TEACHER CANDIDATES’ ETHICAL APPROACHES RELATED TO ANIMAL EXPERIMENT
Abstract
This research was carried out to determine about the preferences and point of view of teacher candidates ethical approaches related to animal experiment. Obesity disease, cancer disease, cosmetics industry, product tests created the sub subjects of scenarios with dilemmas. The research was carried out in 2015-2016 academic year with 322 teacher candidates. As a data collection tool, “Bioethical Value Inventory” and “Demographic Information Form” developed by the researcher were used. Preferences of teacher candidates on scenarios are examined by using research variables such as, family education level, grade level and family income level. As a result of analysis of the research, it was determined that general decisions and ethical preferences of teacher candidates can show differences according to class grade, family education levels and income levels. It became clear that only product tests themed scenarios did not show any difference.
Article visualizations:
Keywords
References
Allen MD: Teasing out the linkage between public opinion on environmentalism and animal rights. Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 7-10 April 2005.
Altug, T. (2009). Animal experiments ethics. Periodical Publishing of Medical Sciences, 54-68
Aydogdu, B.I., Cobanoglu, N. (2009). Bioethical Expert while Moving from Medical Ethics to Bioethics: Is it a Problem Diagram or a Solution? Health Science Periodic Publishing, 129-139
Aypay, A. (2009). Scientific ethics. In A. Tanrıören (Ed), Scientific Research Methods (s: 277-292), Ankara: Anı Publishing.
Aydın, I. (2003). Ethics on education and teaching. Ankara: Pegem A Publishing.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (1994). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Newyork: Oxford University Press.
Benson, George (1982). Business ethics in America. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
Bowd AD, Boylan CR: High school biology and attitudes towards the treatment of animals. Psychol Rep, 5, 890, 1986.
Bursal, M. (2014). Qualitative method. Selcuk Besir Demir (Ed.) Quantitative, Qualitative ve Mixed Approach Methods (s: 155-182). Ankara: Eğiten Books
Büyüköztürk, S. Cakmak, E., Akgün, O., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2015). Scientific Research Methods Improved 19. Publishing, Pegem Akademi Publisher.
Conner, L.N. (2000). The significance of an approach to the teaching of societal ıssues related to biotechnology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Cobanoglu, N. (2009). Institutional and Practical Medical Ethics (1.pub.). Ankara: Eflatun Publishing.
Dawson, V., & Schibeci, R. (2003). Western Australian high school students’ attitudes towards biotechnology process. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 7-12.
Dogan, İ. (2002). Sociology, Concepts and Problems. Ankara: Pegem-A Publishing.
Elcigil, A., Bahar, Z., Beşer, A., Mızrak, B., Bahcelioglu, D., Demirtas, D., Ozdemir, D., Ozgür, E., & Yavuz, H. (2011). Analysis of Ethical Dilemmas that Nurses Confront. Anatolian Nurse and Health Science Magazin, 14(2), 52-60.
Ergün, Y. (2010). Ethics in animal experimentation. Archives Medical Review Journal, 19(4), 220-235.
Ersoy, N. (1996). Bioethics education: Necessity, Aims. Medical Ethics Magazine, 4(3), 94-96.
Ferry L. (2000). Ecological new layout, YKY. (çev. T. Ilgaz). Istanbul.
Flosos, A. (2005). Ethical issues in animal research. The Greek E-Journal of Perioperative Medicine 3: 1-5.
Gallop, G. G.,& Beckstead, J. W. (1988). Attitudes toward animal research.American Psychologist, 43(6), 474-478.
Ghasemi, M., & Dehpour, A. R. (2009). Ethical considerations in animal studies. Journal of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, 2: 12-15.
Grieder FB, Strandberg JD. In Hau J, Van Hoosier Jr GL. The contribution of laboratory animals to medical progress-past, present, and future. In: Hau J, Van Hoosier Jr GL, Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science. Volume I Essential Principles and Practices 2nd ed. USA CRC PRESS; 2003. p. 1-13.
Hacıömeroglu, G., Ercan, H., Bilican, I. F., Bütün, M., Bursal, M., Şahin Mandacı S.,& Demir Beşir S.; Research design (Translated from the 4th edition 2013).Ankara Eğiten Kitap.
Hagelin J, Carlsson HE, Suleman MA, Hau J. (2000). Swedish and Kenyan medical and veterinary students accept nonhuman primate use in medical research. J Med Primatol, 29, 431-432.
Haynes, F. (2002). Ethics in Education (Çev. Kunt Akbaş, S.). Istanbul:Ayrıntı Publisher. Working Mehods and Bases of Regulations of Animal Experiments. T.R. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Official Newspaper 06.07.2006, Nbr: 26220.
Izmirli S, Yigit A, Phillips CJC: Attitudes of Australian and Turkish students of veterinary medicine toward nonhuman animals and their careers. Society Anim, 22, 580-601, 2014. DOI: 10.1163/15685306-12341352.
