Biomedical Innovations · 2027-05-11 · 80 minutes

Research duty: honest records and bounded claims

Your goal: Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. Today’s objective: Argue what responsibilities a researcher has when their independent project could affect real people or public safety.

One product: One sentence on the consequence of a broken chain of custody, plus a written ethical standard statement for your own independent project.

Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. If blocked, keep the saved draft, missing input and next action with receipt pending.

Start the work

A trustworthy record links a claim to its source, preserves missingness and distinguishes preparation from completed work.

Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending. Step: Read the briefing on an independent project with real-world implications.
Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending. Step: Choose a position on how strict the researcher's duties should be.
Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending. Step: List two reasons grounded in consent, honesty, and harm prevention.
Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending. Step: Debate in your group, tracking claims about chain of custody and integrity.
Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending. Step: Reflect on the ethical standard you will hold your own project to.

Show the 80-minute plan

0 to 5 minutes. Use H1 for a brief lapse/harm answer; start S1 marks. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.
5 to 20 minutes. Read C1/E1/P1, choose a position and two reasons. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.
20 to 40 minutes. Use D1 to debate if genuinely assigned, or compare supplied positions solo. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.
40 to 55 minutes. Identify one shared obligation and one revision/retained choice with a reason. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.
55 to 70 minutes. Write the same ethical standard using W1; notes feed this product. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.
70 to 80 minutes. Write the one consequence sentence, check and save; update changed statuses. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

Open your materials

Use the reading, word guide, and worked example below. Keep your answers on paper or in one document.

Printable lesson and response record (PDF). This packet contains the same required reading and work.

Question: How strict should review be when a document gap limits what a researcher can honestly claim?

Words you will use

ethical standard: A stated rule for responsible conduct.
independent project: Work led by a researcher; independence does not remove duties or review requirements.
consent: A voluntary informed agreement to participate where applicable; not a universal permission form.
privacy: A person’s interest in control over access to themselves and personal information.
confidentiality: The duty to protect information entrusted under agreed limits.
integrity: Faithful representation of work, records and uncertainties.
provenance: The origin and history of a record.
chain of custody: Recorded sequence of who controlled or transferred an item; here a document.
custody: Control of an item or document at a given point.
acknowledgment: Recorded confirmation that a document was received.
version: A labeled state of a document, not proof its content is accurate.
missing record: Expected documentation that was not supplied.
uncertainty: What available evidence does not establish.
claim: A statement being proposed for support.
evidence: A fact or record used to support or challenge a claim.
reasoning: Explanation of how evidence supports the claim and its limit.
harm: Possible injury, loss or misleading effect.
benefit: A valued positive outcome, not a guaranteed result.
risk: Possibility and seriousness of harm.
respect for persons: Consideration of people’s informed choices and need for protection.
beneficence: Duty to consider benefit while reducing possible harm.
justice: Fairness in the distribution of burdens and benefits.
independent review: Assessment by someone able to question the work without the same stake in its outcome.
conflict of interest: An interest that could influence judgment; disclosure is not proof of misconduct.
fabrication: Presenting made-up research data or results as real.
falsification: Distorting research records so they misrepresent the work.
plagiarism: Using another person’s work or ideas without proper credit.
honest error: Unintentional mistake; not automatically research misconduct.
tampering: Unauthorized alteration; a missing entry alone does not prove it.
tradeoff: A benefit and cost weighed between options.
waiver: An authorized exception to a requirement, not a student’s self-issued exemption.
legal applicability: Whether a rule applies to the actual situation; requires qualified determination.
traceability: Ability to follow a record’s documented history.
legal admissibility: Whether evidence may be used in a legal proceeding; not decided by this exercise.
receipt: Evidence the submitted work reached its confirmed destination.

H1: Name the lapse from supplied facts

Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized.

Opening mini-case, entirely invented: an author creates five fictional preference cards, then labels them as responses from real readers. No reader was asked. Original route: name the reporting lapse and one likely harm to a reader of that report. No historical scandal or outside search is needed. Actual route: use the supplied teacher case instead or mark it missing.

