The informed Citizen – Applying biology to everyday lifePurpos.docx

The informed Citizen – Applying biology to everyday life
Purpose:This activity will allow non Biology majors to examine
some of the reasons they should be concerned about their
knowledge of biology. The goal is for students is to be able to
apply the knowledge gained in this course to their everyday
lives. In addition, it is important for students to be able to write
well and defend their viewpoint on current events or
controversial issues in biology and society today.
Directions: Answer the following with a short paragraph for
each question. Make sure you defend or explain your answers.
Also, include all web sites you examined. Attach your answers
in the document provided. Either bold your answers or use
another color of ink for ease in grading. Attach your word
document to the blog site. To access the blog site, Click on
“Tools” then “blog”, then upload your document there.
Due date: This assignment is worth 15 points Part A: The Value
of Nature and Controversial Issues in Biology (5 points)
Images: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2016/01/call-to-
wild/img/wild01-
2048.jpghttp://www.abc.net.au/radionational/image/5700898-
3x2-700x467.jpg
1. (2 points)
What are some of the ways that nature inspires you or has a
positive impact on your life? (how do you enjoy nature?)
What value does it have?
What are some of the impacts humankind is having on nature
and our environment?

Images: http://prn.fm/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/baby-
vaccinated.jpg
http://www.bioethics.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/transhumanism.jpg
2. (3 points)
What are some specific examples of issues or questions you
might encounter in your life for which knowledge of biology
might be helpful?
Describe at least two controversial issues that you have
questions about or have great concerns.
How do you best feel we can resolve these issues? Do scientists
have all the answers of should the public be able to provide
input?
Part B: CASE STUDY: The Infidelity Gene (5 points)
Images: http://assets.rebelcircus.com/blog/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/infidelity-gene-
compressed.jpghttp://cdn.inquisitr.com/wp-

content/uploads/2015/05/ct-sc-fam-1015-infidelity.jpg
John and Mary Smith met in college and married soon after
graduation. They were lucky enough to find good jobs in the
same area, bought a condo and settled into a comfortable life.
Eventually, John and Mary decided to start a family. They
heard about DNA testing: a new family planning procedure
using DNA samples to screen for possible genetic differences
that could affect their child's health and development. This
sounded like a wise precaution, and they ordered the tests.
When the results came back, John and Mary were relieved to
learn that they each had a clean bill of health as far as their
future children were concerned. There was one personal glitch,
however: the test revealed that John had the "infidelity
gene"….
Mary had never heard of an infidelity gene. In fact, Mary
wasn't entirely sure what a gene was, and she had no idea how -
or whether - a gene could cause her husband to be unfaithful.
Mary consulted her doctor and searched online to find out more
about this gene, but what she read was confusing…..
1. Use the internet to search for the "infidelity gene" (or
"ruthless gene") Select three sites and try to evaluate each for
clarity, accuracy, and usefulness. Attach the three sites here:
(3 points)
2. Search for a commercial lab that will test your DNA for the
presence of the infidelity gene. This process is called direct-to-
consumer (DTC) marketing. In this case, DTC marketing gives
people genetic information without the benefit of a trained
genetic counselor or other medical professional. (2 points) post
the link to the website here:
a. Do you think most people will be able to understand the test
results on their own? Why or why not?
b. Should the government regulate DTC marketing of genetic

