Evaluation of Rhetorical Sources

In the following post, I will analyze three sources for my previous post on my research questions.

Lucas, Tim. "Source code ON PAPER." 09/21/2011 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Source 1 - Scientists discover key genetic difference in tumors that grow back which will lead to women being offered preventative drugs

Author- Sophie Borland, Health Correspondent for the Daily Mail. She is a reliable source because she has published a ton of health articles, mainly for the daily mail, and is a well-known journalist.

Audience- The audience in this case is the general public. The terminology in the article is not difficult to comprehend, and the things that are discussed are easy enough that an everyday person could understand.

Context- This article was published September 24, 2015, so this is very recent news. It's not even a week old, and contains a lot of good information to spread to the public, so that people can begin getting tested for that specific gene.

Source 2- The Breast Cancer Gene and Me

Author- Elizabeth Wurtzel, writer for the New York Times that personally suffered through breast cancer and has the gene that makes cancer relapse. She is a reliable source, based on her personal experience with the issue at hand.

Audience- The audience is the general public. The terminology is not difficult, and most people know what basic cancer treatments are, such as chemotherapy. A person reading this opinion article would understand everything discussed.

Context- This article was published September 25, 2015, so this is also very recent news. It's about a day old, and I'm pretty sure that it is in response to the announcement of the breast cancer gene to look out for and get tested for, as it could change the treatment you would normally receive for breast cancer.

Source 3 - Genetic clue to breast cancer relapses

Author- No author is given, and this article seems to give more facts than anything. It is from BBC News, though, so it is a credible and reliable source. The article touches on the recent announcement of the important breast cancer gene.

Audience- The audience is the general public, due to the fact that there is nothing but facts present in the article. The lack of author almost gives it a bit more credibility, and seems like it is intended to reach a larger audience of people.

Context- This article was published on September 25, 2015, so it is only a day old. It seems to be in response to the recent breast cancer gene detection announcement. Many of the articles seem to be wanting to spread the word to save lives.

Reflection

After looking at Chelsea and Alex's blogs, I feel decently comfortable with the articles I chose, but the only issue I see is that there is no real argument occurring within the topic I chose. I am going to continue on this topic anyway, because it is something I'm really interested in, but I am just going to predict this problem now. I think I did well enough with my analysis of my articles, but there is also some improvements I could make, like looking more into the background of the authors.

Developing a Research Question

In the following post, I will pose a few research questions I may be interested in pursuing for the following project.

Oberazzi. "Questions." 12/09/2006 via Flickr. Attribution Noncommercial Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

Here are some research questions I may follow up on:

• What parts of cancer genetics may predict the return of breast cancer following the initial 'beating' of breast cancer?

• Breast cancer runs in my family, so knowing if there is a potential of its return based on genetics could help people live. I could potentially have breast cancer down the line. My grandmother beat breast cancer when she was 15, but it came back with a vengeance recently, and has taken a lot of her basic functions. It would help to understand the science behind her condition.

• How will knowing the cancer genetics of an individual change their treatment?

• I am interested in this, not only for what could have been for my grandmother, but for humans in general. I like knowing the reason things happen, and if things could be done to prevent that return of this disease, it would save so many lives.

• What does knowing cancer genetics of an individual achieve?

• I want to know every aspect of what this could mean for others who are going through the process, or potentially could go through the same process, because I enjoy helping people and knowing things, so this would satisfy two of my favorite things.

Reflection on Project 1

In the following post, I will answer a series of questions about Project 1, and I will reflect on them.

Restivo, David. "I'm thinking of..." 04/10/2008 via Flickr. Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

What challenges did you face during the QRG Project and how did you deal with them?

• I had a lot of trouble with organization, presentation, and density of information. I had no concrete idea about how to organize the information. What would an audience want to read first? Presentation was difficult, but it also was obvious. I would present it in the QRG genre. I had trouble finding where to insert pictures so that there was enough information between them, but not too little. How much information to put in there was also a struggle, because I had read a ton of articles on the topic, so I wasn't sure what I should include and what I shouldn't, but it all got better as I got to writing it out. 

What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?

• I had success with my articles. Most of them gave a view of both sides, and it was actually hard to find a biased article. I think I ended up finding one that was a complete criticism, and the support section of my QRG came from primarily neutral articles and interviews. I also learned how to extract certain sections of important information from articles instead of taking everything. I would scan a document for a specific thing rather than get distracted by so much information.

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices, and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?

• I found that scanning the examples of the QRG genre in class was very helpful and helped me choose the design choices, arguments, and writing practices for my own document. I enjoyed having lots of interesting pictures throughout my document, and the arguments were based primarily on how I phrased the questions for each section. My came across as what I think was pretty neutral, as my articles were pretty neutral. I tried to keep unbiased, even though I support the research on genome editing. 

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices, and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?

• I found that my usual elongated style of writing that I used in high school did not at all fit in this category. I had trained myself to use lots of extra words and make it as long as possible, because all that mattered was the word count. I like the QRG style better, though, as it is nicer to read and is something I would choose to read over a lengthy essay on the same subject.

