, Hawthorn, 1995).
There are three requirements for passing this unit.
Please note that in order to pass the unit, students must attempt all pieces
of work. (1), (2) and (3)

Assessment Task

(1) Tutorial work:

Individual/
Group Task
Individual

Related Learning
Objective(s)

Weighting

Due Date

2,3,4

Class presentation (10


Page 5
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
marks)
Quizzes (2 x 5 marks
each)

10%

Varies

10%

Weeks 5 and 11

(2) Essay (3,000


words)

Individual

1,2,4

40%

Friday October 9

(3) Exam

Individual

1,3,4

40%

Examination
period

1. Tutorial work

Marks: 20%

5 marks each for quizzes


and 10 marks for class
presentation

Students are expected to attend all tutorials, prepare for and participate in the
assessable tutorial activities which are two quizzes (Weeks 5 and 11) worth 5 marks
each and a class presentation which is worth 10 marks.
Quiz details: The Week 5 quiz will be based on Weeks 1-5 inclusive and the Week
11 quiz will be based on Weeks 6-11 inclusive. Material that appears in the lecture
or essential readings for those weeks could be included in these quizzes. Quizzes
will be a combination of multiple choice and short answer questions. Quizzes will be
held in tutorials.
Class Presentation details: You will give a 5 to 10 minute presentation on a
weekly topic (to be chosen in the first tutorial) to your tutorial group. You will need
to identify an example/issue relevant to the weeks topic in the media and analyse
its ethical, social, legal, political or cultural implications. You need to discuss the
example/issue in terms of the relevant key concepts for that week and also the
readings. The example/issue could be a government policy, a campaign, an event,
Page 6
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
an interesting website, a social movement, a technology, a new discovery and the
like relevant to your chosen topic.
You also need to formulate a question to ask of the class at the end of your
presentation. The idea is to generate good discussion. You do not need to hand in
your presentation but you should indicate on slides or a handout the references you
used to research it. Use the readings from either the Essential or Further Reading
lists for the week in preparing your presentation. Try to make your presentation
interesting by incorporating some visual aids such as a PowerPoint presentation,
video clip, pictures or photocopied handouts. Remember too that it is more
interesting for the class if you speak to notes and make eye contact with your
audience rather than just read out a presentation you have written in full. Your
tutor will ask you to sign your name on a sign-up sheet with your selected date and
topic for your presentation in the first tutorial. Please note that presentations are
between weeks 2 and 11. If you cannot present on your allocated date and you do
not rearrange a date with your tutor within these weeks you will not receive any
mark for your presentation. The criteria for marking the class presentation are
outlined in the table below:
Table 1. Criteria for marking class presentations
Excellent
Very Good

Good

Needs
Improvement

1. Engagement with/retention of
audience interest

2. Organisation (including intro


and conclusion)

3. Ability to convey information


effectively

4. quality of research

5. Timing

2. Major Essay

3,000 words

Marks: 40%

Due: Friday October 9

Answer ONE of the following questions making sure you construct your essay
around a clear argument about the topic:
1. Why is it problematic from a sociological perspective to say that genes
determine characteristics such as homosexuality, alcoholism or aggression?
(choose one of these traits)
2. Do you think the potential benefits of genetically modified foods/animals or
predictive genetic testing or antenatal screening/testing outweigh the
potential deficits? In your essay, you should make some reference to theories
about risk or governmentality.
3. How have genetic technologies influenced family structures and/or
relationships? In your essay, you should discuss genetic testing or the use of
Page 7
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
donor gametes or DNA paternity testing (or two of these three technologies, at
most).
4. Design an essay question of your choice based on any aspect of this course
that is not covered by essay topics 1-3. You must check with Hadi that your
question is suitable before beginning your research. Essays written on a topic
not approved by Hadi will not be marked.
Submission Requirements
a) Essays must be submitted through the Blackboard assessment submission
system (Turnitin).
b) Please ensure you keep a copy of all assessments that are submitted.
A table outlining marking criteria for the essay appears on the final
page of this course outline.

3. Written
examination

Marks: 40%

During examination period

The examination is open book (only your note book with lecture notes and/or
summaries of readings will be permitted in the exam room) and designed to test
your understanding of the subject matter of the unit in broad terms. It will be two
hours in length. The first section will contain a broad essay question about the
course that everyone must answer. The second section will require you to answer
one essay question from a choice of four. These questions will address themes from
across the unit. The best preparation for the exam is consistent tutorial reading and
thoughtful consideration of tutorial discussion questions as well as consistent
attendance at lectures and tutorials.
Table 2 Exam marking criteria

Page 8
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
PASS
(50-59%)

CREDIT
(60-69%)

DISTINCTION
(70-79%)

HIGH DISTINCTION
(80-100%)

BASELINE
CRITERIA

All work is expected to meet these baseline criteria.

Expression

The work is well written and ideas are clearly expressed. The work is free of grammatical, punctuation and
spelling errors. Attention is paid to paragraphing and essay structure.
A genuine attempt has
been made to write
clearly but expression at
times may obscure the
authors meaning.

The work is mostly wellwritten. Expression


enables a clear
presentation of the
authors meaning.

The work is very wellwritten and clearly


conveys the authors
meaning.

This is a fluent and


succinct piece of writing
of a very high academic
standard.

MAIN CRITERIA

These are key criteria that are fundamental to achieving higher level grades.

Quality of
argument

There is a genuine
attempt to understand
and respond to the
question. There has been
a genuine attempt at
structuring an argument
(introduction, cohesive
paragraphing and
conclusion).

The work addresses the


prescribed task. The
argument is generally
clear but there may be
some minor issues in
relation to continuity. The
integration of argument
and evidence is generally
clear and developed.

The work fully addresses


the prescribed task. The
argument is clear,
logically developed and
convincing. The writing is
well structured. The
integration of theory,
argument and evidence
is very good.

The argument is
sophisticated and
persuasive. Writing is
clear, logically developed
and convincing. The
argument is structured
within a theoretical
framework. The
approach demonstrates
flair and insight and the
integration of argument
and evidence is
excellent.