ORI describes fabrication as reporting invented data as if real. Its misconduct definition also covers distortion of research records and taking others’ work without credit. Honest mistakes and disagreements are not automatically research misconduct (ORI). This short example does not establish anyone’s actual guilt.

Today is Tuesday May 11. No May 10 notebook or project completion is assumed. Start S1 short status marks now; update changes at the end.

C1: Complete independent-project briefing

All facts C1–C6 below are authored fiction about documents. There are no participants, biological materials, private records or measured results. The planned project concerns clearer wording for a library book-return sign; it is not a safety or health alert.

C1. Role A, author, made six invented preference cards for a paper demonstration. Four cards say label X; two say label Y. These are not people’s votes or study results. No calculation or preference conclusion is required.

C2. The draft has two proposed headings: “Fictional comparison for review” and “Readers prefer X.” Only the first accurately describes the source. Neither heading grants permission to publish.

C3. A possible future project might ask volunteers about wording, but no recruitment, review decision, consent process or school authorization exists. The current task only drafts an ethical commitment. Do not design or run that future study.

C4. Role E, editor, helped design label X and wants it selected. This is a potential conflict of interest to disclose, not proof of dishonest conduct.

C5. A supervisor has requested a paper draft for discussion. No public release is approved. A clearly labeled draft might help reviewers improve the design; a misleading preference claim could distort a later decision.

C6. The transfer log below is the whole supplied history. What happened during its gap is unknown. Version names distinguish documents but do not prove content accuracy.

Log columns: entry | clock time on invented Day1 | event | stated version | acknowledgment/evidence. Times order this document history only; no lab timing is assigned.

L0 | 09:00 | A creates draft | V1 | creation note present.

L1 | 09:10 | A sends to reviewer R | V1 | R receipt recorded at 09:12.

L2 | 09:30 | R records sending to editor E | V1 | E receipt missing; arrival time/version not confirmed.

L3 | 10:00 | E sends to archive Q | V2 | Q receipt recorded at 10:03; change record V1-to-V2 missing.

Use L0–L3 to find where the recorded history is incomplete. A gap in a log does not prove tampering, and a complete log would not prove the underlying cards valid.

Original route: at 5–20 read this briefing and P1/E1, choose a position and write two short grounded reasons for the same eventual standard. At 20–40 use the log while examining the other position. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

E1: Ethics as a reasoning framework

Belmont describes respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Respect includes informed voluntary choices and appropriate protection. Beneficence asks researchers to reduce possible harm and consider potential benefit. Justice concerns fair distribution of burdens and benefits (BELMONT).

Informed consent involves understandable information and a voluntary decision. Ethical review considers more than a signature. This lesson does not decide whether any law applies, whether an exemption or waiver exists, or whether a school project is approved. Qualified reviewers make those determinations; a student-written form is not research permission.

Apply these ideas to the paper case. Honesty keeps invented cards labeled. Harm prevention avoids misleading readers. Respect requires suitable review before any future involvement of people. These are commitments to seek review, not a claim that this paper exercise triggers a universal legal consent rule.

Integrity means reporting work honestly, with its gaps and conflicts. Keep the original log entries visible; request the missing acknowledgment/version history instead of inventing it. Chain of custody here is the record of who held or passed on a document. It helps trace the document. It does not prove accuracy, intent or legal admissibility.

P1: Two defensible positions

Position A, review before any draft circulation: require an independent check of the source labels and log gap before the demonstration draft circulates beyond its author. Reason A1: even a draft can be mistaken for real findings. Reason A2: someone without a stake in label X can challenge the proposed heading and missing version history. Cost: useful feedback may be delayed.

Position B, staged review with a limited draft: allow only a clearly labeled fictional draft to be considered by the designated supervisor while the gap is marked unresolved. Keep any actual reader-preference claim and public release on hold. Reason B1: bounded review can improve the plan without pretending the cards are evidence about people. Reason B2: transparent limits let the supervisor identify what must be checked next. Cost: a draft may still be misunderstood or copied out of context.

