Rough draft.This research track is under review with Dr. Atit's lab. Content and sequence may still change.

Here's an example of what's due today

Knock It Out, Then Put It Back: Proving a Gene Causes a Defect

Experimental Design domain · Lesson 12 of 20 · Biomedical Innovations (BI)

Today's goal: Explain why a knockout alone cannot prove causation, and how adding a rescue (and a redundancy control) completes the causal argument.

Learn first

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.

Knockout-plus-rescue causal design

Completes: A two-experiment plan that turns a knockout correlation into a causal claim with the right controls.

1. Rescue: Re-supply functional Gene X (or its protein product) in the same palate cells during the same developmental window; if the cleft rate drops back toward normal, that supports Gene X as the cause.

2. Redundancy control: Also delete Gene X's closest sister gene on its own. If losing the sister alone does nothing to the palate, it kills the story that a backup gene, not Gene X, explains the result.

3. Disproof: If putting Gene X back fails to reduce the cleft rate, then Gene X is probably not the sole cause; the damage may be downstream or irreversible, and the original knockout result was necessity at best, not proof of causation.

Learn first

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: What extra experiment turns 'knock out the gene and a appears' into proof the gene itself caused the cleft?
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: A colleague reports: I knocked out Gene X in the and 30% of pups had clefts, so Gene X causes palate. As the causal-inference scientist, design the two experiments that would let them honestly make that claim. (1) Write the in one sentence (what you put back, and what result would support causation). (2) Write the in one sentence (what backup you would test, and why). (3) State the one rescue result that would disprove 'Gene X causes the cleft.'
5Check it against the rubric, then submit.

How this is graded (rubric)

For: A colleague reports: I knocked out Gene X in the palate and 30% of pups had clefts, so Gene X causes cleft palate. As the causal-inference scientist, design the two experiments that would let them honestly make that claim. (1) Write the rescue experiment in one sentence (what you put back, and what result would support causation). (2) Write the redundancy control in one sentence (what backup you would test, and why). (3) State the one rescue result that would disprove 'Gene X causes the cleft.'

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.

How the model answer scores against this rubric

CompleteProficient: Nothing is left blank: the model fills every part of "A colleague reports: I knocked out Gene X in the palate and 30% of pups had clefts, so Gene X causes cleft palate. As the causal-inference scientist, design the two experiments that would let them honestly make that claim. (1) Write the rescue experiment in one sentence (what you put back, and what result would support causation). (2) Write the redundancy control in one sentence (what backup you would test, and why). (3) State the one rescue result that would disprove 'Gene X causes the cleft.'".
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.

Check yourself

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.

WebXam-style domain: Experimental design and data analysisSelf-check skill: Identifying which result completes a causal argument (rescue, sufficiency)

A team deletes a gene in the mouse palate and sees clefts. They want to claim the gene causes the cleft, not just that it is correlated. Which single additional result would most strengthen the causal claim?

Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.

Back to this lesson