Access-to-results debate
Open your materials, follow the steps, then turn in your work.
Argue a CER position on whether patients should receive raw genetic testing results directly.
1. Open your materials
Use the materials named in the first step below. Open lesson resources.
2. Start the work
Read the access-to-results case brief in the course shell.
Show all 5 required steps
- Read the access-to-results case brief in the course shell.
- Write two prepared questions about giving patients raw results without a clinician.
- Draft a CER with a claim, two pieces of evidence, and your reasoning.
- In the debate, note one counterargument and whether it changes your position.
- Post your CER and reflection in the course shell.
Lost your place? If you got pulled away, find your place by checking which of the five steps you finished: read the case brief, wrote two questions, drafted your CER, noted a counterargument in the debate, or posted to the course shell. Pick up at the first one you have not done.
Check your work before submitting
- You'll be able to argue a position on direct access to genetic results.
- You'll be able to address a counterargument with evidence.
3. Turn in your work
DueCheck Schoology- Hand in
- One CER on direct patient access to raw genetic results plus a reflection naming one counterargument.
How to submit and name your file
Use the submission route shown on today's page.
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 carrier holds one non-working allele but usually never gets sick, so an honest counseling memo must report reproductive odds without letting 'positive' be misread as a diagnosis. Today: Genetic results can be uncertain and easy to misread, so who controls access to them is an ethical decision that can protect or harm a patient.
Optional: listen or watch a unit review▸
Need help? Warm-up, timing, and directions▸
💡 Big idea: Genetic results can be uncertain and easy to misread, so who controls access to them is an ethical decision that can protect or harm a patient.
- 0-5Hook screenshot; frame the debate question
- 5-20Silent read of access-to-results case brief; draft two questions
- 20-35CER draft: claim, two evidences, reasoning
- 35-65Structured debate: direct access yes vs. clinician-mediated only
- 65-75Written reflection: state one counterargument and whether it shifted your position
- 75-80Post CER and reflection to course shell; preview Tuesday PCR work
- • Hook: Show a real direct-to-consumer genetic result screenshot and ask: what would you do if this arrived in your email tonight?
- • Why it matters: Companies like 23andMe now provide raw data downloads; clinicians did not choose this, but patients expect a response.
- • Today's structure: case brief, CER prep, structured debate, reflection.
- • Exit goal: CER and reflection posted to the course shell before the bell.
- • Raw genetic results may include variants of uncertain significance that are easy to misread without training.
- • Proponents of direct access argue that patients own their biological data and have a right to it immediately.
- • The 2013 FDA order restricting 23andMe health reports shows how regulators weigh access against potential harm.
PLTW connection and today's work
Open the access-to-results debate activity in myPLTW for Activity 2.1.2 Copying Our Genes (PCR) in Lesson 2.1 Genetic Testing and Screening and review the CER rubric.
Today's stopping point: MP1 tracker should be complete; this opens the testing-methods unit.
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.
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 holds one non-working but usually never gets sick, so an honest counseling memo must report reproductive odds without letting 'positive' be misread as a diagnosis.
Genetic results can be uncertain and easy to misread, so who controls access to them is an ethical decision that can protect or harm a patient.
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: If a genetic test comes back with a , should the patient see that raw result directly, or only after a clinician explains it?
What you already know: A holds one non-working but usually never gets sick, so an honest counseling memo must report reproductive odds without letting 'positive' be misread as a diagnosis.
New idea: Genetic results can be uncertain and easy to misread, so who controls access to them is an ethical decision that can protect or harm a patient.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Access-to-results debate. 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 access-to-results debate.
- 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: If a genetic test comes back with a , should the patient see that raw result directly, or only after a clinician explains it?
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.
- • : A short single strand of DNA that binds to a target sequence and gives DNA polymerase a starting point to build a new strand, as in PCR.
- • : A bacterial that cuts DNA at a specific sequence, leaving clean or sticky ends used to splice genes together.
- • : A lab method that uses an electric field to pull DNA fragments through a gel so they separate by size and show up as bands.
- • : A chip holding thousands of tiny DNA spots that lets scientists measure the activity of many genes at once by detecting which spots light up.
- • : The pairing of two single DNA or RNA strands with matching base sequences into a double strand, used in tests to detect a specific gene.
- • marker: A measurable feature, molecule, or gene used to identify a cell, organism, or condition, like a flag that signals something specific.
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 on direct access to genetic results.
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-2026-10-21 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: medical interventions team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from access-to-results debate supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
- • Argue that access rules must handle uncertain variants, because a result the experts cannot interpret is easy to misread.
- • Hand every patient the raw result, since a genetic test gives a clear yes or no like a pregnancy test.
- • Look up what patients actually did after getting an uncertain result alone, since neither side has that outcome evidence.
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 access-to-results debate. 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 access-to-results debate supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
Context: Genetic information is powerful and easy to misread, so who controls access to it is a medical and ethical decision, not just a technical one.
- • T1: Read the access-to-results case brief in the course shell.
- • T2: Write two prepared questions about giving patients raw results without a clinician.
- • T3: Draft a CER with a claim, two pieces of evidence, and your reasoning.