Quality of
evidence

Evidence and examples


are used sporadically in
support of the argument.

The argument is
adequately supported by
evidence and examples.

The argument is well


supported by examples
and a broad evidence
base.

The work demonstrates a


capacity to incorporate
and synthesize advanced
ideas from a broad
evidence base in support
the writers main
argument.

Students who are on borderline grades will have their attendance and
participation record taken into account in decisions about whether or not
to promote them to the higher grade.
Lecture Timetable
Week

Date

Topic

Part 1: Genetic Technologies and Society


1

4 August

Introduction: Genetics and Society

11 August

Genetics and Behaviour: Socio-biology and the


Gay Gene

Part 2: Genetics, Health and the Life course


3

18 August

Antenatal Screening and Pre-implantation


Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
Dr Deb Dempsey

25 August

Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Family


Relationships
Dr Deb Dempsey

1 September

Genetic testing, Risk and Health Decision-making


(Quiz No. 1)

8 September

DNA Paternity testing


Dr Deb Dempsey
Page 9
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
Mid-semester break: September 14-20
7

22 September

Longevity, Genes and Aging


Part 3: Ethics, Society and Policy

29 September

Therapeutic and Reproductive Cloning

6 October

Genetically Modified Foods


Essay due Friday October 9

10

13 October

Race and population genetics

11

20 October

Bioethics and regulating genetic technologies


(Quiz No. 2)

12

27 October

Course Review (exam revision tips)

LECTURE/TUTORIAL GUIDE AND READING


The following guide contains brief notes and discussion questions relating to each
topic. You should read the required reading prior to each tutorial. Think about the
questions and use them to guide your reading. For a more comprehensive coverage
of each topic, try to read at least two additional sources prior to each tutorial.
There are a large number of sources listed in this handout. You are not expected to
read them all! We have provided a range of material because different students will
be interested in different topics for their essay and the listed readings are a very
good start. You will want to read more extensively on your assignment topic and
others that particularly interest you.

There are tutorials in Week 1. As well as an introductory discussion about


the contents of the unit, they will address organisational issues and provide
you with an opportunity to raise concerns or problems. It is important that
you attend.

Page 10
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

PART 1: GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES AND SOCIETY


WEEK 1: INTRODUCTION: GENETICS AND SOCIETY
This week we place the unit in its context. First, we track the dawn of a new era in which
both information technology and genetic technology have revolutionised our lives, while the
latter has potential to change human life as we know it. Second, we address the social
implications of the biotechnology revolution and the new emphasis on genetics. Finally, we
consider the structure and content of this unit.
As background information to the study of genetics and society your text this week defines
key terms in genetic science. While it is important to have an understanding of these terms
to understand the subject matter to which we are referring you will NOT be examined on
them.
Essential reading
Pilnick, A. (2002), Genetics and Society: an introduction, OUP: Buckingham. Chapter 1.
Further reading
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the biotechnology revolution.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chapter 1: A tale of two dystopias, pp.3-16.
Tutton, R. (2009) Social Aspects of Genetic Testing Technologies, Sociology Compass, Vol. 3,
No. 6, pp. 972985.
Tutorial questions
1. Define the following terms: gene, chromosome, DNA, genome.
2. What were the goals of the Human Genome Project?
3. What are dominant disorders? What are recessive disorders? What is X-linked
inheritance? Give examples.
4. What is manufactured risk?

Page 11
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 2: GENETICS AND BEHAVIOUR: SOCIOBIOLOGY AND THE GAY GENE


This week we evaluate the ways in which the biotechnology revolution is reshaping longstanding debates about the relationship between society and nature. A useful way to
explore this is through the case study of the scientific search for the gay gene. We consider
the usefulness of looking for a genetic basis for sexuality, unravelling in the process the
distinction between a sociological and a socio-biological understanding of human sexuality.
Essential reading
Conrad, P. and Markens, S. (2001) Constructing the Gay Gene in the News: Optimism and
Skepticism in the US and British Press, Health, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 373-400.
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the biotechnology revolution.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chapter 2: Sciences of the brain, pp.18-40.
Further reading
Gabard, D. L. (1999) Homosexuality and the Human Genome Project: Private and Public
Choices, Journal of Homosexuality vol.37 no.1, pp. 25-51.
MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds) (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology 2nd edn, OUP,
Buckingham.
Manning, F. (2000), Biotechnology: a scientific perspective, in Russell, A. and Vogler, J. eds,
The international politics of biotechnology, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp.
13-29.
Peterson, A. (1999) The portrayal of Research into Genetic-Based Differences of Sex and
Sexual Orientation: A Study of Popular Science Journals, 1980-1997, Journal of
Communication Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 163-182.
Peterson, A., & Bunton, R. (2002). The New Genetics and the Public's Health. London and
New York: Routledge.
Pilnick, A. (2002), Genetics and Society: an introduction, OUP: Buckingham. Chapters 2 & 3.
Smith, M.R. and Marx, L. eds (1994), Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of
Technological Determinism, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
The Wellcome Trust (2001), Unveiling the Human Genome: the first draft 2001, Wellcome
News Supplement 4, Commemorative Issue.
Willis E. (1998) The new genetics and the sociology of medical technology Journal of
Sociology, Vol 34, No.2, Pp.170-183.
Tutorial questions
1. What is natural selection and how is it related to evolution? How has the discovery of
DNA advanced the notion of evolutionary history?
2. What is eugenics? What ethical or social lessons can we learn from eugenics in the 20 th
century?
3. What is socio-biology? How does this contrast with a sociological explanation for human
behaviours such as homosexuality?
4. How are genetic technologies changing the debate about nature and nurture? Discuss in
relation to homosexuality.
5. What is biological or genetic determinism? Why do sociologists find it problematic?