How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you've had in the past?

• I had never, ever done anything like this before. The last serious writing assignment I can remember having was junior year of high school and it was a formal rhetorical essay. It was a research paper, too, but I did nowhere near the same amount of research as I did for this project. With this project, you had to have information you just didn't include, but in a normal essay, you have to fit everything in. 

How was the writing process for this project different than other school writing experiences you've had in the past?

• This was very different, as mentioned in the previous question. I prefer to write in the QRG style, but the only catch is the crazy amount of research required to be informed and write a good paper on this in QRG style. 

Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?

• It depends on the course. This is actually the only class I really write for, and it is the last English class required for my major, so I don't know if it will apply to my other coursework this semester. Down the line, though, I think that it may be applicable in writing some science stuff.

Reflection

After reading Elliot and Mira's blog posts about their experiences with Project 1, I feel more comfortable about the things I struggled with, and the things I found enjoyable. I was relieved that we all kind of struggled with the transition from normal essay writing to QRG genre writing, as well as revision and the amounts of necessary research. It helps knowing we all had a bit of trouble.

Project 1

In the following post, I will publish my QRG Final draft. This is it! Here is a link to the final copy of my QRG Draft. I'm crossing my fingers for a good grade!

Roenigk, Caleb. "Writing? Yeah." 03/20/2012 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Clarity, Part 2

In the following post, I will describe four more sections I read about within the Rules for Writer's book. The four more sections are: variety, emphasis, appropriate language, and exact words.

Remi. "typewriter". 03/17/2009 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

Variety: This part of the book showed me how to add some variety to my sentences, as I tend to stick to complex and compound sentences, rather than simple sentences. Simple sentences could help me majorly make my writing easier to read and or skim, but getting in the habit is hard. Reading this section was helpful and informative.

Emphasis: This section talked about how, depending on the wording and structure of your sentence, you can derive completely different meanings. I knew this beforehand, especially with a bit of music background that can be applied here, but going over it again was definitely helpful. My music teacher in high school talked about this concept often.

Appropriate Language: This section helped me see how to use the right language for the genre and not to get to science-y with terms. I am trying to stick to high school biology terms as much as possible, as my controversy is deeply intertwined with complex genome science. I think I am doing an okay job so far, and that a general audience should know what I am talking about.

Exact words: This section mainly talked about how to choose words that give very precise meaning to whatever I am talking about, and to stick with words that have positive or negative connotations, depending on what I am talking and what the subject requires. This advice will help me make my writing more concise and to the point.

Using exact words, I changed this sentence:

"Scientists in China have semi-successfully performed experiments on living human embryos in order to test the viability of  new technology, and the results were not very good, but there were results."

To this:

"A group of scientists in China performed experiments on living non-viable human embryos in order to test the viability of this new technology, called CRISPR-cas9, and the results were promising."

The second version is smoother and flows better, once I took out the word semi-successful, added 'this' before 'new technology', and replaced 'not very good, but there were results' with 'promising'. It helped me get my point across clearer.

Using variety, I changed this sentence:

"However, many also support this research, as it has the power to change humankind and lessen the impact of diseases and illnesses globally."

To this:

"There is a range of good deeds that can come from this. Most importantly and apparent, is the power to change humankind and lessen the impact of diseases and illnesses globally."

The second version has a smoother flow and reads nicer than the first. Splitting up the sentence into two parts was certainly helpful, and had a nice effect on the overall read. Adding the bit of variety of sentence structure goes a long way.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In the following post, I will reflect on the use of grammar in my own writing. I'll be identifying the type of grammar I used in my longest paragraph in my QRG. The document can be found here.

Worthington, Paul. "Pencils and Moleskins 04." 01/03/2006 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

I realized that I use a lot of sentence structures without being aware of doing so. My writing could improve if I was aware of the different sentence structures I used and tried to vary and spread them out throughout my writing. I tend to write long sentences, rather than sweet and simple ones, and I think my aim there was to make sentences as dense as possible to load the reader with information. I feel like I should probably start to shorten them, just in fear of going on for a whole page in a single sentence. My writing would like a few simple sentences, so that it is easier to go through, and act more like the genre we are supposed to be writing in.

Copy for Paragraph Analysis

In the following post, I will analyze my own QRG, paragraph by paragraph, to determine my own strengths and weaknesses within my own writing.

Tacke, Oliver. "ABC-Analyse." 10/1/2013 via Flickr.
 Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

After analyzing my own QRG, I recognize a few strengths in my writing. I develop the main point and it organizes itself naturally and neatly. However, there are still improvements I could make to carry out the natural flow. My ideas and transitions are decent enough, but still could use some work, because nothing is ever truly perfect. I feel that these improvements will also come naturally as I add tons of information and also improve the writing itself.