screening procedures or should it be eliminated in favor of
medically supervised tests?
3. Do you think your genes influence your behavior? Do they
control your behavior? If a person has the "infidelity gene and
the hormone imbalance it produces, is fidelity still a choice this
person can make? Why or why not? Part C Applying knowledge
of biology to Controversial issues (5 points)
Images: http://non-gmoreport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/08/genetically-modified-corn-
farmer.jpghttps://www.historyandheadlines.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/01/January-12-1998-European-nations-
agreed-to-ban-human-cloning-1.jpg
Suppose a public hearing is convened in your town to discuss,
and eventually vote on, the scenarios 1-4 listed below.
For each of the scenarios, answer these questions:
a. What information would you need to draw your conclusion or
to form a viewpoint?
b. From where or whom would you seek this information?
c. What specific questions would you need to have answered to
make an informed choice or decision?
d. How would you vote?
1. A biotechnology company has plans to build a facility in your
community that will provide genetically modified organisms to
local farmers
2. A group of parents submit a petition to your local school
board asking that intelligent design be taught in biology courses
an as an alternative to natural selection
3. The local university seeks state funding to build a new
research facility where scientists will study human genetics,
research animal cloning, and perform stem cell research
4. Your town proposes to add fluoride to the drinking water.

Jones
1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Racial
Discrimination
TITLE AND CITATION: Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325
(June 2003)
TYPE OF ACTION: The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a lower
Michigan District Court ruling that the University of
Michigan’s Law School did violate the 14th Amendment Equal
Rights Protection by utilizing race as a factor when deciding
acceptance into the program. An appeal was filed, and the Sixth
Circuit Court reversed the District Courts decision that utilizing
race as a factor is not a violation of the 14th Amendment. The
U.S. Supreme Court concurred with the Sixth Circuit that the
utilization of race as a factor in admissions is not a violation of
the 14th Amendment.
FACTS OF THE CASE: The University of Michigan’s Law
School is one of the top law schools in the nation. To ensure
they stay in compliance with Regents of University of
California v. Bakkee, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. CT. 2733, 57 L. Ed.
2d 750, the University of Michigan follows the official
admissions policy that ensures student body diversity. The
university must focus on the student’s academic achievements,
along with personal statements, recommendations, and an essay
on why the applying student would be a beneficial asset to the
law school program. The University also focuses on a student’s
undergrad GPA and their Law School Admissions Test (LSAT)
score. The policy does not define diversity solely on race or
ethnicity, but the Law School does commit to diversifying the
program by including underrepresented minorities to include
African Americans, Hispanic, and Native American students.
This policy seeks to ensure diversity contributes to the Law
School’s character and the legal profession.
When petitioner Grutter, a white Michigan Resident with a 3.8
GPA and a 161 LSAT score did not receive an acceptance letter

to the University of Michigan’s Law Program, she filed a
lawsuit, contending that officials at the University
discriminated against her due to her race which is a violation of
the 14th Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
The lawsuit acknowledged that petitioner Grutter was rejected
from the University of Michigan’s law school program because
officials utilized her race as the predominant influence,
allowing candidates of various minority groups a greater chance
of admission with equivalent qualifications and the admission
officials had no compelling interest to justify the use of race.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
Bollinger: The University of Michigan believes that students
receive important educational benefits by having a diversified
student body, which leads to cross-racial understanding and the
breakdown of racial stereotypes.
Grutter: Petitioner Gutter contends that her 14th Amendment
right to Equal Protection was violated when the University of
Michigan’s Law School did not elect to enroll her in their
program. Gutter believes she was discriminated against due to
her race and that she should not be overlooked because she is
not a minority. She believes race should not play a factor in
accepting a student into the Law School’s program.
Issue: Is the use of race as a factor in student admissions by the
University of Michigan Law School a violation of the 14th
Amendment right Equal Protection?
Decision: No, the law school has a compelling interest in
obtaining a diversified student body. The admissions program is
tailored to serve the compelling interest of the University of
Michigan’s Law School by attaining educational benefits that
would stem from a diversified student body, which is not a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Reasoning: The District Court found that Michigan’s Law
School’s use of race as an admissions factor is unlawful. The
Sixth Circuit then reversed the District Court’s ruling, stating
that Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke was a binding precedent.

