


































Microsoft Word - ZULKEFLI


  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

9 

 

Awareness and Perceptions on Bioethical Issues among Pre-Service Science 

Teachers 
 

Zulkefli Daud1*, Zainab Ari2 and Noorafizah Daud3  

 
1. Department of Science, Institute of Teacher Education Malaysia, Temenggong Ibrahim Campus, 80350 Johor 
Bahru, Johor, Malaysia. Email: zulmydinamik@yahoo.com 
2. Tunku Mahmood Iskandar Secondary School, 83200 Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia. Email: zainab63@gmail.com  
3.Faculty of Education, National University of Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Email: 
nooriezh11@gmail.com 
 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v11i3.50593   
 

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the awareness and perception level of bioethical issues 
among pre-service science teachers at one of the Malaysian Education Institutions. A total of 
67 respondents studying science major and science elective were involved. A questionnaire 
based survey with an alpha Cronbach of approximately 0.93 was used. Data were analysed 
using SPSS version 22. The results showed that the average awareness and perception level 
were �̅=4.218±0.758 (very high level) and �̅=3.991±0.923 (high level), respectively. There 
was a statistically significant difference according to religion and course. Cloning showed the 
highest awareness level followed by organ donation, genetic modification, stem cells, abortion, 
gene therapy, gene screening and euthanasia. Overall, the findings indicated that pre-service 
science teachers were aware of the existence of bioethical issues. However, the authorities may 
implement bioethical issues more firmly in the future to increase pre-service science teachers’ 
awareness and perception level.  
 
Key words: Bioethical issues, pre-service science teachers, awareness, perception 
 
(Some part of the article was Presented at the 20th Asian Bioethics Conference, 22-25 November 2019, Dhaka, 

Bangladesh) 

 
Introduction: Bioethics is now becoming 
increasingly important around the world 
due to rapid advancement in Science and 
Technology (S&T), apart from the drastic 
changes in macroeconomic planning and 
globalization1. New discoveries and 
innovations in S&T, on the other hand have 
raised a number of bioethical issues2. This 
relationship makes the teaching and 
learning of bioethics in science curriculum 
more important than ever before2,3. In this 
regard, pre-service science teachers should 
be prepared to face bioethical issues 
because the Malaysian National Philosophy 
of Education (NPE) emphasizes that not 
only science teachers should be able to 
foster understanding of science content, 
science process skills, positive attitude 
towards science and nurture unity among 
students but also instil ethical and moral 

values in students4. Malaysia's preparations 
to address the emergence of bioethical 
issues are strengthened by promoting 
bioethics awareness on students of higher 
education institutions since 20055 and 
establishing the National Bioethics Council 
of Malaysia in 20126. Understanding the 
importance of fostering ethics to students 
by teachers is important because it is part of 
science education7. 
 
In the Malaysian science teacher education 
programme, bioethical issues are taught to 
pre-service science teachers or to science 
teacher trainees through integration into 
other subjects. Some subjects that contain 
the topic of bioethical issues include 
Biological Diversity8, Ethics and Safety9, 
Emerging Issues in Biology and 
Environment, Principles in 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

10 

 

Biotechnology10 and Fundamental 
Genetics11. Bioethics in science has been 
promoted and taught, but bioethical issues 
still raise questions and create different 
views in the society. Confusion among the 
community is exacerbated by the 
emergence of some groups that reject the 
advancement of S&T, although scientists 
continue to claim its benefits. The refusal 
and scepticism of anti-vaccine groups to 
accept child vaccination12 based on precise 
scientific facts is an example of how people 
reject S&T innovation. 
 
Cloning, organ donation, euthanasia, stem 
cells, genetic modification, abortion, gene 
therapy and gene screening are some of the 
popular or most important bioethical 
issues13,14. Usually, debates of these 
bioethical issues are related to potential 
risks or harmful effects of the application of 
S&T to human health, the environment and 
even contrary to traditional beliefs and 
religions. Whether S&T brings a good or 
bad effect, bioethical issues still affect 
human life and environment and touch on 
almost every area of human endeavour15. 
The emergence of bioethical issues with 
differences of opinion in society has raised 
some questions in the preparation of pre-
service science teachers. This issue may be 
traceable based on their lack of awareness 
of ethics and their ethical perceptions. 
However, the level of awareness and 
perception of bioethical issues among pre-
service science teachers in Malaysia is 
unclear due to the lack of literature on 
bioethics education in the science teacher 
programme. Low, Lexman and Mohamed 
Saat16 also stated that the ethical 
perceptions of Malaysian undergraduate 
students are largely unknown. Rodzalan 
and Mohamed Saat17  found that the level of 
ethics of undergraduate students is high but 
this study is not specific to bioethical issues 
among pre-service science teachers.  
 