I also recognized a few weaknesses in my writing, too. I find that I don't really state the main point in each paragraph, but I develop the main point anyway. This is an issue because how are people supposed to know what the idea I am developing is. I think this stems from trying to avoid being redundant, because I do mention the controversy in the lead paragraph, but I should still include a main point at the beginning of each paragraph. I think the main thing I need to focus on currently is adding information, so that I can have more than one example in each case.

Here is a link to my "Copy for Paragraph Analysis" document.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

In the following post, I will reflect on my own QRG Draft, using the Student's Guide book, page 66, as a guide for the question I will be answering. In my previous post, I edited Laurence Wolf and Andrea Mireles' QRG Drafts.

McPhee, Nic. "2008-01-26 (Editing a paper)-19." 01/26/2008 via Flickr.
Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

Audience

Who, specifically, is going to be reading this essay? Who am I trying to reach with my argument?

• My instructor and my classmates will be reading the document. 

What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting those expectations?

• Their values and expectations of my classmates and instructor are that it will be concise and detail oriented, giving an even and fair view of both sides of my controversy, which many of my articles already represent, so I should have little trouble bringing out key concerns on either side as I continue revising. 

How much information do I need to give my audience? How much background information or context should I provide for them without insulting their expertise?

• I should give them all the background information possible. My controversy is very science-y, so not a lot of people would know about the topic unless they were science majors or a professor in the subject. I need to give a lot of detail for my audience to grasp the severity of the issue. 

What kind of language is suitable for this audience?

• Because this is in the QRG style, the document should be quite informal, yet still hold a decent amount of respect towards the reader. I tried to keep my draft quite simple, but genome-editing can get a bit complicated, so I will try to keep the language simple as I continue writing in the future. 

What tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently throughout my draft?

• The tone should primarily be informal, with a constant dash of respect. I would write this as if I was talking to an acquaintance I just met, or a good family friend, rather than how I would be writing about this topic to my brother. I should find an equilibrium within the formal-informal spectrum.

Context

What are the formatting requirements of the assignment? Do I meet them?

• I'm supposed to be writing in QRG style, and there are many requirements included in that genre, such as images, hyperlinks, short paragraphs, attention-grabbing subheadings, and a bold title. As I am in the process of editing my QRG Draft, I don't currently meet all the requirements, but I will be adding them as I edit my document. 

What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?

• The content requirements for this project are on the Project 1 Grading Rubric, and include all of the requirements that need to be met, in terms of content, to achieve a score of an A, B, and C or lower. I don't currently meet these requirements, but I will by the end of Project 1, which is Deadline 5. 

Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own sides and voice?

• I think my draft does reflect the knowledge and skills gained in class, and I think I give an adequate representation of my side or voice in the previous blog posts that I have done. However, incorporating my own voice is difficult because it can get mixed up in all of the information that I am trying to fairly represent. 

Have I addressed any grammatical issues that my teacher highlighted in class or in my previously-graded assignments?

• I haven't had any grammatical issues thus far, and I will try to avoid having any in the future, as I revise my QRG, add more information, and continue to post on my blog. 

Clarity, Part 1

In the following post, I will describe four sections I read about within the Rules for Writers book, and what I learned or already knew. The four section are: wordy sentences, active verbs, parallel ideas, and needed words.

Tall Chris. "magnifying glass". 05/16/2005 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

1. Wordy sentences: After reading through this section, I realized how much I truly repeated myself, added unnecessary words to make sentences longer, and just overall tried too hard to make sentences longer. I think this is something I learned to do in high school, for classes that had a specific word count, or to just make my writing seem longer. Everything mentioned in this section, I'm pretty sure I've done. I definitely need to change that for my QRG.

2. Active verbs:After reading this section, I realized how many of my sentences used passive versus active verbs. I always write in the past tense and I don't really know why, but I think I may unintentionally always try to emphasize the receiver of the action, as the book states. I will definitely pay more attention to the words I use when writing in the future.

3. Parallel ideas:After reading this section, I think I am solid on balancing parallel ideas. I learned what each of the uses are called, because I never had words for them before, such as balancing parallel ideas in a series, as pairs, or repeating function words to clarify parallels.

4. Needed words: I found that, after reading this section, I do most of the things correctly, save for the 10c section: add words needed to make comparisons logical and complete. I tend to leave the sentences sometimes incomplete, in order to avoid being too wordy. I will definitely change that for my QRG.

Reflection

After reading Laurence's and Andrea's QRG Drafts, I feel like my own QRG draft is pretty rough. I can see how words truly make a difference within writing, and editing other people's drafts was good for me to practice doing my own edits, and staying objective.

In Laurence's draft, one of the sentences lacked a few function words to clarify parallels, so I stuck a few in ( as shown underlined) to modify it and help it flow:

"With recalls for defective airbags that may explode, experience random stalling, go through corrosion, have power steering failures, undergo headlamp failures..." (page 1)

In Andrea's draft, one of the sentences was too wordy, so I suggested a few edits to increase it flow, as shown below.

Before: "People who are concerned are scientists & health groups, as well as the common public." (page 1)
After: "People who are concerned are scientists, health groups, and the common public." (page 1)

Thoughts on Drafting

In the following post, I will answer two questions about my thoughts on drafting.

