JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
Open your materials, follow the steps, then turn in your work.
Argue an assigned side of this question: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
1. Open your materials
Use the materials named in the first step below. Open lesson resources.
2. Start the work
Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
Show all 7 required steps
- Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- Open with the icebreaker: Do you have a favorite number? What is it, and why?
- Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- Close by writing where you actually stand now, and what moved you.
Lost your place? Lost the thread? Find the side you were assigned and your three strongest arguments. If you have those, move to the rebuttal: what is the other side's best point, and what is your answer to it?
Check your work before submitting
- You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
- You can state the strongest argument against your own side and answer it.
- You can separate what the evidence shows from what you believe about it.
3. Turn in your work
DueCheck Schoology- Hand in
- Your worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you had to answer, and where you actually stand now.
How to submit and name your file
Hand in the worksheet at the end of the session.
In Schoology, open your course and the assignment for this lesson. Attach your file, select Submit, and check that it appears in the submission.
PDF upload helpYou get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
Find this lesson's Schoology assignments
These are existing assignments for your section. Follow the directions in the assignment you are working on; this list does not add new work. Check Schoology for each deadline.
Link will not open? Open Schoology, choose your course and section, and find the title shown above.
How this lesson connects
Keep using what you learned last class: A wider clear zone means this organism is inhibited at a lower concentration of that same drug, but zone width cannot rank one drug against another, because each antibiotic diffuses through agar at its own rate and each has its own breakpoint. Today: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
Need help? Warm-up, timing, and directions▸
💡 Big idea: Should we ban use in livestock?
- 0-5 minScenario read together; sides assigned
- 5-22 minFacilitated debate, John Carroll leading
- 22-33 minRebuttals: answer the other side's strongest point, not its weakest
- 33-40 minWrite where you now stand and what moved you
- 40-80 minPLTW work for this unit, picking up where the last class left off
- • John Carroll has the first half of the block, about 40 minutes. The second half is PLTW work for this unit.
- • You do not know your side yet. That is deliberate, and it is why the prep asked you to build both.
- • A debate is not a fight to win. It is a way of finding out which argument actually survives contact with the other one.
- • Exit goal: you can state the best case against your own position, and say what you would need to change your mind.
- • An isolated mountain valley has clear streams and no industry. A bacterial outbreak hits the local livestock, so the community treats the herds with a large course of antibiotics. Weeks later, researchers find traces in the stream water, a shifted bacterial population, and new antibiotic resistance genes.
- • The case for: Even low concentrations of antibiotics apply selective pressure, favoring resistant strains and spreading resistance genes through the environment and into the food chain.
- • The case against: Antibiotics do degrade in the environment through biodegradation, hydrolysis and photolysis, at rates that depend on pH, temperature and sunlight.
PLTW connection and today's work
Bring your preparation assignment and use it. John Carroll runs the first 40 minutes, and sides are assigned in the room, so you argue whichever one you are handed. For the second half of the block, continue Activity 1.2.1 Antibiotic Therapy in myPLTW, picking up where last class stopped.
Today's stopping point: The debate is the first 40 minutes. You are finished with it when you have written where you stand now and what moved you. The rest of the block is Activity 1.2.1 Antibiotic Therapy.
PLTW activity titles identify the course connection. If your account will not open, use the posted materials for today and tell Mr. Mendoza. Do not mark an online activity complete unless you completed it.
Course connection
- John Carroll facilitates the first 40 minutes. Bring your preparation assignment; it is your evidence. The rest of the block is PLTW work for this unit.
Use the turn-in directions at the top of this page. Do not create a second submission unless your teacher asks for one.
Show another explanation or a smaller first step
Need help? Choose a starting point
Lesson resources: reading, slides, 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 wider clear zone means this organism is inhibited at a lower concentration of that same drug, but zone width cannot rank one drug against another, because each diffuses through agar at its own rate and each has its own breakpoint.
Should we ban use in livestock?
A review board sorts scientific evidence, stakeholder needs, possible benefits, possible burdens, and uncertainty before choosing a policy.