Pre-service science teachers will lead the 
next generation through their major role in 
enabling students to make decisions that are 

more reasonable on ethical issues. Teachers 
play a role in shaping society18,19. In this 
regard, teachers can influence society by 
changing students' awareness and 
perception of bioethical issues. However, it 
is very important for teachers to have a lot 
of information and knowledge on bioethical 
issues before they can teach bioethics in 
their teaching and learning process. 
According to Özkan and Umdu Topsaka20, 
to improve bioethics education among 
science teachers, it needs to be 
implemented while they are still in pre-
service teacher training. Kohlberg21 
supported the notion where ethical 
awareness should be taught in early age by 
providing continuous education, especially 
to students in higher education. Pre-service 
science teachers are in the early stages of 
developing a conscience and establishing 
their identities and values, they may show 
maturity in both physical and mental form, 
but in reality, their values are still 
immature. Teaching bioethics including 
making a good ethical decision to pre-
service science teachers at this age are more 
effective and essential than at any other 
time in their lives22,23,24. Moreover, 
bioethical issues are an excellent tool to 
generate interest and establish the relevance 
of science content as well as pre-service 
science teachers are youth who are closely 
related to ethical issues such as suicide, 
abortion and organ donation2,25,26. 
According to Ozkan and Umdu Topsaka20, 
if pre-service science teachers provide the 
awareness in bioethics, they will enable 
effective education.  
 
There is not much research of bioethical 
issues in science education in the 
literature20. In Malaysia, several studies 
related to ethics among science teachers or 
science students have been conducted. Nair, 
Mohamed and Marimuthu27 conducted the 
research of morals, and ethics among pre-
service science teachers at the tertiary level, 
Rodzalan and Mohamed Saat17 conducted a 
study on morals and ethics among 
undergraduate students majoring in science 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

11 

 

and Jasimin28 has studied ethics in science 
among in-service science teachers. 
However, most studies in Malaysia focus 
on moral or ethical practices as a science 
teacher rather than specializing in 
bioethical issues in science. Therefore, it is 
highly desirable to investigate the 
awareness and perception of pre-service 
science teachers in Malaysia on bioethical 
issues in science. 
 

Research questions and hypotheses  

The following main research 
questions have been used to guide this 
study:  
a. What is the awareness and perceptions of 
bioethical issues among pre-service science 
teachers?  

b.  Are there significant differences in the 
awareness and perceptions of pre-service 
science teachers on bioethical issues towards 
gender, religion and courses? 

This study tests the following null 
hypotheses :  
a. There is no significant difference between 
male and female pre-service science teachers 
towards the awareness and perceptions of 
bioethical issues  

b.There is no significant difference between 
Muslim and non-Muslim pre-service science 
teachers towards the awareness and 
perceptions of bioethical issues 

c.There is no significant difference between 
science major course and science elective 
course pre-service science teachers towards 
the awareness and perceptions of bioethical 
issues 

 
Methodology: In a present study, a total of 
67 respondents of pre-service science 
teachers at one of educational institutions 
were involved. The respondents divided 
into two groups of gender; 28.4% (19 
respondents) were male and 71.6% (48 
respondents) were female. The largest 
number of respondents at 58.2% (39 
respondents) was contributed by science 

major, while science elective only 
contributed 41.8% (28 respondents). 
Science major refers to respondents who 
compulsory studied science subjects, while 
science elective refers to respondents who 
studied optional science subjects. Muslims 
were 71.6% (48 respondents) representing 
the largest share, while non-Muslim 
(Buddhists, Christianity and Hindus) 
consisted 28.4% (19 respondents).  
 
This study was conducted at one of the 
Educational Institutes in Malaysia. A 
survey based on a questionnaire to measure 
awareness and perception of bioethical 
issues with a five degree Likert scale; (5) 
Strongly agree (�̅=4.20-5.00), (4) Agree 
(�̅=3.40-4.19), (3) Moderate (�̅=2.60-3.39), 
(2) Disagree (�̅=1.80-2.59) and (1) 
Strongly disagree (�̅=1.00-1.79) was used. 
The five level interpretation was (5) Very 
high, (4) High, (3) Moderate, (2) Low and 
(1) Very low. Alpha Cronbach of 
questionnaire was approximately 0.93. This 
study only focuses on eight bioethical 
issues namely; cloning, organ donation, 
genetic modifications (GMO), stems cells, 
abortion, gene therapy, gene screening and 
euthanasia. These eight issues were the 
main and popular bioethical issues over the 
past few years. The data analyses were 
made by t-test using SPSS 22.0 package 
programme. Significance level was taken to 
be 0.05.  
 

Results:   

 

Awareness of bioethical issues: The result 
of awareness level among respondents is 
shown in Table 1. The overall average 
awareness level of the respondents 
regarding bioethical issues was 
�̅=4.218±0.758. Among bioethical issues, 
cloning indicated the highest awareness 
level at 4.373 followed by organ donation 
at 4.358, genetic modification at 4.299, 
stem cells at 4.269, abortion at 4.239, gene 
therapy at 4.194, gene screening at 4.060 
and euthanasia at 3.955. An analysis of the 
difference in awareness level according to 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

12 

 

respondent’s background profiles showed a 
statistically significant difference 
according to religion (t=5.650, p<0.05) and 
course (t=4.862, p< 0.05). Muslim 
displayed higher awareness levels of 
bioethical issues than non-Muslim, and 
science major course showed higher levels 
than science elective course. Male showed 

higher awareness levels than female, 
however there was no significance 
difference according to gender. Table 2 
shows the t-test result on the awareness 
level of bioethical issues towards the 
background profiles respondents.  