Justice Powell’s opinion in Bakke established that diversity is a
state interest and that the University of Michigan’s Law
School’s use of race tailored to their admissions is a
protentional “plus” factor. The U.S. Supreme Court held that
the Law School’s tailored admissions decisions on the use of
race to further educational benefits through a diverse student
body is not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Title
VI, or § 1981. Pp. 2335–2347.
In Bakkee, Judge Powell stressed that our nation’s future lies
heavily upon leaders who have been educated and trained
through vast experiences. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña,
515 U.S. 200, 227, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 notes that
utilizing race to further compel government interest is not a
violation of the Equal Protection Clause as long as the policies
are narrowly tailored to further interests of the organization.
The University of Michigan’s Law School’s use of race in
determining admissions is narrowly tailored to their policy that
allows the organization’s interest to procreate a productive
environment with a diversified student body. The U.S. Supreme
Court endorses Justice Powell’s view that diversifying the
student body is a state interest that is a justifiable reason for
utilizing race in the University of Michigan’s Law School
admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court also agrees that the law
school’s educational judgment on diversifying the program is
essential to its overall educational mission. The Law School’s
claim for a diverse student body is supported further by expert
studies and reports that confirm diversity promotes learning
outcomes, and students are better prepared for society, the legal
profession, and a diverse workforce. Due to Law School’s
facilitating a training ground for a vast number of our Nation’s
Leaders, Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629, 634, 70 S. CT. 848,
94 L.Ed, 1114 acknowledges that all qualified individuals of
every race and ethnicity must have access to leadership
opportunities. Under this ruling, all law schools have a credible
interest in obtaining a diversified student body.

The University of Michigan’s Law School program is noted by
the U.S. Supreme Court to view each applicant as an individual
and gives thoughtful consideration into how the applicant can
contribute to the diverse educational environment. The court is
satisfied that the law school’s race-diversity admissions
program does not hinder non-minority applicants. U.S.
Supreme Court further notes that because the law schools use of
race as a factor in admissions is not a violation by the Equal
Protection Clause, petitioner Gutter’s claims based under Title
VI and § 1981 dissipate.
Rule of law: Electing to use race as a factor in student’s
admission is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment right
Equal Protection. Under the Regents of University of California
v. Bakkee, 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. CT. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750,
adhering to official admission policy on diversifying the student
body is not a violation of Equal Protection but allows for higher
learning outcomes and preparation for a diverse workforce.
Fuentes2) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – Fair
Labors Standards Act
TITLE AND CITATION: Houston Police Officers Union v.
Houston, 330 F.3d 298 (5th Cir. 2003)

TYPE OF ACTION: The Union representing the Police Officers
from the Houston Police Department sued the City of Houston
in Federal court, claiming the system the Department had in
place violated the Police Officers rights to take time off when
they were forced to work overtime. The District Court ruled in
favor of the City of Houston. The Union then appealed the
ruling to the Circuit Judge of the Sixth Circuit.
FACTS OF THE CASE: The Federal Government requires all
employers to allow their employees to accrual compensation
time for all hours worked over 40 per work week. Congress
allows for government agencies to allow for compensation time
to accrual to help the agencies from having to pay all of the
overtime earned at one time. The Houston Police Department
has a policy in place which allows their supervisors to dictate
when their officers can take time off using their compensation
time due to staffing and other operational need of the agency.
The Union was not happy with the procedure the Houston Police
Department had in place and challenged it. CONTENTIONS
OF THE PARTIES:The City feels like the language used in the
rule “within a reasonable period of time after making the
request” forces the law enforcement agency to dictate a specific
amount of time that the employee will be eligible to use their
compensatory time. This time may be extended and the
employee will not loose it if agency staffing did not permit for
the employee to take time off. The Union representative for the
Houston Police Department interprets this statement differently
than from the City. The Union argues that when an employee
decides to use their compensatory time, the agency must honor
their request unless taking the time off would cause a major
disruption or hurt the normal operation of the agency.
ISSUE:For this case, two issues come up during the appeal
process. First, what is the proper way to interpret regulations
of Department of Labor section 207(0)(5)? Secondly, Did the
Houston Police Department correctly apply the provision to its
operation? DECISION:The answer to the above questions is
yes; a law enforcement agency or any other public employer

