Pre-service Science Teachers’ Informal Reasoning Patterns and Risk Perceptions in SSI: Case of Gene Therapy

One crucial characteristic of scientifically literate individuals is making informed decisions in socioscientific issues (SSI). Participants’ reasoning patterns and their risk perceptions shape their decisions. Thus, determining participants’ informal reasoning patterns along with their risk perceptions while making decisions in SSI becomes important. This study fulfills this important point by exploring pre-service science teachers’ informal reasoning patterns and their risk perceptions in an SSI topic, specifically gene therapy. Eleven pre-service science teachers enrolling in two different public universities participated in the study voluntarily. The study was designed as a basic qualitative approach. The data were collected by semi-structured interviews focusing on the use of gene therapy in Huntington’s disease and human intelligence cases. The results revealed that pre-service science teachers made decisions by using one (rationalistic, emotive, or intuitive) or more informal reasoning patterns together. Moreover, their risk perceptions were found to be based on the potential and severity of effects on humanity and society, participants’ morals and values, side effects, and a general concern born out of fear. In addition to their risk perceptions regarding gene therapy, they referred to positive aspects of technology, negative aspects of technology, and a two-edged sword implying positive and negative aspects of technology as a whole while making decisions. These results altogether pin the importance of including multiple forms of informal reasoning and risk perceptions in the pre-service science teacher education programs.


INTRODUCTION
The promotion of scientific literacy has been documented in numerous reports (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016;National Research Council, 1996; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2012). As a result, enhancing scientific literacy has been referred to as one of the crucial objectives of science education (Bossér et al., 2015;Dillon, 2009). To increase the number of scientifically literate individuals in society, students should engage in the discussion and decision-making process of complex, societally relevant issues by considering scientific knowledge, reasoning competencies, and multiple perspectives (Zangouri et al., 2018). Thus, socioscientific issues (SSI, hereafter) are considered to be fundamental for enhancing scientific literacy as they provide means for making informed decisions (Herman, 2018;Lederman et al., 2014;Sadler, 2004;Sadler & Donnelly, 2006;Zeidler & Keefer, 2003;Zeidler et al., 2002). Moreover, the individuals in SSI has been defined as open-ended issues that are controversial in nature requiring multiple perspectives during negotiating and resolving these issues (Sadler, 2004;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005. With the increasing impact of technology, society is facing the challenges that arise from health and environment-related controversies (Gardner & Jones, 2011;Kolstø, 2006;Lee & Lee, 2015;Sadler & Another important aspect of making decisions in SSI is reasoning patterns. Participants use a wide range of reasoning patterns (justifications) during making decisions in SSI topics. For instance, Wu and Tsai (2007) revealed that participants use social-, ecological-, economic-, and science/technology-oriented arguments while making decisions. In another study, Sadler and Zeidler (2005) revealed that college students used three types of informal reasoning as rationalistic, emotive, and intuitive. The results revealed that participants used all three types of reasoning patterns together. The participants in their study used rationalistic justifications such as health improvement, parents' rights, or disrupting the natural order. In some scenarios, the suffering of families or patients was more apparent which was resulted in sympathy towards the characters. Lastly, sometimes, participants made decisions by their instant feelings without providing sounding justifications. Similar informal reasoning patterns were revealed with pre-service science teachers (Topcu et al., 2011), with elementary school students (Ozden, 2020), and with high school students (Georgiou et al., 2020;Pope et al., 2017). In addition, factors such as religious beliefs were reported to influence participants' informal reasoning (i.e., Pope et al. 2017;Sadler & Zeidler, 2005). For instance, Pope et al.'s (2017) study revealed that participants with a higher degree of religious beliefs tended to use more intuitive reasoning patterns while making decisions in biotechnology-related SSI. In addition to religious beliefs, other factors including science, ethics, and morality were found to influence participants' decisions and informal reasoning (i.e., Evren Yapicioglu & Aycan, 2018; Karisan & Cebesoy, 2021). In a recent study, Karisan and Cebesoy (2021) revealed that pre-service science teachers' decisions in various SSI topics were influenced by a wide range of factors including science, ethics/morality, economy, policy, and sociology/culture. However, Es and Varol (2019) indicated that undergraduate students were unable to consider the multidimensional structure of SSI while making decisions in SSI and lacked informal reasoning skills. These results resonate with the need for SSI-based instruction to consider multiple perspectives and develop informal reasoning patterns. Indeed, Georgiou et al.'s (2020) study revealed that SSI-based instruction helped students to develop more rationalistic informal reasoning patterns supported by scientific evidence and multiple perspectives (Georgiou et al., 2020).