 

 
Table 1: Awareness of bioethical issues among respondents 

 

Bioethical issues 
Awareness 

Interpretation 
Average (�̅) S.D. 

Cloning 4.373 0.671 Very high 
Organ donation 4.358 0.667 Very high 
Genetic modifications (GMO) 4.299 0.759 Very high 
Stem cells 4.269 0.709 Very high 
Abortion 4.239 0.653 Very high 
Gene therapy  4.194 0.802 High 
Gene screening  4.060 0.795 High 
Euthanasia  3.955 0.878 High 
Overall awareness of bioethical issues 4.218 0.753 Very high 

 
Table 2: t–test on awareness of bioethical issues towards respondents’ background profiles 
 

Profile Categories Average S.D. t p 

Gender 
Male 
Female 

4.290 
4.190 

0.568 
0.632 

0.596 0.553 

Religious 
Muslim 
Non-Muslim 

4.438 
3.665 

0.436 
0.651 

5.650 0.000** 

Course 
Science major 
Science elective 

4.484 
3.848 

0.418 
0.652 

4.862 0.000** 

**P<0.05 
 
Perception of bioethical issues: The result 
of respondents’ perception of bioethical 
issues is shown in Table 3. These 
perceptions containing 21 statements where 
statements 1 to 9 were related to general 
information of S&T, bioethics, religion, 
law and policy, while statements 10 to 21 
were specifically related to bioethical 
issues. The average perception of 21 
statements was at a high level 
(�̅=3.991±0.923).  
 
Respondents perceived S&T makes an 
important contribution to the quality of 
human life as the highest level (4.388), 

followed by interest in S&T as the second 
highest level (4.343) and bioethical issues 
need to be studied in the Science and 
Biology curriculum as the third highest 
level (4.343). The second and third highest 
levels had the same average value but differ 
in standard deviation. These three 
perceptions were at a very high level. For 
statements familiar with the term 
"Bioethics", awareness of the emergence of 
bioethical issues in line with the 
development of Science and Biology and 
discussing bioethical issues in the 
classroom, respondents perceived at a high 
level of 3.522, 4.075 and 3.478, 
respectively.  



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

13 

 

 
Further result found that for religious, law 
and policy statements, respondents 
perceived high level (4.030) for the 
authorities have a clear policy on bioethical 
issues. Vice versa, religion has the ideal 
framework for dealing with any bioethical 

issues and the law needs to have an ideal 
framework for bioethical issues perceived 
at very high levels with an average of 4.209 
and 4.239, respectively.  
 
 

 
Table 3: Perceptions of respondents on items related to bioethical issues 
 

Items 
Score Interpretation  
Average  S.D. 

1 Science and Technology makes an important 
contribution to the quality of human life  

4.388 0.627 
Very high 

2 I’m interested in Science and Technology  4.343 0.750 Very high 
3 I’m familiar with the term “Bioethics”  3.522 0.975 High  
4 I’m aware of the emergence of bioethical issues in 

line with the development of Science and Biology  
4.075 0.876 

High 

5 Bioethical issues needs to be studied in the Science 
and Biology curriculum  

4.343 0.789 
Very high 

6 I often discuss bioethical issues in class  3.478 0.943 High 
7 Religion has the ideal framework for dealing with 

any bioethical issues 
4.209 0.826 

Very high 

8 The law needs to have an ideal framework for 
bioethical issues  

4.239 0.799 
Very high 

9 The authorities have a clear policy on bioethical 
issues  

4.030 0.758 
High 

10 Genetic modification foods have been introduced 
in my country  

3.866 0.886 
High 

11 The authorities allow organ donation in my 
country  

4.075 0.841 
High 

12 If my family need a kidney, I will donate one to 
him 

4.149 0.942 
High 

13 If my family need a kidney, I will not buy one from 
the black market 

3.567 1.587 
High 

14 The authorities not freely allow abortion in my 
country 

3.821 0.999 
High 

15 I’m aware of the implications of Stem Cell 
Technology   

4.075 0.703 
High 

16 Stem Cell Technology should be introduced to all  4.030 0.816 High 

17 The authorities allow cloning by law 3.642 1.111 High 

18 If a gene screening test shows I have a genetic 
defect, I will have to do the gene treatment first, 
before the symptoms appear 

4.300 0.738 
Very high 

19 Besides me, my family members can also be 
informed about my health screening findings 

4.000 0.816 
High 

20 I will take my family members for genetic therapy, 
if they have a genetic defect  

4.044 0.706 
High 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

14 

 

21 I aware that euthanasia is only allowed by the 
authorities, for reasons that justify it.  

3.881 0.826 
High 

Overall perceptions on related item of bioethical issues  3.991 0.923 High 

 
Statements specifically related to bioethical 
issues, respondents perceived at a very high 
level (4.3) only for the statement of 
performing gene treatment first before 
symptoms appeared if gene examination 
tests showed genetic defects. Other 
statements of bioethical issues, respondents 
perceived only at a high level stating with 
statements about respondents donating 
kidneys (4.149), followed by authorities 
allowing organ donation (4.075), aware the 
implications of stem cell technology 
(4.075), taking family members for genetic 
therapy if they have a genetic defect 
(4.044), introduce stem cell technology to 
all (4.030), family members can inform 
about health screening findings (4.000), 
euthanasia is only allowed by the 
authorities for certain reasons (3.881), 
introducing genetic modification to the 
country (3.866), abortion is not freely 
allowed by authorities (3.821), authorities 
allow cloning (3.642) and finally, donating 
kidneys without buying from the black 
market (3.567).  
 
