“So you’re tellin’ me there’s a chance…”

In the United States, we are often taught that we can “achieve prosperity through hard work”; this is the essence of the American Dream.

The problem is, that isn’t exactly true.

There are a variety of factors that influence our success beyond just hard work. Among other things, genetics, social status, and (as much as we don’t like to hear it) plain ol’ dumb luck play huge roles in our successes and failures. Yes, hard work is almost always a necessary ingredient for the highest levels of achievement across all fields, but hard work does not guarantee success. (For more elaboration on this point, I recommend Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers.)

Week10 EthicsThere is a related dilemma I face as a professor, which is fresh in my mind as we approach Spring 2015 advising: what is my ethical responsibility in telling students whether or not their goals are achievable? Allow me to elaborate.

KINE 1301 Introduction to Kinesiology is a “Leadership Enhanced Course”. As part of that initiative, I ask my students to write about their long-term career goals. Inevitably, there are always students that write that their “Plan A” is to play professional basketball or football. Knowing that this response is coming, I usually have this ready: the most-recent version of a regular NCAA study that shows the miniscule chance of a person making a major professional sports league. I then further explain that the vast majority of THOSE successes are not from Division III. There were only nine D3 football players on NFL opening day rosters and there are only eight MLB players with any D3 baseball experience.  Furthermore, D3 representation in the NBA has been virtually non-existent for years.

“So you’re tellin’ me there’s a chance…”

Usually these statistics help the student gain perspective. However, there are still those students that see the long odds and assume it is a challenge to be overcome. In other words, their reaction is pretty much like this…

In essence, I sometimes inadvertently encourage that small group to try even harder since their odds are so small, often to the detriment of other aspects of their college experience.

Now, the example I gave just deals with students that think they are going to be professional athletes. However, most of the circumstances I encounter in which students have unrealistic goals happen in a more scholastic environment. For example, the average GPA of students accepted to Physical Therapy programs is over 3.5 and climbing, so beyond sharing that information, how do I best-prepare a senior with a sub-3.0 GPA for the very likely circumstance that he or she will got get accepted into a program? What about a student that wants to teach (requiring a 2.75 GPA, at minimum) but that bombed out his or her freshman year before legitimately turning things around? Yes, that person may actually be a GREAT teacher, but the difficulty of digging out of a GPA hole must be realistically discussed, regardless of how hard the person works now.

Sometimes you just know.

The worst feeling I ever have as a professor occurs when I have the realization that a student isn’t going to “make it”. I am not referring to those times that a student is taking a class and does poorly enough to clinch an “F”, though that is discouraging. I am not even referring to those instances when a student leaves college entirely after multiple class failures, although that is sad.

No, the worst feeling I get happens when after first meeting with a student or after receiving the first assignment I immediately realize the student will be never successful at the college level; that is tragic. “But all students can be successful if they just work harder!” No, that is false. “Dr. Walker, that is overly negative and you are being defeatist!” Maybe, or maybe I am realistic.

To clarify, it VERY rarely happens that I have a student that cannot achieve; usually the problem is that the student does not achieve, despite being capable. ETBU has admissions standards that generally eliminate students that are not adequately prepared. Furthermore, we have a university-wide commitment to academic support that is much better than other university settings that I have encountered. Even including those students that do “fail out”, 99.9% of ETBU students have the prerequisite abilities and available support to be successful. Is it easier for some? Yes, but I honestly think that nearly all of our students can achieve and graduate. Most only need a redirection of priorities.

It is the 0.1% that bothers me. I am now in my 8th year back at ETBU as a full-time professor, and of the hundreds of students I have encountered in my courses I can think of less than a handful that fit this profile: it would not have mattered what they did, what I did, or what the Academic Success Office did. They were not going to be successful in college.

There’s the dilemma. Ethically, which is worse? To honestly think that a student cannot reach a goal and keep it to myself?  Or to tell a student that you don’t think a goal is achievable but it is?!