Jinx! "Essays!" 02/07/2008 via Flickr.
 Attribution Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

What part of the book's advice are helpful for writing in this genre?

• The part of the book that talks about thesis is helpful- even in QRG style, you still need to pull your reader's attention in. However, it doesn't need to be long, it can just be short and concise.
• The PIE part of the book is also helpful in organizing when writing in QRG style, but it should only be followed to a certain extent. You should follow the general guidelines for PIE, but it should also be adapted to fit the QRG style.

What parts of the book might not be so helpful, considering the genre you're writing in?

• The organization of your writing within the QRG style will be radically different. It won't necessarily be organized into the normal 5 paragraph style of essays, because blogging in more widespread and you might find the same thing mentioned twice in two completely different contexts, whereas in an essay, you would mention the one thing once and try to explain all of it quickly. 
• The PIE part of the book should also not be followed exactly, there should be an adjustment to the style of QRG, but the generalities can be followed. 

Reflection

After reading Namratha's and Bri's blogs, I can see where I can make improvements within my own blog posts. I identified the following three points I need to work on within my own writing:

• My thesis- I need to have one
• Keeping the writing short, but detailed enough to be informative
• Reorganize the entire essay/qrg

Extra Credit: Putting Quotes in Context

In the following post, I will put two selected quotes into context. 

Dyer, Charles. "Zoom H1 Handy Recorder." 4/18/2011 via Flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License. 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: "I'm constantly amazed by the number of people who want to take my picture."

What was the context in which the quote was actually said? When? Who were they speaking to? Was the speaker responding to a question? Or did the quote emerge as part of a conversation about a specific topic?

• Judge Ginsburg was replying to a question about her knowledge of her being an internet sensation when she said the above quote. She was speaking to Jeffrey Rosen, an interviewer for New Republic. It was an extension to an answer where she said this quote. 

How does knowing the specific context in which the quote was said inform your understanding of the quote?

• It helps to know what situation the person who said it was in. If this was just a random sentenced blurted out in the middle of a walk that was captured by paparazzi, it would come across as super conceited. Yet, because we know it was part of an interview, it's almost cute how she responds with it. 

Does knowing the context for the quote deepen your impression of the celebrity who said it? Does it change or alter your perception of them? Does it cut against what this celebrity is often talked about or represented within culture-at-large?

• I had never heard of the 'Notorious R.B.G.' before this class, but when I imagine a Supreme Court Justice, I think of a prim and proper lawyer. The quote definitely softens her reputation to the average citizen.

Pope Francis: "In general, I'm not afraid. I tend to be more reckless; I act without weighing the consequences. Sometimes that causes me extra headaches because an extra word slips out here and there."

What was the context in which the quote was actually said? When? Who were they speaking to? Was the speaker responding to a question? Or did the quote emerge as part of a conversation about a specific topic?

• In this situation, the Pope was responding to a question about his fears. It emerged as part of his answer to the question, and kind of developed from there. He was speaking to Juan Berretta, an interviewer for Aleteia.

How does knowing the specific context in which the quote was said inform your understanding of the quote?

• Knowing the context helps, because if was just randomly out of nowhere with no background, it would almost discredit him with some people. However, this took place in an interview, so it is normal for him to be asked about this. 

Does knowing the context for the quote deepen your impression of the celebrity who said it? Does it change or alter your perception of them? Does it cut against what this celebrity is often talked about or represented within culture-at-large?

• This is definitely shocking, because the Pope is someone who is held in such high regards in my household, that it seems almost weird to think of him as human. It humanizes him to me when he says things like this, because I could to talk to anyone in my dorm and that response would seem normal. Pope Francis is the most in touch with the time pope that we've ever had, so his quote also seems like him. 

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

In the following post, I will provide a link to my quick reference guide draft on genome editing ethics and address my peer reviewers about the background a bit.

Baldwin, Micah. "Micah's DNA." 8/27/2008 via Flickr.
 Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

Here is a link to my Quick Reference Guide Draft.

I'd love some feedback on the way my writing is presented, and how interesting you think the topic is! I know that it is way too short and I'm revising as I go. I still have a lot of content to add, and I am definitely interested in in a way to organize this. Thanks!

Practicing Quoting

In the following post, I will show two sides of my controversy in a highly organized way in order to practice quoting for my quick reference guide.

Macklin-Isquierdo, Sam. "Screenshot of Google Doc." 9/12/2015 via Google Doc. 

The key for the post is as follows:

Green=Putting information into context

Orange=Inserted my own words to clarify meaning

Blue=Establish authority

Purple=Differentiate between my words and the sources

QRG's: The Genre

In the following post, I will answer a set of questions pertaining to the genre of quick reading guides.

McPhee, Nic. "2008-01-26 (editing a paper)-31." 01/26/2008 via Flickr.
 Attribution-Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.  

What do the conventons of this genre- Quick Reading Guide- seem to be?

