Should ELISA testing be mandatory?

What you do today

Argue an assigned side of this question: Should ELISA testing for Novel Flu Syndrome be mandatory? Then write one CER that separates what the evidence shows from what you believe about it.

1. Bring your preparation assignment. It is the strongest evidence you will carry into the room. If you do not have it, tell Mr. Mendoza before the session starts. You still argue and you still write the CER: the scenario is read aloud at the start, this page gives the first argument on each side and what the two test errors are, and J2 accepts any public source you can name.
2. Take the side you are handed. Read the scenario with the room, then pick your three strongest arguments with your side and decide who leads.
3. Argue. Every claim needs a reason someone else could check. Answer the other side's strongest point directly; restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
4. Close the debate by writing where you actually stand now and what moved you.
5. In the ten minutes after the debate, turn your worksheet into one CER (J1 to J5) and hand it in. Then the block turns to PLTW work for your unit.

Do now.

• In one sentence, what is the single strongest point for mandatory testing?
• In one sentence, what is the single strongest point against mandatory testing? Write it as if you believed it.

Your assigned side was sent through Jupiter before the debate. Prepare both sides. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for mandatory testing, or against mandatory testing?

The 80 minute block: who leads what

1. 0 to 5 minutes, John Carroll. Launch. Read the scenario together and confirm the sides sent through Jupiter before the debate. Parts in play: J1.
2. 5 to 22 minutes, John Carroll. Facilitated debate. Argue your assigned side with the evidence you prepared. Every claim needs a reason someone else could check. Parts in play: J2.
3. 22 to 33 minutes, John Carroll. Rebuttals. Answer the other side's strongest point, not its weakest. Parts in play: J4.
4. 33 to 40 minutes, John Carroll. Close the debate. Write where you now stand and what moved you. Parts in play: J5.
5. 40 to 50 minutes, Mr. Mendoza. Write the CER. Turn your worksheet into one CER: J1 claim, J2 evidence with sources, J3 reasoning with the error that matters most and one ELISA limit, J4 the point you answered, J5 where you stand. Hand it in. Parts in play: J1, J2, J3, J4, J5.
6. 50 to 80 minutes, Mr. Mendoza. PLTW work for your unit. Pick up the unit work named for your section on this page. This is not part of the debate and not part of the CER.

Scenario, the first argument on each side, the question and the icebreaker are the only JCU text permitted on a public page. The second and third arguments on each side and the preparation background stay in class.

Know by the end

• A new infectious disease called Novel Flu Syndrome spreads with a high rate of asymptomatic carriers, but causes severe complications in some people, including long-term organ damage. A fast, cheap ELISA test detects antibodies to NFS, which tells you about past or current infection.
• The case for: Mandatory testing finds infected people, including asymptomatic carriers, so isolation, contact tracing and targeted intervention can stop the spread.
• The case against: Mandatory testing overrides the right to privacy and to bodily autonomy. The choice to be tested should belong to the person.

Icebreaker: If you were a kitchen appliance, which one would you be, and why?

Your CER: five parts, in order

One claim, evidence, reasoning response built from your debate worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you answered, and where you stand now.

1. J1. Side and claim. Write the claim your assigned side defends, in one sentence, as an answer to the question: Should ELISA testing for Novel Flu Syndrome be mandatory?

   Space: 2 writing lines.

   The claim is your side's answer, not yet your own view. Your own view goes in J5.

   • Side argued
   • Claim sentence

2. J2. Evidence. List your three strongest arguments for the claim. Next to each one, name where it comes from: the scenario, your preparation assignment, or a public source you can name.

   Space: Three numbered entries, 2 writing lines each.

   A preference is not evidence. If you cannot name where an argument comes from, it is not ready.

   • Argument 1 and source
   • Argument 2 and source
   • Argument 3 and source

3. J3. Reasoning. Explain how your evidence supports the claim. Name which test error matters more here, a false positive or a false negative, and who carries that harm. State one limit of an antibody test in your own words.

