- Introduction: The plan for the beginning of my paper is to give a bit of background on the subject of stem cells and talk a bit about the author the Witherspoon council. Then I will connect my introduction to my thesis with some kind of transitional sentence.
- Thesis: With the use persuasive writing through evidence and the ability to firmly drive their argument towards their readers, the Witherspoon Council is able to craft a intricate argument for the use of Stem Cells in research. The rhetorical strategies to logically back their arguments makes their writing more trustworthy and ultimately leads to a better case for their cause.
- The body paragraphs: For the first body paragraph I am going to start with the purpose of the piece and the point the author is trying to get across. This is significant because it helps set a foundation for my next couple of paragraphs. The second paragraph is going to be focused on the audience and how the author attempts to connect with them. The third paragraph is going to be about the appeal to logic and how the author uses this strategy effectively. The fourth paragraph is going to be about the strategies that work for this type of writing and how they are effective in other speeches for this type of field. The final body paragraph is going to contain what makes a good argument for my field by using all of the examples in the earlier parts of my paper.
- Analytical Claims: The author uses logic to firmly push the idea about how stem cells are ethical. Also something that is noticed is that they go back and forth between events that were against stem cell research and then ultimately showing why they were wrong and why they should look at what stem cells are like now then how we have viewed them in the past. They essentially tell the readers that they can't really go against the ethics of stem cells because they can't disprove their support. Cause they would be wrong.
- The support for each claim: There are a variety of ways I can support the claims I have made and I will use a couple of them for this paper specifically when the author is talking about Embryotic cells and the controversy behind them. The reason why I want to use this as a support is that it signifies the appeal to logic because the author basically says that well if this type of cell is frowned upon we will find another way to acquire stem cells and they do which shows how they want to persuade the reader.
- The conclusion is going to wrap up what I said throughout the paper and then restate my thesis.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Sections of the Paper
Draft Thesis Statements
1. Through the use of carefully laid out writing, The Witherspoon Council is able to use logical writing to methodically persuade a variety of readers to support the research of stem cells.
This is a short simple thesis that gets the authors purpose across as well as highlighting the rhetorical strategies and it really sets a tone for what to expect throughout the rest of the paper.
2. With the use persuasive writing through evidence and the ability to firmly drive their argument towards their readers, the Witherspoon Council is able to craft a intricate argument for the use of Stem Cells in research. The rhetorical strategies to logically back their arguments makes their writing more trustworthy and ultimately leads to a better case for their cause.
I really like this thesis statement because it sets the tone for the paper and the type of diction coincides with the piece while also catching the eye of the reader. I think it is a strong thesis that gets the point of what is being written, what to look forward in the paper.
This is a short simple thesis that gets the authors purpose across as well as highlighting the rhetorical strategies and it really sets a tone for what to expect throughout the rest of the paper.
2. With the use persuasive writing through evidence and the ability to firmly drive their argument towards their readers, the Witherspoon Council is able to craft a intricate argument for the use of Stem Cells in research. The rhetorical strategies to logically back their arguments makes their writing more trustworthy and ultimately leads to a better case for their cause.
I really like this thesis statement because it sets the tone for the paper and the type of diction coincides with the piece while also catching the eye of the reader. I think it is a strong thesis that gets the point of what is being written, what to look forward in the paper.
Analyzing my Audience
- The readers beliefs and assumptions in my article are quite diverse in this article. The reason for this is that the readers are politicians, scientists and possibly random people in the public. The beliefs will vary from those pro-life to those who are pro-choice or those who believe that stem cell research should be heavily regulated to those who believe it works.
- The most appropriate language for the audience would have to be formal and informative since this report is used to inform those who may be against stem cell research. The language needs to be firm so that the reader actually believes what is being written is true.
- The sociopolitical and economic backgrounds of the reader is probably in the upper middle class to upper class due to the careers and knowledge of the readers. This is because this piece is geared more to the politicians and scientists who have the ability to make a difference and even though the common person controls the elections that employ politicians, they can't make as much of a contribution in a short time.
- Again the position that the reader would take on this issue would be different depending on the reader. After reading it the author hopes that the reader would lean towards more of a pro-stem cell but that depends on the reader. So the author may be hoping for more readers to be against stem cells because then they can convince them to support their work.
- The main thing the reader will want to know is how they see stem cell research as being ethical and what do they have to support it. The reader wants to see the stance that the author has taken and learn how stem cells can help us while being an ethical process because the fact that stem cells were primarily taken from fetuses was the biggest gripe by stem cell research critics. That group of people will be the ones to read every detail of this piece.
- With all this being said the best way to persuade the audience is to use firm language and support your arguments with facts. No one will believe you if you can't support your ideas with facts and it comes down to believing what you're writing.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in The Stem Cell Debates: Lessons for Science and Politics
Appeals to Credibility or Character: "Historically, the federal government has provided considerable support for the scientific project. The classic articulation of postwar science policy in the United States is found in Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report to President Franklin Roosevelt, Science, The Endless Frontier In this influential report, Bush (no relation to President Bush) argued that government funding for science, particularly for what he dubbed “basic research,” was essential to ensuring that America continue to enjoy the technological progress necessary for the nation’s strength and prosperity."