The dispute concerns when a bounded review draft can circulate, not whether dishonesty is acceptable. Neither position authorizes sending anything now.

Original route: choose A or B and justify it with two case facts and ethical ideas from E1. A qualified alternative is acceptable if it retains the same safeguards and states its tradeoff. No one correct level of strictness is imposed by this fictional case. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

D1: Debate or complete the solo comparison

At 20–40 use your chosen position and examine its strongest supplied opposing reason. Track three brief notes on the same page: chosen claim with source fact; strongest opposing reason with source fact; response that recognizes one tradeoff and the log uncertainty.

If an actual teacher-approved group debate occurs, record only the genuine deidentified claim you heard and your response. Otherwise use P1’s opposing position and label the work “solo comparison of supplied positions.” It is not a peer quote or completed debate.

At 40–55 identify one obligation both positions retain and justify it with a case fact. Add one revision to your planned standard, or record what remains unchanged and why. If a genuine class debrief occurs, distinguish its actual contribution from your own source check. Solo reasoning does not certify required participation.

The alternate mode is a 150-word post and genuine classmate reply. Teacher confirmation is required if that mode is assigned. These notes can feed a draft rather than a second statement; do not fabricate the reply or publish autonomously. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

W1: Write the ethical standard and consequence

At 55–70 write one concise ethical standard statement for your own independent project or proposed future work. Original route: include what you will do, what you will document, who must review unresolved issues, and which claims/actions wait. Your position, two reasons and debate/solo notes are planning support for this same statement, not separate reports.

Use this frame: “I will [practice] and preserve [evidence/limits]. Before [held action], I will seek [review] because [reason].” These two short sentences form one statement. It is a commitment, not proof that consent, approval or a study has occurred.

At 70–80 write the dated one-sentence consequence of the log gap. Original route: identify the unconfirmed handoff/version and explain that attribution or confidence is limited until the missing record is checked. Do not accuse E of tampering or claim a complete log guarantees truth.

Check against C1/E1: invented cards stay invented; the gap stays unknown; actual review/participation remains separate. Correct a real mismatch, or keep a verified sentence. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

S1: Genuine obligations and destination

Keep ten short statuses. 1: actual case/project inputs. 2: qualified ethics/legal applicability and school approval review. 3: actual participation mode and accommodations. 4: genuine group debate/class debrief. 5: alternate post/reply if assigned.

Also mark 6: actual rubric/grading. 7: official task/scope/completion. 8: confirmed assignment/destination/deadline. 9: saved statement and consequence. 10: actual receipt. Use completed, pending or not checked plus a pointer or missing input/next action. Start marks in opening; update changes only.

Nothing new in myPLTW is scheduled today. Ask the teacher which scope, if any, applies. Do not invent a milestone or activity completion.

Open the linked BI assignment in Turn in your work. Confirm the actual assignment and deadline with the teacher. At 70–80 save the ethical statement and consequence sentence; submit only through the confirmed destination if authorized. If blocked, retain the draft, missing input and next action with receipt pending. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

M1: Distinct fictional map-legend review

Optional worked model, not today’s library case: a fictional designer makes a museum map legend with invented room codes. Record M0: designer D creates draft A. Record M1: D sends draft A to reviewer T; T acknowledgment present. Record M2: T returns draft B; its change note is missing. No visitor was studied and no map was installed.

Worked position: hold public use of the legend while allowing the designated reviewer to examine the labeled draft. Reason 1: invented room codes cannot be presented as real directions. Reason 2: the missing change note leaves the A-to-B revision unexplained, even though the handoff is recorded.

Worked ethical standard: I will label invented map information, preserve both draft versions and request an independent check of the missing change note before proposing public use. This keeps source limits visible without inventing a completed review.

Worked consequence sentence: The missing change note limits attribution of the A-to-B revisions until the record is checked; it does not prove deception. A complete change record would still not validate the map.

