Araştırma fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin güncel konular hakkında sahip oldukları biyoetik değerlerinin belirlenmesi amacıyla yapılmıştır. Araştırmada kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu, 2016- 2017 eğitim öğretim yılında Türkiye'de çeşitli şehirlerde Fen Bilimleri Öğretmenliği yapmakta olan 38 kadın ve 12 erkek (N=50) katılımcı oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak Samancı (2009) tarafından geliştirilen Biyoetik Değer Envanteri kullanılmıştır. Envanter on senaryodan oluşmaktadır ve günümüzde sıkça karşılaşılan ikilemleri içermektedir. Senaryo konuları biyoteknoloji, prenetal genetik tanı ve kürtaj, üreme teknolojileri, GDO'lu ürünler, genetik tarama testi ve embriyoloji teknolojilerinden oluşmaktadır. Verilerin analizinde öğretmenlerin senaryoya verdikleri cevaplar için betimsel istatistik kullanılmış ve bunun yanında da cinsiyete göre biyoetik değer farklılığı olup olmadığını belirlemek amacıyla SPSS paket programı ile Ki- kare testi uygulanmıştır. Envanterde bulunan on senaryo için öğretmenlerin sahip oldukları etik değerler (yararcı, hak, adalet, erdem, koşulcu, din temelli, doğalı tercih etme, bilim temelli, insanı üstün tutma) yüzdelik oranları hesaplanarak ortaya çıkarılmıştır. Cinsiyete göre biyoetik değerlerde ise farklılaşma yalnızca 6. senaryoda görülmüştür, diğer senaryolarda cinsiyete bağlı herhangi bir farklılık bulunmamıştır. Yapılan araştırmalar göstermektedir ki fen bilimleri öğretmenlerinin biyoetik eğitimine sahip olmaları, biyoetik konular üzerindeki düşünceleri gelecek nesilleri etkileyecektir. Biyoetik eğitiminin öneminin gittikçe arttığı düşünüldüğünde, çalışmanın birçok araştırmaya kaynaklık edeceği beklenmektedir. Çalışma bu açılardan önemli hale gelmektedir

The research was conducted to determine the bioethical values that science teachers have about current topics. Scanning model from quantitative research methods was used in the research. The study group was composed of 38 female and 12 male (N = 50) participants who had been teaching science in various cities in Turkey during the academic year of 2016-2017. The Bioethics Value Inventory was used as a data collection tool which was previously developed by Samancı (2009). Inventory included ten scenarios with frequently encountered dilemmas. The topics of scenario issues are about biotechnology, prenatal genetic diagnosis and abortion, breeding technologies, GMO products, genetic screening test and embryology technologies. In the data analysis, descriptive statistics were used for the answers given by the teachers' responses to the scenarios and besides this, Chi-squared test was used with SPSS package program to determine whether there is bioethical value difference according to gender. For the ten scenarios in the inventory, the teachers' ethical values (i.e. beneficiary, rights, justice, virtue, conditioner, religion-based, natural preference, science-based, superiority of humanity) were calculated by means of percentages. Variation in bioethical values according to gender was only seen in scenario 6 and there were no sex-dependent differences in the other scenarios. Research shows that science teachers have bioethics education and their thoughts on bioethics will affect future generations. It is expected that the study will be the source of many researches, When it is thought that the importance of bioethics education is increasingly. The study is becoming important in these aspects.Rapid reflection of scientific developments to technological developments and people's efforts to keep up with these changes at the same pace has led some concepts to come to more agenda and the societies to face some questions. Bioethics is also one of these concepts. First, dealing with medical science in the 1970s, Van Rensselaer Potter put forward by bioethics, it has been the subject of debate for many years the only medical world. Kushe and Singer (2001) have described bioethics as an area in which ethical issues related to medicine and other biological sciences are addressed. It can be said that the living organisms of the bioethics are interested in the ability to respond to a number of critical questions through their lives. For this reason, the topics of bioethics from past to present can be gathered under topics such as breeding technologies, euthanasia, genetic screening tests, GMO, agricultural technology, organ transplantation and termination of pregnancy (Keskin, Samancı and Kurt, 2013, Akın, 2007; Bakar, 2010). Bioethics education involves increasing the awareness of students in the controversial debates by biological sciences, improving their decision-making skills without moving away from science and ethical principles (Yaman, 2011). In many studies, it has been observed that individuals who have been trained in bioethics gain reasoning ability in the direction of ethical principles and that individuals who do not have this experience ignore the ethical principles and can not make future decisions (Ersoy, 1996, Yaman, 2011, Sürmeli and Şahin, 2010). Bioethics education has more importance in the world than in our country. In England, for example, science teachers are tasked with teaching bioethical problems arising from dilemmas that biotechnology brings (Levinson, 2002). On bioethics education in our country, Yaman's research (2011) with biology teacher candidates revealed that the bioethics education given by the argumentation method is a significant impact on the ethical values of the students. Samancı (2009), developed bioethical value inventory for use in bioethics training and expressed the importance of this inventory. Purpose In this research, it was tried to reveal the bioethical values possessed by the science teachers. For this purpose, bioethical value inventory which was developed by Samancı (2009) was applied to 50 science teachers. The frequency values of the answers given were calculated. It was also investigated whether the answers given by the teachers varied according to