Making informed decisions regarding SSI is assumed to be context-dependent (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006;Oulton et al., 2004;Sadler, 2004). Genetics-related SSI (genetically modified organisms, genetic engineering issues, cloning) is one of the important topics that can be used to enhance students' decision-making skills and promote scientific literacy (Lederman et al. 2014). Genetic manipulation, on the other hand, includes social, scientific, and ethical aspects that make the application of such technologies questionable (Lederman et al. 2014). Moreover, genetics-related SSI constitutes an authentic context for developing the decision-making skills of students. Lee (2007) argued that the social issues which have direct relevance to individuals' daily lives create an authentic context for dealing with SSI. As a result, many studies used genetics related SSI (cloning, human gene therapy, genetic testing) as context to explore participants' decision-making skills and informal reasoning patterns (Cebesoy, 2014;Črne-Hladnik et al., 2012;Pope et al. 2017;Sadler, 2004;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004a, 2004b2005Simonneaux & Chouchane, 2011;Topcu et al., 2011;van der Zande et al., 2011). As a common finding, the results revealed that participants' decisions were influenced by multiple factors and they used rationalistic, emotive, and intuitive reasoning patterns together. While most of these studies explored participants' decisions in multiple issues including gene therapy (i.e., Pope et al., 2017;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004), Simonneaux and Chouchane's (2011) study differs as it solely focused on authentic gene therapy cases. They investigated college students' reasoning on the feasibility and acceptability of gene therapy. The results revealed that most of the participants favored gene therapies without a proper understanding of the uncertainties and risks associated with gene therapy. Gene therapy was chosen as context to explore pre-service science teachers' informal reasoning patterns and their risk perceptions for several reasons: First, it includes social, scientific, and ethical concerns as pointed out by Lederman et al. (2014). Second, gene therapy is one of the SSI that is highly debatable due to its content and risks associated with the procedure (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004b). Third, it could be used to discuss different stakeholders' viewpoints (stop all gene therapy, proceed all gene therapy, use somatic (not being inherited to future generations) but not germ-line (being inherited to future generations), and proceed with caution). By considering one of the stakeholders' viewpoints, students would have a chance to explore a variety of different positions and multiple perspectives on gene therapy. Consequently, gene therapy was chosen as a context for this study to explore pre-service science teachers' informal reasoning patterns and their risk perceptions.
As developing students' informed decision-making skills is subject to numerous studies (i.e. Dawson & Carson, 2020;Eggert et al., 2013;Gresh et al., 2017;Jho et al., 2014;Kolstø, 2006;Lee, 2007;Wu & Tsai, 2011;Zohar & Nemet, 2002), one crucial question still left unanswered: Are the teachers prepared for teaching SSI by considering its complex and multi-dimensional structure? The crucial question asked above is more evident when it comes to pre-service science teachers who are considered novice teachers and are reported to have more difficulty in implementing SSI when compared to their experienced peers (Cotton, 2006;Lee & Witz, 2009). Existing literature reported that both science teachers and pre-service science teachers believe in the importance of teaching SSI in their classrooms Kara, 2072;Tidemand & Nielsen, 2017). However, teachers are often reported as ill-equipped to address SSI in their classes (Chen & Xiao, 2021;). The literature highlights many factors which prevent effective implementation of SSI including lack of knowledge and teaching skills, reasoning competencies, confidence, and time (Byrce & Gray, 2004;Carson & Dawson, 2016;Genel & Topcu, 2016;Hancock et al. 2019;Herman et al., 2017;Hofstein et al., 2011;Kara, 2012;Lee & Yang, 2019;Liu & Roehrig, 2019). In addition, curriculum alignment is another important factor that hinders effective SSI-214 European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Vol. 9, No. 4, 2021 Cebesoy based instruction (Lee & Witz, 2009;Lee & Yang, 2019). For instance, teachers tended to teach SSI if the topic is aligned with the curriculum (Lee & Yang, 2019). Chen and Xiao (2021) pointed out professional development of teachers is a necessity for effective SSI-based instruction. While professional development for teachers is achieved throughout effective professional development programs (e.g., Dawson & Carson, 2020;Hancock et al., 2019) the same professional development for SSI-based instruction is possible with effective undergraduate courses pre-service teachers. However, Hofstein et al. (2011) indicated that undergraduate courses provided limited opportunities for pre-service teachers to develop effective teaching skills.

Purpose of the Study
Students' decision-making skills in SSI can be enhanced through explicit training in decision-making (Eggert et al., 2013;Gresch et al., 2017). If teachers aim to develop students' decision-making skills, they themselves should possess the required skills and competencies for effective implementation of SSI in their classes . Teacher professional development is the key element to promote teachers' engagement in SSI teaching (Owens et al., 2021). Here, the teacher education programs which train qualified teachers come to the fore. Concerning Turkey, however, the science teacher education programs which are centralized and regulated by the Higher Education Council of Turkey do not provide compulsory courses about teaching SSI (HEC, 2007). On the other hand, the primary science curriculum aims to raise future generations as qualified decision-makers in SSI by considering multiple viewpoints (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2018). This creates a crucial question to be answered: How can teachers raise future generations equipped with informed decision-making skills without having proper instruction through their undergraduate education? This study seeks the answer to this question by investigating how pre-service teachers make decisions in an SSI topic which can provide valuable clues about the necessity of including SSI-based teaching in preservice teacher education programs. Based on this purpose, three research questions were examined: 1. How do pre-service science teachers make decisions in the gene therapy scenario? 2. What are the informal reasoning patterns that pre-service science teachers exhibit while making decisions?