The author uses a reference to credible source in this quote to Appeal to credibility. He uses this quote to show that he is very supportive of science being an endless frontier as said by Bush. This quote is one of many that shows the authors stance on science and what they view. This strategy has a huge impact on the text because it is showing where the author stands. Without it the author doesn't show there stance.
Appeals to Emotion: "Thus, ES cell research demands that we consider the moral status of the human embryo. Many proponents of ES cell research consider the human embryo to be merely a “clump of cells,” morally no different from any other bit of tissue. By contrast, many critics of ES cell research argue that the human embryo is a human being at a very early stage of development, and therefore possesses at least the right not to be killed for research or to be exploited as a medical resource."
The part of the text that triggers the appeal to emotion strategy is the text of this quote. The tone is very focused on human embryos and that phrase is focused on to make a point to the reader who may not agree with stem cells. This repetition gets the readers attention because since this is the main argument those against stem cells have. It is used to get that attention so that the author can present their argument for why they are wrong and should be on the side of pro-stem cell. There are no visible fallacies that I can see. The appeal to emotion works because it is able to attract the reader to focus on what may be the most important counter argument.
Appeal to Logic: "the U.S. government also came to recognize the importance of regulating scientific research, particularly biomedical and behavioral research conducted on human subjects. The horrific scientific experiments performed by Nazi doctors during the Second World War, along with other cruel and unethical experiments performed in the United States and around the world, clearly demonstrated the need for ethical oversight of scientific research. Governments around the world instituted policies on research ethics and the protection of human subjects, based on the principles articulated in such documents as the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report."
The author uses this rhetorical strategy to try and get the reader to understand why there are a system of regulating scientific studies. The author uses a mixture of historical records and reports from the experiments done by Nazi Scientists that were deemed inhumane and some were even tried for war crimes. This use of logic backs up their reason for telling the reader the significance of what the author does which is overlooking the ethics of experiments. The quote doesn't have any fallacies that are seen in the Student's Guide. The final result of this strategy is that it works because the reader better understands what the author is trying to get at.
The author uses a reference to credible source in this quote to Appeal to credibility. He uses this quote to show that he is very supportive of science being an endless frontier as said by Bush. This quote is one of many that shows the authors stance on science and what they view. This strategy has a huge impact on the text because it is showing where the author stands. Without it the author doesn't show there stance.
Appeals to Emotion: "Thus, ES cell research demands that we consider the moral status of the human embryo. Many proponents of ES cell research consider the human embryo to be merely a “clump of cells,” morally no different from any other bit of tissue. By contrast, many critics of ES cell research argue that the human embryo is a human being at a very early stage of development, and therefore possesses at least the right not to be killed for research or to be exploited as a medical resource."
The part of the text that triggers the appeal to emotion strategy is the text of this quote. The tone is very focused on human embryos and that phrase is focused on to make a point to the reader who may not agree with stem cells. This repetition gets the readers attention because since this is the main argument those against stem cells have. It is used to get that attention so that the author can present their argument for why they are wrong and should be on the side of pro-stem cell. There are no visible fallacies that I can see. The appeal to emotion works because it is able to attract the reader to focus on what may be the most important counter argument.
Appeal to Logic: "the U.S. government also came to recognize the importance of regulating scientific research, particularly biomedical and behavioral research conducted on human subjects. The horrific scientific experiments performed by Nazi doctors during the Second World War, along with other cruel and unethical experiments performed in the United States and around the world, clearly demonstrated the need for ethical oversight of scientific research. Governments around the world instituted policies on research ethics and the protection of human subjects, based on the principles articulated in such documents as the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report."
The author uses this rhetorical strategy to try and get the reader to understand why there are a system of regulating scientific studies. The author uses a mixture of historical records and reports from the experiments done by Nazi Scientists that were deemed inhumane and some were even tried for war crimes. This use of logic backs up their reason for telling the reader the significance of what the author does which is overlooking the ethics of experiments. The quote doesn't have any fallacies that are seen in the Student's Guide. The final result of this strategy is that it works because the reader better understands what the author is trying to get at.
Analyzing the Message in The Stem Cell Debates: Lessons for Science and Politics
- The bullet point that most fit this text is that this piece is trying to persuade readers that Stem cells are not unethical. They do this by using facts to attempt to sway the reader because you can't argue with facts. It is something that you have to accept if it has been researched and agreed upon. They do have opinions that they use to sway the reader but this is their main goal.
- The goal that does not seem relevant in this piece is to analyze,synthesize, or interpret because this text looks more at a topic that the author wants to explain and persuade to the reader why stem cells are not unethical. The author doesn't analyze the subject of stem cells because that is something that isn't seen as much in the scientific field, except in research findings when they analyze their results.
- There isn't any kind of layers or nuances in this speech because it doesn't seem that the author needs or wants to do this. The reason for this is that the author wants to get there point across to persuade the reader so hiding layers or nuances would be pointless and actually harm the argument given.