- • T4: In the debate, note one counterargument and whether it changes your position.
- • T5: Post your CER and reflection in the course shell.
- • 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 on direct access to genetic results.
Measurements: Use only the measurements, units, graph, or counts supplied in today's task. No additional patient measurement is implied.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for Access-to-results debate. 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.
Mean = sum of values / number of values. Median = middle ordered value. Range = maximum - minimum.
For 2, 4, 4, and 10: mean = 20 / 4 = 5, median = 4, and range = 10 - 2 = 8.
Mean, median, and range keep the measurement unit. Order the values before finding the median.
Calculate the requested summary for today's supplied values, then write what it reveals and what it hides.
Students often think Students often think a genetic test gives a clear yes-or-no answer, like a pregnancy test, so raw results are always safe to hand straight to the patient.. The trap: Many results are variants of uncertain significance, meaning even experts do not yet know if they cause disease. Treating an uncertain variant as a diagnosis is the trap, because it can trigger fear or medical decisions the evidence does not support.
Claim: States should be allowed to store leftover newborn screening blood spots for future research, but only if parents are clearly told and can opt out.\n\nEvidence 1: Every newborn is screened for genetic disorders using a heel-stick blood spot, and the leftover cards contain a child's DNA, which can reveal far more than the original tests checked for.\n\nEvidence 2: In Texas in 2009, a lawsuit revealed that stored newborn blood spots had been used for research without parents' knowledge, and the state was ordered to destroy millions of samples, showing that hidden storage breaks public trust.\n\nReasoning: Stored blood spots are genuinely useful for studying diseases and improving future screening, so destroying them all wastes a resource that could help other children. But the DNA belongs to the child and the family, not the state, and using it in secret treats people as sources of data rather than as patients. Requiring clear notice and an opt-out respects the family's ownership of the sample while still allowing research that benefits the public.\n\nReflection: One counterargument is that an opt-out will shrink the sample pool and slow research, since many families will decline once they are asked. I took that seriously, but I kept my claim, because trust is what keeps the whole screening program running. If families fear their child's DNA is used behind their backs, they may resist screening itself, and the public-health cost of that distrust is higher than the cost of a smaller research pool.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Worked CER on a parallel case: a claim about whether the state should keep leftover newborn screening blood spots for later research, two pieces of evidence, reasoning, and a reflection naming one counterargument. Models the CER format and depth for the access-to-results debate without answering today's own prompt about raw genetic results.
- 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: Post your CER and reflection to Schoology.
- 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.
Tap the speaker to hear a term. Add two of these to your notebook glossary with a definition and an example in your own words.
Pick just 2 or 3 words from today and make them yours: write what each one means in your own words, name the context clue or evidence that helped, then give one example from what you actually did in Access-to-results debate. Try your own words first; the glossary is there if you get stuck. This is voluntary and counts as extra credit, so keep it short.
Saved on this device. Show Mr. Mendoza or add these to your notebook glossary to claim the extra credit.
Classroom documents for this lesson are posted in Schoology. Open Clever, then Schoology, and find each one by the name shown on its card.
Open this when the class reaches this activity and use it to complete the required lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched PCR, , microarrays by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-2_How-to-Screen-Your-Genes/2.1_Genetic-Testing-and-Screening; keywords:pcr, gel electrophoresis. Score 142. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this if you were absent, got stuck, or need another pass before you submit the lesson artifact.
Placement rationale
Matched PCR, , microarrays by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-2_How-to-Screen-Your-Genes/00_Unit-Overview; keywords:pcr, gel electrophoresis. Score 138. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Use this after the required lesson work when you are ready for a harder application or a deeper connection.
Placement rationale
Matched PCR, , microarrays by path:Medical-Interventions/Unit-2_How-to-Screen-Your-Genes/2.1_Genetic-Testing-and-Screening; keywords:gel electrophoresis. Score 134. Visibility: student-schoology (student-facing resource; link through Schoology rather than local path).
Sign in to Clever with your district Microsoft account to open Schoology or myPLTW. Follow today's posted steps. If myPLTW will not open, use the posted alternative and tell Mr. Mendoza. Turn in your completed work through the Schoology assignment.
Practice: try a question, then check your answer▸
Claim ceiling for this check: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about access-to-results debate. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
A patient's report shows a variant labeled variant of uncertain significance. Why is this result hard to hand directly to the patient without a clinician?
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Fast retrieval with instant answers, not the commit-then-reveal check above. Try each from memory first: write what you remember about the earlier units, then check yourself here.
Missed class or ready for more?▸
Run this before you touch the bench. It is built from the real lab procedure, so the decisions you make here are the ones you will make with the equipment in your hands.
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.
Use to test how conserved IRF6 is across humans, mice, and zebrafish.
Goes with: BLAST: is IRF6 conserved across species?
Search ClinVar for which IRF6 changes are known to cause disease.
Goes with: ClinVar: which IRF6 changes cause disease?
Missed the live debate? Watch the linked overview and post a written CER on direct access to results plus your two questions and a reflection in the PLTW course shell.
Use the submission route shown on today's page.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
Genetic Science Learning Center: Gel Electrophoresis- 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