Bioethics is an important aspect of the core competency of biology of understanding the relationship between science and society, but because of the controversial nature of the topics covered in bioethics courses, different groups of students may experience identity conflicts or discomfort when learning about them. However, no previous studies have investigated the impact of undergraduate bioethics students’ experiences in bioethics courses on their opinions and comfort. To fill this gap in knowledge, we investigated undergraduate bioethics students’ attitudes about and comfort when learning abortion, gene editing, and physician assisted suicide, as well as how their gender, religious, and political identity influence their attitudes and changes in their attitudes after instruction. We found that religious students were less supportive of gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide than nonreligious students, non-liberal students were less supportive of abortion and physician assisted suicide than liberal students, and women were less supportive of abortion than men. Additionally, we found that religious students were less comfortable than nonreligious students when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, and non-liberal students were less comfortable than liberal students when learning about abortion. When asked how their comfort could have been improved, those who felt that their peers or instructors could have done something to increase their comfort most commonly cited that including additional unbiased materials or incorporating materials and discussions that cover both sides of every controversial issue would have helped them to feel more comfortable when learning about gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide. Finally, we found that students who were less comfortable learning about abortion and physician assisted suicide were less likely to participate in discussions regarding those topics. Our findings show that students in different groups not only tend to have different support for controversial topics like gene editing, abortion, and physician assisted suicide, but they also feel differentially comfortable when learning about them, which in turn impacts their participation. We hope that this work helps instructors to recognize the importance of their students’ comfort to their learning in bioethics courses, and from this study, they can take away the knowledge that students feel their comfort could be most improved by the incorporation of additional inclusive materials and course discussions regarding the controversial topics covered in the course.

We recommend using backward design to develop course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs). The defining hallmark of CUREs is that students in a formal lab course explore research questions with unknown answers that are broadly relevant outside the course. Because CUREs lead to novel research findings, they represent a unique course design challenge, as the dual nature of these courses requires course designers to consider two distinct, but complementary, sets of goals for the CURE: 1) scientific discovery milestones (i.e., research goals) and 2) student learning in cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains (i.e., pedagogical goals). As more undergraduate laboratory courses are re-imagined as CUREs, how do we thoughtfully design these courses to effectively meet both sets of goals? In this Perspectives article, we explore this question and outline recommendations for using backward design in CURE development.

Mental health conditions can impact college students’ social and academic achievements. As such, students may disclose mental illnesses on medical school applications. Yet, no study has investigated to what extent disclosure of a mental health condition impacts medical school acceptance. We designed an audit study to address this gap. We surveyed 99 potential admissions committee members from at least 43 unique M.D.-granting schools in the U.S. Participants rated a fictitious portion of a medical school application on acceptability, competence, and likeability. They were randomly assigned to a condition: an application that explained a low semester GPA due to a mental health condition, an application that explained a low semester GPA due to a physical health condition, or an application that had a low semester GPA but did not describe any health condition. Using ANOVAs, multinomial regression, and open-coding, we found that committee members do not rate applications lower when a mental health condition is revealed. When asked about their concerns regarding the application, 27.0% of participants who received an application that revealed a mental health condition mentioned it as a concern; 14.7% of participants who received an application that revealed a physical health condition mentioned it as a concern. Committee members were also asked about when revealing a mental health condition would be beneficial and when it would be detrimental. This work indicates that medical school admissions committee members do not exhibit a bias towards mental health conditions and provides recommendations on how to discuss mental illness on medical school applications.