Saturday, July 25, 2015
Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations
Source #1:
Author/Speaker: The author of this article is Claudia Driefus who doesn't have a large amount of credentials other than writing for the NY Times. She is interviewing Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard who gives his thoughts on Stem Cell Research which he was researching.
Audience: The variety of people that this can appeal to ranges from the average NY Times reader to a politician or even a top scientist.
Context: The context of the interview looks at how Dr. Melton feels about his research on stem cells being barred from federal funding in 2001. He is frustrated by this because he and his team were on the verge of some huge breakthroughs in stem cell research only to loose funding because of controversy of how stem cells are acquired.
Story
Source #2:
Author/Speaker: The article is written by the Witherspoon Council which is a scientific organization that focuses on the ethics and integrity of scientific experimentation. It is a qualified organization to write an article like this.
Audience: The audience are those who oppose stem cell research and this article gives reasons to support and encourage stem cell research. It is heavily backed by facts and benefits of stem cell research as well as addressing the more frowned upon aspects of stem cell research. They want to present a case for the people against stem cell research.
Context: The article blatantly shows the reader that it is for stem cell research which sets the tone for the rest of the article. Through a list that includes the Bush revocation of federal funding to common misrepresentations of stem cell research. The obviously pro-stemcell use facts to support their arguments but there main goal is to show that stem cell research is unethical in there eyes which may sway some readers and if you look at the facts it makes sense.
Story
Source #3
Author/Speaker: Russell T Daley is a graduate student at California State University and his paper looks at the ethics of stem cell research and how it could be looked at as ethical in certain cases and not ethical in other cases. He is a graduate student so he is credible as his work has been published.
Audience: The audience that this paper is geared towards is the scientific community. Daley looks into what both sides see as ethical stem cell research and what is not ethical. He wants the scientific community to follow the examples he has given. His audience will look at this paper and feel impressed by the suggestions made.
Context: Daley uses a variety of ways to reach his audience and by far the biggest is by giving ideas on how to describe stem cells. Daley believes that if the scientific community uses the correct and friendly rhetoric to describe stem cells they will be looed on more favorably. If this happens then the benefits will be more focused on then the ethics of stem cell research which is a huge roadblock.
Story
Author/Speaker: The author of this article is Claudia Driefus who doesn't have a large amount of credentials other than writing for the NY Times. She is interviewing Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard who gives his thoughts on Stem Cell Research which he was researching.
Audience: The variety of people that this can appeal to ranges from the average NY Times reader to a politician or even a top scientist.
Context: The context of the interview looks at how Dr. Melton feels about his research on stem cells being barred from federal funding in 2001. He is frustrated by this because he and his team were on the verge of some huge breakthroughs in stem cell research only to loose funding because of controversy of how stem cells are acquired.
Story
Source #2:
Author/Speaker: The article is written by the Witherspoon Council which is a scientific organization that focuses on the ethics and integrity of scientific experimentation. It is a qualified organization to write an article like this.
Audience: The audience are those who oppose stem cell research and this article gives reasons to support and encourage stem cell research. It is heavily backed by facts and benefits of stem cell research as well as addressing the more frowned upon aspects of stem cell research. They want to present a case for the people against stem cell research.
Context: The article blatantly shows the reader that it is for stem cell research which sets the tone for the rest of the article. Through a list that includes the Bush revocation of federal funding to common misrepresentations of stem cell research. The obviously pro-stemcell use facts to support their arguments but there main goal is to show that stem cell research is unethical in there eyes which may sway some readers and if you look at the facts it makes sense.
Story
Source #3
Author/Speaker: Russell T Daley is a graduate student at California State University and his paper looks at the ethics of stem cell research and how it could be looked at as ethical in certain cases and not ethical in other cases. He is a graduate student so he is credible as his work has been published.
Audience: The audience that this paper is geared towards is the scientific community. Daley looks into what both sides see as ethical stem cell research and what is not ethical. He wants the scientific community to follow the examples he has given. His audience will look at this paper and feel impressed by the suggestions made.
Context: Daley uses a variety of ways to reach his audience and by far the biggest is by giving ideas on how to describe stem cells. Daley believes that if the scientific community uses the correct and friendly rhetoric to describe stem cells they will be looed on more favorably. If this happens then the benefits will be more focused on then the ethics of stem cell research which is a huge roadblock.
Story
Friday, July 24, 2015
Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns
In my paragraph I realized that I use long complicated sentences. It is basically my entire paragraph of long sentences which isn't bad but I could do something better
Instead I could use more short sentences to make quick points and add flow. Long drawn out sentences can be dreary to continuously read so maybe if I used more simple sentences my work could have some flow.
Instead I could use more short sentences to make quick points and add flow. Long drawn out sentences can be dreary to continuously read so maybe if I used more simple sentences my work could have some flow.
Developing a Research Question
In the field of microbiology there are a large amount of debates currently going on. It is a field that is riddled with political involvement, ethical boundaries, and dangerous research. Some of these arguments have been hotly debated for years and I want to explore these areas.