Further analysis of the difference 
perception of bioethical issues according to 
respondents' background profiles found that 
there was statistically significant difference 
in religion (t=3.862, p<0.001) and course 
(t=4.379, p<0.001), but gender showed 
insignificant difference. Male, Muslim and 
science major course showed high average 
perception compared to other background 
profiles. Table 4 shows t-test on the 
perception of bioethical issues towards the 
background profiles of the respondents.  
 
Table 4: t- test on perception of bioethical 
issues towards respondents’ background 
profiles 
 
Profil
e 

Categ
ories 

Me
an 

S.
D. 

t p 

Gend
er 

Male 
Femal
e 

3.9
92 
3.9
35 

0.4
72 
0.5
29 

0.4
05 

0.68
7 

Religi
ous 

Musli
m 
Non-
Musli
m 

4.1
25 
3.6
52 

0.3
97 
0.5
71 

3.8
62 

0.00
0** 

Cours
e 

Scienc
e 
major 
Scienc
e 
electiv
e 

4.1
91 
3.7
13 

0.3
32 
0.5
58 

4.3
79 

0.00
0** 

**P<0.05 
 
Discussion: The overall level of awareness 
of bioethical issues among pre-service 
science teacher was very high 
(�̅=4.218±0.758). This finding was 
consistent with other studies such as 
research by Ilyas et al.13 and Aggarwal, 
Sandhu and Kukreja26 who found that 
awareness of bioethical issues is quite high 
among respondents of Hazara University 
and Sri Guru Ram Das University of 
Science and Medical Research. According 
to Ilyas et al.13 and Aggarwal, Sandhu and 
Kukreja26, high awareness of these 
bioethical issues is due to its curriculum 
content. Postgraduate respondents from 
Molecular Medicine and Medical 
Biotechnology Department, where 
bioethics had been included in their 
curriculum, also exhibited relatively high 
level of awareness on bioethical issues29. 
Therefore, the very high level of awareness 
in this study may be due to exposure to 
bioethical issues through the content of 
their curriculum as the findings of other 
researchers. 
 
Besides well exposed of bioethical issues as 
above discussion, the high level of 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

15 

 

bioethical issues awareness in this study 
can provide an initial overview of the level 
of scientific literacy among pre-service 
science teachers. This is because the 
awareness and understanding of the impact 
of S&T on society is one of the dimensions 
of scientific literacy30. According to 
Kolarova and Denev3, the topic of ethics is 
increasingly important as a tool to improve 
students' scientific literacy, therefore, the 
ethical topics applied in the curriculum 
indirectly affect the high awareness of 
bioethical issues. These findings may 
reflect awareness about bioethical issues at 
the societal level since literacy rate among 
the population aged 15 years and older in 
Malaysia is high around 94.64%31. 
Scientific literacy is an important element 
to enable people to think and critically 
evaluate an issue and make wise decisions, 
especially S&T surrounded by various 
ethical, social, political and economic 
issues32.  
 
The study also found that cloning was 
perceived as the highest awareness level of 
bioethical issues, followed by organ 
donation, genetic modification, stem cells, 
abortion, gene therapy, gene screening and 
euthanasia (Table 1). This finding might 
indicate that cloning was very popular 
issues compared to others, while less 
popular issues caused euthanasia to be in 
the lowest awareness. The finding was in 
line with the ranking of the most important 
bioethical issues by Iliyas et al.13 and Alam 
et al.14. Awareness level of each bioethical 
issues in this study namely cloning, organ 
donation, genetic modification (GMO), 
stem cells and abortion were found to be 
very high level more than 4.2, while gene 
therapy, gene screening and euthanasia 
were perceived high level between 3.4 and 
4.19. These findings indicated that pre-
service science teachers had at least high 
level of awareness of each bioethical issue. 
The awareness of some bioethical issues in 
this study also showed higher awareness 
than in other fields and countries. For 
example, Jeon and Kim23 who studied 

undergraduate students of Biomedical 
Science in Korea found only moderate 
levels for organ donation and euthanasia. 
This difference in high level of awareness 
may also be due to differences ability 
among students. In Malaysia, the latest 
trend in the selection of pre-service science 
teachers is through strict selection, besides 
they must have a good academic 
qualification before being accepted for 
teacher training programme. The 
characteristics possessed by pre-service 
science teachers may influence the outcome 
of this study, but further research should be 
done in the future to confirm the 
relationship between respondents' ability 
and level of awareness on bioethical issues. 
 
