Biology is considered to be a hard science focused on facts and theories which are determined by experimentation and evidence. This appears to leave little room for opinion and debate, but as I discovered with our recent unit on cytogenetics and molecular genetics, ethics and personal opinions come to the forefront when topics such as genetic engineering, cloning, and the treatment of individuals with genetic disorders arise. One of my mentor teachers, Paul, enjoys
“stirring the pot,” as he says, and inciting the passions of his students. With his background knowledge of rhetoric and deep understanding of the many facets of bioethical arguments, he is quick to counter the opinion-riddled commentary of students to get them considering the multiple sides of an issue. As we introduced the idea of the genetic engineering of humans, I asked Paul to model his “Philosophical Chairs” debate strategy for me.
He began the lesson by sharing a discussion question with the class: “If you found out tomorrow that your children (if boys) would have an 80% chance of having Duchenne muscular dystrophy, but you could change that gene and cure the disease, would you do it?” Most students found it easy to justify the alteration of a gene for the fatal disease, as it would improve the quality of life and lifespan of those children. However, then Paul described some other diseases and disorders and gave students time to discuss each of those for a minute or so before introducing a new one (see below for the PowerPoint slide used to share these questions with the class). These got less severe toward more of a cosmetic nature, ending with red hair (in homage to Paul’s Irish complexion). As each new condition was added, students became more riled up and passionate about their opinions. He ended the discussion by saying, “What if I told you that we have the ability to make these changes and alter individual’s genetics, but that it is illegal to do so?” That really set students off. Paul suggested that in the future, U.S. citizens could be asked to vote on whether or not to legalize genetic engineering in the future and how to determine what genes it is okay to alter and which are not. In discussing where the line should be drawn, he asked the students, “Who has the right to decide the fate of my children?”

Then, in his theatrical manner and at just the right moment, he said, “And this will be the topic of Friday’s philosophical chairs debate: Should we change the gene sequences in human embryos (genetically engineer humans)?” His honors class had done a spontaneous philosophical chairs debate first semester when students became impassioned in discussing creationism versus the big bang theory, so those who had been in the same class last semester were immediately excited and spread their enthusiasm to the students who had joined the group at semester.
Paul went on to introduce the ground rules for the philosophical chairs debate, sharing that students would be paired with someone of the opposing viewpoint (pro and con) and would each have one minute to share their arguments. He talked about the powerful art of persuasion and the use of ethos (ethics, appealing to people’s core values), pathos (passion, personal belief), and logos
(logic, evidence you can present and support). He emphasized that logos would be most valued in our debate and that the winner of each pairing would be based on who provided the best evidence to back up their claims, as this is a scientific philosophical chairs debate.
Paul asked students to volunteer to support the pro or con side of the issue and then paired them with someone of the opposing viewpoint. It was clear that some students were motivated by a strong personal belief in one side or the other, while others chose their perspective based on wanting to face off against a specific peer in the class. After most students had volunteered, Paul chose the last three students to serve as judges to help Paul and I determine the winners of each round. Students could earn 1 point for their side by “winning” their debate in providing the best argument supported by evidence. Students were expected to research the topic and collect evidence outside of class and bring it to the debate two days later.
For the debate, two chairs were placed back to back in the center of the classroom, with the rest of the students seated around them. Paul kept a stopwatch, as students had one minute to present their arguments. He gave a 10-second warning and then cut students off as needed. For students who spoke for only a few seconds, Paul kept the time running, providing awkward silence, until the 60 second block was up. The student judges, Paul, and I took notes and selected a winner for each round. Once all students had presented, we met as a panel and determined the winner.
I enjoyed the opportunity to see students present in such a unique setting. I was surprised by the natural ease with which some students orated and by the clear discomfort of others. Paul commended a couple of individuals by name as he shared the results of the debate (the ‘no’ side won) and reiterated the importance of understanding how to formulate a convincing, evidencebased argument. He also emphasized a point I have come to understand as vital to success in a performance art-based career, such as teaching: it doesn’t matter how much you know if you can’t effectively present that material to others.
I am so thankful that Paul was willing to take the reins on leading this activity. Now that
I’ve seen it modeled, I can more easily imagine using it in one of my classes, especially on a whim when students become excited about a topic and debate begins to happen naturally in the classroom. As Paul shared, it would be easy to spend more time on the debate and discussion, as a single 50-minute class period allowed for each student to share a 1-minute argument but did not allow for any rebuttals or further reflections. I also think that giving students time to meet as a group with those who shared their viewpoints before the debate would be helpful, as students could brainstorm and coordinate the key points and the evidence they wanted to share.