When the Outside World Reaches the Embryo
Developmental domain · Lesson 16 of 20 · Principles of Biomedical Science (PBS)
Today's goal: Explain how environmental exposures (folate status, smoking, valproate) change the probability that lip and palate fusion succeeds, and rank them as risk-modifiers rather than single causes.
What a finished product looks like
This is a model of the work you should turn in. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your wording should be your own.
Teratology note: If any exposure mattered for Mateo, it would have to have acted during his fusion window (weeks 4 to 12), so a week 6 to 9 exposure such as low folate, smoking, or valproate is the kind that could overlap the building palate (PMID:26589921; PMID:28550290). Even so, I would not call any single exposure the cause: these are population-level risk factors that shift the odds, not guaranteed causes, and Mateo's exposure history is limited and ambiguous. Prevention message for a future pregnancy: take periconceptional folic acid, avoid smoking, and review any medications (including valproate) with a doctor.
How this was built, step by step
The finished product above did not appear all at once. Here is the path from the question to the turned-in work, so you can follow the same steps.
- 1Start from today's question: Can the outside world change how the face forms, and if so, how strongly?
- 2Work the Model and the Explore questions to reason it out before writing anything.
- 3Pull the specific evidence the product needs from the reading and any database you used.
- 4Write it up in the required format: Write a one-paragraph teratology note for Mateo's chart. State: (1) which of the three exposures, if present, could plausibly have acted during his window, (2) why you would still NOT call any single exposure the cause, and (3) one prevention message for a future pregnancy. Flag every uncertainty honestly, the way the sources do.
- 5Check it against the rubric, then submit.
| Criterion | Proficient | Developing | Beginning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete | Every required part of the artifact is present and filled in. | Most parts are present, but one is missing or left blank. | Several parts are missing. |
| Accurate | The science and data are correct and match the evidence. | Mostly correct, with a small factual slip. | Key science or data is wrong. |
| Scientific reasoning (CER) | States a claim, backs it with specific evidence, and explains the reasoning. | Has a claim and evidence, but the reasoning is thin or missing. | Gives an answer with no evidence or reasoning. |
| Professional communication | Clear, organized, and labeled the way a clinician or scientist would write it. | Readable but disorganized or missing labels. | Hard to follow. |
| Submitted | Turned in the right way (Schoology for routine work) and confirmed. | Turned in, but in the wrong place or unconfirmed. | Not turned in. |
- CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "Write a one-paragraph teratology note for Mateo's chart. State: (1) which of the three exposures, if present, could plausibly have acted during his fusion window, (2) why you would still NOT call any single exposure the cause, and (3) one prevention message for a future pregnancy. Flag every uncertainty honestly, the way the sources do.".
- AccurateProficient: Every number and claim matches the case evidence.
- Scientific reasoning (CER)Proficient: It names a claim, cites the specific evidence, and explains the reasoning, not just the answer.
- Professional communicationProficient: It is organized and labeled like a real chart note.
- SubmittedProficient: It would be turned in on Schoology and confirmed.
WebXam problem for today's skill
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.