The first question I want to delve into is the research and application of stem cells. As of today we know a lot about these cells and they have proven to work pretty well but the acquisition of them is actually very difficult. So what want to research is How difficult it is to acquire stem cells and can it be used for everyone? What I want to look at is if stem cell treatments can be give to everyone not just certain people.
Another topic I want to look at is "super viruses" which came up a lot and I want to look more into them. The question I ant to ask is that if super viruses are a real possibility or can we eradicate them?
Back to stem cells a huge debate that has been occurring for year is whether or not stem cells are ethically wrong or are they worth it? This is a commonly asked question in my field and I want to look more into it.
These are the more talked about debates in my field and I hope to look further into them
The first question I want to delve into is the research and application of stem cells. As of today we know a lot about these cells and they have proven to work pretty well but the acquisition of them is actually very difficult. So what want to research is How difficult it is to acquire stem cells and can it be used for everyone? What I want to look at is if stem cell treatments can be give to everyone not just certain people.
Another topic I want to look at is "super viruses" which came up a lot and I want to look more into them. The question I ant to ask is that if super viruses are a real possibility or can we eradicate them?
Back to stem cells a huge debate that has been occurring for year is whether or not stem cells are ethically wrong or are they worth it? This is a commonly asked question in my field and I want to look more into it.
These are the more talked about debates in my field and I hope to look further into them
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Reflection on Project 1
What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Card project and how did you deal with them?
The biggest challenge I faced in this project was combining all the data I had found and putting it into a nice formatted guide to the controversy. Some of the articles I was reading barely made sense to me at the time which made it even harder to put into words that others who are not in the same field can understand. The fact that I had to detail certain scientific reports into summaries for others to understand made this project a bit challenging.
What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
Some of the successes I had on this project were mostly due to the fact that I could find reliable news sources that highlighted the problem at hand which surprised me at first. There was a lot of debate over this kind of issue that involved high profile politicians and scientists which showed me how serious this issue was. Another major success for me was that I believe I was able to compile the information I gathered from my sources and make a basic yet informative QRG.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?
The most effective writing practice for me was to state the answer to the question in a basic form then I would back the question with facts or reports. I would try and support both sides of the issues with their views and stances. The reason I did this was because this kind of issue focuses on the facts and reports in order to be solved reasonably because this is the kind of community that solves its problems like this.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?
I didn't really have any practices that were ineffective in my opinion. If it didn't seem like it would work I avoided it and stuck with what was working for me.
How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This was a lot like a research paper I had to do during my senior year of high school where we researched controversial issues. The process of looking at sources and writing about them was the same so it was a shorter and more streamlined version of that paper.
How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This process was very similar to writing processes I have had in the past and didn't divert to anything I'm not used to.
Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?
Yes, I think that this project helped me find a new way to cite certain journals and it has made me look at news articles and journals in a different way. This has also allowed me to combine my information to match a QRG that could help me do better on other papers.
The biggest challenge I faced in this project was combining all the data I had found and putting it into a nice formatted guide to the controversy. Some of the articles I was reading barely made sense to me at the time which made it even harder to put into words that others who are not in the same field can understand. The fact that I had to detail certain scientific reports into summaries for others to understand made this project a bit challenging.
What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?
Some of the successes I had on this project were mostly due to the fact that I could find reliable news sources that highlighted the problem at hand which surprised me at first. There was a lot of debate over this kind of issue that involved high profile politicians and scientists which showed me how serious this issue was. Another major success for me was that I believe I was able to compile the information I gathered from my sources and make a basic yet informative QRG.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?
The most effective writing practice for me was to state the answer to the question in a basic form then I would back the question with facts or reports. I would try and support both sides of the issues with their views and stances. The reason I did this was because this kind of issue focuses on the facts and reports in order to be solved reasonably because this is the kind of community that solves its problems like this.
What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?
I didn't really have any practices that were ineffective in my opinion. If it didn't seem like it would work I avoided it and stuck with what was working for me.
How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This was a lot like a research paper I had to do during my senior year of high school where we researched controversial issues. The process of looking at sources and writing about them was the same so it was a shorter and more streamlined version of that paper.
How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?
This process was very similar to writing processes I have had in the past and didn't divert to anything I'm not used to.
Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?
Yes, I think that this project helped me find a new way to cite certain journals and it has made me look at news articles and journals in a different way. This has also allowed me to combine my information to match a QRG that could help me do better on other papers.
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Draft of Quick Reference Guide
The main things I would like my peer reviewers too look at is content, if it makes sense and is clear and to look at grammar to make sure everything is nice and neat. I do tend to extend my sentences so if there is some that seem to long or change the main idea comment please. Otherwise thank you very much for taking the time to look at my draft.
Open Document
Open Document
Saturday, July 18, 2015
QRG, the Genre
The conventions of QRGs come across as a professional way to get information across and as such the writing is very formal and structured as such in order to present the information to the reader as easily as possible.
