Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unit Outline
SOC30002 Genetics and Society
SOC60002 Genome: Biotechnology and Society
Semester 2, 2015
Unit Convener: Dr Hadi Sohrabi
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
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
Unit Outline
UNIT DETAILS
Unit Code
Unit Name
Contact Hours
Lecture:
Tutorials:
Credit Points
2.
3.
4.
GRADUATE ATTRIBUTES
Students can expect to acquire or improve the following generic skills:
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
Unit Outline
Hadi Sohrabis contact
details
Consultation arrangements
Email: msohrabihaghighat@swin.edu.au
Tutorial preparation
requirements
Teaching approach
LEARNING MATERIALS
Unit Texts
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)
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
Individual/
Group Task
Individual
Related Learning
Objective(s)
Weighting
Due Date
2,3,4
Unit Outline
marks)
Quizzes (2 x 5 marks
each)
10%
Varies
10%
Weeks 5 and 11
Individual
1,2,4
40%
Friday October 9
(3) Exam
Individual
1,3,4
40%
Examination
period
1. Tutorial work
Marks: 20%
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
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
4. quality of research
5. Timing
2. Major Essay
3,000 words
Marks: 40%
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
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%
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
Unit Outline
PASS
(50-59%)
CREDIT
(60-69%)
DISTINCTION
(70-79%)
HIGH DISTINCTION
(80-100%)
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.
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 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
The argument is
adequately supported by
evidence and examples.
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
4 August
11 August
18 August
25 August
1 September
8 September
Unit Outline
Mid-semester break: September 14-20
7
22 September
29 September
6 October
10
13 October
11
20 October
12
27 October
Page 10
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology
Unit Outline
Page 11
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology
Unit Outline
Page 12
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology
Unit Outline
Page 13
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology
Unit Outline
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
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?
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
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
Unit Outline
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
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?
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
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
Unit Outline
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
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
Unit Outline
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
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
Unit Outline
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
Unit Outline
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-
Page 25
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology
Unit Outline
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
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
Unit Outline
Page 28
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology
Unit Outline
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
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 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
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
Unit Outline
Sociology marking criteria for written assignments
PASS
CREDIT
DISTINCTION
HIGH DISTINCTION
(50-59%)
(60-69%)
(70-79%)
(80-100%)
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
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.
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
Research
Effort
Quality of
argument
Quality of
evidence
Page 32
Copyright Swinburne University of Technology