Page 12
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

Page 13
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

PART 2: Genetics, Health and the Life Course


WEEK 3: ANTENATAL SCREENING AND TESTING
The greatest promise of biotechnology today is its potential to alter the genetic makeup of
humans so that disease and disability are eliminated. It is also by far the most controversial
because of the increased ability, among other things, to allow parents to select the type of
baby they want. This week we consider the relationship between antenatal screening and
antenatal genetic testing. Genetic modification has been used in pre-implantation and inutero gene therapy using techniques such as Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD)
which have been developed and trialled within the IVF program. We seek to understand and
examine the realities, possibilities and social impacts of genetic engineering. We also
examine the social construction of risk in medicine, particularly in relation to genetic
screening and testing, and the problematic nature of risk communication in health care.
Essential reading
Ekberg, M. (2007), Maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks associated with prenatal
genetic testing,
Health, Risk & Society, Vol: 9, No: 1, pp. 67-81.
Raspberry, K.A. & Skinner, D. (2011) Negotiating desires and options: How mothers who
carry the fragile X gene experience reproductive decisions, Social Science & Medicine,
Vol. 72, pp. 992-998.

Further reading
Rapp, R. (2000) Testing women, testing the fetus: the social impact of amniocentesis in
America, New York: Routledge, Chapter 2: Accounting for Amniocentesis.
Brandenburg, K. (2011) Risk, Parental Autonomy and the Epistemic Divide: Pre-implantation
Genetic Diagnosis in the Australian Print News Media, 1990-2007, New Genetics and
Society, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 115-131.
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the biotechnology revolution.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chapter 5: Genetic engineering, pp.71-83; Chapter
6: Why should we worry? pp.84-102.
Katz Rothman, B. (1994) The Tentative Pregnancy: Amniocentesis and the Sexual Politics of
Motherhood, Pandora.
Lippman A. (1999) Choice as a risk to women's health. Health, Risk & Society, 1: p. 281.
Normile, D. (1998), 'Geneticists debate eugenics and China's infant health law', Science, 281
(5380), 1118-10.
Pilnick A., (2002) Genetics and Society: An Introduction, Open University Press, Buckingham
and Philadelphia. Chapter 4 Antenatal screening and testing.
Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case Against Perfection. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
Belknap Press.
Savulescu, J. (2008). Procreative Beneficence: reasons not to have disabled children. In L.
Skene & J. Thompson (Eds.), The Sorting Society: The Ethics of Genetic Screening and
Therapy. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Skene, L. and J. Thompson, Eds. (2008). The Sorting Society: The Ethics of Genetic Screening
and Therapy. Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.
Turney, L. (2004) Public policy perspective [On sex selection]. Reprogenetics Whose rules
apply? 27 October 2004. Infertility Treatment Authority. Carlton Gardens, Carlton. pp.1617. http://www.ita.org.au/_documents/news/ReprogeneticsPaper.pdf

Page 14
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
Tutorial questions
1. What are the differences between antenatal genetic screening and testing? What are the
implications of each? (Pilnick chapter is good for this).
2. What is meant by the tentative pregnancy (see Katz Rothman or Pilnick reading) and
what are some implications for women of increased pregnancy monitoring and
surveillance?
3. Is deciding to give birth to a child you know will be disabled a legitimate choice in the era
of ante-natal screening and testing?
4. How is risk socially constructed and what are the implications of this for risk
communication in the clinic?

WEEK 4: ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES


AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
Assisted reproductive technologies make it possible for infertile heterosexual couples and
same-sex attracted couples and singles to create families with children. This often requires
the use of semen or ova from a third party who may be known or unknown to the intended
parents. Creating families through donated gametes has brought with it a new need to
explicitly decide what is meant by a mother, father or parent because biological
relatedness can no longer as clearly solve the meaning of these terms. Debates have raged
for many years about the entitlements of children born from donated gametes with regard to
knowledge of their biogenetic origins. Many scholars also contend that use of donated
gametes changes the way we think about and conceptualise family relationships.
Essential reading
Cussins, C.M. (1998) Quit snivelling, cryo-baby. Well work out which ones your mama, in
Davis-Floyd, R. and Dumit, J. (eds.) Cyborg Babies: From Techno-sex to Techno-Tots,
Routledge, New York and London, Chapter two: pp. 40-63.
Dempsey, D. (2005) Lesbians right to choose, childrens right to know in Jones, H.G. and
Kirkman, M. (eds.) Sperm Wars: the Rights and Wrongs of Reproduction, pp. 185-195.

Further reading
Blyth, E. and Landau, R. (2004) Third Party Assisted Conception Across Cultures, London:
Jessica Kingsley.
Daniels, K.R. and Taylor, K. (1993) Secrecy and openness in donor insemination, Politics
and the Life Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 155-70.
Dempsey, D. & Critchley, C. (2010) 'Comfort with use of Assisted Reproductive Technologies
(ART) for family formation by same-sex and heterosexual couples: A survey of
Australian social attitudes' Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, Vol. 6, No.
2, pp. 90-102.
Dempsey, D. (2010) Conceiving and negotiating reproductive relationships: lesbians and
gay men creating families with children, Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 1145-1162.
Edwards, J. (1999) Explicit connections: ethnographic enquiry in north-west England, in
Edwards, J., Franklin, S., Hirsch, E., Price, F. and Strathern, M. (eds.) Technologies of
Procreation: Kinship in the Age of Assisted Conception, Routledge, London & New
York.
Grace, V.M. and Daniels, K.R. (2007) The (ir)relevance of genetics: engendering parallel
worlds of procreation and reproduction, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol.29, No.5,
pp. 692-710.
Jones, C. (2005) Looking like a family: negotiating bio-genetic continuity in British lesbian
families using licensed donor insemination, Sexualities, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 221-237.
Readings, J., Blake, L., Casey, P., Jadva, V., Golombok, S. (2011) Secrecy, disclosure and
everything in-between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor
Page 15
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
insemination, egg donation and surrogacy, Reproductive BioMedicine Online , Vol.
22, pp. 485-495.
Turkmendag, I. (2012) The donor-conceived childs right to personal identity: the public
debate on donor anonymity in the United Kingdom, Journal of Law and Society, Vol.
39, No. 1, pp. 58-75.
Tutorial questions
1. Cussins (1998) claims that the use of donated gametes gives rise to novel problems about
the status of family relationships. Discuss with reference to her findings from fieldwork
conducted in US reproductive medicine clinics.
2. Is anonymous gamete donation ethical?
3. According to Dempsey (2005) how have lesbian mothers family formation practices been
influenced by the debate about childrens entitlements to know their biogenetic origins?
4. Should parents of children born of donated gametes be obliged to tell their children they
were donor conceived? What is the law and policy stance on this issue in the State of
Victoria? (see VARTA website in addition to readings)