Karakaya, F., & Arslan, O. (2016). Students’ethical approaches related to animal experiment: 9th grade example. Turkish Journal of Education, 5(4), 208-223. Doi:10.19128/turje.267916
Karakütük, K. (2002). Improving lecturers and science people (Planning of Master’s Education) (Improved 2nd publish), Ankara: Ani Publisher.
Keskin Samancı, N. (2009). Bioethical value towards middle schools in the scope of bioethics education. PhD Thesis, Gazi University, Education Institue, Ankara.
Keskin Ozer, M., Samanci Keskin, N., Kurt, I. (2013). The investigation of the opinions of teacher candidates about current ethical issues in terms of various variables. Journal of Higher Education and Science, 3(2), 142-152.
Koc, B., Altunçul, H., & Filoglu, G., (2014). A survey to ıdentıfy the veterınarıan’s, veterınary faculty student’s and law enforcement offıcer’s attıtudes to anımal rıghts ın Turkey. J. Fac. Vet. Med. Istanbul Univ. 40(2), 147-154.
Kolar, R. (2006). Animal experimentation. Science and Engineering Ethics,12(1), 111-122.
Kurt, I. (2011). The development of an instrument used for revealing the values discussions about the ethical issues emerging from the application of biological sciences. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
Macer DR. Moral games for teaching bioethics. Haifa: UNESCO Chair in Bioethics; 2008.
Macer, D., Asada, Y., Tsuzuki, M., Akiyama, S., & Macer, N. (1996). Bioethics in high schools in Australia, japan and New Zealand. Christchurch, NZ: Eubiouts Ethics Institute.
Miller, C. (2001). Childhood animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(5), 735-749.
Olsson AS, Robinson P, Pritchett K, et al. Animal Research Ethics. In: Hau J, Van Hoosier Jr GL, Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science. Volume I Essential Principles and Practices 2nd ed. USA CRC PRESS; 2003. p. 13-31.
Ors, Y. (1994). Value Problems in Science event. Science in the world and Turkey, Etical and University.
Ozen, R.,& Ozen A. (2010). Attitudes of Erciyes University students to the use of animals in research. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg, 16, 477-481, DOI: 10.9775/kvfd.2009.1053
Ozyer, K.,& Azizoglu, O. (2010). Effects of Demographical Variables’ on Individual’s Ethical Attitude.
Economic and Social Researches Magazine, 6(2), 59-84.
Paul, E.S., Podberscek, A.L., 2000. Veterinary education and students’ attitudes towards animal welfare. Veterinary Record; 146:269-272 doi:10.1136/vr.146.10.269.
Pifer, L., Shimizu, K., & Pifer R (1994): Public attitudes toward animal research: Some international comparisons. Soc Anim, 2, 95-113.
Pope, K. S., & Vasquez, M. J. T. (2011). Steps in Ethical Decision-Making. Ethics in Psychotherapy and Counseling: A Practical Guide (4th edition). John Wiley.
Rollin, B.E. (2002) Ethics, Animal Welfare, and ACUCs. In Gluck, J.P, Dipasquale, T. and Orlans, B (eds.), (2002) Applied Ethics in Animal Research. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana, pp 113-131.
Sadler, T. D., & Donnelly, L. A. (2006). Socioscientific argumentation: the effects of content knowledge and morality, International Journal of Science Education, 28 (12), 1463-1488.
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Sungurbey, I. (1992). Human Rights. İstanbul: İstanbul University Publishing.
Ulman, Y. I. (2010). Ethics, bioethics, laws: Basic Prensiples and main approaches. Acibadem University Health Science Magazine, Numberı 1: 1-4.
Wekesser, Carol (Ed.) (1995). Ethics. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press. P.15.
Wever, A. S., & Evans, R. (1996). Exploration of Student Knowledge of Ethical Issues. In Genetics. Wake Forest University’s 1996 Annual Research Forum. Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Yasar A., Izmirli S., (2006). Legal Regulations about Animal Welfare in Turkey. Vet Bil Magazine, 22(34): 51-56.
Yerlikaya H, Ozen A., Yasar A., Armutak A., Ozturk R., Bayrak S., Gezman A., & Seker I. (2004). A survey of attitudes of Turkish veterinary students and educators about animal use in research. Veterinární Medicína, 49 (11): 413-420.
Yıldırım, A., Şimşek, H. (2008). Qualitative Research Methods. (7th edition). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık
Yıldırım, G., & Kadıoglu S. (2007). Basic concepts of ethics and medical ethics. CU Medicine Journal, 29(2): 7-12.
Yigit, A., Caglar Sönmez, C., & Aslim, G., (2015). Attitudes of Officials that are Responsible for Animal Usage for Using Experimental Animals on Turkey. Kafkas University Vet Faculty Magazine 21(6):885-892.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v0i0.463
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 Ferhat Karakaya, Sakine Serap Avgin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group. All rights reserved.
This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).
