This class runs in two periods and they do not do the same lesson on the same day. You are reading the Period 6A-7B calendar, the one with John Carroll bioethics on Mondays.
Bioethics of evidence
Do now
Debate whether forensic and biomedical evidence should ever be trusted blindly, and defend a claim with reasons.
- Hand in
- Written CER (3-5 sentences) arguing one side of the trust-the-evidence debate with a claim, one piece of evidence, and one reasoning sentence.
- Where
- Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
If the form offers you a saved draft, choose New draft. If the Assignment box comes up empty, type it exactly: Bioethics of evidence
A lab result once put an innocent person in prison, then turned out to be wrong. Whose fault is that: the machine, the analyst, or the system that trusted it without asking?
Debate whether and biomedical evidence should ever be trusted blindly, and defend a claim with reasons.
- • I can state a claim and back it with a reason.
- • I can explain why a method affects whether evidence is trustworthy.
- Can a lab test give a wrong answer? Give one way it could.
- If it does, who do you think is responsible?
- 1Read the Philosophy-for-Kids prompt: Can a lab result be wrong, and who is responsible when it is?
- 2List two reasons a measurement could mislead an investigator or doctor.
- 3Pick a side: evidence is objective truth vs. evidence is only as good as its method.
- 4Argue your position aloud in your small group using one reason and one example.
- 5Post a short written CER: claim, one piece of evidence, one sentence of reasoning.
What did this day actually feel like?
WebXam pretest and goal setting
We took the WebXam pretest today, which is the state exam we sit in the spring, given to us cold in week one. I did not do well and neither did anyone else, which was the point. He said the pretest is not a grade, it is a baseline, and in December we compare.
Then we set a goal and wrote down how we would get there. Mine is fifteen minutes of review a night using the question side of my Cornell notes. He said the students who do badly on the WebXam are almost never the ones who cannot understand it, they are the ones who met the content once in September and never went back.
Turned in: WebXam practice → recorded in Class Records
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
The same day, drawn.
First real Monday. John Carroll was not here yet, so it was just us and him. Forensic labs have sent innocent people to prison on evidence everyone trusted.
CLASSMATE
A person loads the sample. A person labels it. The machine only answers the question a human asked.
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
🔑 Today's words · 5
Tap a word in the lesson for a plain meaning and one example. Recycled into next week's Do-Now.
What counts as evidence, and where to find it
What makes evidence strong, and where do you find evidence you can trust?
Evidence is the data and observations you use to back up a claim. In science that means measurements, experimental results, images, and records, not “my friend said” or “I saw it once.”
Strong evidence is relevant (it actually bears on the claim), sufficient (there is enough of it), and reliable (it was collected carefully and others could repeat it). One data point is rarely enough; a pattern across many is far stronger.
Where you find it matters. Prefer primary sources and reputable ones: peer-reviewed studies, government and health agencies (CDC, NIH, NHGRI), and your own lab data. When you find a source online, do not trust it on looks. Check who is behind it and what better sources say.
- • Relevant: it directly supports (or tests) the claim.
- • Sufficient: there is enough of it, not a single lucky data point.
- • Reliable: collected carefully, and others could reproduce it.
- • Sourced: you can say where it came from and why that source is trustworthy.
- • Stop. Investigate the source: who made this and why?
- • Find better coverage: what do other reputable sources say?
- • Trace claims and quotes back to the original.
Find two pieces of evidence for a claim in this unit, one from your lab/class data and one from a reputable source. Note why each source can be trusted.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: Scientific evidence is only as reliable as the method and person behind it.
- 0:00Hook: show a headline where lab evidence was later overturned; brief discussion
- 0:08Introduce CER framework (claim, evidence, reasoning) with a class example
- 0:18Read the Philosophy-for-Kids prompt silently, annotate, list two reasons evidence could mislead
- 0:28Small-group debate: pick a side and argue with one reason and one example
- 0:50Individual writing: draft CER on the trust-the-evidence question
- 1:10Share out two or three CERs; teacher models strong vs. weak reasoning; wrap-up
- • Welcome to Principles of Biomedical Science. This course asks one big question all year: how do we know what we know about the body, disease, and death?