Page 16
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 5: PREDICTIVE GENETIC TESTING, RISK AND


DECISION-MAKING
Genetic testing for disease is becoming standard practice in many areas of medicine. But
while genetic testing for disease offers a revolution in knowledge about current and potential
health conditions, it poses problems about privacy, confidentiality, autonomy and informed
consent and how to make decisions based on the information obtained. We look at predictive
genetic testing specifically in relation to breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2
genes). The arguments about the changing nature of health care also apply to other forms of
genetic cancer and the decisions carriers have to make when they find out through a genetic
test that they are genetically at risk (Novas and Rose 2000) of developing cancer. We also
examine the process of genetic counselling and the issues for individuals and families in
assessing risk associated with genetic knowledge about disease.
Essential Reading
Novas, C. and Rose, N. (2000) Genetic Risk and the Birth of the Somatic Individual,
Economy and Society, vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 485-513.
Polzer, J. (2005). Choice as responsibility. Genetic testing as citizenship through familial
obligation and the management of risk. In R. Bunton & A. Petersen (Eds.), Genetic
Governance. London and New York: Routledge.

Further Reading
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
Buchbinder, M. and Timmermans, S. (2011) Medical Technologies and the Dream of the
Perfect Newborn, Medical Anthropology, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 56-80.
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell & C. Gordon (Eds.), The Foucault
Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Reckoning with Risk; Learning to Live with Uncertainty. Allen Lane The
Penguin Press, London.
Greely, Henry T., (2001) Genotype discrimination: the complex case for some legislative
protection, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 149, Issue 5.
Hallowell, N. (1999). Doing the right thing: genetic risk and responsibility. Sociology of
Health & Illness, 21(5), 597-621.
Hallowell, N., & Lawton, J. (2002). Negotiating present and future selves: managing the risks
of hereditary ovarian cancer by prophylactic surgery. Health, 6(4), 423-443.
Lupton, D. (1997). Consumerism, Reflexivity and the Medical Encounter. Social Science &
Medicine, 45(3), 373-381.
Petersen, A. (1996). Risk and the regulated self: the discourse of health promotion as
politics of uncertainty. ANZJS, 32(1), 44-57.
Pilnick A. (2002). There are no rights and wrongs in these situations: identifying
interactional difficulties in genetic counselling. Sociology of Health & Illness 24: 66
Willis E. (1998) The new genetics and the sociology of medical technology Journal of
Sociology, Vol 34, No.2, Pp.170-183. [Lib]
Wstner, Kerstin (2003) Ethics and practice: Two worlds? The example of genetic
counselling, New Genetics and Society 22 (1):61-87.
Tutorial questions
1. What do Novas and Rose (2000) mean by somatic individuality? How does it relate to
risk?
Page 17
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
2. What is predictive genetic testing? What are the treatment options for people who
are genetically at risk of getting cancer? Are they ill?
3. What is risk in relation to health and, in particular, the new genetics? What is the
at-risk self? What do we generally do about it?
4. What is Foucaults (1991) notion of governance or governmentality? In what
ways might genetic testing be seen to be a neoliberal technique of governance?
5. From Polzers (2005) study, what does the duty to know genetic risk entail? How
was someone who was found to be genetically at risk expected to manage their
risk? What was involved in the duty to inform family members of inherited risk?

WEEK 6: PATERNITY TESTING: MARKETS AND


CONSUMERS
This week we examine a different dimension of the social consequences of using genetic
information to establish human identity. The main focus of the week is on in DNA paternity
testing and the family. We examine the commercialisation and marketing of paternity
testing, media interest in intimate relationships and the creation of the discourse of
paternity fraud. We examine who gets tested and in what circumstances. We also evaluate
Kaebnicks (2004) arguments about how we might think about fatherhood and what that
means for the use of paternity testing.
Essential reading
Gilding, M. (2006). DNA Paternity Testing: a comparative analysis of the US and Australia.
Health Sociological Review, 15 (1): 84-95.
Gilding, M. (2009), 'Paternity Uncertainty and Evolutionary Psychology: how a seemingly
capricious occurrence fails to follow laws of greater generality', Sociology 43 (1): 14158.

Further reading
Anderlik MR, Rothstein MA. (2002) DNA-Based Identity Testing and the Future of the Family:
A Research Agenda, American Journal of Law & Medicine, 215-232. [Lib]
Australian Law Reform Commission/Australian Health Ethics Committee (2003) Essentially
Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra. Ch. 35 Parentage testing; Ch 36 Kinship and Identity;
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/
Gilding, M. & Turney, L. (2006). Public opinion on DNA paternity testing: the influence of the
media. People & Place. Vol.14. No.2. pp.4-13.
Hirczy, W. (1995). Protecting the father-child bond against non-paternity action: legislative,
judicial, and constitutional approaches. E-Law: Murdoch University Electronic Journal of
Law, 2(3), [1-17].
Kaebnick, G. E. (2004). The Natural Father: Genetic Paternity Testing, Marriage, and
Fatherhood. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 13, 49-60.
Rothstein, MA, Murray, TH, Kaebnick, GE, & Majumder, MA. (Eds.). (2005). Genetic Ties and
the Family. The Impact of Paternity Testing on Parents and Children. Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Turney, L. (2005). 'Paternity secrets: why women dont tell', Journal of Family Studies, 11 (2):
227-245
Turney, L. (2006). 'Paternity testing and the biological determination fatherhood', Journal of
Family Studies, 12 (1): 73-93.
Turney, L. (2007) 'Marketing and Consumption of Paternity Tests', in M. Stranger (ed) Human
Biotechnology and Public Trust: Trends, Perceptions and Regulation, Hobart: Centre
for Law and Genetics.
Page 18
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
Tutorial questions
What do some evolutionary psychologists claim about the prevalence of misattributed
paternity? What problems does Gilding have with their claims?
2.
What does Kaebnick (2004:51) mean when he says that, in cases of contested paternity,
questions about the mans relationship to the child tend to get mixed up with questions
about his relationship to his wife?
3.
What are the implications for families and individual family members of unregulated
access to DNA paternity testing?
4.
What is paternity fraud? What are the key elements of the discourse? What political
agendas might it serve?
What are some of the complicating factors that women report in cases of nonpaternity? What are the social constraints that prevent women telling the truth.
1.

