Access-to-results debate
Wed, Oct 21, 2026 · Week 9 · Genetics of Disease (Medical Interventions)
Today's goal: Argue a CER position on whether patients should receive raw genetic testing results directly.
This is a model of the work you should turn in today. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Parallel case, not today's prompt: should a college require its athletes to be tested for sickle cell trait before they can play?
Claim: A college may require the test, but only if the athlete can choose a signed waiver instead and the result goes to the athlete and the team physician, not to coaches or the athletics office.
Evidence 1: Since 2010 the largest college athletics association has required its Division I athletes to show a sickle cell trait test result or sign a waiver declining it, after several exertion-related deaths in athletes who carried the trait and did not know it.
Evidence 2: Sickle cell trait is not a disease; most people who carry it never have symptoms. A positive result is genetic information about the athlete and, in part, about the athlete's relatives, and a coach who learns it could treat the player differently.
Reasoning: The benefit is real and specific: a known result changes how a trainer manages heat, hydration and rest, which is where the deaths happened. The cost is a genetic result held by an institution. The waiver keeps the choice with the athlete, and limiting who sees the result keeps the information medical rather than administrative, so the requirement protects the athlete without taking away control of the information.
Reflection: The strongest counterargument is that any waiver signed under pressure to play is not a free choice; a fair version tells athletes, in writing, that declining the test cannot affect their spot on the team.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Worked CER on a parallel case: a claim about whether a college may require its athletes to be tested for sickle cell trait before they play, 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 as one PDF to Schoology assignment Wk9 CER: Access-to-results debate.
Turn in: One CER on direct patient access to raw genetic results plus a reflection naming one counterargument.
Go to Schoology to turn this in.
Submit one PDF. Schoology attaches your name to your upload; on the page itself, write your period and code. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf.
Open Schoology PDF upload helpIf you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
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.
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Understanding why raw genetic results can be misread.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.