- • Today we start with philosophy, because before we touch a single piece of equipment, we need to ask: can evidence lie? Can a lab result be wrong?
- • Think about a courtroom. Someone goes to prison because DNA evidence said so. But what if the sample was contaminated? What if the analyst made a mistake?
- • Your job today is to pick a side and defend it. By the end of class you will have written your first CER, which is the writing structure we will use all year.
- • A claim must be supported by evidence and reasoning to be credible.
- • Measurement error, bias, and human judgment all affect whether evidence can be trusted.
- • CER (Claim-Evidence-Reasoning) is the framework scientists use to defend conclusions.
Unit Course Launch: PLTW access, lab notebook, PPE/SDS, evidence handling, variables, controls, graphing, descriptive statistics. · Bioethics of evidence
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: Log in to myPLTW and open the Principles of Biomedical Science course. Navigate to the course launch unit and read the introductory overview so you know what to expect from Unit 1.
Mark the course-launch overview task complete in your myPLTW progress tracker.
This is Day 1 of the course. You have no prior lessons to finish. By the end of today you should have logged in, read the overview, and written your first CER.
Screenshot of your myPLTW progress showing the launch overview task marked complete, plus your posted CER from today.
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. Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
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.
Unit Course Launch: PLTW access, lab notebook, PPE/SDS, evidence handling, variables, controls, graphing, descriptive statistics. · Bioethics of evidence
Log in to myPLTW and open the Principles of Biomedical Science course. Navigate to the course launch unit and read the introductory overview so you know what to expect from Unit 1.
This is Day 1 of the course. You have no prior lessons to finish. By the end of today you should have logged in, read the overview, and written your first CER.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Debate whether and biomedical evidence should ever be trusted blindly, and defend a claim with reasons.
- Read the Philosophy-for-Kids prompt: Can a lab result be wrong, and who is responsible when it is?
- List two reasons a measurement could mislead an investigator or doctor.
- Pick a side: evidence is objective truth vs. evidence is only as good as its method.
- Argue your position aloud in your small group using one reason and one example.
- Post a short written CER: claim, one piece of evidence, one sentence of reasoning.
CER: Written CER (3-5 sentences) arguing one side of the trust-the-evidence debate with a claim, one piece of evidence, and one reasoning sentence.
Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted. 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 the Philosophy-for-Kids prompt: Can a lab result be wrong, and who is responsible when it is? | _______ |
| List two reasons a measurement could mislead an investigator or doctor. | _______ |
| Pick a side: evidence is objective truth vs. evidence is only as good as its method. | _______ |
| Argue your position aloud in your small group using one reason and one example. | _______ |
| Post a short written CER: claim, one piece of evidence, one sentence of reasoning. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- I can state a claim and back it with a reason.
- I can explain why a method affects whether evidence is trustworthy.
- 1Do thisDebate whether forensic and biomedical evidence should ever be trusted blindly, and defend a claim with reasons.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: Written CER (3-5 sentences) arguing one side of the trust-the-evidence debate with a claim, one piece of evidence, and one reasoning sentence.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the form. It must say For students at the top: if it says For parents and guardians, press Back and pick I am the student.
- 2If it offers you a saved draft, choose New draft: an old draft brings back the old assignment.
- 3Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 4Check the Assignment box says today's assignment from this page, then pick your period and type your student ID, all nine digits.
- 5Attach your file and press Submit. The thank-you page is your receipt.
Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted. Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science) › Unit Course Launch: PLTW access, lab notebook, PPE/SDS, evidence handling, variables, controls, graphing, descriptive statistics. › CERTurn it in
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.
We earn lab privileges by proving we are safe, and we get credit by submitting clear evidence of our work.
Scientific evidence is only as reliable as the method and person behind it.
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: A lab result once put an innocent person in prison, then turned out to be wrong. Whose fault is that: the machine, the analyst, or the system that trusted it without asking?
What you already know: We earn lab privileges by proving we are safe, and we get credit by submitting clear evidence of our work.
New idea: Scientific evidence is only as reliable as the method and person behind it.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Bioethics of evidence. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Use the labels and arrows in F1 to identify the relationship that supports Bioethics of evidence.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in bioethics of evidence.