3. How do the pre-service science teachers perceive the risk factors associated with the gene therapy scenario?
This study is unique in several ways: First of all, to our best knowledge, there is limited study that solely focused on gene therapy. Previous studies mainly focused on multiple scenarios on genetic engineering issues such as cloning, gene therapy, and fetal tissue transplantation (e.g., Bell & Lederman, 2003;Cebesoy, 2014Cebesoy, , 2020Sadler & Zeidler, 2004a). Simonneaux and Chouchane's (2011) study differs from existing studies as the researchers explored college students' reasoning on the feasibility and acceptability of gene therapy by using authentic gene therapy cases. As weighting risks while making decisions in SSI is crucially important (Rattcliffe & Grace, 2003), we argue that risk perceptions also need to be taken into account while investigating participants' decisions and informal reasoning patterns. Second, for raising students as informed decision-makers as highlighted in the Turkish primary science curriculum (MoNE, 2018), science teachers and future science teachers need to be aware of SSI and their own decision-making process while dealing with SSI. Thus, this study seeks how future science teachers make decisions while dealing with SSI. By unveiling their informal reasoning patterns and risk perceptions while making decisions, future courses focusing on SSI-based instruction could be designed and planned.

Research Design
The basic (generic) qualitative approach was used in this study. The studies designed by using the basic qualitative approach are not guided by a series of assumptions used in other types of qualitative approaches such as ethnography, phenomenology, or grounded theory (Caelli et al., 2003). As the present study aimed to explore how pre-service science teachers made decisions in an SSI topic, namely gene therapy, and to explore their justifications and their perceptions of risk factors, a basic qualitative approach was preferred.

Participants
Eleven third-year (junior) pre-service science teachers enrolled at two public universities located in central Anatolia and western Anatolia regions of Turkey voluntarily participated in the study. In this study, the participants were selected purposefully. Here, the selection of 'information-rich cases' as Patton (1990) identified enabled the researcher to investigate the purpose of the research in-depth. Snowball sampling is one of the most common types of purposeful sampling in qualitative research (Merriam, 1998). In the snowball sampling approach, the researcher reaches new participants through the contact information provided by other participants (Noy, 2008). The researcher reached the first three participants who enrolled in an elective course offered in the third year of the science teacher education program. The main reason for choosing third-year pre-service science teachers as participants of the study was that third-grade pre-service science teachers completed compulsory biology courses and were enrolled in genetics and biotechnology course at the time of the study. Then, these participants referred to other participants who might want to join the study. The researcher accessed those new participants and invited them to join the study. Eventually, the researcher reached a total of 11 female third-grade pre-service science teachers who voluntarily accepted to participate in the study. The teacher education system is centralized and regulated by Higher Education Council [Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu-YÖK] in Turkey. Thus, all the pre-service science teachers participating in the study followed the same curriculum offered in science teacher education programs. In Turkey, science teacher education programs last eight semesters (4 years). Pre-service science teachers complete a series of compulsory and elective courses including Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Mathematics along with pedagogical courses (e.g., Introduction to Education, Educational Psychology; Measurement and Assessment), pedagogical content courses (e.g., science teaching methods), and teaching practices (Higher Education Council, 2007).

Data Collection
Data can be collected through semi-or full-structured interviews in the basic qualitative approach (Percy et al., 2015). In this study, data were collected by using semi-structured interviews where the questions are formed less structured and more flexible as Merriam (1998) indicated. The interview questions focused on a genetics-related SSI, gene therapy. The researcher specifically chose the topic for three reasons: First, genetic engineering issues like gene therapy of genetically modified foods include social, scientific, and ethical issues arising from the nature of genetic manipulation. Thus, it provides an opportunity to promote scientific literacy (Lederman et al. 2014). Second, the primary science curriculum highlighted the importance of developing students' decision-making, scientific thinking, and informal reasoning skills by using SSI (MoNE, 2018, p. 9). Last, more specifically the 8th-grade science curriculum focused on the development of students' decision-making and argumentation skills in dilemmas arising from biotechnology applications and discuss future genetic engineering and biotechnology applications (MoNE, 2018, p. 49). Furthermore, the gene therapy scenario used in this study is used in previous studies conducted with science teachers (Cebesoy, 2014) and more recently, with pre-service science teachers in an intervention study (Karisan & Cebesoy, 2021).
216 European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Vol. 9, No. 4, 2021 Cebesoy The semi-structured interviews with participants were conducted in a private office and the interviews were audio-typed after informing the participants. Each interview began with the distribution of the scenario to the participant and a brief description of the study and the scenario itself. Then, the researcher asked a series of questions in the scenario. The interviews lasted for 20-30 minutes. The scenario is briefly explained below:

Use of Gene Therapy on Huntington's Disease and Intelligence
We followed the interview protocol designed by Sadler and Zeidler (2004). The interview protocol and the scenario used in the protocol were developed by Sadler and Zeiler (2004) and used in previous studies (Cebesoy, 2014;Karisan & Cebesoy, 2021;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005Topcu et al. 2011). The protocol consisted of a few steps: First, the researcher explained the purpose of the interview and asked their permission to audiotape the interview. Then a handout explaining the mechanism underlying gene therapy was introduced along with the scenarios. In the scenarios, first, how gene therapy is used for the treatment of Huntington's disease was explained. Then, it was mentioned that gene therapy can also be used to increase the intelligence of human offspring. After reading the handout, the participants were asked a series of questions forming around if the gene therapy should be used for the treatment of Huntington's disease. Following this, the scenario continued with the discussion of the use of gene therapy for increasing human intelligence. The questions were designed to explore participants' informal reasoning patterns and risk perceptions (Please see Appendix A for scenarios used in the study and Appendix B for sample questions asked in the interview protocol). The scenario was translated and adapted into Turkish by the researcher (Cebesoy, 2014). The equivalence of Turkish and English versions was checked by experts in science and biology education and language experts of the university. While language experts of the university checked the equivalency of Turkish and English versions, two experts in science and biology education checked its appropriateness for the study. Also, pilot interviews with science teachers were conducted to check the understandability and sufficiency of given information for answering the questions in the scenario.