   Space: 4 writing lines.

   A false positive is a person who has not been infected and gets a positive result. A false negative is a person who has been infected and gets a negative result. Both are wrong, and they do not land on the same person.

   An antibody test reports your immune response, not the germ itself. Antibodies take days to weeks to appear, so a person infected this week can still test negative while they are spreading NFS. A positive result can also mark an infection that is already over.

   Finding who is infectious right now takes a test for the germ, not a test for antibodies. Naming that gap is a strong argument on either side, and it is worth saying out loud in the room.

   No error rate is supplied for this test, so do not invent one.

   • Reasoning
   • Error that matters more and who bears it
   • One ELISA limit

4. J4. Opposing point and answer. Write the other side's strongest point from the debate, then your direct answer to it.

   Space: 3 writing lines.

   Restating your own point is not an answer. Take on their best case, not their weakest.

   • Their strongest point
   • Your answer

5. J5. Where I stand now. Write where you actually stand now and what moved you. This may differ from the side you argued.

   Space: 3 writing lines.

   Name one condition that would flip your view. If nothing would, you are asserting, not arguing.

   • My position now
   • What moved me

One check before you argue

Optional single check before you argue, not an alternate work plan.

Before you argue your side, what is the first thing to settle?

• Ask who a false positive and a false negative actually hurt, so your case rests on a real cost.
• Decide that Novel Flu Syndrome sounds scary enough to mandate testing, then find arguments that back that call.
• Hold your verdict because you do not yet know the test's error rates, and argue your side without pretending it is settled.

Worked answer. Ask who a false positive and a false negative actually hurt, so your case rests on a real cost. Your case rests on a real cost, not a guess, when you can name what happens to a person on each side of the error.

Minutes 50 to 80: PLTW work for your unit

For the second half of the block, finish and hand in your D09 serology sheet if it is still open, then read Part 1 of Wednesday's day page, D10 Barcodes and Panels. This is not part of the debate and not part of the CER.

Last class was D09 Whose Blood, Whose DNA (September 18). Keep using it: a useful comparison keeps its source and its limits visible.

Wednesday, September 23 is D10 Barcodes and Panels (PLTW 1.1.6).

This debate is not a PLTW activity and does not count toward myPLTW completion. Do not mark any online activity complete unless you completed it.

Hand it in once

Hand your CER (J1 to J5) to Mr. Mendoza at the end of the block. If you were absent or took the report route, submit one PDF to your own section's assignment, Wk5 CER: JCU bioethics 1, should ELISA testing be mandatory? by the due date on the assignment. Put your period and code on the page. Do not submit twice.

Absent, or would rather not debate

How this is scored: five points

This scores how well you prepared and how well you can use evidence. It does not score whether your position is the right one. You are handed a side, so there is nothing to be right about.

1. Your preparation assignment is done. The background is worked, the video or reading is noted with something specific from it, and the ethical-work section has real sentences in it.
2. You built both sides, before you knew which one you would argue. Both prep sentences are there, and the one you disagree with is a real case rather than an easy target.
3. Every piece of evidence names its source. All three arguments in J2, each naming the scenario, your preparation assignment, or a public source you can name. Three of three, or nothing.
4. You answered the other side's strongest point. J4 names a point that actually came up, it is their best rather than their weakest, and your answer engages it instead of restating your own.
5. You know where you stand, and what would move you. J5 has your position and one named condition that would change it. "Nothing would change my mind" scores zero here, because that is an assertion rather than an argument.

The report route and the absent route are scored on these same five points. They are a different route, not a lesser one.

Help when you need it

The trap: thinking that a strong gut reaction is the same thing as strong evidence. A confident case built on a hunch is still built on a hunch. The moment anyone asks for the source behind your claim, you need more than your reaction.

Take home: A position you cannot argue against is a position you do not yet hold; you have only inherited it.