Based on the background profile of pre-
service science teachers, the results of this 
study found that male, Muslim and science 
major course showed higher level of 
awareness on bioethical issues than female, 
non-Muslim and science elective course 
(Table 2). Some researchers such as 
Rodzalan and Mohamed Saat17 revealed 
that the level of ethics are different in terms 
of academic discipline among higher 
education students, Jasimin28 found that 
Muslim science teachers have different 
perceptions than non-Muslim science 
teachers on ethical issues and Rodzalan and 
Mohamed Saat17 found that female have 
higher ethical awareness compared to male 
in the study of undergraduate programme 
majoring in science. Jeon and Kim23 also 
found that awareness of biomedical ethics 
according to general characteristics showed 
a statistically significant difference towards 
gender, religion and major course. 
However, t-test of this study only found 
religion and course were statistically 
significant differences (Table 2). No 
significant differences in bioethical issues 
awareness of gender may be due to the both 
sexes received almost identical exposure of 
it curriculum. Religion and course had 
significant differences in awareness of 
bioethical issues, possibly due to the 
mastery of different disciplines and 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

16 

 

different principles in religion as a way of 
their life. These results showed that several 
background factors such as religion and 
education level would influence people’s 
thinking33. 
 
Further study on pre-service science 
teachers’ perception related to statement of 
bioethical issues was found “agree”, 
indicating a high level perception. The 
difference perception of bioethical issues 
according to respondents’ background 
profile showed a statistically significant 
difference only for religion and course 
(Table 4). Meanwhile, male, Muslim and 
science major course showed high average 
perception compared to other background 
profiles. The high perception in this study is 
in line with the revelation of very high 
awareness of each bioethical issue. This 
may show the relation between perception 
and awareness because the perception is the 
process of becoming aware of situations, of 
adding meaningful associations to 
sensations34. 
 
The result for S&T makes an important 
contribution to the quality of human life and 
interest in S&T, respondents perceived very 
high level indicated that they were strongly 
agreed. This means that S&T will benefit 
pre-service science teachers live and 
influence their interest in S&T. This is in 
line with Alam et al.14 who stated that most 
of the respondents (76.4%) in their study 
not only believed that S&T would benefit 
their lives but also expressed interest in 
S&T.  
 
Respondents perceived high level for 
familiar with the term “Bioethics”, aware of 
the emergence of bioethical issues in line 
with the development of Science and 
Biology and often discuss bioethical issues 
in class. These findings indicated that pre-
service science teachers aware and know 
about bioethics education and bioethical 
issues in their Science and Biology 
curriculum. These results in line with the 
statement of bioethical issues need to be 

studied in the Science and Biology 
curriculum, to which respondents had 
strongly agreed. This result is also in 
accordance with Rasool et al.35 which 78% 
teachers and students agree that ethical 
issues should be included in the biology 
syllabus, while Iancu36 suggested that 
bioethical education be implemented using 
the modern context of biological teaching. 
The findings of this study were in line with 
the implementation of bioethics education 
in Japan, Australia and New Zealand, 
where almost all of the teachers thought 
bioethics were needed in education and 
bioethical issues were generally covered 
more in biology classes than in social 
science classes37.  
 
Respondents perceived high level for class 
discussion on bioethical issues as mention 
above, but the statement showed the lowest 
perception. This result may be due to the 
factor of student busyness or the lack of 
curriculum content which leads to less 
discussion. According to Mahmud et al.4, 
the curriculum structure of degree programs 
containing more general science content 
commonly lacks content knowledge that 
may affect student understanding and 
development of inquiry-based science 
teaching. The findings in the statement 
Bioethical issues needs to be studied in the 
Science and Biology curriculum which 
perceived very high level, and  often 
discuss bioethical issues in class  which 
perceived low high level may need to be 
considered when designing a new Science 
and Biology curriculum by incorporating 
bioethical issues into the current curriculum 
structure. 
 
Based on statement religion has the ideal 
framework for dealing with any bioethical 
issues, it can be said that pre-service 
science teachers agree in a religious 
approach in dealing with bioethical issues 
(Table 3). This is in line with the findings 
of Özkan and Umdu Topsakal20 where the 
respondents prefer a theological approach 
to bioethical issues or in other words their 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

17 

 

decisions deal with religious rules. 
Statements of the law needs to have an ideal 
framework for bioethical issues, and the 
authorities have a clear policy on bioethical 
issues are closely related to the seriousness 
of the authorities on bioethical issues. Pre-
service science teachers perceived high and 
very high for both items indicating that the 
authorities should pay attention to 
bioethical issues. In fact, the Malaysian 
authorities had already set up the National 
Bioethics Council in 2012 to help address 
bioethical issues especially those related to 
policy and law. 
 
Based on the result from statement 
specifically related to bioethical issues, the 
finding showed that respondents agree to all 
statements, except statement if a gene 
screening test shows a genetic defect, 
respondents will have to do the gene 
treatment first, before the symptoms 
appear, where they strongly agree. Very 
high perception on this statement indicated 
that pre-service science teachers were very 
aware about gene screening and willing to 
avoid getting sick. Respondents perceived 
high level for other statements specifically 
related to bioethical issues. This means that 
pre-service science teachers were also 
aware on bioethical issues mention namely 
genetic modification foods, organ donation, 
abortion, stem cell technology, cloning, 
gene screening, genetic therapy and 
euthanasia. Pre-service science teachers 
perceived high to introduce both genetic 
modification food and stem cell technology 
to all, which might be due to the 
development of both technologies around 
the world and their advantages. Side effects 
from two technologies that have not been 
proven, do not have a significant effect on 
respondents. This was supported by 
statement of pre-service science teachers, 
where they were aware of the implications 
of stem cell technology.  
 