The author formats their work by posing questions that the common person may have. This is to present the reader with all the fact they may want to know and to lead them to learn more. It allows the author to go over every part of the guide needed and the formatting is almost like a press conference where the author responds to questions that are most likely going to be asked.
In reading a couple of different QRGs the reason for these types of writing is to inform the reader of an event that is going on whether it be a supreme court case, a controversy or an ongoing development. These type of guides seem to be used to inform the reader about what is occurring and to give a sort of timeline of the events and the key people involved. So this type of content is more directed at those who want to get a broad overview of something.
The author formats their work by posing questions that the common person may have. This is to present the reader with all the fact they may want to know and to lead them to learn more. It allows the author to go over every part of the guide needed and the formatting is almost like a press conference where the author responds to questions that are most likely going to be asked.
In reading a couple of different QRGs the reason for these types of writing is to inform the reader of an event that is going on whether it be a supreme court case, a controversy or an ongoing development. These type of guides seem to be used to inform the reader about what is occurring and to give a sort of timeline of the events and the key people involved. So this type of content is more directed at those who want to get a broad overview of something.
Cluster of Pathogen Controversy
Summary of Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens
Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens
Step 1)
Paragraph 1: The author introduces us to the controversy in this case being the debate over the deliberate creation of super flu strains to study.
Paragraph 2: The author shows us both sides of the controversy the side that supports the creation of these modified super flu strains and the side that believes that it isn't worth the risk.
Paragraph 3: States that the National Academy of Sciences is watching over the debates in order to find a middle ground.
Paragraph 4: The National Health organization is talking about how they are looking into the considerations and stances of both sides of the debate.
Paragraph 5: Introduces Dr. Atruro Casadevall's statement regarding how the main focus should be on the scientific questions.
Paragraph 6: Scientist have debates all the time according to Casadevall
Paragraph 7: Casadevall talks about how this is new territory and how the decisions need more debate than what is common in the scientific community.
Paragraph 8: Dr. David Relman is against the idea of creating new diseases.
Paragraph 9: Relman believes that the public should be included more in this discussion because potentially their lives could be at risk.
Paragraph 10: Work at a lab that created a lab-altered strain of the bird flu was halted for a couple of years after federal oversight increased but key questions were not answered.
Paragraph 11: Relman explains that we haven't answered the question whether or not these kind of experiments should be undertaken.
Paragraph 12: Relman created an organization that would tell researchers to stop experiments leading to a new pathogen till they understand the benefits and risks.
Paragraph 13: The statement above came out just as news of laboratory mishaps were being reported.
Paragraph 14: Refers to the Ebola outbreak to give an example of a pandemic.
Paragraph 15: This all led to a group that defends the creation of pathogens.
Paragraph 16: Paul Duprex wants to work with these diseases that has killed many people because it benefits people.
Paragraph 17: Duprex created a group called Scientists for science to back his stance on the study of dangerous pathogens. The group is composed of people who do work on these pathogens.
Paragraph 18: Scientists either have to join the discussion or not.
Paragraph 19: Both groups have websites each with over a hundred supporters.
Paragraph 20: The American Society for Microbiology has called on the National Academy of science to help resolve this issue and they have decided to look over agreements in the coming months.
Paragraph 21: Tim Donohue says that similar talks have happened in the past and that both sides need to understand the benefits and risks before coming to an agreement.
Step 2)
The main idea behind this article is that both sides are gaining support and that this debate on whether the creation of lethal pathogens should be allowed will b happening soon. In order for this to occur however both sides need to understand the risks and benefits to both the scientific community and the public.
Step 3)
The summary above meets al the requirements that were set.
Step 1)
Paragraph 1: The author introduces us to the controversy in this case being the debate over the deliberate creation of super flu strains to study.
Paragraph 2: The author shows us both sides of the controversy the side that supports the creation of these modified super flu strains and the side that believes that it isn't worth the risk.
Paragraph 3: States that the National Academy of Sciences is watching over the debates in order to find a middle ground.
Paragraph 4: The National Health organization is talking about how they are looking into the considerations and stances of both sides of the debate.
Paragraph 5: Introduces Dr. Atruro Casadevall's statement regarding how the main focus should be on the scientific questions.
Paragraph 6: Scientist have debates all the time according to Casadevall
Paragraph 7: Casadevall talks about how this is new territory and how the decisions need more debate than what is common in the scientific community.
Paragraph 8: Dr. David Relman is against the idea of creating new diseases.
Paragraph 9: Relman believes that the public should be included more in this discussion because potentially their lives could be at risk.
Paragraph 10: Work at a lab that created a lab-altered strain of the bird flu was halted for a couple of years after federal oversight increased but key questions were not answered.
Paragraph 11: Relman explains that we haven't answered the question whether or not these kind of experiments should be undertaken.
Paragraph 12: Relman created an organization that would tell researchers to stop experiments leading to a new pathogen till they understand the benefits and risks.
Paragraph 13: The statement above came out just as news of laboratory mishaps were being reported.
