Ethics of genetic data
Tue, Oct 20, 2026 · Week 9 · Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science)
Today's goal: Debate whether genetic test results should be shared with relatives, and defend your view.
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 scenario (a model, not today's answer): A person tests positive for a serious sexually transmitted infection such as HIV. Should their past partners be told, even if the patient would prefer that no one is contacted?
Claim: A patient who tests positive for a serious sexually transmitted infection should be strongly encouraged to allow past partners to be notified, and public health should offer confidential partner notification, but the patient should not be publicly named without their consent.
Evidence: Infection information is partly relational, because a positive result also points to a risk that specific past partners may already be infected and not know it. Many U.S. states run confidential partner notification programs in which a health worker contacts partners without revealing the patient's name. Laws protect people who test positive from certain kinds of discrimination, but those protections do not, by themselves, require a patient to personally tell every partner.
Reasoning: Because the risk is shared, past partners could benefit medically from learning they should be tested and, if needed, treated early, which supports notification. At the same time, the result is sensitive personal health information, so privacy and autonomy support letting the patient control how their own name is used. The balanced position uses confidential partner notification, which lets partners learn their risk while shielding the patient's identity, so both the health benefit to others and the patient's privacy are respected rather than one being sacrificed for the other.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A short written argument, modeled on a parallel scenario, that takes a side on whether a patient who tests positive for a serious infectious disease should have past partners notified, with reasoning that weighs relational health information against patient privacy. It models the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning format and depth without answering today's genetic-data 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 the CER to the discussion board or hand in the written copy before leaving.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about ethics of genetic data. 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: Knowing what GINA protects and the shared nature of genetic data.
- 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.