Data Analysis
The data collected from the semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim. The thematic analysis offers a systematic way of identifying, organizing the data, and providing insight into the data through themes (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Here, the researcher follows the six steps as getting to know the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing the themes, defining the themes, and writing the report. There are different approaches while conducting a thematic analysis. One of them is the deductive thematic analysis in which the theme and code development are based on existing concepts and ideas (Fereday & Muir-Cohcrane, 2006). In this approach, a template of codes based on previous research has been used. In this study, the themes used for the informal reasoning patterns were based on Sadler and Zeidler's (2005) study. Sadler and Zeidler (2005) identified three forms of informal reasoning: (a) rationalistic, (b) emotive, and (c) intuitive informal reasoning. While making decisions in SSI, participants justified their reasons by using rationalistic standpoints based on health improvement, parental rights, or the betterment of society. Participants justifying their decisions with emotive informal reasoning patterns mainly showed empathy or sympathy towards the parents or child who is dealing with Huntington's disease. They were concerned about the pain and the suffering both the parents and the child with the disease would go through while explaining their reasons. Lastly, the pre-service science teachers who used intuitive informal reasoning showed a degree of immediate reactions to the questions without proper justification for their decisions. The following excerpts taken from the pre-service science teachers' interviews were presented in each form of informal reasoning: I think it [referring to gene therapy] should be used. I am in the favor of the application of gene therapy. It is thought to be effective in some types of cancer as an alternative to cancer drugs. As I see hope for a cure, I think it should be used. (PT-3/ rationalistic informal reasoning) If there is such a study, I think it should be continued. Healthier generations would eventually be reproduced and this disease would no longer be carried over other children and passed on to other genes. Maybe this disease will disappear in this way.
(PT-5/ rationalistic informal reasoning) The excerpts above presented pre-service science teachers' reason-based justifications while making decisions. While PT-3 refers to the importance of health improvement as a justification for her decision, PT-5 refers to a disease-free society in the case of deleting the Huntington's disease gene from the existing genes. It suggests betterment of society which is a consequence-based reasoning pattern (Sadler & Zeidler, 2004 These specific quotations include participants' empathy or sympathy towards the parents and the sick child in the scenario by expressing the suffering or putting themselves in that character's shoes. As a result, these quotations represent participants' emotive informal reasoning patterns. Definitely not! [using gene therapy on human intelligence should not be allowed] (PT-8/intuitive informal reasoning) I think it is just not ethical to use gene therapy for intelligence. (PT-7/intuitive informal reasoning) Lastly, not very frequently, but sometimes pre-service science teachers showed immediate reactions without proper justifications which were represented with the above-stated quotations.
To explore participants' risk perceptions, we benefit from Gardner and Jones' (2011) classification of risk perceptions as the potential and severity of effects to humanity and society, participants' morals and values, and a general concern born out of fear. In addition to this classification, we also revealed another theme as the side effect from participants' responses which was referred to in the literature (Lee & Lee, 2015;van der Zande et al., 2011).
For ensuring the anonymity of the pre-service teachers, an ID number (from 1 to 11) is given to each participant. PT-1 represents the first participant in the study. Square brackets ([]) were used to complete the meaning by the researcher.

The Trustworthiness of the Study
The trustworthiness of the study can be ensured by using different strategies. To ensure credibility and confirmability (equivalent to internal validity in quantitative research), peer examination (investigator triangulation) was used (Archibald, 2016;Guion, 2002;Merriam, 1998). After transcribing the interview data verbatim, the researcher coded the data based on the framework of Sadler and Zeidler's (2005) study of informal reasoning for the second research question. The researcher used another framework for analyzing risk perceptions extracted from existing risk perception literature (Garder & Jones, 2011, Lee & Lee, 2015van der Zande et al. 2011). Then another expert in SSI, specifically reflective judgment, was invited to the study as the second coder to confirm the appropriateness of informal reasoning and risk perception frameworks determined by the researcher. She coded independently 20% of the data and two researchers gathered to discuss the frameworks. For ensuring a consensus on the analysis frameworks inter-coder reliability based on percent agreement was used by dividing the total number of agreements of both researchers into the total number of agreements and disagreements (Lombard et al., 2002;Miles & Huberman, 1994). The values for informal reasoning patterns and risk perceptions were found to be 79% and 82% respectively showing that the coding was compatible. Then the researcher continued to analyze the rest of the data based on the frameworks. Another way of ensuring trustworthiness was member checking (Merriam, 1998). The researcher took back verbatim data and initial coding to four participants to provide means to participants to endorse their informal reasoning patterns and their risk perceptions. Lastly, an audit trail (Merriam, 1998) was adopted. The researcher explained data collection and theme categorization procedures in detail in previous sections as Merriam (1998) indicated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present study explored pre-service science teachers' decision-making in an SSI topic, specifically gene therapy. First, pre-service science teachers' decision-making and how their reasoning changes were explored. Then, how pre-service science teachers perceive the risk factors were examined in detail.