Page 19
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 7: LONGEVITY, GENES AND AGING


Human longevity and healthy aging are major preoccupations among researchers in the
health and life sciences. Developed countries globally are experiencing major demographic
and societal transformations as life expectancies are rising faster than ever before. This
week we review existing literature on anti-aging and life extension looking at its social
implications for economic and welfare policy. One focus is whether and how genes play a
part in life span and diseases associated with ageing such as Alzheimers Disease.
Essential reading
Vincent, J, Tulle, E & Bond J. (2008) The anti-ageing enterprise: Science, knowledge,
expertise, rhetoric and values,
Journal of Aging Studies, pp. 291-294.
Joyce, K and Loe, M. (2010), A sociological approach to ageing, technology and health,
Sociology of Health & Illness, 32 (2), 171-180.

Further reading
Australias Longevity Tsunami What Should We Do? Actuaries Institute White Paper
August 2012 (This is not a journal article- It is just an extra source for information about
Australias future life expectancy and the implications).
Perls, T, Kunkel, L & Puca, A. (2002), The genetics of aging, Current Opinion in Genetics &
Development, pp. 362369.
Newman AB, Glynn NW, Taylor CA, Sebastiani P, Perls TT, MayeuxR, Christensen K, Zmuda
JM, Barral S, Lee JH, Simonsick EM,Walston JD, Yashin AI, Hadley E. (2011) Health and
function of participants in the Long Life Family Study: a comparison with other cohorts. Aging
(Albany NY) 3:6376
Joyce, K, Loe, M. (2010), Technogenarians: Studying Health and Illness Through an Ageing,
Science, and Technology Lens, Wiley, Malaysia.
Silverman JM, Smith CJ, Marin DB, Birstein S, Mare M, Mohs RC, Davis KL. (1999), Identifying
Families with Likely Genetic Protective Factors against Alzheimer Disease, American Society
of Human Genetics, 64: 832-838.
Brooks-Wilson A.R. (2013), Genetics of healthy aging and longevity, Hum Genet, 132 (12),
1323-1338.
Bittles, A.H, Glasson E.J. (2004), Clinical, Social and Ethical Implications of Changing Life
Expectancy in Down Syndromes, Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 46: 282-286.
Audio-visual resources on web:
Stem cells and end of aging: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcjXBO90b9k
A cure for aging? David Sinclair speech at TEDx Sydney http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=vCCdmGKtxPA

Tutorial questions
1. Australians are getting older and living longer. By 2050, almost a quarter of the Australian
population will be aged over 65, compared to 14 per cent now. Is living longer a good thing?
Page 20
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
2. What does the genetics of aging assume about the human life span and how is this
potentially problematic?
3. Should aging be considered a disease? Why or why not?

Page 21
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 8: THERAPEUTIC AND REPRODUCTIVE CLONING


This week we seek to further understand the social impacts of genetic engineering. We
explore the issues in relation to stem cell research and human cloning. We examine the
differences between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning and their applications and
the social context of current moral and ethical debates, with an emphasis on public attitudes
and media responses to cloning.
Essential reading
Petersen, A, Seear, K and Munsie, M. (2013), Therapeutic journeys: the hopeful travails of
stem cell tourists,
Sociology of Health, & IIllness, 36(5), pp. 670-685.
Haran, J., Kitzinger, J., McNeil, M. and ORiordan, K. (2008) Human cloning in the media :
from science fiction to
science practice, London: Routledge, Chapter 1

Further reading
Bauer, M. and Gaskell eds (2002), Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. the Limits of Todays Medicine. Routledge.
Critchley, C. (2008,) Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research contest,
and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers, Public Understanding of
Science 17 (3): 309-27.
Critchley, C. and Turney, L. (2004), Understanding Australians perceptions of controversial
scientific research, Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 2
(2):82-107.
Dunn, K. (2002). Cloning Trevor. The Atlantic Monthly. June: 31-52.
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the biotechnology revolution.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chapter 4: The prolongation of life, pp.57-70.
Maestrutti, M. (2010), Cyborg identity and contemporary techno-utopias: adaptations and
transformations of the body in the age of nanotechnology. In Piriani, M. Bianca and
Vargo, Ivan (Eds.) Acting Bodies and Social Networks: A bridge between technology
and working memory, Boulder, New York, Plymouth: University Press of America, 225239.
Pilnick A., (2002) Genetics and Society: An Introduction, Open University Press, Buckingham
and Philadelphia. Chapter 8 Cloning.
Silver, L. M. (1998). Remaking Eden: Cloning, genetic Engineering and the Future of
Humankind. Phoenix Giant, London.
Singer, E. and A. Corning (1998). The polls--trends: Genetic testing, engineering, and
therapy. Public Opinion Quarterly 62(4): 633.
Weinberg, R. A. (2002) Of Clones and Clowns. The Atlantic Monthly, June: 54-59.
Tutorial questions
1. How are the differences between reproductive and therapeutic cloning established? (see
Pilnick 2002)
2. Stem cell research and human cloning offer the possibility of finding cures for chronic
health conditions. Evaluate the advantages and disadvantages, and the ethics of these
technologies.
Page 22
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
3. Why do some sociologists argue that it is important not to dismiss popular (lay)
interpretations of the new genetics?
4. Why do people travel overseas for expensive and experimental stem cell treatments?
What are some of the ethical issues associated with this?

