Innovation debate
Do now
Debate which criteria should decide whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing.
- Hand in
- CER contribution arguing the most important criterion for evaluating a medical innovation, plus two questions and a reflection connecting the criterion to your proposed innovation.
- Where
- Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
Debate which criteria should decide whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing.
Debate which criteria should decide whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing.
- • You can argue which criterion should drive innovation choices.
- • You can apply the criterion to your own idea.
- What do you already know about Innovation debate?
- What would you need to find out to answer today's question?
- 1Prepare two questions about evaluating a medical innovation.
- 2Draft a CER position on the most important decision criterion.
- 3Debate with peers and record an opposing criterion.
- 4Connect the criterion to your own proposed innovation.
- 5Submit two questions, one CER contribution, and a reflection.
What did this day actually feel like?
Innovation debate
ETHICS DAY Whether incremental improvement or radical redesign does more good. Incremental helps sooner and reaches fewer people. Radical might help enormously or might never ship.
Most actual progress is incremental and most attention goes to the radical, which is its own problem.
Turned in: CER → Claim Evidence Reasoning folder
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
The same day, drawn.
Whether incremental improvement or radical redesign does more good. Incremental helps sooner and reaches fewer people. Radical might help enormously or might never ship.
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: Not every medical idea worth having is worth pursuing -- a clear decision criterion tells you how to prioritize your time and resources.
- 0-10Introduce the innovation-proposal unit: scope, purpose, and how it connects to Problems 1 and 2
- 10-25Debate prep: write two questions and draft a CER position on the top innovation criterion
- 25-55Structured debate: argue positions and record an opposing criterion
- 55-65Connect to your innovation idea: which criterion will you rank highest in your design?
- 65-77Submit two questions, CER contribution, and reflection
- 77-80Preview Tuesday: you will define your specific problem -- start thinking about a healthcare gap you care about
- • Welcome to the innovation-proposal unit -- an optional asynchronous extra-credit extension of your BI work.
- • This unit asks you to propose a medical innovation of your own, supported by evidence and a full design rationale.
- • Today you open with a debate: what is the most important criterion for deciding whether an innovation is worth pursuing?
- • Your answer will become the top-ranked criterion in your design work for the rest of the week.
- • How to argue which single criterion (feasibility, impact, , equity) should drive a go-or-no-go decision on a medical innovation.
- • How to connect an abstract criterion to a concrete innovation idea you are considering.
- • How the debate outcome will shape the criteria list you build on Wednesday.
Pitching innovation: problem definition, criteria, constraints, and feasibility · Innovation debate
Day 1 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), then do the work below.
Do this: Open your myPLTW course shell and locate any innovation or capstone activity related to the problem you are pursuing, then complete the debate asynchronously as an extra-credit reserve-unit activity.
Mark the innovation-debate activity complete in your tracker after submitting your CER and reflection to the extra-credit assignment.
Problem 2 analysis is fully closed; this reserve unit is an async extension, and by end of today the innovation-criterion CER should be submitted.
Two questions, CER contribution on the top innovation criterion, and a reflection connecting the criterion to your proposed innovation.
The official PLTW activity stays inside myPLTW. If myPLTW will not open, use F1 and E1-E3 on this page to complete today's local evidence decision, then make up the official activity when access returns. Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Check things off as you work, then submit. This tells Mr. Mendoza how you're doing so he can help the class. It does not replace turning in your producible through the submission route shown below.
Use the code Mr. Mendoza gave you, not your name. Saved on this device.
Pitching innovation: problem definition, criteria, constraints, and feasibility · Innovation debate
Open your myPLTW course shell and locate any innovation or capstone activity related to the problem you are pursuing, then complete the debate asynchronously as an extra-credit reserve-unit activity.
Problem 2 analysis is fully closed; this reserve unit is an async extension, and by end of today the innovation-criterion CER should be submitted.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Debate which criteria should decide whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing.
- Prepare two questions about evaluating a medical innovation.
- Draft a CER position on the most important decision criterion.
- Debate with peers and record an opposing criterion.
- Connect the criterion to your own proposed innovation.
- Submit two questions, one CER contribution, and a reflection.
CER: CER contribution arguing the most important criterion for evaluating a medical innovation, plus two questions and a reflection connecting the criterion to your proposed innovation.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Use the checklist just below and upload by 11:29 PM for full credit. Absent with an excused absence? You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Prepare two questions about evaluating a medical innovation. | _______ |
| Draft a CER position on the most important decision criterion. | _______ |
| Debate with peers and record an opposing criterion. | _______ |
| Connect the criterion to your own proposed innovation. | _______ |
| Submit two questions, one CER contribution, and a reflection. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- You can argue which criterion should drive innovation choices.
- You can apply the criterion to your own idea.
- 1Do thisDebate which criteria should decide whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: CER contribution arguing the most important criterion for evaluating a medical innovation, plus two questions and a reflection connecting the criterion to your proposed innovation.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the drop folder.
- 2Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 3Upload the file, named Lastname_Firstname__Assignment Title.
- 4Your own upload panel says Uploaded with a green check: that is your receipt.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Biotechnology for Health (Biomedical Innovations) › Pitching innovation: problem definition, criteria, constraints, and feasibility › CEROpen the drop folder
Learn it · deck, reading, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
A CER conclusion links a claim to your own statistical evidence with explicit reasoning, and naming honest limitations bounds that claim rather than breaking it, so admitting what could have gone wrong is what makes the finding trustworthy.