Paragraph 14: Refers to the Ebola outbreak to give an example of a pandemic.
Paragraph 15: This all led to a group that defends the creation of pathogens.
Paragraph 16: Paul Duprex wants to work with these diseases that has killed many people because it benefits people.
Paragraph 17: Duprex created a group called Scientists for science to back his stance on the study of dangerous pathogens. The group is composed of people who do work on these pathogens.
Paragraph 18: Scientists either have to join the discussion or not.
Paragraph 19: Both groups have websites each with over a hundred supporters.
Paragraph 20: The American Society for Microbiology has called on the National Academy of science to help resolve this issue and they have decided to look over agreements in the coming months.
Paragraph 21: Tim Donohue says that similar talks have happened in the past and that both sides need to understand the benefits and risks before coming to an agreement.
Step 2)
The main idea behind this article is that both sides are gaining support and that this debate on whether the creation of lethal pathogens should be allowed will b happening soon. In order for this to occur however both sides need to understand the risks and benefits to both the scientific community and the public.
Step 3)
The summary above meets al the requirements that were set.
Thursday, July 16, 2015
Annotated Bibliography
The Style used is called ASM after the American Society of Microbiology
1. Morrison C, Dial S, Day W, Joens L. 2012. Investigations of Salmonella enterica Serovar Newport Infections of Oysters by Using Immunohistochemistry and Knockout Mutagenesis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78:2867-2873.
The main idea of this study was to look at how long the Salmonella virus remains on oysters because of a recent outbreak of the diseases. The study was conducted to help further understand the disease and allows the reader's to see the benefit of researching potentially harmful viruses. This however does not show that the same results or findings can come with no risks as with the Bird flu virus.
2. Vogel K. 2014. Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism. International Security 38:39-71.
This article is a very important and alarming because it highlights a modified variant of the bird flu virus and explains how little intelligence the United States has on the security of these types of labs and also looks at how there needs to be an implementation of some structure of security. This article shows how little oversight there is when it comes to this type of research which is alarming.
3. Akst J. 2014. Haste Caused CDC Bird Flu Contamination?. The Scientist.
This article explains a major biosecurity breach where a strain of virus got out. Tis shows how little mistakes could be catastrophic in this type of research.
4. Greenfieldboyce N. 2015. Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens. NPR.
This is an article describing the main players and reasons for the controversy and will be referenced heavily in the QRG.
5. Yang J. 2015. Bird flu study 'sounds the alarm' on strain’s pandemic potential. thestar.com.
This article shows the bird flu outbreak in China in 2013 which shows the dangers of the bird flu. This article then goes into depth explaining how the 2nd out break was a mutated strain of the original Bird flu.
6. Branswell H. 2014. Five changes can make H5N1 virus transmit among mammals, study finds. Global News.
This article also takes a look at the danger of bird flu showing that it takes very little for this virus to become contagious to humans. The part that is most worrisome is that this disease kills birds with very few survivors so if a mutation does occur without us knowing it could possibly lead to a pandemic.
7. Greenfieldboyce N. 2014 Research Institutions Will Have To Identify 'Dual-Use' Pathogens. NPR
The significance of this article is that it entails an actual result to the controversy in that there was a decision by both sides and the federal government on what to do with "Dual-use" Labs but it still makes the event controversy because it does federal funding with limits.
8. Christensen J. 2014 Anthrax investigation: USDA finds more CDC lab problems, CNN
This article is mainly going to be used to describe the biosecurity issues that have arisen in the past couple of years.
9. Ford D., 2014 CDC: Up to 86 workers possibly exposed to anthrax, CNN
This article is going to be used to talk about how the security issues are causing a real problem and can potentially be a nationwide issue.
1. Morrison C, Dial S, Day W, Joens L. 2012. Investigations of Salmonella enterica Serovar Newport Infections of Oysters by Using Immunohistochemistry and Knockout Mutagenesis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78:2867-2873.
The main idea of this study was to look at how long the Salmonella virus remains on oysters because of a recent outbreak of the diseases. The study was conducted to help further understand the disease and allows the reader's to see the benefit of researching potentially harmful viruses. This however does not show that the same results or findings can come with no risks as with the Bird flu virus.
2. Vogel K. 2014. Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism. International Security 38:39-71.
This article is a very important and alarming because it highlights a modified variant of the bird flu virus and explains how little intelligence the United States has on the security of these types of labs and also looks at how there needs to be an implementation of some structure of security. This article shows how little oversight there is when it comes to this type of research which is alarming.
3. Akst J. 2014. Haste Caused CDC Bird Flu Contamination?. The Scientist.
This article explains a major biosecurity breach where a strain of virus got out. Tis shows how little mistakes could be catastrophic in this type of research.
4. Greenfieldboyce N. 2015. Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens. NPR.
This is an article describing the main players and reasons for the controversy and will be referenced heavily in the QRG.
5. Yang J. 2015. Bird flu study 'sounds the alarm' on strain’s pandemic potential. thestar.com.
This article shows the bird flu outbreak in China in 2013 which shows the dangers of the bird flu. This article then goes into depth explaining how the 2nd out break was a mutated strain of the original Bird flu.