• The conventions of a Quick Reference Guide include:
• A good lead- whether it be a sentence or a paragraph, explain what the topic is
• An image- draw the reader in through the power of an image
• A Headline- it has to catch the readers attention
• Short Paragraphs- don't overwhelm the reader with bulky and long texts, instead keep it short, sweet and precise
• Internal Links- let the reader know there is additional information out there and that you are a reliable source with facts

How are those conventions defined by the author’s formatting and design choices?

• The QRG's made the scanning of the articles by providing the reader with a headline that narrows in on a topic, and then provides the information in a cut up way with sections. For example, the Vox article on E-cigarettes had a quiestion and answer system that efficiently divided up the article into neat chunks. White space is also a must in any QRG to avoid long chunk of information.  

What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

• The purpose of QRG's are to inform an audience in a short, neat, but detailed manner. It needs to be informative, but not overwhelming. The articles always provide links with more information in order to avoid summarizing too much because that would leave the reader bored and tired of reading. 

Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How & why?

• The intended audience is the very broad general public- none of the articles seemed to speak to a group of people specifically. Yet, within every genre, there is a group of people who will always be interested in specific things. A politically inclined person may be more interested in the #BernieSoBlack article rather than in the E-cigarette article. 

How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?

• Images or visuals provide can be emotionally charged to connect more to the reader, such as the image used in the Greek debt crisis article, or can present information in a way that prevents using words to stress something, also used in the Greek debt crisis article in the form of a graph. 

Reflection

After looking at Chloe's, Elliot's, and Hallye's blogs, I feel much more confident in my above post. I feel like all of them generally said the same thing, because it was al based on the same articles and there was a limited amount of variation, which I liked because then it was easier to compare.

Cluster of my Controversy

In the following post, I created a cluster to organize both sides of my genome editing controversy.

Macklin-Isquierdo, Sam. "Screenshot of my Cluster". 9/12/2015 via Coogle.

Within my cluster, I organized both views on two opposing sides of the main title. Then, for each side, I divided their points into three parts- Major speakers/writers, Values/Ideology, and Public Speech Acts.

Reflection

After looking at Evan and Hallye's blogs, I quite like the look of mine. They both had their clusters with a lot more white space mixed in, and Hallye's was exthremely specific, which I liked. I condensed the little sentences within my cluster quite a bit so that it looked like a cute little chunk of information, and I like my layout. I feel more secure with my cluster after looking at other peoples. Both of them also used Coggle.

Annotated Bibliography in ACS Style

Below, I have written an annotated bibliography of all the sources I analyzed in my previous posts, all about the scientific controversy of genome editing and its ethics.

Pasquela, Valentina, "Chemistry won." 1/30/2008 via Flickr.
 Attribution Non-commercial 2.0 Generic License.

Ryan Clarke, James Hyun. TechCrunch. http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/13/the-genome-engineering-revolution/(accessed September 4, 2015).

• In this article, Ryan Clarke and James Hyun discuss the implications of genome engineering and its potential impact in the science community. The authors use logic to present both sides of the argument, a side that supports genome engineering, and one that does not. Some scientists are held back by fear of the unknown and potential dangers, while other scientists are motivated by the possibility of bringing cures to many people. I will use this article to provide a very informative narrative of both sides of the argument.

Brian Wang. NextBigFuture. http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/smarter-humans-and-smarter-machines.html (accessed September 4, 2015).

• In this article, Brian Wang discusses the positive benefits of genome engineering that will progress human evolution as computers get smarter. This paper was written to inform the general public of the new science available. It offers a good reflection of the wide range of possibilities while still being cautious of the potential harm it could possess. I will use this source later to demonstrate the positivity that this type of science radiates. 

Cyranowski, D.; Reardon, Sara. Embryo editing sparks epic debate. Nature [Online] 2015. 520, 0028-0836. http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.17421!/menu/main/topColumns/ topLeftColumn/pdf/520593a.pdf (accessed September 5, 2015).

• In this paper, David Cyranowski and Sara Reardon inform the general public and, more specifically, the scientific community about the ethics scandal that is genome engineering. They provide the reader with a fair view of the dangers and the benefits of the new technology, as well as use many credible sources. I will use this source in the future to give me a wonderfully neat perspective on both sides of the debate.

Ishii, T. Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications. Cell [Online] 2015. 21, 1471-4914. http://www.cell.com/trends/molecular-medicine/pdf/S1471-4914(15)00107-0.pdf (accessed September 5, 2015).

• In this paper, Tetsuya Ishii formally discusses the two sides of the debate on the topic of ethics of genome engineering. He writes to inform the scientific community and give them up-to-date information. He gives a fair view of dangers and benefits, providing evidence in neatly composed charts. He seems to believe in the wonders of genome engineering. I will use this source to capture the good that can be derived from the science.

Research Ethics KCL. Twitter. https://twitter.com/Ethics_KCL/status/639367487293911040 (accessed September 5, 2015).