When Table 1 was examined, it could be seen that the participants' decisions changed even in the same genetic application (gene therapy) when the context differed. While most of the participants approved the use of gene therapy for Huntington's Disease, the same participants were found to be against using gene therapy for increasing human intelligence. According to Table 1, the participants usually approved the use of gene therapy for Huntington's disease while only two participants (PT-9 and PT-10) disapproved. Concerning the use of gene therapy for intelligence, all pre-service science teachers except one (PT-5) disapproved of the idea of using gene therapy for increasing intelligence. After examining their decisions, we also explored how they justify their decisions by exploring their informal reasoning patterns. As seen from Table 1, pre-service science teachers used a variety of informal reasoning patterns at the same time while making decisions showing the complexity of the decisionmaking process. While teacher candidates sometimes used informal reasoning patterns alone (only emotive or rationalistic informal reasoning), they frequently displayed multiple reasoning patterns while making decisions in gene therapy scenarios. Table 2 shows these single and multiple reasoning patterns by providing excerpts.
As seen in Table 2, the pre-service science teachers usually adopted multiple informal reasoning patterns while making decisions in gene therapy scenarios. For instance, one participant (PT-7) showed empathy by expressing she put herself in the parents' shoes and expressed that the disease (Huntington's Disease) is terrible while also showing rationalistic concerns including health improvement and parental responsibilities at the same time. Sometimes, participants used three informal reasoning patterns (intuitive, rationalistic, and emotive informal reasoning) at the same time (i.e., PT-1). Intuitive informal reasoning showing participants' immediate reactions towards scenarios always was stated first by the pre-service science teachers. When the interviewer asked to explain their reasons, they explained by using rationalistic concerns (i.e., letting gene therapy be used can lead to its  220 European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Vol. 9, No. 4, 2021 Cebesoy use in other unacceptable contexts, health-related reasons, the segregation in the society) and/or emotive concerns (i.e., empathy towards the characters, ethics, rights or equality). Some pre-service science teachers (PT-2 and PT-5) displayed only rationalistic informal reasoning patterns in both Huntington's Disease and intelligence scenarios indicating participants' reliance on a single perspective while making a decision.

Analysis of Pre-service Science Teachers' Perceived Risk Associated with the Gene Therapy Scenario
The third research question focused on the pre-service science teachers' perceptions about the risk factors associated with gene therapy. While making decisions in SSI, evaluating the pros and cons of scientific and technological developments is often a prerequisite (Fang et al. 2019;Pedretti, 1999). Besides, there are other factors reported that can be influential on decision-making on SSI including uncertainty (Christensen, 2009;Colucci-Gray et al., 2006;Garner & Jones, 2011a;Kolstø, 2006;Lee & Lee, 2015;van der Zande et al., 2011), risk factors (Christensen, 2009;Gardner & Jones, 2011a, 2011bLevinson et al., 2011), side effects (Lee & Lee, 2015;van der Zande et al., 2011), pros andcons (Acar et al., 2010;Fang et al., 2019;Kolstø, 2006;Pedretti, 1999) and skepticism (Fang et al., 2019;Sadler et al., 2007;Simonneaux & Chouchane, 2011). We classified their perceptions of risk under four themes: (a) the potential and severity of effects to humanity and society, (b) side effects of gene therapy, (c) their morals and values, (d) a general concern born out of fear.
When the pre-service science teachers' concerns were explored, almost all participants expressed the potential effects of gene therapy and how it would severely affect humanity and society. Sample excerpts expressing these concerns are presented below: I am concerned about the misuse of gene therapy. It worries me that everyone could want to de gene therapy for their own good. People living in Turkey might not have access to it while their counterparts in the USA will easily access it. It is kind of pulling strings for someone else. (PT-7) Human beings have a weakness. If people use gene therapy for their weakness, this constitutes serious problems. While some are suffering, some will use gene therapy for other purposes. For instance, for intelligence or beauty. I'm worried about the misuse of gene therapy.  I am concerned about segregation. The ones that can have access to gene therapy and those who cannot. Society would be divided into two. I am concerned about the social segregation that gene therapy would create. (PT-1) The above excerpts present concerns of pre-service teachers about the misuse of gene therapy such as using it for other purposes (e.g., for intelligence or beauty reasons), use in the interest of countries, or segregation in the society. Another theme we revealed was participants' concerns regarding the side effects of gene therapy. Some pre-service science teachers were concerned that there might be side effects as the gene therapy application is an intervention to the genes whose functions are not fully known well.
I am concerned about new diseases that might arise after the intervention of genes. (PT-10) I am worried that my knowledge about gene therapy might be limited. Would this gene therapy will affect his/her [referring to the person whose genes are altered] own children? Are these genes inherited? Are there any side effects? They are all matter.  Of course, I have concerns. When we are treating it, we alter them. It seems to me that we are harming while doing it. …like genetically modified products. On one hand, we will produce a lot of products, but on the other hand, we will increase the number of diseases. There may be side effects like this. (PT-2) While expressing their concerns, participants also indicated their concerns about how gene therapy applications can conflict with their moral beliefs and values. Exemplifying this concern, sample excerpts are provided below: There could be some mistakes during gene therapy application. Tampering genes could create problems. There might be a problem during gene transfer. This is violating the rights of the unborn child.  There are many things that we still do not know about gene therapy. For instance, I am concerned about its use on animals. I mean experimental studies on animals make me concerned. There should be some standards and regulations about its use.' (PT-3) 'I think, if a technologic application like this [referring to gene therapy] can constitute equality of opportunity, then, it is a good thing. Otherwise, it will create problems in society as a whole concerning inequality.  Above excerpts present examples of how participants' values or morality reflect their concerns. In these excerpts, child rights, experimental studies on animals, or equality of opportunity constitute a concern for the use of gene therapy. Another theme revealed in the present study is participants' general concerns born out of fear.