Page 23
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 9: GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD


Today we will consider the advances in biotechnologies as these relate to GM food
production, and its promise to provide a solution to world hunger. We also look at the
opposition to genetically modified crops and modified foods, and the debates which concern
and relate to effects on the environment and to consumers. Also explored are the issues
raised by the health driven production of enhanced food and the blurring of the distinctions
between medicine and food.
Essential Reading
Carman, J., (2004). Is GM food safe to eat? In: R. Hindmarsh and G. Lawrence, eds.
Recoding nature: critical perspectives on genetic engineering. Sydney: University of
New South Wales Press, 8293.
Whitfield, C., Cunningham, E. and Gilding, M. (2009) Public perceptions of GM Agriculture in
Australia, People and Place, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 1-7.

Further reading
Bloomfield, B.P. and Doolin, B. (2011) Imagination and technoscientific innovations:
governance of transgenic cows in New Zealand, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.
59-83.
Dasgupta, P.S. (2000) Food production, population growth, and environmental security in W.
Krull [ed], Debates on Issues of Our Common Future, Velbruck Wissenschaft, Gottingen.
Douglas, F. (2000) Genetically modified foods guide: the stuff they won't tell you,
Information Australia, Melbourne.
Gabe, J. (ed.) (1995), Medicine, Health and Risk: Sociological Approaches, Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford.
Giddens, A. (1999), Reith Lectures See Lecture 2 Risk.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_99/
Glover. J. (2002) Gene flow study: implications for the release of genetically modified crops
in Australia, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.
Klintman, M. (2002). The genetically modified (GM) food labelling controversy: ideological
and epistemic crossovers., Social Studies of Science (Sage) (Vol. 32, pp. 71): Sage
Publications, Ltd.
Levidow, L, Carr, S (2009) GM Food on Trial; Testing European Democracy, New York,
London: Routledge, Chapter 1 Analytical Perspectives.
Pilnick A., (2002) Genetics and Society: An Introduction, Open University Press,
Buckingham and Philadelphia. Chapter 7 Genetically Modified Foods.
Wansink, B. and Kim, J. (2001), The Marketing Battle Over Genetically Modified Foods,
American Behavioural Scientist, Vol. 44, No. 8, April, pp. 1405-1417.
Winston, M. (2002). Travels in the Genetically Modified Zone. Scribe Publications, Melbourne.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Tutorial questions
What are some of the ethics and risks, which surround worldwide attitudes to GM
foods??
Do you think that public education and increased awareness of GM technology may
reduce moral opposition to biotechnology?
In what ways can the current debates about GM foods relate to issues of human genetic
engineering?
What are the arguments for and against genetically modifying foods or animals for
medical purposes? What are some examples? Do you think that it is a different issue for
different populations; or different vitamins or medicines?
In what ways does food have social significance? Tie this to the GM debate and give
examples from you own experience.
Page 24
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 10: Race and population genetics


This week we look into the concept of race from a sociological perspective. We will then
investigate the challenges new developments in genetic technology have created for a
sociological conception of race, and to re-conceptualise race in biological terms. We discuss
the ways a biological and genetic definitions of race have entered medicine and law.

Essential Reading
Morning, A. (2005), Keywords: Race, Contexts, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 44-46.
Duster, T. (2015) A post-genomic surprise. the molecular reinscription of race in science,
law and medicine, The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 1-27.

Further reading
Roberts, D.E. (2013), Law, race and biotechnology: toward a biopolitical and transdisciplinary
paradigm, Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 149-66.
Smart, A., Tutton, R., Ellison, G. T. H., Martin, P. and Ashcroft, R. (2008) The Standardization
of Race and Ethnicity
in Journal Editorials and UK Biobanks Social Studies of
Science, 38 (3): 407423.
Bliss, C. (2012) Race decoded: the genomic fight for social justice, Stanford University Press,
California.
Skinner, D. (2013) The NDNAD Has No Ability in Itself to be Discriminatory: Ethnicity and
the Governance of the UK National DNA Database, Sociology, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 976992.
Roberts, D.E. (2012) Debating the cause of health disparities, Cambridge Quarterly of
Healthcare Ethics, vol. 21, pp. 332-341.
Fujimura, JH (2011), Different differences: The use of genetic ancestry versus race in
biomedical human genetic research, Social Studies of Science, vol. 41, no. 1, pp. 5-30.

Tutorial questions
123-

What do sociologists mean by: race is a social construction?


What challenges have new genomics posed to socio-political conception of
race?
How has a biological notion of race been re-inscribed in science, medicine
and law?

Page 25
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 11: BIOETHICS AND REGULATING GENETIC


TECHNOLOGIES
This week looks at ethical and philosophical theory to explore how they apply to genetics.
We look at the emergence of bioethics in the mid twentieth century and consider its current
relevance to the emerging concerns which correspond to biotechnologies more generally,
using the case studies of ova donation for stem cell research and pre-implantation genetic
diagnosis for sex-selection of children. We will also evaluate Fukuyamas claim that
biotechnology itself poses challenges to what it means to be human in terms of human
rights, human nature and human dignity. This then brings up the question of the
interrelationship of ethics and justice.
Governments around the world are trying to work out an appropriate policy framework for
biotechnology. This week looks at how public policy requires a dynamic approach to social
policy as the biotechnologies are not fixed. We will also consider how ethics needs to
become an element of public policy.
Essential reading
Whittaker, A. (2011) Reproduction opportunists in the new global sex trade: PGD and nonmedical sex selection, Reproductive Biomedicine Online, Vol. 23 Issue 5, pp. 609-617.
McLean, S. (2009) Genetics: Law and Regulation, in Atkinson, P., Glasner, P. and Lock, M.
(eds.) The Handbook of Genetics and Society, Routledge, Hoboken.
Sarojini, N, Marwah, V and Shenoi, A. (2011) Globalisation of birth markets: a case study of
assisted reproductive technologies in India, Globalisation and Health, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.
27-36.
Further reading
Australian Law Reform Commission/Australian Health Ethics Committee (2003) 'Essentially
Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia', Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/
Corrigan, O. (2003) Empty ethics: the problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health
& Illness 25(3): 768-792.
Fenton, E. (2008) Genetic enhancement a threat to human rights? Bioethics 22 (1): 1-7.
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our Posthuman Future. Consequences of the biotechnology revolution.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Chapter 7: Human Rights, pp.105-128.
Pilnick (2002) Genetics and Society: An Introduction, Chapter 9 Bioethics, pp. 161-180.
Sandel, M. J. (2007). The Case Against Perfection. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London,
The Belknap Press.
Turney, L. (2006). Essentially whose? Genetic testing and the ownership of genetic
information. The Moral, Social and Commercial Imperatives of Genetic Testing and
Screening. The Australian Case. M. Betta. Dordrecht, Springer: 237-245.
Australian Law Reform Commission/Australian Health Ethics Committee (2003) 'Essentially
Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia', Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia. Chapter 26, Genetic Discrimination in Insuranceand
Chapter 30, Genetic Discrimination in Employment .
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96/
Fukuyama, F. (2003) Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution,
Chapter 11.
Head, B. (2007), Community engagement: Participation on whose terms?, Australian
Journal of Political Science 42 (3): 441-54.
Tutorial questions
1.

