Year 10 Science · Unit 1 · Lesson 10
Apply Worksheet
Learning Goals
Real-world context
In 2024, an Australian mining company offered workers a 15% insurance discount if they submitted to a voluntary genomic health screening. The test would flag genetic risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers. The company claimed this was to promote worker wellbeing. However, workers feared that those who refused or who had "bad" genetic results might face discrimination in promotions or job security. Australia's Privacy Act 1988 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 currently prohibit using genetic information to discriminate in employment.
(a) Construct a consequentialist argument in favour of the company's screening program. What outcomes might justify it?
(b) Construct a deontological argument against the screening program. Which ethical principle does it violate regardless of the outcomes?
(c) Identify which specific Australian law would protect a worker who was passed over for promotion after refusing to provide their genomic data.
Compare two
Complete the table to compare the scientific consensus on GM food safety with the concerns commonly expressed by the public.
| Feature | Scientific Consensus | Common Public Concern |
|---|---|---|
| Is GM food safe to eat? | ||
| What happens to GM DNA when eaten? | ||
| Which organisations approve GM food in Australia? | ||
| Years of commercial use / evidence available | ||
| Main source of ongoing concern |
1. Scientists often say there is a gap between what the evidence shows about GM food safety and what many people believe. Suggest two reasons why the public might hold beliefs that contradict the scientific consensus on this topic.
2. The concept of "justice" in bioethics means distributing benefits and risks fairly across society. Explain how the development of GM crops by large corporations could raise a justice concern for small-scale farmers in developing countries.
Wrap Up
In one sentence, what is the difference between a consequentialist and a deontological ethical argument?