6. Branswell H. 2014. Five changes can make H5N1 virus transmit among mammals, study finds. Global News.
This article also takes a look at the danger of bird flu showing that it takes very little for this virus to become contagious to humans. The part that is most worrisome is that this disease kills birds with very few survivors so if a mutation does occur without us knowing it could possibly lead to a pandemic.
7. Greenfieldboyce N. 2014 Research Institutions Will Have To Identify 'Dual-Use' Pathogens. NPR
The significance of this article is that it entails an actual result to the controversy in that there was a decision by both sides and the federal government on what to do with "Dual-use" Labs but it still makes the event controversy because it does federal funding with limits.
8. Christensen J. 2014 Anthrax investigation: USDA finds more CDC lab problems, CNN
This article is mainly going to be used to describe the biosecurity issues that have arisen in the past couple of years.
9. Ford D., 2014 CDC: Up to 86 workers possibly exposed to anthrax, CNN
This article is going to be used to talk about how the security issues are causing a real problem and can potentially be a nationwide issue.
Ideology in my Controversy
- The main people who are involved is a variety of scientists and labs around the world and specifically the CDC.
- Some of the Major speakers and writers are the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Arturo Cassadevall, and Dr. David Relman.
- The major powers in pay are major government powers like the U.S., China and a variety of European nations. Also involved are the World Health Organization.
- One group wants the ability to study extremely dangerous diseases that are easily transmissible but the other group doesn't want this because of safety concerns like bioterrorism and containment issues.
- There is no power differential though the group that wants the study has more leverage.
- The only common ground is that both sides agree that there need to be major changes in the way of security
- There are no Acknowledged commons that I know of
- Both groups do frequently communicate in order to resolve this issue.
Evaluation of Social Media
Source 1
Five changes can make H5N1 virus transmit among mammals, study finds
Credibility: Strong it is a news outlet
Location: Worldwide, people are not directly affected
Network: Twitter, Facebook
Content: Description of major changes to the H5N1 virus that can help make it less volatile
Contextual Updates: None
Age: Not too old the author has her own twitter where she posts her stories so it has even more credibility
Source 2
Bird flu study 'sounds the alarm' on strain’s pandemic potential
Credibility: Credible it is written by a Global Health Reporter so she knows her stuff
Location: China
Network: New Site
Content: Increasing the awareness of the H5N1 virus and how it is spreading and becoming more prevalent.
Contextual Updates: None
Age: The credibility of the author allows it so that the age isn't to relevant
Five changes can make H5N1 virus transmit among mammals, study finds
Credibility: Strong it is a news outlet
Location: Worldwide, people are not directly affected
Network: Twitter, Facebook
Content: Description of major changes to the H5N1 virus that can help make it less volatile
Contextual Updates: None
Age: Not too old the author has her own twitter where she posts her stories so it has even more credibility
Source 2
Bird flu study 'sounds the alarm' on strain’s pandemic potential
Credibility: Credible it is written by a Global Health Reporter so she knows her stuff
Location: China
Network: New Site
Content: Increasing the awareness of the H5N1 virus and how it is spreading and becoming more prevalent.
Contextual Updates: None
Age: The credibility of the author allows it so that the age isn't to relevant
Evaluation of Scholarly Sources
Source 1
Investigations of Salmonella enterica Serovar Newport Infections of Oysters by Using Immunohistochemistry and Knockout Mutagenesis
Analysis: This article highlights the finding of salmonella being found on oysters after over two months and even worse found out that it was able to go undetected by burrowing into the deep tissues of the oysters. This shows that certain diseases can adapt to different circumstances then becoming a major hazard for people and that without labs studying this, we would never know and people would get sick.
Published: Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Author: Joens, LA, Morrison CM, Dial SM, DayWA
Source 2
Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism
Analysis: This article explains that the a lab in the Netherlands found that a strain of the Bird flu is transmissible by air heightening fears that it can be used as a weapon as well as it getting out and starting a pandemic. The two main issues stated in the article ask if one that there is enough backing to study more of this kind of bioterrorism and the second issue is that with recent, this being 2011, issues of biosecurity failing could terrorists acquire this or could this disease be let loose by mistake.
Published: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2014
Author: Kathleen M. Vogel
Investigations of Salmonella enterica Serovar Newport Infections of Oysters by Using Immunohistochemistry and Knockout Mutagenesis
Analysis: This article highlights the finding of salmonella being found on oysters after over two months and even worse found out that it was able to go undetected by burrowing into the deep tissues of the oysters. This shows that certain diseases can adapt to different circumstances then becoming a major hazard for people and that without labs studying this, we would never know and people would get sick.
Published: Applied and Environmental Microbiology
Author: Joens, LA, Morrison CM, Dial SM, DayWA
Source 2
Expert Knowledge in Intelligence Assessments: Bird Flu and Bioterrorism
Analysis: This article explains that the a lab in the Netherlands found that a strain of the Bird flu is transmissible by air heightening fears that it can be used as a weapon as well as it getting out and starting a pandemic. The two main issues stated in the article ask if one that there is enough backing to study more of this kind of bioterrorism and the second issue is that with recent, this being 2011, issues of biosecurity failing could terrorists acquire this or could this disease be let loose by mistake.