It [referring to gene therapy] just makes me concerned. This is why I am totally against its use in any circumstances. There is nothing guaranteed. Even if it was applied to the disease, everything might get worse. The developmental process in the embryo might be different. I am so afraid that it might turn into another disease. Thus, I would not definitely do it [referring to gene therapy]. (PT-9) The trend is really scary for me. So now artificial babies would appear. In further levels, this [referring to gene therapy] would not be limited to the diseases. I think it would be applied to change the physical characteristics of the child such as intelligence and appearance. This is really scary. (PT-8) These excerpts present participants' concerns born out of fear of whether it would create another disease or it would be applied in unacceptable contexts such as intelligence or physical appearance. The uncertainty in the gene therapy application created fear for these pre-service science teachers.
As gene therapy is related to technology, it was revealed that participants also had opinions about the technology itself. Their opinions can be categorized under three headings as positive aspects of technology, negative aspects of technology, and a two-edged sword implying positive and negative aspects of technology as a whole. The first group of participants believed that technology is a facilitator for our lives by helping to create innovations for our life. Moreover, they indicated that technology helps people to increase their knowledge about genes. Sample quotations representing this theme presented below: Technology does not make me concerned. At least for now… it makes our lives easier. Our lives are getting easier step by step. (PT-4) Instead of getting concerned, I am happy about any technological innovation. Even talking about gene therapy makes me excited. If we think that such a thing [referring to gene therapy] will happen, there will be very rapid advances in technology. There will be more inventions and discoveries. That is, technological developments will positively affect developments in science.  I think the advancement of technology is a good thing for us. Technology is everywhere like in the food or health industry. If technology does not advance, we cannot do anything without it anymore. We are very used to it. (PT-9) I think that the advancement of technology is a good thing. It helps to develop gene therapies and genetic technologies and helps us to increase our knowledge about genes.  Besides these quotations, some participants solely focused on negative aspects of technology such as using it for their own good, destroying nature and humanity, or malicious use. Sample quotations exemplifying this theme are presented as: It just makes me concerned unless the control over technology belongs to us. However, we see that technology is destroying humanity in some films such as Jurassic Park… I think technology will destroy humanity at some point.  The advancement of technology makes me concerned a lot. We are consuming everything we have. Technology is destroying nature and polluting it. Even young children aged one or two are addicted to smartphones.' We are destroying ourselves by being addicted to technological applications. (PT-10) I am concerned about technology. I am concerned about how each country would access information produced by technology. Atomic bombs, chemical pollution are all the results of technology. There could be an abuse of technology. All are very worrying. (PT-6) Finally, some participants were both hopeful and doubtful of the technology. These participants' opinions were categorized under a two-edged sword theme. The two-edged sword theme reflects participants' pros and cons analysis of the technology. Sample excerpts are provided as: With the advancement of technology, gene therapy is developing more. The two are bounded by each other. There are also negative aspects of the rapid development of technology. The communication between us is decreasing. People are totally addicted to the internet which makes them less emotional. (PT-2) As technology advances, new treatment options for other diseases will be found. People do not have to struggle with diseases. A lot of disease-related genes will be destroyed which sounds good. With this respect advancement of technology makes me both hopeful and worried. While worrying about social segregation and the creation of different future generations, I am hopeful about decreasing the number of dreadful diseases. (PT-1)

DISCUSSION
This study explored (a) how pre-service science teachers make decisions in gene therapy scenario including two cases (Huntington's Disease and human intelligence), (b) informal reasoning patterns while they used during decision-making in a specific scenario, and (c) their perceptions of risk factors associated with gene therapy and advancement of technology. The results revealed that participants' decisions could change based on their informal reasoning patterns even in the same case. While participants generally approved the use of gene therapy for the treatment of Huntington's disease, they were against the use of gene therapy for increasing human intelligence showing the context-dependence of SSI. In line with this finding, existing studies also revealed that participants favored some genetics applications more as these applications make people healthier (Cebesoy, 2014;Karisan & Cebesoy, 2021;Khishfe, 2012;Kolstø, 2006;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005Topcu et al., 2011). Health-related benefits of genetic applications, in fact, were reported as an influential factor that affected the participants' decision-making in SSI topics. Kolstø (2006) argued that as health is a natural part of life, it is crucial for making decisions. Indeed, in this study, pre-service science teachers approved the use of gene therapy for the health-related benefits that gene therapy provides for patients and their families. Still, there were some participants who were hesitant about the use of gene therapy. Actually, this finding contrasted with Simonneaux and Chouchane's (2011). While they found that college students enrolled in the biotechnology institute favored gene therapy without considering the uncertainties and risks associated with gene therapy. In contrast, pre-service teachers in this study acknowledged the uncertainties and risks associated with gene therapy as there were some participants who were totally against the use of gene therapy either in Huntington's disease or in intelligence and the others agreed on the use for Huntington's disease but disagreed on the use of human intelligence cases. While there can be cultural differences (one study was conducted in Tunisia, the other was conducted in Turkey) and departmental differences (one study was conducted with college students in biotechnology institute and the other was conducted with pre-service science teachers), the difference might be related with pre-service teachers' being more aware of gene therapy when compared to their counterparts in Tunisia. That is pre-service teachers in this study considered different stakeholder's viewpoints as proposed by Sadler and Zeidler (2004b) during the decision-making process.