• In this comment, Research Ethics KCL links the reader to an article from the guardian, providing additional information on the ethics of human genetic engineering. The topic was brought about after a group of Chinese scientists performed experiments on a living human embryo. The article covers both sides of the issue well. I will use this in the future to get a fresh perspective from either side of the debate. 

OIRM. Twitter.https://twitter.com/OIRMnews/status/639148927040811008 (accessed September 5, 2015).

• In this comment, OIRM provides additional information by linking the reader to an article that gives more information on the genome engineering topic. This topic is now being debated due to an article published in April that told of genome experiments being performed on a living human embryo. The article gives a fair view of the controversy. I will use this source in the future to help me choose a side to defend, as the arguments are well-written. 

In this post, I used the ACS citation style to cite my sources.

Here is a link to an example of ACS citation style. Scroll about a third of the way down the web page, and there will be a picture that includes ACS style.

Additional sources:

WoodrowWilsonCenter. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sU2HrmZ-7s (accessed September 9, 2015).

• In this video, Eleonore Pauwels, Public Policy Scholar at the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson Center, is interviewed about the latest developments in genome editing. She explained where both views on the issue stand, but she did support the research because it could do so much for the evolution of humanity. I can use this source for future use in support of the research.

Stein, Rob. NPR. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/04/23/401655818/critics-lash-out-at-chinese-scientists-who-edited-dna-in-human-embryos (accessed September 9, 2015).

• In this article, Rob Stein explains the criticism behind the Chinese scientists experiment, and why they are getting so much heat. Many prominent scientists in this field have spoken out against this research, saying that there are many unknown repercussions of the research, among them involuntary mutations that could be passed down through generations by accident. I can use this article to highlight the negative associations with this research.

Future of Science. Tumblr. http://futureofscience.tumblr.com/post/128213966711/biohackers-gear-up-for-genome-editing-a-complete (accessed September 9, 2015).

• In this post, a group of amateur biological hackers look to test this new technology on plants and other things, like yeast. They are hopeful of the paths this research is taking. I can use this article to show how some general scientists in the country encourage the continuation of this research.

Futuristech-info. Tumblr. http://futuristech-info.tumblr.com/post/86827895243/researchers-find-process-using-hiv-particles-to (accessed September 9, 2015).

• In this post, there is a link that connects a reader to an article that explains how researchers at Aarhus University have altered the HIV virus so that it patches up the parts of our genome that are "broken". This technology could lead to future innovative uses, and towards more aggressive diseases. I can use this article to support the encouragement of genetic modification research.

Reflection

After looking at Andrea's and Laurence's blogs, I can see how to better format my summaries. I like to keep things short and concise most of the time, but for my own personal summaries I made them longer. I didn't even have to do that though, because now I have to look at the summary and remember which article is which by reading something lengthy. I like my style though, as I found no one else with the ACS style I used.

Ideology in my Controversy

Below, I will talk about the perspectives of the controversy I chose. As a reminder, the controversy I chose is about the ethics of research of editing human genetic material.

IRRI Photos, "Gamma Lab". 4/11/06 via Flickr.
Attribution Non-Commercial Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

Who is involved in the controversy?

• There are two opposing sides on this issue. One side believes that this type of research should not be conducted at all because it is not ethical. It is too invasive and unethical for their taste. This side also fears that once the research is conducted, it could be taken too far and lead to 'designer babies' and other unhealthy obsessions within the genome modification spectrum. 
• The other side believes that further research in this area could be beneficial to preventing the continuation of diseases through generations. This includes scientists who are interested in stem cell research and want to continue to develop solutions to many different biological problems. 

Who are some major speakers/writers within the group?

• Many scientists either support or protest the type of research. The article that called an urgent debate was written by a group of Chinese scientists and published in the Protein and Cell science journal. The scientists who authored the paper are affiliated with many prestigious organizations.

What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

• I feel that both sides have compelling arguments and can argue that their belief is true because the debate could easily go either way. On one hand, it is concerning because there can be scary implications of the science that can go awry and can be manipulated to scare the public, but on the other hand, the benefits from this type of research could benefit tons of people and prevent future generations from harm. So both sides have the same amount of power in every aspect.

What resources are available to different groups?

• There is almost always ways to get funding for different research, but it may not happen for the scientists that want to pursue this type of research due to the large ethical issues that many people are concerned about. People who oppose the research don't get money for not wanting it to happen. 

What does each group value?

• The people who oppose the innovative research value science to a point where it doesn't interfere with natural human evolution, and they are frightened of where the research could lead us, in terms of human development. What if the research led to even worse incurable diseases?
• The scientists who want to pursue the research value innovation and knowledge because they want to help people and find how the human genome responds to different manipulations. They are interested in knowing how things will pan out and are open to discovering more about the different paths this research could lead us on. 

What counts as evidence for different positions?

• The pro-genome engineering side of the debate has a number of different articles as evidence currently, and can use the other types of living things we have genetically modified, like plants.
• The no-to-genome engineering group has tons of years of evidence of natural evolution as evidence. 