must allow for an employee to use their compensatory time
within a reasonable amount of time after requesting to use it. If
staffing issues or other operation concerns will be effected by
the employee using their compensatory time, the employee will
not loose it, but instead will have to wait to use their time in a
reasonable amount of time after they requested to use it.
REASONING:To keep the local community safe, and have
adequate response by the Houston Police Department, both the
City and the Union have agreed to a policy on who
compensatory time can be used. The result and reasoning
behind the decision is to preserve the safety of the community.
Once an employee request time off, the agency will honer the
employees request unless it will cause major disruption to the
agencies operations. The agency must use a good faith rule to
ensure they give the employee the right to take time off when
they request and feasible for agency staffing and needs as well.
RULE OF LAW:The rule of law for this case allows for an
equal balance between the employee having the right to take
time off of work and making sure that the agency will still be
able to function without causing harm or potential disruption to
the local community. The argument brought on by the Union
about the City violating section 207(0)(5) was not supported by
the District Court then Circuit Court which eventually ruled in
favor of the City.
shankle
· 3) Title and Citation:Phelan v. City of Chicago, 347 F.3d 679
(7th Cir. 2003)
Type of Action:
Phelan alleges that his constitutional rights were violated under
the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Facts of the Case:
James Phelan was the City of Chicago as a police officer in
1992 but took a leave of absence in 1993. While on a leave of
absence in 1995, he was hired as a ward superintendent in the

23rd Ward. He held this position until on or about July 1997,
when he took a leave of absence due to health concerns. During
this time Phelan used all of his sick days and at that time he
requested and was approved for leave under the Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Phelan was suspected of mail
fraud and subsequently indicted by the City in September of
1997. At that time, the City requested he resign but Phelan
refused. Upon his return from his FMLA leave the City
terminated him. After Phelan’s termination he requested to be
reinstated to his position as a probationary police officer and
the City informed him that he no longer had a position at the
Police Department. Following this notification, Phelan filed a
suit against the City of Chicago.
Contentions of the Parties:
The City of Chicago contends that they did not violate the 14th
Amendment by dismissal of Phelan because he is not entitled to
due process before termination. Meaning he would be entitled
to notice and the opportunity to be heard. As such, no property
rights were deprived of Phelan.
On the violation of FMLA the city simply contended
that the termination was justified due to poor performance not
because he went on leave. As a result, there was no violation of
the Federal law governing FMLA.
On the violation of reverse discrimination, the City
maintained that it could not demonstrate a prima facie case that
he was discriminated against which consist of showing he
belonged to a racial minority, he was rejected from taking a job
he was qualified to take, and the position remained open while
the employer seeks applications from other persons. He could
not show evidence of reverse discrimination especially since he
belongs to a racial majority.
Phelan argues that the City of Chicago violated his property
rights without due process and that his termination was

motivated by going on leave under the FMLA. Both reasons are
evidence of reverse discrimination against him.
Issue:
Did the dismissal violate his right to due process under the 14th
Amendment which is only applicable to the states?
Whether the dismissal violated the Family and Medical Leave
Act?
Decisions:
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld a motion for summary
judgment for the City of Chicago in the due process and reverse
discrimination claims.
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts grant of a
motion to dismiss Phelan’s claim of FMLA violation.
Reasoning:
The reasoning is that if he were a career service under the
Municipal court he would be entitled for a notice of dismissal
an opportunity to be heard. However, his positions were not
under the protection therefore he was not entitled to a hearing.
The reason for firing was justified due to Phelan’s poor
performance in the workplace.
The FMLA provided opportunity for employees to go on
extended leave to take care of family or their own health. But
upon arrival after leave, they are guaranteed the same position
as if he never left. This means he cannot receive more entitled
benefits other than what he was entitled to before he went on
leave. It is a violation under FMLA, if an employer terminates
an employee’s position if the deciding factor for termination is