Respondents perceived agree the 
authorities allowed organ donation. 
Statements of if my family need a kidney, I 

will donate one to him indicated that pre-
service science teachers will be willing to 
donate organs for the needs of their 
families, but statement of if my family need 
a kidney, I will not buy one from the black 
market, most of them were opposed to 
getting organs from the black market. This 
showed that respondents aware about organ 
donation especially kidney donation even 
though the organ donation rate in Malaysia 
is among the lowest in the World38. 
Statement of if my family need a kidney, I 
will not buy one from the black market 
showed high perception but it has the 
lowest average perception compared to 
other statements specifically related to 
bioethical issues (Table 3). This showed 
that pre-service science teachers were very 
difficult to decide on bioethical issues 
whether to buy kidney or not from the black 
market especially for the needs of their 
families.  
 
For abortion issue, the authorities not freely 
allow abortion in the country. Respondents 
have agreed this. However, it was not 
perceived very high probably due to many 
cases that occur among adolescents in 
Malaysia. The Federation of Reproductive 
Health Associations Malaysia has 
estimated that there are about 90,000 
abortions performed annually in Malaysia 
and The Reproductive Rights Advocacy 
Alliance Malaysia has estimated that there 
are about 240 clinics nationwide offering 
abortion services39. Abortion in Malaysia is 
mostly illegal except in certain cases when 
a medical practitioner deems that 
continuing the pregnancy poses a danger to 
the mother's life, physical health, and 
mental well-being. The findings of this 
study may support Alam et al.14 who found 
abortion as the second most important 
bioethical issue due to the social 
unacceptability of premarital pregnancy 
rather than as a strictly bioethical issue.  
 
The highest awareness level was found for 
cloning as mentioned in research question I, 
but it was not perceived very high in 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

18 

 

statement of the authorities allow cloning 
by law (Table 3). This may be due to not 
clear about the law of the cloning and other 
modern technologies based on low in 
technical knowledge and their implications. 
According to Ilyias et al.13, a correct picture 
on cloning issue only could emerge when 
all the pros and cons are explained to the 
people.  
 
For euthanasia issue, which statement about 
aware of euthanasia is only allowed by the 
authorities, for reasons that justify it was 
found high awareness (Table 1) and high 
perception (Table 3). This means that pre-
service science teachers were aware on 
euthanasia issue and only allowed by the 
authorities for certain reasons. Euthanasia 
may be less prone to pre-service science 
teachers causing their perceptions and 
awareness not to acquire very high. Ilyias et 
al.13 can support this, where euthanasia 
found the second lowest ranking according 
to the most important bioethical issues. 
Jeon and Kim23 also found euthanasia in 
second place out of 7 biomedical issues 
awareness.  
 
Statements if a gene screening test shows I 
have a genetic defect, I will have to do the 
gene treatment first, before the symptoms 
appear, besides me, my family members 
can also be informed about my health 
screening findings and I will take my family 
members for genetic therapy, if they have a 
genetic defect were related to gene testing 
and health. Pre-service science teachers' 
perceptions of the three statements were 
high with an average of more than 4. As 
mentioned above on statement if a gene 
screening test shows I have a genetic defect, 
I will have to do the gene treatment first, 
before the symptoms appear, these findings 
indicated that pre-service science teachers 
were concerned about their respective 
health levels. This may have caused the 
respondents to also give a high perception 
for statements family members can also be 
informed about my health screening 
findings and I will take my family members 

for genetic therapy, if they have a genetic 
defect.  
 
Apart from the findings discussed earlier, 
this study also found that three statements 
approached a moderate level (3.4). The 
statements were i) I often discuss bioethical 
issues in class (3.478), ii) I am familiar with 
the term Bioethics (3.522) and iii) if my 
family need a kidney, I will not buy one 
from the black market (3.567). This low 
level of perception may be due to 
curriculum weaknesses, student busyness, 
lack of bioethical exposure in the teaching 
and learning process and difficulty making 
decisions accurately according to the 
bioethical issues encountered, as previously 
discussed. Therefore, these three statements 
should be given attention in improving the 
implementation of bioethics education 
among pre-service science teachers in the 
future. 
 

Conclusions and recommendations: It 
can be concluded from the results that 
awareness of bioethical issues among pre-
service science teachers were very high, 
while their perceptions level were high. 
Cloning showed the highest awareness 
level, followed by organ donation, genetic 
modification, stem cells, abortion, gene 
therapy, gene screening and euthanasia. 
Statistically significant differences were 
found between religion and course of pre-
service teachers regarding bioethical issues. 
However, there were no significant 
differences between genders towards 
bioethical issues. It is hoped that this study 
will provide useful findings, particularly to 
assist the best implementation of bioethical 
issues in science curriculum among pre-
service science teachers. 
 