We also explored how pre-service science teachers justified their decisions. The results revealed that even though some participants used a single reasoning pattern, they mainly made decisions based on considering multiple reasoning patterns. This finding echoes with the existing literature which reported participants' reliance on the use of multiple factors during decision-making in SSI topics (Cebesoy, 2014;Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010;Es & Varol, 2019;Evren Yapicioglu & Aycan, 2018;Karisan & Cebesoy, 2021;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005Sadler, 2004;Topcu et al., 2011;Wu & Tsai, 2007). Due to the complex nature of SSI including open-endedness, skepticism, and uncertainty (Colucci-Gray et al., 2006;Fang et al. 2019;Sadler & Zeidler, 2004, 2005, adopting multiple perspectives in decision-making is an expected result. While making decisions in SSI topics, it is almost impossible to make simplistic decisions. As a result, morality and ethical issues are usually reported to be included and involved in SSI-based decision-making (Chang Rundgren & Rundgren, 2010;Sadler, 2004;Zeidler & Keefer, 2003). Confirming this, Sadler and Zeidler (2005) also reported that some participants tended to emphasize the moral and ethical implications of the issues in the scenarios presented to them. In addition, Karisan andCebesoy (2021), andCebesoy (2014) also reported that pre-service and in-service science teachers' decisions in genetics-related SSI were mainly influenced by ethics and morality. Even though adopting multiple perspectives and factors are desired in the decision-making process regarding SSI, there is evidence that shows participants' reliance on one single perspective (Es & Varol, 2019;Liu et al., 2011;Topcu et al. 2011). For instance, Liu et al. (2011) reported that half of the college students (54.2%) made decisions based only on a single disciplinary perspective while the other 36.2% integrated two disciplinary perspectives. Es and Varol's (2019) study revealed similar results: Undergraduate students were unable to consider the multidimensional structure of SSI while making decisions. In line with these findings, this study also revealed there were a few participants who used a single perspective while making decisions (e.g., rationalistic informal reasoning). This finding also shows there still is a need for increasing participants' use of multiple perspectives during decision-making on SSI. Actually, this finding is also important to answer our main question: Are the teachers prepared for teaching SSI by considering its complex and multi-dimensional structure? It could be difficult to teach the complex and multi-dimensional structure of SSI while teachers themselves do not consider these aspects while making decisions. Indeed, the literature highlights the importance of considering multiple perspectives for effective SSI-based instruction . This can be achieved through professional development programs specifically designed for developing reasoning competencies in SSI (e.g., Dawson & Carson, 2020;Evren Yapicioglu & Aycan, 2018;Hancock et al., 2019). Such programs can develop teachers' reasoning competencies and help them to consider multiple perspectives while teaching SSI in their classes.
Concerning different informal reasoning patterns, pre-service science teachers, in this study, either used a rationalistic reasoning pattern or combined it with emotive and intuitive reasoning patterns during decision-making in the gene therapy scenario. The participants deliberately relied on rationalistic consequences including health improvement or patient rights. This finding was consistent with Topcu et al.'s (2011) study which reported that pre-service science teachers mainly used rationalistic informal reasoning in gene therapy scenarios. Similarly, Sadler and Zeidler (2004) reported that rationalistic moral reasoning patterns were more evident when compared to emotive and intuitive moral reasoning in genetic-related SSI. Consistent with our finding, Pope et al.'s (2017) and Georgiou et al.'s (2020) studies also revealed similar results even conducted with high school students (aged 16-18 years). One possible reason for the more evident rationalistic informal reasoning pattern might be that participants being more knowledgeable about the issues being discussed. Supporting this assumption, Georgiou et al. (2020) revealed that participants who used rationalistic reasoning pattern supported their decisions with scientific data more and produced stronger arguments. However, Sadler and Donnelly's (2006) findings indicated the opposite. They did not reveal any evidence showing a relationship between argumentation quality and content knowledge. That is the participants who were knowledgeable about gene therapy and cloning did not necessarily produce stronger arguments. Another possible explanation for using the more rationalistic informal reasoning pattern might be that rationalistic informal reasoning patterns focused on rational inferences such as the consequences of gene therapy (health improvement or betterment of society) or principles (taking human life or parental rights). Participants might tend to use consequences or principles more when compared to care-based perspective (emotive informal reasoning) or instant reactions (intuitive informal reasoning).