- Which statements are scientific evidence?
- Which statements express a value or priority?
- Who receives the benefit and who carries the burden?
Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
A review-board model organizes reasoning but does not make one ethical principle automatically outweigh every other principle.
- • Evidence cards map to source-backed findings.
- • Stakeholder cards map to affected people and priorities.
- • The recommendation maps to an explicit tradeoff with a named uncertainty.
Driving question: You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for the ban, or against the ban?
What you already know: A wider clear zone means this organism is inhibited at a lower concentration of that same drug, but zone width cannot rank one drug against another, because each diffuses through agar at its own rate and each has its own breakpoint.
New idea: Should we ban use in livestock?
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled testing, treatment, or biological process and identify where evidence limits the decision.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in today's lesson.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for the ban, or against the ban?
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.
A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
Limit: Scientific evidence can inform the options and likely consequences, but it cannot choose a single value-neutral answer.
Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
Limit: A review-board model organizes reasoning but does not make one ethical principle automatically outweigh every other principle.
You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
Limit: E3 defines the classroom product or success criterion. It is not independent scientific evidence and cannot justify a clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-GEND-2026-10-01 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: medical interventions team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
- • Assume antibiotics in animals are obviously wrong because antibiotics are medicine for people, then stop looking.
- • You cannot settle it yet: you need to know how much of the survives in the environment and for how long.
- • Argue from where resistance genes actually go, since the ban question is about whether environmental release reaches human pathogens.
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: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about today's lesson. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
Context: A position you cannot argue against is a position you do not yet hold, you have only inherited it. The test of your view is whether you can state the other side's best case in a form its holders would accept.
- • T1: Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- • T2: Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- • T3: Open with the icebreaker: Do you have a favorite number? What is it, and why?
- • T4: Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- • T5: Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- • T6: Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- • E1: A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
- • E2: Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
- • E3: You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
Measurements: No patient measurement is supplied unless it appears explicitly in E1-E3 or F1. Do not invent a value.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban use in livestock?. Trace the labeled testing, treatment, or biological process and identify where evidence limits the decision. This is a teaching model, not patient or experimental data.
Uncertainty: This is a composite classroom scenario. Missing history, measurements, or confirmation tests remain unknown and limit the conclusion.
Parallel case, not today's prompt: A county is considering a seasonal ban on phosphorus lawn fertilizer near a lake where repeated algal blooms have lowered oxygen and killed fish.
Claim: The county should restrict phosphorus fertilizer during the high-runoff season while allowing documented exceptions for newly planted lawns.
Evidence: Runoff carries soluble phosphorus into the lake, algae use that nutrient to grow rapidly, and decomposition of the bloom consumes dissolved oxygen needed by fish. Water samples after heavy rain show the highest phosphorus levels near dense residential lawns.
Reasoning: The restriction targets the mechanism that links the human practice to the environmental harm. A narrow exception preserves legitimate use while preventing routine application when runoff risk is highest.
Strongest opposing point and response: Homeowners may argue that the rule limits normal property care. Phosphorus-free products remain available, and the exception allows use when a soil or planting need is documented, so the rule reduces harm without banning all lawn care.
My position after the debate: I support the claim only with the limits named above. A strong ethics argument states the value being protected, uses evidence rather than preference, answers the best counterargument, and names the condition that could change the decision.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A complete debate worksheet that names the assigned side, gives three evidence-based arguments, answers the strongest opposing point, and ends with the student's own position.
- 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 one debate worksheet PDF in Schoology before the end of the block.
- 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.
Practice: try a question, then check your answer▸
Claim ceiling for this check: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about today's lesson. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Practice an exam-style question on the worked-example page, which includes the answer and rationale.
Missed class or ready for more?▸
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.
If you are away, write a full CER on the case question, argue both sides fairly, then state and defend your own position. Submit it the way you would the opt-out report.
Hand in the worksheet at the end of the session.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
JCU Philosophy4Kidz- 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.
- SubmittedGo to Schoology to turn this in. Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf. If you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
This week
My Progress dashboard