Based on this study, some 
recommendations can be given as follows; 
First; pre-service science teachers should be 
given more opportunities to discuss 
bioethical issues. This may require a review 
of the curriculum related to bioethical 
education. This suggestion based on the 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

19 

 

result of bioethical issues often discuss in 
class. Second, bioethics must be a subject 
studied in science and science education. In 
addition, science curricula at all levels of 
education should incorporate ethical issues 
of science. This will make bioethics more 
familiar among the community or students. 
This suggestion based on the result of 
familiar with the term “Bioethics”. Third, it 
is important to prepare students with ethical 
knowledge, skills and values in order to 
respond to ethical dilemmas and be able to 
make ethical decision after entering the real 
world of work. Bioethical issues should be 
discussed openly through seminars, 
conferences and workshops to encourage 
interaction between experts, academicians, 
researchers, students, policy makers etc. 
This suggestion based on the result of 
family need a kidney, without buying one 
from the black market. Fourth, awareness 
of bioethical issues needs to be created at all 
levels so that people can train their own 
opinions instead of following others 
blindly. Discussions on ethical issues in 
science education should also help students 
understand scientists as some students can 
become future scientists, while increasing 
their interest in science. However, the 
background profile of students should be 
scrutinized as their respective religions and 
disciplines of knowledge can influence 
their thinking on ethical education. This 
suggestion based on the findings of 
significant differences in average 
awareness and perception in bioethical 
issues towards the religion and course of the 
respondents. Lastly, fifth; this study has 
limitations in terms of generalization 
because it only investigates pre-service 
science teachers in one of the Institutes of 
Education in Malaysia. Therefore, it needs 
future replication studies to cover the whole 
country while qualitative research may also 
be needed to strengthen the findings of the 
study. 

 
 

 

 

References:  
 
1.  Lasker SP, Rahman MM. Bioethics for peace and 
sustainable development of Bangladesh. Bangladesh 
Journal of Bioethics 2019; 9 (2): 38-40. 
2. Csongradi C. Why teach bioethics? 2019. 
www.actionbioscience.org/education/csongradi.ht
ml. [9 March 2020]. 
3.  Kolarova  TA,  Denev ID. Integrating a bioethics 
course into undergraduate biology education. 
Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 
2012: 26(1), 2801-2810. 
4. Mahmud SND, Mohamad Nasri N, Samsudin 
MA, Halim L. Science teacher education in 
Malaysia: challenges and way forward. Asia-Pacific 
Science Education 2018; 4, 8. 
5.  Phipps M. Bioethics education in tertiary settings: 
The University of Malaya experience. In Calderbank 
D, Macer DRJ., (eds.). Asia-Pacific Perspectives on 
Bioethics Education. Bangkok, UNESCO Asia and 
Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, 2008.  
6.  Kementerian Sains, Teknologi dan Inovasi 
(MOSTI). Pelancaran Majlis Bioetika Negara. 
2012.https://www.mosti.gov.my/web/berita/pelanca
ran-majlis-bioetika-negara/. [20 April 2020]. 
7.  Jegede OJ. School science and the development 
of scientific culture: A review of contemporary 
science education in Africa. International Journal of 
Science Education 1997; 19(1), 1‐20. 
8.  Institut Pendidikan Guru Malaysia (IPGM). Buku 
Panduan Akademik Sesi 2017/2018 Program Ijazah 
Sarjana Muda Perguruan Dengan Kepujian 
(PISMP). Pusat Pembangunan Akademik, Institut 
Pendidikan Guru Malaysia, Cyberjaya, 2017. 
9.  Universiti Malaya (UM). Buku Panduan Ijazah 
Dasar Sesi 2018/2019. Fakulti Pendidikan. UM: 
Kuala Lumpur, 2018. 
10. Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI). 
Panduan Akademik Sesi 2019/20 Program Sarjana 
Muda. Fakulti Sains dan Matematik. UPSI: Tanjung 
Malim, 2019. 
11. Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM). Sarjana Muda 
Sains dengan Pendidikan Sidang Akademik 
2014/2015. USM: Pulau Pinang, 2014. 
12. Ahmed A, Kah SL, Bukhsh A, Al-Worafi YM, 
Sarker MMR, Long CM, et al. Outbreak of vaccine-
preventable diseases in Muslim majority countries, 
Journal of Infection and Public Health 2018; 11, 
153–155. 
13. Ilyas M, Alam M, Ahmad H, Tariq M, Bibi S,  
Ali A, et al. Awareness regarding bioethical issues 
among the students and Faculty of Hazara 
University Mansehra, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of 
Medical Science 2009; 25(1), 97-102. 
14. Alam M, Rahman Z, Shah M, Zar MS, Shams S, 
Ali F, et al. Bioethics: awareness, attitudes and 
opinions among University students and 
Faculty/Researchers. Pakistan Journal of Medical 
Science 2012; 28(4), 680-685. 



  Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2020; 11 (3): 9-20 

20 

 

15. Mohamed Z. National Bioethics Council’s: Role 
in promoting ethics in research excellence. 2015. 
https://uitmethics.uitm.edu.my/v1/images/stories/re
sources/NationalSymposium2015/1.roles.pdf.[10 
April 2020]. 
16. Low HH, Laxman L, Mohamed Saat M. A study 
of the ethical perception amongst Malaysian public 
university students. International Conference of the 
Asian Academy of Applied Business (AAAB), UM, 
2003.  
17. Rodzalan SA, Mohamed Saat M. Ethics of 
undergraduate students: A Study in Malaysian 
Public Universities. International Journal of 
Information and Education Technology 2016; 6 (9), 
672-675. 
18. Deering TE. The ethical perspective of British 
and American preservice teachers and American 
preservice teachers. Educational Research 1998; 
4(3), 353-358. 
19. Patel J. Role of teachers in nation building. 
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research 
and Development 2018; 2 (5), 2086-2089. 
20. Özkan G, Umdu Topsaka U. Preservice 
classroom teachers’ bioethical perceptions. The 
Eurasia Proceedings of Educational & Social 
Sciences (EPESS) 2016; 4, 573-578. 
21. Kohlberg L. Essays on Moral Development. The 
Philosophy of Moral Development. Moral Stages 
and the Idea of Justice. Harper & Row, New York: 
1981. 
22. So BU, Park HS. A research on undergraduate 
students’ bio-ethics concept. The Catholic Thought 
2004; 30, 139–78. 
23. Jeon MS, Kim HJ. Awareness levels of 
biomedical ethics in undergraduates. Indian Journal 
of Science and Technology 2015; 8(S8), 149-153. 
24. Hudha AM, Amin M, Bambang Sumitro S, 
Akbar S. The Effectiveness of OIDDE learning 
model in the improvement of bioethics knowledge, 
ethical decision and ethical attitude of biology 
preservice teachers. Journal of Baltic Science 
Education 2018; 17 (6), 960-971. 
25. Choo JW. A basic study on the educational 
contents for teenagers’ bioethics. Biomedical Law 
and Ethics 2008; 2(3), 257–73. 
26. Aggarwal K, Sandhu S, Kukreja S. Bioethical 
awareness in Indian Medical Scenario. Intentional 
Journal of Current Research in Medical Science 
2018; 4(10), 10-14. 
27. Nair SM, Mohamed AR, Marimuthu N.  
Malaysian teacher trainees' practices on science and 
the relevance of science education for  sustainability. 
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher 
Education 2013; 14 (1), 71 – 89. 
28. Jasimin MAH. Kefahaman dan persepsi guru 
terhadap etika dalam sains. Tesis Sarjana 
Pendidikan. UTM. 2014.  

29. Soluti SS, Ebrahimi M, Karimi Moonaghi H. 
Jamialahmadi K. Perceptions on bioethical issues 
among postgraduate basic medical sciences students 
of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Iran. 
Journal of Medical Education Development 2016; 9 
(22), 112-115. 
30. Miller JD. Scientific literacy: a conceptual and 
empirical review. Daedalus 1983; 112, 29-48. 
31. UNESCO. Malaysia: Education and Literacy. 
2020. http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/my.[10 April 
2020]. 
32. France B. Location, location, location: 
Positioning biotechnology education for the 21st 
century. Studies in Science Education 2003;  43(35), 
88-122. 
33. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitudes and the attitude-
behaviour relation: Reasoned and automatic 
processes. European Review of Social Psychology 
2000; 11(1), 1-33. 
34. Giliner B, Halter V. Psychology. Harper & Row, 
New York: 1970, 170. 
35. Rasool S, Javed S, Nadeem SG, Hakim ST. 
Bioethics education, awareness of ethics and 
dissemination of knowledge among teachers and 
students. RADS Journal of Biological Research and 
Applied Science 2013; 4 (2), 20 – 32. 
36. Iancu M. Bioethical education in teaching 
biology. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences 
2014; 127, 73-77. 
37. Macer DRJ, Asada Y, Akiyama S, Tsuzuki M. 
Bioethics in High Schools in Australia, Japan and 
New Zealand. In Macer DRJ. Bioethics for the 
people by the people. Eubios Ethics Institute, 
Christchurch: 1994, 177-185. 
38. James WF, Ong JS, Oo WL, Hossain MM, 
Nirmala DB, Haron H, et al. Demographics of 
healthcare professionals’ knowledge and attitude 
toward deceased organ donation: Survey of critical 
care areas in a tertiary hospital. Medical Journal of 
Malaysia 2019; 74 (2), 109-115. 
39. Acher N. Feature: The law, trials and 
imprisonment for abortion in Malaysia. International 
Campaign for Womans Right to Safe Abortion. 
Berer M. (ed.). 2018. https://  www.safeabortion 
womensright.org/10209-2/. [10 April 2020]. 
 
 
Contributions: The 1st author Dr Zulkefli Daud 
conceived the idea, did the literature review and 
wrote the manuscript. The 2nd author Zainab Ari 
guided the conception of the idea, the manuscript 
writing process and checked the manuscript. The 3rd 
author Noorafizah Daud checked and edited the 
manuscript meticulously.  
 

Conflict of interests: The authors declare that there 
is no conflict of interest in this study 

 