Besides exploring pre-service science teachers' justifications, this study also revealed their perceptions of risk about gene therapy and the advancement of technology. Their concerns were focused on the potential and severity of effects to humanity, side effects, their own morals and values, and general concern born out of fear. Gardner and Jones (2011) found similar concerns as influential factors in participants' decisions towards biotechnology. In a similar study conducted by Gardner et al. (2010), students' perceptions of risk towards nanotechnology were found to be influenced by the effects of nanotechnology products on the health and wellbeing of individuals. This finding resonates with the first theme revealed in this study as pre-service science teachers were also concerned with the potential effects of gene therapy on humanity. Exploring college students' decision-making in genetically modified organisms (golden rice scenario), Lee and Lee (2015) revealed that students considered not only the benefits of gene technology but also considered side effects and problems associated with that specific technology. Indeed, in this study, pre-service teachers considered the benefits and positive effects of gene therapy on human health while indicating their concerns about the side effects of gene technologies. However, contrary to our finding, Simonneaux and Chouchane (2011) indicated that most of the participants favored gene therapies without a proper understanding of the uncertainties and risks associated with gene therapy. Contradicting findings of participants' risk perceptions about gene therapy might be explained in several ways. First, the complex and dynamic nature of genes makes it hard to understand the benefits and risk factors associated with gene technologies (Lederman et al. 2014). That is while an intervention to genes can create a disease-free society by deleting/changing an affected gene, it could also empower parents to design their own children by selecting desirable traits as Lederman et al. (2014) highlighted. Thus, weighting risk factors while making decisions in SSI is considered a requirement (Rattcliffe & Grace, 2003). The second possible explanation is cultural differences in studies. Even all the participants in the aforementioned studies are university students (Lee & Lee, 2015;Simonneaux & Chouchane, 2011), the studies were conducted in different countries which can be a major source for cultural difference. Still, understanding participants' risk perceptions give us important clues about SSI teaching. It enables us to understand teachers' issue selection during SSI teaching (Hancock et al., 2019).
While gene technologies such as gene therapy are supported as they provide parents to have healthier off-springs, they are also criticized due to the complex and dynamic structure of genes, and the possibility of creating a 'genetic caste system' (Lederman et al., 2014). Thus, it is important to understand that gene technologies like gene therapy are not only beneficial but also consider risk factors due to the complex nature of genes and the possibility of empowering parents to design their own child by selecting desirable traits (Lederman et al., 2014). Actually, risk perception is assumed to be one of the underrepresented topics in science education research according to Christensen (2009). Kolstø (2006) revealed that all students used risk information as a central factor in their decision-making in SSI. As a result, including risk perception becomes crucial in SSI-based instruction.
Lastly, this study revealed that pre-service science teachers' opinions about the advancement of technology were focused on positive aspects, negative aspects, and considering the pros and cons of technological innovations. Similarly, Lee and Lee (2015) revealed that college students believed that while technology provides a solution to the problems, the technological tradeoffs (the loss and the benefits associated with the technology) are always evident. Wu and Tsai (2007) also revealed that students use science/technology-oriented arguments while decision-making in SSI. Lee and Lee (2015) argued that there is a contextual linkage between SSI and technology. SSI itself is a complex problem that is caused by not only pure scientific knowledge but also technology. As a result, the nature of technology can be included in SSI-based instruction and used for analyzing students' reasoning as well as promoting sophisticated decision-making in SSI (Lee & Lee, 2015).

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This study revealed the context-dependent nature of SSI used in decision-making. While enhancing scientific literacy is referred to in many national and international policy documents, one way to achieve this is to develop informed decision-making skills in SSI. Thus, this study showed how future science teachers made decisions in an SSI topic, gene therapy, how they justified their decisions by using single or multiple informal reasoning patterns, and how their risk perceptions associated with the gene therapy and technology shaped their decisions. This study has several limitations which can show directions for further studies: First, only female preservice science teachers participated in this study voluntarily. Thus, the results revealed in this study included only female teachers' perceptions about gene therapy. To be more inclusive, male pre-service science teachers can be included in interviews to get broader perspectives about gene therapy issues. Second, this study only included gene therapy as a context to investigate pre-service science teachers' informal reasoning and risk perceptions in gene therapy. Future studies should be conducted to reveal if the pre-service science teachers use similar informal reasoning patterns in different SSI topics (e.g., organ transplantation, global warming, or nuclear power plantation). This will help the researchers to understand whether there are common reasoning patterns used in different SSI topics. Another way is to develop pre-service science teachers' decision-making skills in SSI by adopting an intervention study specifically designed for this purpose. One last way might be including courses specifically focusing on SSI-based instruction to undergraduate teacher education programs which will prepare future teachers as efficient teachers who can implement SSI-based instruction in their future classes. While preparing future teachers for effective SSI-based instruction, there is also a strong need for in-service teachers who are already teaching in real classes. Short-or long-term professional development programs aiming to empower science teachers in implementing SSI-based instruction could be adopted for this purpose.

Scenario 1: Huntington's Disease Gene Therapy
Huntington's disease (HD) is a neurological disorder caused by a single gene. Its symptoms usually start between the ages of 35 and 45. The first symptoms include uncontrollable body spasms and cognitive impairment. As the disease progresses, patients become physically incapacitated, suffer from emotional instability, and eventually lose mental faculties. HD usually runs its course over 15-20 years and always results in death. No conventional treatments are known to work against HD.
Because Huntington's disease is controlled by one gene, it could be a candidate for gene therapy. Should gene therapy be used to eliminate HD from sex cells (egg cells or sperm cells) that will be used to create new human offspring?

Scenario 2: Intelligence Gene Therapy
We know that a person's intelligence is controlled by a variety of factors including both environmental and genetic influences. Several genes likely contribute to a person's intelligence. No single factor, whether genetic or environmental, could completely determine an individual's intelligence; however, it is conceivable that scientists could find a single gene that at least contributed to an individual's intelligence.
If science were able to isolate a gene that significantly contributed to a person's intelligence, should that gene be used for gene therapy to increase the intelligence of potential offspring?