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.
JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
Do now
Argue an assigned side of this question: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
- Hand in
- Your worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you had to answer, and where you actually stand now.
- 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: JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for the ban, or against the ban?
Argue an assigned side of this question: Should we ban use in livestock?
- • You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
- • You can state the strongest argument against your own side and answer it.
- • You can separate what the evidence shows from what you believe about it.
- In one sentence, what is the single strongest point for the ban?
- In one sentence, what is the single strongest point against the ban? Write it as if you believed it.
- 1Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- 2Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- 3Open with the icebreaker: Do you have a favorite number? What is it, and why?
- 4Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- 5Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- 6Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- 7Close by writing where you actually stand now, and what moved you.
What did this day actually feel like?
Ethics of conclusions
ETHICS MONDAY How much evidence is enough to name a cause of death? This one had teeth because we are about to do exactly that.
The risk on one side is concluding too early and being wrong in a way that ruins someone's life. The risk on the other side is never concluding at all, which sounds cautious and is actually its own failure, because a family gets no answer and a danger goes unaddressed. I wanted a rule and the discussion would not give me one. What I got instead was the idea of convergent evidence: no single test carries a conclusion, but several independent lines pointing the same direction can.
Turned in: CER → Claim Evidence Reasoning folder
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
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: Should we ban use in livestock?
- 0-5 minScenario read together; sides assigned
- 5-22 minFacilitated debate, John Carroll leading
- 22-33 minRebuttals: answer the other side's strongest point, not its weakest
- 33-40 minWrite where you now stand and what moved you
- 40-80 minPLTW work for this unit, picking up where the last class left off
- • John Carroll has the first half of the block, about 40 minutes. The second half is PLTW work for this unit.
- • You do not know your side yet. That is deliberate, and it is why the prep asked you to build both.
- • A debate is not a fight to win. It is a way of finding out which argument actually survives contact with the other one.
- • Exit goal: you can state the best case against your own position, and say what you would need to change your mind.
- • An isolated mountain valley has clear streams and no industry. A bacterial outbreak hits the local livestock, so the community treats the herds with a large course of antibiotics. Weeks later, researchers find traces in the stream water, a shifted bacterial population, and new antibiotic resistance genes.
- • The case for: Even low concentrations of antibiotics apply selective pressure, favoring resistant strains and spreading resistance genes through the environment and into the food chain.
- • The case against: Antibiotics do degrade in the environment through biodegradation, hydrolysis and photolysis, at rates that depend on pH, temperature and sunlight.
JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
John Carroll facilitates the first 40 minutes. Bring your preparation assignment; it is your evidence. The rest of the block is PLTW work for this unit.
Do this: Bring your preparation assignment and use it. John Carroll runs the first 40 minutes, and sides are assigned in the room, so you argue whichever one you are handed. For the second half of the block, continue Activity 1.2.4 in myPLTW, picking up where last class stopped.
One case, argued all the way through: your three strongest arguments, a direct answer to the other side's best point, and where you stand at the close.
The debate is the first 40 minutes. You are finished with it when you have written where you stand now and what moved you. The rest of the block is Activity 1.2.4 .
Your preparation assignment is the evidence. Turn it in the way this page names below.
Nothing is assigned in myPLTW today, so there is nothing there to make up. If you miss the block, use the away plan on this page: write a full CER on the case question, argue both sides fairly, then say where you stand. 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.
JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
Bring your preparation assignment and use it. John Carroll runs the first 40 minutes, and sides are assigned in the room, so you argue whichever one you are handed. For the second half of the block, continue Activity 1.2.4 in myPLTW, picking up where last class stopped.
The debate is the first 40 minutes. You are finished with it when you have written where you stand now and what moved you. The rest of the block is Activity 1.2.4 .
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees who came ready. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Argue an assigned side of this question: Should we ban use in livestock?
- Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- Open with the icebreaker: Do you have a favorite number? What is it, and why?
- Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- Close by writing where you actually stand now, and what moved you.
CER: Your worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you had to answer, and where you actually stand now.
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.
Your preparation assignment, which went out the Friday before. Bring it with you.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it. | _______ |
| Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with. | _______ |
| Open with the icebreaker: Do you have a favorite number? What is it, and why? | _______ |
| Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads. | _______ |
| Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check. | _______ |
| Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- You can argue a position you were assigned rather than one you chose.
- You can state the strongest argument against your own side and answer it.
- You can separate what the evidence shows from what you believe about it.
- 1Do thisArgue an assigned side of this question: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?
- 2Use this resourceYour preparation assignment, which went out the Friday before. Bring it with you.
- 3Submit thisCER: Your worksheet: the side you argued, your three strongest arguments, the opposing point you had to answer, and where you actually stand now.
- 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) › JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock? › 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.
A pathologist diagnoses disease by comparing to a normal reference because appearance varies between people, so disease is recognized as deviation from normal rather than from any single slide.
Should we ban use in livestock?
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: You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for the ban, or against the ban?
What you already know: A pathologist diagnoses disease by comparing to a normal reference because appearance varies between people, so disease is recognized as deviation from normal rather than from any single slide.
New idea: Should we ban use in livestock?
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?. 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 JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban antibiotic use in livestock?.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in today's lesson.
- 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: You will be handed a side today, not asked for one. Which can you make stronger by the end of the block: for the ban, or against the ban?
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 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 you were assigned rather than one you chose.
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@P67-2026-09-28 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical team member
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
- • Select the option best supported by E1-E3.
- • Select a reasonable alternative and name the evidence it would require.
- • Delay the claim because the evidence does not distinguish the options.
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 today's lesson. 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 today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: A position you cannot argue against is a position you do not yet hold, you have only inherited it. The test of your view is whether you can state the other side's best case in a form its holders would accept.
- • T1: Bring your preparation assignment. It is your evidence, and you cannot build a case in the room without it.
- • T2: Sides are assigned now, not before. You may be arguing the side you disagree with.
- • T3: Open with the icebreaker: Do you have a favorite number? What is it, and why?
- • T4: Read the scenario together, then take five minutes with your side to pick your three strongest arguments and decide who leads.
- • T5: Argue. Every claim needs a reason, and a reason someone else could check.
- • T6: Answer the other side's strongest point directly. Restating your own point is not a rebuttal.
- • 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 you were assigned rather than one you chose.
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 JCU bioethics 2: Should we ban use in livestock?. 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.
- 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.
Check yourself · commit, then reveal▸
Claim ceiling for this check: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about today's lesson. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
Self-quiz today's objective before the next class: state the target in your own words and give one supporting example.
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.
If you are away, write a full CER on the case question, argue both sides fairly, then state and defend your own position. Submit it the way you would the opt-out report.
Then 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:
JCU Philosophy4Kidz- 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.