In the twenty-first century, individuals are increasingly encountering genetic-related issues all around the world due to technological advances, societal demands, and political factors (Aivelo & Uitto, 2021; Cebesoy & Öztekin, 2016). As science education is being renewed to meet the needs of the century, genetics-related issues are also being taken into consideration within the scope of science courses. Genetics-related issues can be viewed as an umbrella term encompassing various issues, such as genetic testing, cloning, gene therapy, and genetically modified foods (Lederman et al., 2014). The applications of genetic engineering, which affect societies in various ways, are discussed in different perspectives, such as ethical, political, and religious perspectives (Arslan, 2020).

Genetic determinism is the belief that genes alone determine phenotypes, often underestimating the roles of environmental and epigenetic factors (Bruu-Carver et al., 2017). This misconception is common in genetics education (Aivelo & Uitto, 2021; Tornabene et al., 2020). Current scientific models highlight the complex interactions between multiple genes, epigenetics, and environmental influences, shifting from a deterministic to a probabilistic understanding (Bruu-Carver et al., 2017). However, studies on individuals' beliefs regarding genetic determinism are limited (Cebesoy & Karışan, 2019; Gericke et al., 2017; Stern et al., 2020), prompting researchers to explore pre-service science teachers' (PSTs') beliefs about genetic determinism. 

Additionally, the rapid production of information in the genomics field makes it imperative for citizens to develop informed attitudes and make informed decisions on genetic-related issues. This presents a significant challenge for science educators, who must closely follow scientific developments, keep their content knowledge up-to-date, and adapt to new technological innovations (van der Zande et al., 2012). The science education literature includes studies that focus on specific dimensions related to genetics, such as content knowledge of genetic topics (van der Zande et al., 2011) and informal reasoning (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004). Also, when dealing with socio-scientific issues like modern genetic applications, it is necessary to consider not only individuals' knowledge levels but also their attitudes and their decision-making. There have been studies that explore individuals' attitudes towards genetic issues and their decision-making in various scenarios, such as modern genetic applications and biotechnological advancements (Cebesoy & Rundgren, 2023; Soğukpınar & Karışan, 2020). This research takes a comprehensive look at genetic determinism, knowledge, attitudes, and decision-making. Additionally, the current mixed-methods study aims to compare quantitative and qualitative data regarding PSTs attitudes toward modern genetic applications. PSTs were chosen as the focus of this research because they will play a critical role in teaching future science and biology courses.

Within the scope of this study, answers were sought to five research questions.

RQ1: What are PSTs’ beliefs in genetic determinism?

RO2: What are the PSTs’ knowledge about the complexity of gene-environment interactions and modern genetics and genomics?

RQ3: What are the PSTs’ attitudes toward applications of modern genetics and genomics (gene therapy, genetic testing, prenatal genetic testing and personalised medicine-pharmacogenomics cases)?

RQ4: How do PSTs' reasoning behind their decisions regarding modern genetic applications in terms of the SEE-SEP model?

RQ5:  To what extent and in what ways do qualitative findings explain the quantitative results regarding PSTs’ attitudes toward modern genetic applications?

This study employs an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, which integrates both quantitative and qualitative phases (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). The research begins with a quantitative phase, followed by a qualitative phase. In the quantitative phase, data were gathered from 79 pre-service teachers (PSTs) in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades using the PUGGS instrument. PUGGS is designed to assess public beliefs regarding genetic determinism, their knowledge of gene-environment interactions, and modern genetics and genomics. Also, PUGSS assess attitudes toward the modern genetic applications. Originally developed by Bruu-Carver et al. (2017), PUGGS was translated and adapted for Turkish by Cebesoy and Karisan (2019), resulting in a valid and reliable Turkish version of the instrument with preservice teachers. The results from PUGGS focus on four key areas: “belief in genetic determinism,” “knowledge of gene-environment interactions,” “knowledge of modern genetics and genomics,” and “attitudes toward applications of modern genetics and genomics.” PSTs' attitudes toward modern genetics and genomics are particularly significant for the qualitative phase of the study. In the qualitative phase, the researchers aim to explore PSTs' attitudes toward modern genetic applications through semi-structured interviews. These interviews will involve nine participants selected using maximum diversity sampling, ensuring representation across various levels of attitudes as indicated by their PUGGS scores: high, medium, and low. The semi-structured interviews concentrate on four different modern genetic applications, including gene therapy, genetic testing, prenatal genetic testing, and personalized medicine-pharmacogenomics. These four applications were chosen to be consistent with the items in the attitude section of PUGGS. The researchers developed the interview protocol and sought expert opinions to ensure its quality and relevance. This research was conducted with undergraduate students at a public university in a large city in the Eastern Marmara Region of Türkiye. All participants were enrolled in the Science Education Department. Data collection took place during the spring semester of the 2024-2025 academic year. In analysing the data, the PUGGS was assessed using the provided answer key. The semi-structured interviews were analysed by utilising the SEE-SEP model as a coding framework, developed by Chang Rundgren and Rundgren (2010). The reliability of the PUGGS instrument was established through the calculation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients as .75, which meets the acceptable reliability (Frankel et al., 2012). For the qualitative phase, inter-coder agreement was calculated for the semi-structured interviews, yielding a high level of agreement (0.91), indicating reliable coding (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