Worked solo response: the strongest objection is that holding public use delays useful feedback; designated review of a labeled draft permits feedback while actual use stays on hold. This is authored model reasoning, not a real peer comment. Do not produce a second model response. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

Try the decision

Original route: L2 receipt and V1-to-V2 change account are missing. What can the record support? Actual route: use the genuine assigned record and its limits.

Name the unknown receipt and version history, and request review of those gaps.
Declare that E dishonestly altered the data because the receipt and change account are missing.
Assume all content is valid because other entries have receipts.

Explain your choice using the reading. Discuss it or say it to yourself. This practice does not add another submission.

Your response record

Use these labels on paper or in your document. The space below also works when this page is printed.

Identify the supplied reporting lapse

Original route: use H1 only to name the lapse and one possible harm. Actual route: use the teacher’s evidence or mark it missing.

Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

One position and two grounded reasons

Original route: use C1/E1/P1 to choose A, B or a qualified alternative, with two facts/reasons feeding your eventual statement.

Three concise debate or solo notes

Original route: use D1 to record chosen claim, strongest opposing reason and your bounded response. Label actual debate or solo source comparison honestly.

One shared obligation and a revision

Original route: use D1 to identify an obligation common to both positions, justify it and revise or retain your planned standard. Genuine debrief remains separate.

One written ethical standard

Original route: use W1 to turn your planning into one specific commitment, with evidence preservation, review and held claims/actions.

One consequence sentence and honest save

Original route: use C1/W1 for one sentence on the unconfirmed handoff/version without accusing anyone. Both routes: update S1 and save or use a confirmed destination.

Check your product

Original route: one position and two case-grounded reasons support the same ethical statement.
Original route: three brief notes fairly address the strongest supplied opposing reason and tradeoff; actual debate is not invented.
Original route: identify one common obligation and revise or retain a specific standard with a reason.
Original route: one written standard states conduct, record preservation, appropriate review and held claims/actions.
Original route: one consequence sentence identifies the log gap and limited attribution, without asserting tampering or guaranteed validity.
Actual route: teacher case, requirements and rubric replace original practice; no second statement or consequence.
Both routes: actual participation, legal/ethics review, official work and receipt stay evidence-based.

The invented record supports ethical reasoning, not a finding about real people, misconduct intent, legal compliance or permission to conduct research. Documentation alone cannot guarantee validity.

Turn in your work

Research duty: honest records and bounded claims

Open the linked BI assignment in Turn in your work. Save one ethical statement and one consequence sentence; confirm acceptance, destination and deadline before submission. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending.

Open this assignment in Schoology

Connection to PLTW

Original paper ethics preparation; actual participation, approval and official completion pending.

These references locate related course material. Complete only the official work and stopping point your teacher assigns. This local preparation does not establish completion of an online activity.

Activity 7.1.1 Forensic Autopsy

Optional practice and examples

Use these resources to practice related skills. Follow the required work and evidence limits above. A simulation does not authorize a live experiment or add another submission.

Forensic Autopsy: Determining Cause of Death

Slides and optional notes

Original paper ethics preparation only. No people are recruited or studied, no samples are collected, and no experiment, public alert or external posting is authorized. Planning notes feed one ethical standard and one consequence sentence. Actual route: use the teacher’s case, evidence and participation rules in place of this practice. Complete one ethical statement and one consequence sentence only. Missing authentic inputs, discussion and official completion remain pending. Guided notes are optional and do not add a second submission.

Download PPTX Optional guided notes (PDF)

Sources and optional reading

The Belmont Report · HHS Office for Human Research Protections
Definition of Research Misconduct · HHS Office of Research Integrity

Keep going

If you were absent or lost your place, read the word guide and reading first. Try the example, then complete the first unfinished response.

No partner is required. Read your response aloud to yourself and check it against the product checklist.

Take home: Preserve the record, disclose the gap and match the claim to what can actually be supported.

Thursday May 13 is the next dated forensic-evidence lesson. Today authorizes no collection or testing of human material. What must a custody record show about an item's history?