only because the employee decided to go on leave. A reason of
poor performance is not a violation for termination under the
FMLA.
Rule of Law:
It is a constitutional right that no state shall deprive any
person of life, liberty or property without the due process of
law. In this case the appellant is claiming a violation of this
right through reverse discrimination, a violation of FMLA and
the 14th Amendment.
Week #1: BIO 100
Power Point #1 Questions – 13 points total
Image: http://www.famousauthors.org/famous-authors/isaac-
asimov.jpg
1. What famous author or scientists made the following three
quotes?
a) The best scientists are continually trying to prove themselves
wrong”
b) The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that
heralds the most discoveries, is not "Eureka! I found it!” but
"That's funny……”
c) “A fact is a simple statement that everyone believes. It is
innocent, unless found guilty. A hypothesis is a novel
suggestion that no one wants to believe. It is guilty, until found
effective. ”
2. Pick one of the three quotes above and in a short paragraph,
defend why you agree or disagree with the statement. (2 points)
3. What is the difference between methods scientists use to
“know” about the world and other methods of “knowing” ?
4. Where do hypotheses come from? (Hint: see slide #9!) (.5
point)

5. What type of reasoning uses generalizations to form a
hypothesis? (Inductive or deductive) (.5 point)
6. What type of reasoning uses “if …..then….” statements to
form a prediction? (Inductive or deductive? (.5 point)
7. What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?
(.5 point)
8. What is the difference between dependent and independent
variables? (.5 point)
9. What is the purpose of a control in an experiment? (.5 point)
10. What three assumptions does science make? (2 points)
11. Complete the activities on slide #19. (2 points)
a) Attach 3 websites that address this issue.
b) How does each website differ?
c) Which site do you trust the most and why?
12. Complete the activities on slide #20. (2 points)
a) Attach 3 websites that address this issue.
b) How does each website differ?
c) Which site do you trust the most and why?
Video Questions: Week#1
Directions: View the following short videos and answer the
associated questions. Attach this document with your answers

to the journal site. Total Point value: 12 points. Please highlight
your answers in another color.
Video #1: Questioning techniques in science
Image: https://s-media-cache-
ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c1/cc/f9/c1ccf9d7494a3897e1734c201d6d
deb5.jpg
1. Can we ever prove a hypothesis to be true? Why or why not?
2. Why did the soldiers in the castle doubt where the coconuts
came from?
Video #2: She’s a Witch!
Image: https://encrypted-
tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUf0NHSJXxabXwQEz
BaHCOD7apgww1Y20zYd8j9vpbYlQQUBMPNw
1. Based on their assumptions in their reasoning, would you
vote that she is a witch? Why or why not ?
2. What was wrong with their reasoning and their experimental
design?
Video #3: 17th Century Abiogenesis Theory
Image: https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/67d7490c-4cc1-
48ae-9375-0240753f579b/0ae9204c-f65e-414d-a6f1-
ef135b25644a.jpg
1. What was the prevalent belief in the 1600s with regard to life
coming from nonlife?

2. What was wrong with the experimental design in the first
experiment with wheat and dirty underwear?
3. How did Redi set up a good experimental design?
4. What was the purpose of each jar?
Video #4: Germ Theory of Disease
Image:
http://r.ddmcdn.com/s_f/o_1/SCI/uploads/2014/04/13954109090
69medicine-2.png
1. What is childbed fever?
2. What was Semmelweis's hypothesis as to why more women
were dying of childbed fever under the doctor's care rather than
the midwives?
3. Why were Semmelweis's ideas not accepted in 1846?
4. Why was Pasteur so concerned with finding out about disease
transmission?
5. What industry was he working for?
6. Pasteur's experiment led to what theory?

The informed Citizen – Applying biology to everyday lifePurpos.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The informed Citizen – Applying biology to everyday lifePurpos.docx

Similar to The informed Citizen – Applying biology to everyday lifePurpos.docx (6)

More from oreo10

More from oreo10 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The informed Citizen – Applying biology to everyday lifePurpos.docx