PSTs display a range of beliefs regarding genetic determinism as it pertains to both biological and social traits. Descriptive statistics show that PSTs possess a good grasp of gene–environment interactions, achieving a mean score of 0.824 (SD = 0.162) on a scale where the maximum score is 1. However, their understanding of modern genetics and genomics falls short, with a mean score of only 0.425 (SD = 0.134). On the whole, PSTs tend to have a positive outlook toward modern genetic applications, reflected in a mean score of 3.00 (SD = 0.37). Among these, prenatal genetic testing garnered the highest favor, with a mean of 3.17 (SD = 0.50), closely followed by pharmacogenomics at 3.01 (SD = 0.45). Although attitudes toward gene therapy (M = 2.94, SD = 0.42) and genetic testing (M = 2.86, SD = 0.44) are slightly lower, they are still on the positive side, highlighting an overall favorable perspective on these advancements. As the quantitative data showed, PSTs’ decisions about modern genetic applications were predominantly shaped by the value aspect of the SEE-SEP model, rather than scientific knowledge or personal experience. PSTs’ decisions across the subject areas of the SEE–SEP model were primarily framed in terms of ethics/morality, which accounted for 33% of all coded statements. Science (21%), policy (21%), economy (14%), and sociology/culture (11%) of the statements indicate that PSTs prefer to explain their decisions. Overall, these findings suggest that PSTs’ support for or opposition to modern genetic applications was primarily driven by ethical/ moral and value-based reasoning in their decisions. Upon examining both quantitative and qualitative data from the 9 participants who also participated in the qualitative aspect of the study, a convergence in the findings between the two data sources was evident.

Aivelo, T., & Uitto, A. (2021). Factors explaining students’ attitudes towards learning genetics and belief in genetic determinism. International Journal of Science Education, 43(9), 1408–1425. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1917789 Arslan, H. Ö. (2020). Selection of socioscientific issues and examples of contemporary dilemmas. In M. Genç (Ed.), Socioscientific issues from theory to practice (pp. 69–96). Nobel Academic Publishing. Bruu-Carver, R., Castéra, J., Gericke, N., Evangelista, N. A. M., & El-Hani, C. N. (2017). Young adults’ belief in genetic determinism, and knowledge and attitudes towards modern genetics and genomics: the PUGGS questionnaire. PloS one, 12(1), e0169808. Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Öztekin, C. (2016). Relationships among Turkish pre-service science teachers’ genetics literacy levels and their attitudes towards issues in genetics literacy. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 15(2), 159-172. Cebesoy, Ü. B., & Karışan, D. (2019). The adaptation of Public Understanding and Attitudes towards Genetics and Genomics (PUGGS) questionnaire: A validity and reliability study. Başkent University Journal of Education, 6(2), 282–292. Cebesoy, U. B., & Rundgren, S.-N. C. (2023). Embracing socioscientific issues-based teaching and decision-making in teacher professional development. Educational Review, 75(3), 507–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2021.1931037 Chang Rundgren, S, N. & Rundgren, C. J. (2010). SEE-SEP: Form a seperate to a holistic view of socioscientific issues. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning & Teaching 11(1), 1-24. Christenson, N., Rundgren, S.-N. C., & Höglund, H. O. (2012). Using the SEE-SEP model to analyze upper secondary students’ use of supporting reasons in arguing socioscientific issues. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21, 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9328-x Lederman, N. G., Antink, A., & Bartos, S. (2014). Nature of science, scientific inquiry, and socio-scientific issues arising from genetics: A pathway to developing a scientifically literate citizenry. Science & Education, 23(2), 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9503-3 Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2004). The morality of socioscientific issues: Construal and resolution of genetic engineering dilemmas. Science Education, 88(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20023 Stern, F., Kampourakis, K., Delaval, M., & Müller, A. (2020). Development and validation of a questionnaire measuring secondary students’ genetic essentialism and teleology (GET) conceptions. International Journal of Science Education, 42(2), 218–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1707905 Van der Zande, P., Akkerman, S. F., Brekelmans, M., Waarlo, A. J., & Vermunt, J. D. (2012). Expertise for teaching biology situated in the context of genetic testing. International Journal of Science Education, 34(11), 1741–1767. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.671557