- 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: A lab result once put an innocent person in prison, then turned out to be wrong. Whose fault is that: the machine, the analyst, or the system that trusted it without asking?
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.
- • : Practices and precautions that protect people from harm, such as wearing protective equipment and handling hazards correctly in a lab or clinic.
- • PPE: Personal protective equipment, the gear like gloves, goggles, lab coats, and masks worn to shield the body from chemical, biological, or physical hazards.
- • SDS: A data sheet: a standardized document listing a chemical's hazards, safe handling steps, and emergency measures for anyone using it.
- • variable: Any factor in an experiment that can change or be changed, including what you test, what you measure, and what you hold steady.
- • control: The comparison condition that isolates the effect of the variable being tested by keeping everything else the same.
- • evidence: The facts, data, and cases that carry your claim. Opinions are free; evidence costs homework.
- • : The documented record of who handled a piece of evidence, when, and where, proving it was never lost, swapped, or tampered with.
- • : Numbers and graphs, such as the mean, median, and range, that summarize and describe a set of data without drawing wider conclusions.
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 state a claim and back it with a reason.
Limit: E3 defines the classroom product or success criterion. It is not independent scientific evidence and cannot justify a clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT@P67-2026-08-31 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from bioethics of evidence supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning 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 claim-evidence-reasoning response.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about bioethics of evidence. 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 bioethics of evidence supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: Evidence is only as reliable as the method and the person behind it, so a credible claim always shows its reasoning, not just its result.
- • T1: Read the Philosophy-for-Kids prompt: Can a lab result be wrong, and who is responsible when it is?
- • T2: List two reasons a measurement could mislead an investigator or doctor.
- • T3: Pick a side: evidence is objective truth vs. evidence is only as good as its method.
- • T4: Argue your position aloud in your small group using one reason and one example.
- • T5: Post a short written CER: claim, one piece of evidence, one sentence of reasoning.
- • 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 state a claim and back it with a reason.
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 Bioethics of evidence. Use the labels and arrows to identify the decision-relevant relationship. 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 if it came from a machine or a lab, it must be objective and correct. The trap: measurement error, bias, and human judgment all shape a result, so it came from the lab is not the same as it is right
Parallel case for modeling only: Should a doctor rely on the heart-rate reading from a patient's fitness watch to decide on treatment?\n\nClaim: A fitness watch reading should not be used to make a medical decision on its own, because a consumer device is only as reliable as the conditions it was measured under.\nEvidence: Wrist-worn optical heart-rate sensors are known to lose accuracy during vigorous exercise, on darker skin tones, and when the band is loose, sometimes reporting a rate that is off by twenty beats per minute or more compared with a clinical electrocardiogram.\nReasoning: A number on a bright screen feels precise, but the watch estimates heart rate indirectly by shining light through the skin, and that estimate depends on fit, motion, and skin. A clinician who treats the reading as a verified fact skips the question of how it was produced. The device is a starting point, not a diagnosis, so a responsible decision confirms the reading with a validated clinical measurement before acting on it. That is why medical devices are cleared through testing that consumer wearables are not, and why the person reading the number, not just the number, carries responsibility for how it is used.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A short written claim-evidence-reasoning paragraph on a parallel bioethics-of-evidence case (a consumer fitness tracker's heart-rate reading), modeling the exact CER format and depth students will use for today's own debate without answering today's prompt.
- 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 to the discussion board or hand in the written copy before you leave.
- 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 Bioethics of evidence. 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.
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: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about bioethics of evidence. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
A DNA test says a suspect matches. Name one reason the result could still be wrong, and who would be responsible for catching it.
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.
Go further and get help▸
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.
Watch the recorded prompt, then post your written CER (claim-evidence-reasoning) to the discussion board taking one side of the trust-the-evidence debate.
John Carroll Philosophy for ChildrenThen submit your CER. Submit this on the class form named on this page. The form requires the student's district Microsoft sign-in. The thank-you page is the submission receipt. A physical handoff counts only when the day page names that route. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not count as submitted.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
OSHA Hazard Communication Standard (SDS format)- 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 through the one route named under Submit here and confirmed by the form receipt or the named physical handoff. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.