Published: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2014
Author: Kathleen M. Vogel
Evaluation of General Sources
Source 1
Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens
URL: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/08/13/339854400/biologists-choose-sides-in-safety-debate-over-lab-made-pathogens
Author: Neil Greenfieldboyce
Last Updated: August 13, 2014
Purpose: To show the controversy of lab made pathogens and to present both sides
Graphics: Two scientists holding a chicken that died from presumably bird flu
Position on Subject: Presents both sides
Links: none
This article is used more to elaborate on the issue and explain how lab mad pathogens are being used. It centers around the idea that creating such pathogens can lead to a pandemic but others want to be able to study these exceptionally dangerous viruses, like the bird flu, to further deepen out knowledge of diseases.
Source 2
Haste Caused CDC Bird Flu Contamination?
URL: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40789/title/Haste-Caused-CDC-Bird-Flu-Contamination-/
Author: Jef Akst
Last Updated: August 19, 2014
Purpose: To show how a simple mistake can be catastrophic.
Graphics: One picture of a scientist holding a syringe
Position: Leans towards against
Links:none
The main purpose of this article is a story on how a vial of H9N2 which is a strain of bird flu accidently being released and causing some contamination at the CDC. This is significant as the author states because the person responsible didn't follow safety protocols because he was in a rush into a meeting and the contamination wasn't discovered till months later. This article presents the mishaps that almost caused a pandemic and shows how serious some of this should be taken.
Biologists Choose Sides In Safety Debate Over Lab-Made Pathogens
URL: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/08/13/339854400/biologists-choose-sides-in-safety-debate-over-lab-made-pathogens
Author: Neil Greenfieldboyce
Last Updated: August 13, 2014
Purpose: To show the controversy of lab made pathogens and to present both sides
Graphics: Two scientists holding a chicken that died from presumably bird flu
Position on Subject: Presents both sides
Links: none
This article is used more to elaborate on the issue and explain how lab mad pathogens are being used. It centers around the idea that creating such pathogens can lead to a pandemic but others want to be able to study these exceptionally dangerous viruses, like the bird flu, to further deepen out knowledge of diseases.
Source 2
Haste Caused CDC Bird Flu Contamination?
URL: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/40789/title/Haste-Caused-CDC-Bird-Flu-Contamination-/
Author: Jef Akst
Last Updated: August 19, 2014
Purpose: To show how a simple mistake can be catastrophic.
Graphics: One picture of a scientist holding a syringe
Position: Leans towards against
Links:none
The main purpose of this article is a story on how a vial of H9N2 which is a strain of bird flu accidently being released and causing some contamination at the CDC. This is significant as the author states because the person responsible didn't follow safety protocols because he was in a rush into a meeting and the contamination wasn't discovered till months later. This article presents the mishaps that almost caused a pandemic and shows how serious some of this should be taken.
My Discipline
- The students in the microbiology program learn a great deal of things related to a variety of field. The program focuses on the study of molecular organisms and their behaviors and attributes in the realms of diseases, agriculture, medicine and much more.
- The main fields that Microbiologist go into is research positions but this field allows for a broad choice of positions whether it be an oceanologist or a administrative position at the CDC this discipline allows a wide range of career options.
- The biggest thing that drew to this field was the ability to work in a lab while simultaneously making a difference by studying disease finding treatments and cures for those diseases and helping people.
- There aren't many distinguishable microbiologist that represent the field but the biggest leaders in terms of an organization is the American Society for Microbiologists.
- The three large scholarly journals that I found were the Annual Review for Microbiology, Trends in Microbiology and FEMS Microbiology Reviews.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Weekly Calender
Adam Karsten Weekly Schedule
|
|
Sunday
|
Monday
|
Tuesday
|
Wednesday
|
Thursday
|
Friday
|
Saturday
|
|
12:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1:00am
|
Sleep
|
Sleep
|
Sleep
|
Sleep
|
Sleep
|
sleep
|
sleep
|
|
2:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10:00am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11:00am
|
wake
up
|
wake
up
|
wake
up
|
wake
up
|
wake
up
|
wake
up
|
wake
up
|
|
12:00pm
|
workout
|
workout
|
shower
|
workout
|
workout
|
workout
|
shower
|
|
1:00pm
|
shower
|
shower
|
|
shower
|
shower
|
shower
|
|
|
2:00pm
|
lunch
|
lunch
|
lunch
|
lunch
|
lunch
|
lunch
|
lunch
|
|
3:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4:00pm
|
chores
|
chores
|
chores
|
chores
|
chores
|
chores
|
chores
|
|
5:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6:00pm
|
dinner
|
dinner
|
dinner
|
dinner
|
dinner
|
dinner
|
dinner
|
|
7:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11:00pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)