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
Should We, and Who Decides?
Genetics domain · Lesson 19 of 20 · Medical Interventions (MI), with PBS overlap
Today's goal: Use a structured reasoning model to weigh somatic versus germline editing for clefting against benefit, risk, equity, and consent, and reach a defended position.
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.
Defended bioethical position
Completes: A defended position that distinguishes somatic from germline, weighs an existing treatment, and brings equity into the analysis.
Position: For this case I would not support germline editing and would treat even somatic editing as premature.
- Somatic vs germline: A germline edit would be inherited by all future descendants who cannot consent, which is a strong reason against it; a somatic edit at least spares egg and sperm, but it is still experimental.
- Beneficence: Cleft lip and palate is already effectively treated with surgery and team care, so taking on the unproven risks of a genetic fix is hard to justify when a safe, proven option exists.
- Equity: Risk variants were studied mostly in European groups, and AI-AN communities, with among the highest incidence, already face barriers to ordinary cleft care; an expensive new therapy offered first to the wealthy would likely widen that gap.
- Verdict: Given a working treatment and the consent and equity problems, neither intervention is justified for this case now. (The grade is on the reasoning, not the verdict.)
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: Should we genetically intervene in clefting, and who has the right to make that decision?
- 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: Take a defended position. In five to seven sentences answer the driving question for this case specifically: would you support a intervention, a intervention, or neither, given that clefting is already surgically treatable? Use at least two of the four ideas (autonomy, beneficence, somatic vs germline, equity) by name, and cite the equity evidence. There is no single correct answer; you are graded on reasoning.
- 5Check it against the rubric, then submit.
How this is graded (rubric)
For: Take a defended position. In five to seven sentences answer the driving question for this case specifically: would you support a somatic intervention, a germline intervention, or neither, given that clefting is already surgically treatable? Use at least two of the four ideas (autonomy, beneficence, somatic vs germline, equity) by name, and cite the equity evidence. There is no single correct answer; you are graded on reasoning.
| 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 "Take a defended position. In five to seven sentences answer the driving question for this case specifically: would you support a somatic intervention, a germline intervention, or neither, given that clefting is already surgically treatable? Use at least two of the four ideas (autonomy, beneficence, somatic vs germline, equity) by name, and cite the equity evidence. There is no single correct answer; you are graded on reasoning.".
- 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: Bio-Molecular TechnologySelf-check skill: Applying bioethical principles to weigh somatic vs germline intervention
Cleft lip and palate is already treatable with surgery and team care. A proposed germline edit would prevent the cleft in a patient and all descendants but is inherited and irreversible. Which bioethical reasoning best fits this situation?
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.