Is there a power differential between the groups?

• I don't think there is necessarily a power differential between the groups, as both sides seem to hold an equal amount of power on the subject- one group can argue that this is dangerous to humanity and the other can argue that this would only help people. 

Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

• I don't think there is any acknowledged common ground right now between groups. They both want to pursue two different things when it comes to this type of research.

Is there any unacknowledged common ground between the groups?

• I think there is a universal want to improve lives, but one group is willing to take necessary scientific risks, while the other group is held back by fear of the possible consequences. 

Do the various groups listen to each other? That is, do they respond to the claims made by each other? Or do they only talk to people who hold the same position?

• I feel that the groups are willing to talk to each other and reach a compromise, but the research has currently been halted as they try to find an even compromise. Both groups seem open to talking to each other about all that the research could entail. 

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In the following post, I am going to analyze two social media sources for their credibility on the topic of genome editing ethics. This connects to the controversy I chose- that of the implications of genome editing.

Macklin-Isquierdo, Sam, "Screenshot of Research Ethics KCL Tweet". 9/5/2015 via Twitter. 

Source 1: Research Ethics KCL (King's College London) @Ethics_KCL

Credibility: The account is a part of King's College in London, and therefore has large credibility due to the fact is it part of a higher educational institution.
Location: As this is a worldwide scientific research topic, the relevant location would be a scientific institution, whether it be a university lab or a center for science research. The account has instant credibility in that sense.
Network: Many other institutions from other countries are following Research Ethics KCL, such as New Mexico University and PGBC 2015, the 9th Annual Postgraduate Bioethics Conference account. The also bestows credibility on the account.
Contextual Updates: Most of the tweets correspond to the account's intended purpose, which is to inform and share scientific and ethical knowledge with science network it is connected to.
Content: This post links the reader to an article by the Guardian, which gives the account credibility because they are providing additional relevant information.
Age: Research Ethics KCL joined Twitter in October of 2012.
Reliability: Yes, the source of the tweet is reliable. After looking at the account overall and analyzing all of the tiny aspects, it has reached the credibility level required to use it as a reference.

Macklin-Isquierdo, Sam, "Screenshot of OIRM Tweet". 9/5/2015 via Twitter.

Source 2: OIRM( Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine) @OIRM

Credibility: The account is a part of the Ontario Institute for Regenerative Medicine, a non-profit organization that is invested in revolutionizing treatments for regenerative diseases. It earns its credibility in that sense.
Location: This is a worldwide issue, and as an organization that researches to improve lives, OIRM has instant location credibility because the research is important and relevant.
Network: The account is followed by other scholarly accounts, such as UC Davis Stem Cell, and verified accounts, such as Ed Holder, a CPC candidate for LdnWest. This account has network credibility.
Contextual Updates: All of the account's tweets are relevant to the main purpose of the account. All of them seek to bring up how research can help people with degenerative diseases. This earns the account credibility.
Content: The account links the reader to an article that gives additional information from a reliable source, therefore giving the account more credibility.
Age: OIRM joined Twitter in January of 2011.
Reliability:Yes, the source of the tweet is reliable. After analyzing all the aspects, it has reached a reputable level.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

Below, I have found two articles using scholarly databases, and analyzed them to test their reputability and usability as sources. They both cover the topic of ethics of genome editing.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, "Science as Art". 12/25/2012 via Flickr.
Attribution Non-Commercial Sharealike 2.0 Generic License.

My first article is called "Germline genome-editing research and its socioethical implications" and I searched Web of Science to get to it.

Purpose: The purpose of the article is to highlight a debate going on within the scientific community and let people know the full implications of the new scientific 'discovery'.
Published: The article was published in Science Direct, a peer-reviewed journal, in August 2015.
Sources: This article cites over 60 sources, using the normal brackets at ends of sentences. It even provides the reader with direct links to some other websites to find extensive information on the germline editing restrictions in other countries.
Author: The author is Tetsuya Ishii and he works at Hokkaido University in Japan.
Audience: The intended audience is other fellow scientists all over the world, and, like me, students who are interested in the material he writes about.
Found through: I found this article after searching through Web of Science Scholarly articles about genome editing and its ethics.

My second article is called "Embryo editing sparks epic debate" and I searched on the Academic Search Complete database to find it.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to get the word out and inform people about such a huge and controversial scientific topic. It also informs quite efficiently.
Published: The article was published in Nature, an international science journal, on April 29, 2015. Sources: It cites reputable sources, such as other peer-reviewed scientific journals, and the references at the bottom include links to other direct articles about the same material.
Author: The authors are David Cyranoski, a journalist with the Nature international science journal, and Sara Reardon, is also a journalist with Nature international science journal and holds a masters degree in molecular biology.
Audience: The intended audience is not necessarily for fellow scientists, as it doesn't use as much science lingo, but more for the scientifically aware public.
Found through: I found this article after searching through the UA Academic Search Complete scholarly database for genome editing and ethics.

