Device innovation ethics debate
Do now
Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
- Hand in
- One sentence recording the strongest opposing argument heard during the device innovation ethics debate.
- 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.
Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
- • Defend a clear position with two evidence points.
- • Use design and testing vocabulary correctly during the debate.
- What do you already know about Device innovation ethics debate?
- What would you need to find out to answer today's question?
- 1Read a case about a promising device awaiting further testing.
- 2Choose a stance on rapid deployment versus extended testing.
- 3Gather two arguments using and access examples.
- 4Debate using terms like prototype, iteration, and disease prevention.
- 5Record the strongest opposing argument you heard.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: Speed to market and depth of testing exist in direct tension: more testing protects patients but delays access for those who are suffering now.
- 0-8 minRead the device case; annotate one patient who benefits from rapid deployment and one harmed by insufficient testing.
- 8-18 minDefine prototype, iteration, disease prevention, testing threshold.
- 18-35 minBuild two-point argument for your assigned stance.
- 35-60 minStructured debate; teacher tracks vocabulary use.
- 60-72 minRecord the strongest opposing argument.
- 72-80 minWhole-class debrief; preview Wednesday device lab.
- • Wednesday you will build and test a device model: today you argue about how long that testing should last before a device reaches a real patient.
- • Rapid deployment and extended testing are not just business decisions; they are ethical commitments.
- • WebXam 072110 Biotechnology strand includes the engineering design cycle, which is built on iterative testing.
- • The argument you hear from the opposing side is the exact argument the FDA makes before approving a device.
- • A prototype is an early model built to test a specific function, not a finished product.
- • Iteration means redesigning based on test data, not intuition: each cycle should be driven by evidence.
- • Disease prevention goals shape device design criteria: you cannot test what you did not specify.
Innovation, Inc.: designing and testing a biomedical device · Device innovation ethics 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 myPLTW and locate the Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future device innovation or engineering design ethics activity. Complete the opening prompt before the debate.
Submit the opening prompt before the debate begins.
You finished Unit 3 last week. Today starts Unit 4 Innovation with Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future. The platform prompt should be submitted within the first 18 minutes.
Platform submission plus handwritten opposing-argument note.
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.
Innovation, Inc.: designing and testing a biomedical device · Device innovation ethics debate
Open myPLTW and locate the Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future device innovation or engineering design ethics activity. Complete the opening prompt before the debate.
You finished Unit 3 last week. Today starts Unit 4 Innovation with Lesson 4.1 Designing the Future. The platform prompt should be submitted within the first 18 minutes.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
- Read a case about a promising device awaiting further testing.
- Choose a stance on rapid deployment versus extended testing.
- Gather two arguments using and access examples.
- Debate using terms like prototype, iteration, and disease prevention.
- Record the strongest opposing argument you heard.
Exit ticket: One sentence recording the strongest opposing argument heard during the device innovation ethics debate.
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 |
|---|---|
| Read a case about a promising device awaiting further testing. | _______ |
| Choose a stance on rapid deployment versus extended testing. | _______ |
| Gather two arguments using and access examples. | _______ |
| Debate using terms like prototype, iteration, and disease prevention. | _______ |
| Record the strongest opposing argument you heard. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- Defend a clear position with two evidence points.
- Use design and testing vocabulary correctly during the debate.
- 1Do thisStudents debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisExit ticket: One sentence recording the strongest opposing argument heard during the device innovation ethics debate.
- 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. Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science) › Innovation, Inc.: designing and testing a biomedical device › Exit ticketOpen 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 design is defensible only when each feature traces to user evidence, so a CER forces justification because it makes you link every choice to a real need and a usability principle.
Speed to market and depth of testing exist in direct tension: more testing protects patients but delays access for those who are suffering now.
A pilot uses a preflight checklist before the aircraft moves.
- Which checks happen before action?
- Which hazard does each check control?
- What happens if a familiar step is skipped?
A routine works when each action controls a named hazard before exposure begins.
A laboratory hazard can change during a procedure, so students must keep monitoring conditions after the checklist.
- • Preflight checks map to PPE and setup.
- • Aircraft hazards map to chemical, biological, heat, or sharps hazards.
- • Go or no-go maps to the pre-lab readiness decision.
Driving question: Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
What you already know: A design is defensible only when each feature traces to user evidence, so a CER forces justification because it makes you link every choice to a real need and a usability principle.
New idea: Speed to market and depth of testing exist in direct tension: more testing protects patients but delays access for those who are suffering now.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Device innovation ethics debate. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled observation or evidence sequence before choosing an explanation.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in Device innovation ethics debate.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: A routine works when each action controls a named hazard before exposure begins.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
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 prototype is an early model built to test a specific function, not a finished product.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
Speed to market and depth of testing exist in direct tension: more testing protects patients but delays access for those who are suffering now.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
Defend a clear position with two evidence points.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT-2026-12-08 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical investigator
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Device innovation ethics debate supports before submitting the exit response named on the lesson page.
- • Choose the strongest supported explanation.
- • Choose the next evidence to collect.
- • Hold the decision because the evidence is insufficient.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the exit response.
Claim ceiling: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Device innovation ethics debate. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from Device innovation ethics debate supports before submitting the exit response named on the lesson page.
Context: Students debate how much testing a new biomedical device should require before reaching patients.
- • T1: Read a case about a promising device awaiting further testing.
- • T2: Choose a stance on rapid deployment versus extended testing.
- • T3: Gather two arguments using and access examples.
- • T4: Debate using terms like prototype, iteration, and disease prevention.
- • T5: Record the strongest opposing argument you heard.
- • E1: A prototype is an early model built to test a specific function, not a finished product.
- • E2: Speed to market and depth of testing exist in direct tension: more testing protects patients but delays access for those who are suffering now.
- • E3: Defend a clear position with two evidence points.
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 Device innovation ethics debate. Trace the labeled observation or evidence sequence before choosing an explanation. 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.
- • The solution must address the stated need in Device innovation ethics 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
I argued for extended testing before release. The strongest opposing argument I heard was that for a patient who is dying now, a long testing timeline can be a death sentence, so rapid access to a promising device may be the more ethical choice even with some added risk.
(Tip: state the opposing point fairly in one sentence using design vocabulary like prototype, iteration, or disease prevention. Stating the strongest version of the other side is what earns full marks.)
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: Completes the device innovation ethics debate exit task: one sentence naming the strongest opposing testing argument the student encountered.
- Name the prompt or task.
- Answer it directly with the key evidence.
- Check that the response matches the requested format.
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: Hand in your exit-ticket card, or turn it in on the class site under today's exit-ticket.
- 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.
Hand-picked readings and interactives for this lesson, from authoritative open organizations and PLTW's own public course outline.
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 Device innovation ethics 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.
Structured debate: Should a life-saving device be released after minimal testing or held for extended trials? Assign rapid-deployment and extended-testing teams.
OSHA: Hazard Prevention and ControlThen submit your Exit ticket. 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:
PhET: simulations for engineering and physical testingYou've passed Unit 2, so the optional extra-credit track is open. Complete reserved-unit work from home, including virtual labs, for extra credit. Each item shows its correct submission route.
Open the extra-credit track- 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.