Students' Perceptions of FSBio 201, A CURE-Based Course that Scaffolds Research and Scientific Communication, Align with Learning Outcomes.

Incorporating active research opportunities into undergraduate curricula is one of the most cited elements demonstrated to improve inclusive excellence and retention in all STEM fields. Allegheny College has a long and nationally-recognized tradition of collaborative student-faculty research within the academic curriculum and as co-curricular opportunities. We present an example of the former, a Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE), FSBio 201, that has been central to Allegheny's biology curriculum for over two decades. The course emphasizes biological research design, execution, and communication. We have coded and analyzed feedback from student evaluations and from the national CURE project database, both of which measure students' perceptions and attitudes toward the course. The majority of the student feedback related to the course learning outcomes of fostering independent research and communication skills was positive. However, we also see areas for improvement, such as how we employ peer-to-peer mentoring and how we teach quantitative and computer-based skills. We conclude that students' self-reported data are in line with our learning outcomes and provide FSBio 201 as a model for introducing college undergraduates to biological research.

Gamete donor anonymity and limits on numbers of offspring: the views of three stakeholders.

This paper discusses the attitudes of three groups of stakeholders in the world of assisted reproduction gamete donors, parents who use donated gamete, and offspring conceived with donated gametes with respect to the two issues of donor anonymity and limits on the number of offspring a single donor can produce. The data are drawn from on-line surveys which were made available between May 12, 2104 and August 15, 2014 to gamete donors, donor-conceived offspring, and parents who used donated gametes to conceive. A total of 325 donors (176 egg donors; 149 sperm donors) responded to the survey as did 2134 parents and 419 offspring. The data show that offspring are more opposed to donor anonymity than are parents and donors. Among offspring opposition to anonymity grows as they age. On the other hand, parents are most in favor of limits on numbers of offspring produced by a single donor. Parents worry about health and accidental contact between people conceived from the same donor.

Gendering gametes: The unequal contributions of sperm and egg donors.

This paper compares three groups of gestational mothers who relied on gametes from donors they did not know. The three groups are women who have conceived with donor sperm and their own eggs, women who have conceived with donor eggs and a partner's sperm, and women who have conceived with embryos composed of both donor eggs and donor sperm. The paper explores three issues. First, it considers whether intending parents select sperm and egg donors for different attributes both when they are chosen as the only donor and when they are chosen as donors contributing to an entire embryo. Second, it examines how women imagine the donor. Finally, it looks at how women conceptualize the donor as an individual who contributes to their child's characteristics. Two significant findings emerged in this analysis of survey data. First, the data show that gametes are gendered with different attributes both when those gametes are separate and even more so when seen as complementary parts of a whole. Second, the data show that women minimize the impact of the egg donor (both when a sole contribution and especially when part of the complementary whole) and thus ignore the influence or impact of the egg donor relative to how they make sense of the influence or impact of the sperm donor. The data for this study comes from an online survey developed by the authors.

Donor conceived offspring conceive of the donor: the relevance of age, awareness, and family form.

Rarely have donor conceived offspring been studied. Recently, it has become more common for parents to disclose the nature of conception to their offspring. This new development raises questions about the donor's place in the offspring's life and identity. Using surveys collected by the Donor Sibling Registry, the largest U.S. web-based registry, during a 15 week period from October 2009 to January 2010, we found that donor offspring view the donor as a whole person, rather than as simple genetic material (he can know you; he has looks; he can teach you about yourself); they also believe that the donor should act on his humanity (he should know about you and not remain an anonymous genetic contributor). Other new issues that emerge from this research include the findings that offspring may want to control the decision about contacting their sperm donor in order to facilitate a bond between themselves and the donor that is separate from their relationship with their parents. They also wish to assure their parents that their natal families are primary and will not be disrupted. We discuss how the age at which offspring learned about their donor conception and their current age each make a difference in their responses to what they want from contact with their donor. Family form (heterosexual two-parent families and lesbian two-parent families) also affects donor terminology. The role of the genetic father is reconsidered in both types of families. Donor conceived offspring raised in heterosexual families discover that their natal father no longer carries biological information and he is relegated to being "only" a social father. Offspring raised by lesbian couples experience a dissipation of the family narrative that they have no father. The donor, an imagined father, offers clues to the offspring's personal identity. The natal family is no longer the sole keeper of identity or ancestry.