sex. It is thought that the study will contribute to the literature on bioethics education in Turkey because there is not much work on bioethics education in our country. Moreover, when previous studies were examined, no research with science teachers was found and the study becomes important from this point of view. Methodology With this research, it was aimed to determine the opinions of science teachers about some current bioethical issues, and in this direction, the screening model of quantitative research methods was used. Data Collection Tool and Analysis of Data The Bioethics Value Inventory which was developed by Samancı (2009) was used in the research. This inventory includes scenarios containing ethical dilemmas in biotechnology, prenatal genetic diagnosis and abortion, breeding technologies, products with GMO, genetic screening test and embryology technologies. Under the scenarios, there are alternatives that represent the bioethical values possessed by the participants, each representing different universal ethical principles. Each option is under the titles "Yes, No, Undecided and Other". There is no sub-option for the "Other" option only, and if there is a different thought about the subject, the participant who chooses it is asked to write. In the work of Samancı (2009), explain these ethical approaches as follows: The Utilitarian Approach is about doing the most good and causing the least harm in an ethical action. The Rights Approach is about respecting the rights of all parties and partners concerned. The Justice Approach is about all humans having equal standards and any inequalities being defendable by objective criteria.The Virtue Approach is about the ethical action being in line with values such as honesty, tolerance, and courage, contributing to the progress of all humanity (SCU, 2011). The Normative Approach sets forth specific conditions in the decision-making process. The Religious Approach is about putting religious standards first in an ethical dilemma. Preference for the Natural: In this approach, natural things are considered good and interference with the nature should be limited. The Scientific Approach is about putting scientific standards first in an ethical dilemma. Belief in Humans’ Superiority to Other Living Beings: Humans are more privileged and valuable than other living beings and this should be prioritized in all actions Descriptive statistics were used in analyzing the bioethical value inventories obtained from the research. Percentage ratios of the responses given to each scenario were taken out and the chi-square test was applied using the SPSS package program to determine if there was bioethical value difference in responses given to the scenario by sex. The study's study group consists of 38 female and 12 male (N = 50) participants who have been teaching Science in various cities in Turkey during the academic year of 2016-2017. Findings and Discussion The first scenario is related to biotechnological developments, and it is seen that teachers are often unstable in experimenting with animals and responded with a "the normative" (38%) approach of ethical values. The second scenario concerns the topic of prenetal genetic diagnosis and abortion. It has been seen that teachers often give the "no" answer and have a "the rights" ethical value in order to receive the disabled child. The third scenario concerns reproduction technologies and is about choosing the sex of the child to be born. Teachers gave a "no" answer to the majority (90%) that the baby's gender was not chosen, and the ethical approach teachers had was "preference for natural". The fourth scenario is based on genetically modified organisms and the answers given by teachers to this question are mostly (82%) "no," meaning that the genetics are not changed and the ethical value they have is the "the utilitarian" approach. The fifth scenario is again about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a question about a change that can be positively contributed to human health, and the teachers gave a 60% no response on this, and ethical approaches differed between female participants and male participants. When the female participants said "preference for natural", the male participants approached the topic as "the utilitarian". The sixth scenario concerns whether GMO products contain genetic information on their packaging. The majority of the male and female participants thought that by giving the answer yes (94%), people had the right to know this information, so the most ethical value is the "the Right" approach. The seventh scenario concerns the "hunger" issue, which has become a major problem in the world and teachers are asked to think about how to make planting of GMO products that will get rid of this problem. As it is in other GMO scenarios, the teachers gave a very good response (86%) and according to these results, it can be interpreted that they think that the genetics of foods should not be changed at all. The eighth and ninth scenario concerns genetic screening tests. The eighth question is about genetics testing to learn that the individual carries the cancer disease, and the teachers have chosen that the individuals should learn such knowledge (60%). The tenth scenario concerns embryology technologies. In a cloned embryo for the treatment of a disease, 34% of the teachers did not accept, 40% accepted, and 26% were undecided about the question of the removal of the necessary cells and embryo removal. In the answers given, the acceptance is high, but the proportions are close to each other. Findings that arise in the work can also be sources of work done after that. Science teachers can be subjected to bioethics training and the same enventer can be reapplied and the difference can be looked at. It can be checked whether there is a difference in bioethical value between teachers and students. Such studies will contribute to bioethics education and will affect the outlook of the growing generations from now on