Evaluation of General Sources

After searching google for some time, I finally found two articles on a debated topic within the science circle: the ethics of genome engineering. Within the topic, there are endless amounts of possibilities that lead to a spectrum of questions. On one hand, there could be many benefits of performing such experiments, a main one being the ability to biologically prevent cancer. Yet, the new findings could also lead to some unhealthy obsessions with changes. Both of the following articles give a neutral view on the subject.

Ynse. "Dna Rendering" via Flickr. October 10, 2007.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.  

The first article is titled "The Genome Engineering Revolution" and is from a website named TechCrunch.

URL: The url ends in .com, and implies that it is a public website. It is fairly reputable website, and it is the highest read tech website. About 35 million people read their articles monthly.
Author: The authors are Ryan Clarke, a PhD candidate and a published scientist, and James Hyun, PhD student, published scientist and has a background in molecular biology. The authors qualifications are large because they both have been through extensive schooling, and are able to speak correctly on the subject.
Last Updated: The article was last updated May 13, 2015. It is a bit outdated, but the information is still relevant and correct. The links on the page, as well as the videos, still work.
Purpose: The purpose of the article is to inform readers and to give a fair view of both sides of the argument.
Graphics: There are awesome graphics on this website. It has videos that explain the science behind the concept of genome engineering, and the images are spaced out enough that it keeps the text interesting and not boring.
Position on Subject: The article gives a good and fair view of both the dangerous implications of what such a science could potentially do, and also the mass benefits that could be achieved. The information provided can be verified, as the article provides links that bring the reader to reputable peer-reviewed science journals.
Links: The article provides the reader with 20+ links that take the reader to reputable sources, such as science journals, and also help further explain the concepts brought out in the article.

The second article I chose is titled "Smarter humans and smarter machines will work together" and is from a website called Next Big Future.

URL: The url ends in .com and implies that is a public website. It is not as well-known as TechCrunch, but it is still decently reputable and one of the top 50,000 websites in the US. It is less reputable than TechCrunch.
Author: Brian Wang is the author and he is employed at a Health Care company. This website doesn't seem to employ full-time journalists.
Last Updated: The article was last updated on September 3, 2015, making it recent in science time. The page is up-to-date.
Purpose:The purpose of the article is to inform and teach people about the science.
Graphics: The graphics on this website aren't as nice as the ones on TechCrunch. There is one main image used for the whole article and the words are very clumped together.
Position on Subject: The article gives a fair representation of both sides of the argument, and no one would profit from readers who believe the material is true. It is just informative, with a dash of opinion.
Links: There aren't really any links on the website, there is at most 1. It doesn't provide the reader with additional information for verification.

My Discipline

In the following post, I'm going to tell you (broadly) why I am paying tons of money to get a degree in biochemistry. I love learning, so I am naturally curious and a variety of things about me stem from this. Science isn't for everyone, but it definitely is for me!

Bock, Christoph. "DNA Methylation" via Wikipedia.
 February 18, 2006. Attribution Sharealike 3.0 Unported License.

What do students in your program learn to do?

• Students in my program, Biochemistry, study the chemical processes within living organisms. This includes the reactions within the human body, which I personally find interesting, as well as reactions within the world around us- involving something as simple as a tree's ability to heal itself. We also learn basic scientific principles that can be applied to real-world problems in order to help us learn about solutions.

What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work?

• People who get degrees in this field usually go on to work for science labs (private or public), universities, and even begin conducting research right off the bat. There is an array of options available, from becoming a pharmatician to dealing in forensic science.

What drew you to this field?

• Well, math and science come particularly easy to me (in some aspects), and I really enjoy knowing and discovering things. Within biochemistry, the thing that attracted me the most to the field was the opportunity to do genetic research. Genetics is an interesting thing to study because the possibility to manipulate a living organism's DNA is absolutely insane to think about and even crazier to do.

Who are the leaders/most exciting people involved in your field right now? Why?

• There aren't any main 'leaders' in my field, as the field isn't that large to have founders, but if I had to choose someone who first got me interested in biochemistry, it would be a professor at Harvard University who conducts research within the realm of genetics, Steven McCaroll, Ph.D. He studies how certain genome variations affect certain parts of the brain in disorders, which is a concept I would like to study, but apply it to cancer research.

What are the leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? Where are they published?

• Biochemical Journal is one of the leading journal databases that keeps up with ground-breaking theories and new concepts that develop rapidly.
• The Journal of Biological Chemistry is another database that allows someone to search for specific articles using author, year, volume, etc.
• Hindawi Publishing is also a top biochemistry journal that is international and has an acceptance rate of 6%.

Reflection

After looking at Swati's and Chloe's disciplines, and reading about what they want to do with their lives, I am a bit more comfortable with my major. I'm still not 100% sure what I want to do with my life, but biochemistry as a major gives me a lot of freedom within the sciences to test out the field and see what I really want. I don't have my life as together like my other classmates, but I like that I am open to exploring. Science is always a growing field, though, so that is comforting. I know I will most likely have a job when I exit college.