What are the ethical dilemmas generated by using preimplantation genetic diagnosis
(PGD) for non-medical sex selection of children?
Page 26
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
2. Explain the principles of non-maleficience, beneficience, autonomy and justice (see
Pilnick chapter). Apply them to one case study (e.g. pgd, paternity testing) we have
looked at in an earlier week of the course.
3. What are the different approaches to regulation identified by McLean? Outline some of
the benefits and deficits of each approach.
4. Should scientists decide what happens with biotechnology? If not, who then should
decide? (See Fukuyama)
5. What factors complicate regulation in the era of international commercial surrogacy
and/or transnational gamete donation and use? (See Sarojini, Marwah and Shenoi).

Page 27
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

WEEK 12: Course Review


In this concluding week we review key themes of the unit. It is important to attend classes in
preparation for the examination. We will discuss the format and requirements of the
examination.
Essential reading
Read over your notes and readings summaries from the semester. Come to tutorials
prepared to discuss the key concepts introduced in the course and seek clarification about
any you are unsure about. You are also encouraged to give some thought to what makes the
sociological study of human genetics distinctive.
Further reading
Pilnick, A. (2002), Genetics and Society: an introduction, Open University Press, Buckingham
and Philadelphia, Chapter 10, pp.181-193.
Tutorial questions
1. What are the main sociological critiques of the new genetics? Is critique necessarily a
bad thing? What can be learnt from these approaches?
2. How is the new genetics changing the boundaries between health and disease?
3. How might genetic medicine in the guise of public health be seen as a form of social
control and surveillance?
4. What do you think is the major contribution of sociology to the study of genetics and
biotechnologies?

Page 28
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

OTHER IMPORTANT INFORMATION


For further information and links to resources for the following topics, refer to
Swinburnes Current Students web page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/student/
Student Charter
Please familiarise yourself with Swinburnes Student Charter. The charter describes what students can
reasonably expect from Swinburne in order to enjoy a quality learning experience. As students contribute
to their own learning experience and to that of their fellow students, the charter also defines the
University's expectations of students.
Student behaviour and wellbeing
Swinburne has a range of policies and procedures that govern how students are expected to conduct
themselves throughout the course of their relationship with the University. These include policies on
expected standards of behaviour and conduct which cover interaction with fellow students, staff and the
wider University community, in addition to following the health and safety requirements in the course of
their studies and whilst using University facilities.
All students are expected to familiarise themselves with University regulations, policies and procedures
and have an obligation to abide by the expected guidelines. Any student found to be in breach may be
subject to relevant disciplinary processes. Some examples of relevant expected behaviours are:

Not engaging in student misconduct

Ensuring compliance with the Universitys Anti-Discrimination, Bullying and Violence and Sexual
Harassment requirements

Complying with all Swinburne occupational health and safety requirements, including following
emergency and evacuation procedures and following instructions given by staff/wardens or
emergency response.

In teaching areas, it is expected that students conduct themselves in a manner that is professional and
not disruptive to others. In all Swinburne laboratories, there are specific safety procedures which must be
followed, such as wearing appropriate footwear and safety equipment, not acting in a manner which is
dangerous or disruptive (e.g. playing computer games), and not bringing in food or drink.
Blackboard
You should regularly access the Swinburne Course Management System (Blackboard) available via
http://ilearn.swin.edu.au. Blackboard is regularly updated with important Unit information and
communications.
Communication
All communication will be via your Swinburne email address. If you access your email through a provider
other than Swinburne, then it is your responsibility to ensure that your Swinburne email is redirected to
your private email address.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the action or practice of taking and submitting or presenting the thoughts, writings or other
work of someone else as though it is your own work. Plagiarism includes any of the following, without full
and appropriate acknowledgment to the original source(s):

The use of the whole or part of a computer program written by another person;

Page 29
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline

the use, in essays or other assessable work, of the whole or part of a written work from any
source including but not limited to a book, journal, newspaper article, set of lecture notes, current
or past students work, any other persons work, a website or database;

The paraphrasing of anothers work;

The use of musical composition, audio, visual, graphic and photographic models,

The use of realia that is objects, artefacts, costumes, models and the like.