Not every medical idea worth having is worth pursuing -- a clear decision criterion tells you how to prioritize your time and resources.
A bridge prototype is tested against a load limit, cost limit, and user need before revision.
- Which requirement is a criterion?
- Which limit is a constraint?
- What test result should trigger a redesign?
A design improves when evidence is compared with explicit criteria and constraints.
Biomedical designs also require , ethics, and biological validation beyond a physical prototype test.
- • Bridge requirements map to design criteria.
- • Load results map to E1-E3.
- • Revision maps to the next evidence-based iteration.
Driving question: Debate which criteria should decide whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing.
What you already know: A CER conclusion links a claim to your own statistical evidence with explicit reasoning, and naming honest limitations bounds that claim rather than breaking it, so admitting what could have gone wrong is what makes the finding trustworthy.
New idea: Not every medical idea worth having is worth pursuing -- a clear decision criterion tells you how to prioritize your time and resources.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Innovation debate. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled system, test, or design relationship and identify which evidence should trigger revision.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in Innovation debate.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: A design improves when evidence is compared with explicit criteria and constraints.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Debate which criteria should decide whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing.
What the evidence supports: E1-E3 and F1 support the daily take-home when the response meets the stated success criteria.
What it cannot prove: The package does not support claims beyond this lesson's or any real patient diagnosis.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
How to argue which single criterion (feasibility, impact, , equity) should drive a go-or-no-go decision on a medical innovation.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
Not every medical idea worth having is worth pursuing -- a clear decision criterion tells you how to prioritize your time and resources.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
You can argue which criterion should drive innovation choices.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-BFH-2027-03-17 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical design team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Innovation debate supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
- • Select the option best supported by E1-E3.
- • Select a reasonable alternative and name the evidence it would require.
- • Delay the claim because the evidence does not distinguish the options.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the claim-evidence-reasoning response.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Innovation debate. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
- • The solution must address the stated need in Innovation debate.
- • The decision must be supported by E1-E3.
- • The final product must make the success criteria visible.
- • Complete the work inside the 80-minute block.
- • Use only supplied or teacher-approved materials and evidence.
- • Do not trade , accessibility, or privacy for speed.
- • and evidence quality: must pass before scoring other criteria.
- • User need and effectiveness: highest scored criterion.
- • Time, cost, and ease of use: compare only after and effectiveness pass.
Test evidence: For each option, record the E1-E3 result that supports or fails each criterion. Do not assign a score without a named observation.
- Version or option tested
- Criterion met or missed
- Evidence ID and result
- Revision made
- Reason for the revision
- Need and user
- Criteria and constraints
- Chosen option and evidence
- Test result
- Revision and reason
Claim: The criterion that should carry the most weight is patient impact per dollar, because a medical innovation must reach the people who need it, not just work in a lab.
Evidence:
- A low-cost paper-strip malaria test costs about 0.50 dollars per unit and reaches rural clinics, while a lab-only PCR test costs about 25 dollars per unit and needs a machine most clinics do not have.
- In our earlier research, 4 out of 5 promising devices that scored high on novelty were never adopted because the per-patient cost was too high.
Reasoning: A device that is technically brilliant but too expensive to deploy helps no one, so weighing patient impact per dollar keeps the team honest about real-world reach. Novelty and elegance matter, but they only pay off after the device actually gets used.
Opposing criterion recorded in debate: One peer argued safety margin should outrank cost, because a cheap device that harms patients fails no matter how affordable it is.
Connection to my innovation: My proposed at-home ear-infection screener must hit a low per-use cost so families can afford repeat checks, so patient impact per dollar is my top decision criterion too.
(Tip: name ONE criterion and defend it; a CER that tries to rank all five at once loses focus.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Argues, in claim-evidence-reasoning form, which single criterion should carry the most weight when a team decides whether a medical innovation is worth building.
- Write one defensible claim.
- Choose specific evidence that supports the claim.
- Explain the scientific rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Submit your CER contribution, two questions, and reflection on the class site, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class.
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure, the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
Classroom documents for this lesson are posted in Schoology. Open Clever, then Schoology, and find each one by the name shown on its card.
Use this for optional reserve or extra-credit work after the required class lesson is complete.
Placement rationale
Matched Medical innovation proposal and independent project by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:innovation, design. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this for optional reserve or extra-credit work after the required class lesson is complete.
Placement rationale
Matched Medical innovation proposal and independent project by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:innovation, design. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this for optional reserve or extra-credit work after the required class lesson is complete.
Placement rationale
Matched Medical innovation proposal and independent project by path:Biomedical-Innovations/Problem-3_Medical-Innovation/3.1_Medical-Innovation; keywords:innovation, proposal, design. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
How to get there: open Clever and sign in with your Microsoft (district) account. Both myPLTW and Schoology are in Clever. Do the activity in myPLTW. Turn the work in on this site or hand it to Mr. Mendoza, because that is the step that counts as submitted. Schoology only shows your report-card grade later.
Check yourself · commit, then reveal▸
Claim ceiling for this check: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Innovation debate. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Go further and get help▸
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
Post a written CER contribution on the most important criterion for deciding whether a medical innovation is worth pursuing, then reply to one classmate.
Then submit your CER. Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
NGSS Engineering Design- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedTurned in the right way, on the class site or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class, and confirmed. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.