There is a psychological term known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. It says that “unskilled individuals tend to suffer from illusionary superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate”; in short, it is believing in one’s self too much. This term helps explain how both in my role as a professor and in my former life as a college coach I have had athletes in my office that were Division III reserves explain to me that their talents were being misused and that they were professional-level  players. However, don’t you think that a large percentage of CEOs, presidents, generals, and other high-level achievers (such as athletes, i.e. Kobe Bryant) would be Dunning-Kruger effect “victims”? Isn’t success at that level predicated on the fact that those people have an irrationally high level of self-confidence? What percentage of Fortune 500 CEOs have “illusionary superiority”? When then, should anyone stifle that confidence?

Also, Muggsy Bogues was in Space Jam!

Also, Muggsy Bogues was in Space Jam!

I mean, how many people do you think told 5’3” Muggsy Bogues that he’d never make the NBA? (Check out this story.) How many people told Barack Obama that there’d never be a black president or told Bill Gates that people would never have a need for a personal computer? I wonder how Steve Jobs reacted when some people thought the iPad wouldn’t be successful because of the name.

As professors, we must intentionally seek out wisdom and discernment in all situations. In particular, I must help students discover and accept God’s path for them, even if that means a particular occupation (or college in general) is not a part of that plan.


Attack of the Clones

One of the biggest intersections of faith and science comes when we talk about genetics.  Genetics involves the study of DNA, and DNA is the molecule that forms the basis of life as we know it.  When scientists are messing with DNA, it gets people’s attention. They add and delete and manipulate to “create” better organisms and products.

Is that using scientific knowledge to benefit mankind or just playing God?

When a plant or animal has its DNA manipulated, we call it genetic modification.  A genetically modified organism (GMO) has been enhanced in some way to fight disease, to increase nutrients, to grow faster, or to live longer. Many people do not want GMOs to be in the marketplace.  They feel like it’s some kind of “Frankenfruit” if it had its genes manipulated.  Maybe the genes will transfer from our hamburger into us. Or somehow we will produce some type of “killer tomatoes” and they will attack us (…cue cultic B movie spoof from the ‘80s).

Since we really don’t understand DNA, it becomes mysterious (or terrifying) to have it altered.

Maybe it’s just when scientists are manipulating the DNA it becomes mysterious.  You see, farmers have been manipulating DNA for centuries. We call it selective breeding. We’ve altered our crops, our livestock and our pets using “natural” genetic modification. We get more disease resistance, more nutrients, faster growth, more domestic behavior, increased cuteness…but have we made better products or just swapped one set of problems for another?

Well, last year scientists made one of the biggest breakthroughs with DNA research.  They successfully completed a somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) with human DNA. With SCNT the DNA is removed from an egg cell and replaced with DNA from a skin cell. The resulting cell is tricked into growing as an embryo.

In “therapeutic cloning”, the embryo is harvested early to collect the stem cells which theoretically can become any tissue type for organ transplant or disease treatment. In “reproductive cloning” the embryo is implanted into a surrogate mother and allowed to develop into a complete animal.

A type of SCNT was used 17 years ago to clone the infamous sheep Dolly, the first mammal cloned by this method. Other embryo cell methods had worked before then, but this was the first to use skin cells. Since then they have cloned probably 18-20 different four legged mammals with this procedure.

It turns out to be very difficult to make a clone. You only get a few good embryos from hundreds of attempts. And most cloned animals have health problems that shorten their life span. Dolly died at only half the age of normal sheep.

The human clone was a therapeutic clone. The technique was perfected with monkey eggs.  More than a thousand monkey eggs were used before moving to humans. You see monkeys have not been reproductively cloned using SCNT. There is something different about monkey eggs verses other mammal eggs. It is much more difficult if not impossible to make a reproductive clone with monkeys and, in that respect,  humans.

So the issue is not about making a cloned human baby, although that may be somewhere down the road, it is about the ethics of using embryo derived cells for research. Has the science jumped ahead of our ethics?

  • Is a therapeutically cloned embryo still an embryo?
  • Does the situation change if the embryo could never become a baby?
  • Is there an ethical problem with using human eggs to make the clone?
  • Should we pay for the eggs to do this type of research?
  • Do we impose religious ethics on this type of research and if so, do we use Western religion or Eastern religion?

These and other questions will be asked as our ethics tries to keep up with the scientific techniques.