Plagiarism also includes the preparation or production and submission or presentation of assignments or
other work in conjunction with another person or other people when that work should be your own
independent work. This remains plagiarism whether or not it is with the knowledge or consent of the other
person or people. It should be noted that Swinburne encourages its students to talk to staff, fellow
students and other people who may be able to contribute to a students academic work but that where
independent assignment is required, submitted or presented work must be the students own.
Enabling plagiarism contributes to plagiarism and therefore will be treated as a form of plagiarism by the
University. Enabling plagiarism means allowing or otherwise assisting another student to copy or
otherwise plagiarise work by, for example, allowing access to a draft or completed assignment or other
work.
Swinburne University uses plagiarism detection software (such as Turnitin) for assignments submitted
electronically via Blackboard. Your Convenor will provide further details.
The penalties for plagiarism can be severe ranging from a zero grade for an assessment task through to
expulsion from the unit and in the extreme, exclusion from Swinburne. Consequently you need to avoid
plagiarism by providing a reference whenever you include information from other sources in your work.
Student support
You should talk to your Unit Convenor or Student Services, for information on academic support services
available for Swinburne students.
Special consideration
If your studies have been adversely affected due to serious and unavoidable circumstances outside of
your control (e.g. severe illness or unavoidable obligation) you may be able to apply for special
consideration (SPC).
Applications for Special Consideration will be submitted via the SPC online tool normally no later than
5.00pm on the third working day after the submission/sitting date for the relevant assessment component.
Special needs
Sometimes students with a disability, a mental health or medical condition or significant carer
responsibilities require reasonable adjustments to enable full access to and participation in education.
Your special needs can be addressed by Swinburne's Disability Services, who can negotiate and
distribute an 'Education Access Plan' that outlines recommendations for university teaching and
examination staff. You must notify the University Disability Liaison Officer of your disability or condition
within one week after the commencement of a unit of study to allow the University to make reasonable
adjustments.
Review of marks
If you are not satisfied with the result of an assessment you can ask the Unit Convenor to review the
result. Your request must be made in writing within 10 working days of receiving the result. The Unit
Convenor will review your result against the marking guide to determine if your result is appropriate.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcomes of the review you can lodge a formal complaint.

Page 30
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
Feedback, complaints and suggestions
In the first instance you may discuss any issues with your Unit Convenor.
If you are dissatisfied with the outcome of the discussions with the Unit Convenor or would prefer not to
deal with your Unit Convenor, then you can complete a feedback form.
Advocacy
You are advised to seek advice from the staff at the Swinburne Student Amenities Association (SSAA) if
you require assistance with any academic issues.

Page 31
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

Swinburne University of Technology


Faculty of Health, Arts and Design

Unit Outline
Sociology marking criteria for written assignments
PASS

CREDIT

DISTINCTION

HIGH DISTINCTION

(50-59%)

(60-69%)

(70-79%)

(80-100%)

BASELINE
CRITERIA

All work is expected to meet these baseline criteria.

Presentation

The work is well presented with a properly completed and signed Sociology Cover Sheet showing the exact word
count of the submission. It is typed on one side of the page and double spaced, with standard 2.54cm margins and page
numbers unless specified otherwise in the unit outline for the specific unit of study. The work meets the required word
limit.
Meets basic presentation
requirements.

Expression

Generally well presented.

Very well presented.

Excellent presentation.

The work is well written and ideas are clearly expressed. The work is free of grammatical, punctuation and spelling
errors. Attention is paid to paragraphing and essay structure.
A genuine attempt has been
made to write clearly but
expression at times may
obscure the authors
meaning.

The work is well-written.


Expression enables a clear
presentation of the authors
meaning.

The work is very wellwritten and clearly conveys


the authors meaning.

This is a fluent and


succinct piece of writing of
a very high academic
standard.

Referencing

Referencing words and ideas to their source is achieved accurately and consistently. The work acknowledges sources
in-text and links them to a reference list that is free of errors and inconsistencies.
Referencing is accurate and All sources are adequately
All sources are
There are no referencing
consistent. There may be a
acknowledged. Correct and acknowledged. Correct and errors in this work.
few minor referencing
consistent in-text
consistent in-text
errors.
referencing is used
referencing is used
throughout.
throughout.

MAIN
CRITERIA

These are key criteria that are fundamental to achieving higher level grades.

Conceptual
understanding

Key concepts have been


identified and deployed.
There is evidence of a basic
understanding of relevant
concepts although there
may be minor issues.
Fluency in use of
conceptual language may
be limited.

Key concepts have been


identified and deployed.
There is evidence of a good
understanding of relevant
concepts. Developing
fluency in use of
conceptual language is
present.

Key concepts have been


identified and deployed.
There is evidence of a very
good understanding of
relevant concepts. Fluency
in use of conceptual
language is developed.

Key concepts have been


identified and deployed.
There is evidence of a
highly developed and
nuanced understanding of
relevant concepts. Fluency
in use of conceptual
language is excellent.

Research
Effort

The amount and level of


research undertaken in the
preparation of this work is
adequate. The work
evidences adequate
understanding of the basic
issues relevant to the topic.

The amount and level of


research undertaken in the
preparation of this work is
very good. The work
evidences the use of good
research skills in accessing
quality academic papers.

Quality of
argument

There is a genuine attempt


to understand and respond
to the question. There has
been a genuine attempt at
structuring an argument
(introduction, cohesive
paragraphing and
conclusion). The work
demonstrates a capacity to
recapitulate arguments
from scholarly sources.

The amount and level of


research undertaken in the
preparation of this work is
good. A solid attempt has
been made to access
pertinent sociological
literature beyond basic
texts.
The work addresses the
required task. The
argument is generally clear
but there may be some
minor issues in relation to
continuity. A capacity to
evaluate scholarly
arguments is apparent. The
integration of argument and
evidence is generally clear
and developed.

The work fully addresses


the required task. The
argument is clear, logically
developed and convincing.
The writing is well
structured with a
demonstrated capacity to
evaluate and synthesize the
arguments from scholarly
sources. The integration of
theory, argument and
evidence is very good.

The amount and level of


research undertaken in the
preparation of this work is
excellent. The student has
drawn from diverse
academic sources that are
directly relevant to the
question.
The argument is
sophisticated and
persuasive. Writing is
clear, logically developed
and convincing. The
argument is structured
within a theoretical
framework. The approach
demonstrates flair and
insight and the integration
of argument and evidence
is excellent.

Quality of
evidence

Evidence and examples are


used sporadically in
support of the argument.
The evidence and examples
need to move beyond the
use of basic texts and
readings.

The argument is adequately


supported by evidence and
examples. The evidence
and examples used in this
work are verifiable and
from robust sources.

The argument is well


supported by examples and
a broad evidence base. The
evidence and examples
used in this work are
verifiable and from robust
sources.

The work demonstrates a


capacity to evaluate and
synthesize ideas from a
broad range of scholarly
sources in order to support
the writers main
argument.

Page 32
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology

You might also like