Evaluation of Rhetorical Sources

"Falsified Research?" 09/14/2011 via Wikimedia. Creative
Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg believed that “nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all.”  Yet few people seem to agree with him.  Most tend to have many opinions, some of which are very passionate, and some of which end up online.  And that is what we are taking a look at today: opinionated public speeches (in the field of engineering, of course).

Why Climate Engineering Won't Work

This article was written by Anders Levermann, a professor of physics and a climate scientist.  He received his education from the Potsdam University, and now conducts his research out of Berlin.  He has written multiple scientific journals that cover a wide range of climate topics, making him very knowledgeable on the subject.

Anders Levermann aims his paper at a very large group, and rightly so, since the controversy of global warming is a popular topic.  Levermann includes the scientific explanations behind his arguments so that those with prior climate knowledge can evaluate his reasoning.  At the same time, he simplifies his explanations so that the common reader can understand why he makes his claims.  Levermann knows that this topic is concerning to many and he therefore addresses as many people as he can.

The article was published in May 2015 online on the Huffington Post website.  This matches his intended audience as he is trying to reach as many people as possible, and the internet is the fastest way to achieve that.  Global warming has been an ongoing issue for many years now, so there are already fears and opinions that have been established by the general public long before the writing of this article.  This is seen in how the topic has turned into a political division.

How to Attract Female Engineers

Lina Nilsson (the author of this article) directly establishes her credibility within the text.  She shares that she has a Ph.D. in biomedical engineering, and therefore she has both knowledge of subject as well as a personal connection to the problem.  She previously worked at the UC Berkley biomedical engineering lab and is now the Innovation Director of the Blum Center for Developing Economies.  This shows that she has a lot of experience in addressing major issues such as the lack of female engineers.

Her paper seems to address two main audiences: engineering colleges/ companies and women.  The solution she provides deals greatly with the role of the engineering community reaching out to women in the different areas of engineering.  Nilsson also constantly uses the word “we” to establish a connection between herself and other women, so that they too will want change.

Nilsson addresses the staggering differences in numbers of male employees versus female employees in the engineering work force.  The article was written in April 2015 for the online New York Times.  By publishing the work in such a renowned newspaper, she establishes the seriousness of her topic.  Like global warming, sexism in the workforce is not a new topic.  People are already conditioned to the voices and opinions of many other advocates with whom Nilsson must compete.

Women and Science at Yale

The articles author, David Gelernter, is a computer scientist who founded Lifestreams, a company that redesigns computers to be more user friendly.  He is a professor of computer science at Yale.  He is the author of many books concerning the world of science and technology.  Due to public reaction from his previous books, he is used to dealing with criticism and affirming his beliefs.

Although the paper could be read and understood by anyone of the general public, Gelernter seems to be more focused on those who are accusing Yale of being sexist in the number of women scientists they enroll.  The many questions Gelernter throws out all seem to indicate that the paper is driven toward a specific group of people that have made accusations against Yale.

Thus, the paper has obviously been written in response to the criticism the school received for their supposed lack of female science students.  The article was written in 1999 in the Weekly Standard.  The date of the article plays a major factor in the opinions addressed and possibly the motivations behind them.  


Reflection:

After reading Jovanka Potkonjak's post and Michaela Webb's post, I realized how important it is to have an opinionated article or else there is often a lack of rhetoric devices to do analysis on.  I felt my evaluation of sources was very thorough as I spent time analyzing not only the author but also the contextual pieces that would have affected the article as well.  Seeing other's rhetoric situations reminded me how people can be the same "level" of opinionated but can come across on very different emotional levels.

Developing a Research Question

Nukes4Tots. "Two .22 LR rounds"
11/3/2006 via Wikimedia.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic.

As technology advances, the world of engineering is forced to consider unasked ethical questions and
construct un-thought of boundaries and guidelines.  The current debates range from education to weapons.

Some members of the engineering filed are concerned that students with a BS in engineering are not prepared for a job in the field.  This has caused them to want to raise the number of credit hours required to graduate.

The genetic modification human embryos has raised many ethical questions among the scientific community.  In addition, researchers are fighting over the patents to the process called CRISPR/Cas9, and the possibility of varying types of genetic modification.

Others are concerned that engineers should not be allowed to make weaponry, as the technology has become so advanced the consequences would be unpredictable.  As a result of these controversies, I would like research the following questions.

1)      How effective are guidelines and rules established by the scientific community?  To what extent do scientists follow these rules?

a.       David Baltimore’s idea in my QRG about the U.S. having “authority” over other countries made me question the kind of power regulations have over research.  In theory, it would be relatively easy to perform research that few people had knowledge.  Do scientists follow the rules?  Do they break them?  Are they trying to find loop holes in the law?

2)      How influential is the voice of the general public (expressing concerns of ethical boundaries for example) in creating change among the scientific community?  Can they make a difference in setting new boundaries or ethical lines?

a.       In writing my QRG, I was curious as to what power my article might have if it went out to the public.  Would it actually convince people to take a stand?  Would the general public making a stand have any sort of significance?

3)      Should engineers be forced to take an ethical code of conduct just like medical doctors do?  Do engineers have enough “power” to need to be constricted on what they are able do or make?

a.       Technology is so advanced now some people believe we are “playing God.”  This entrusts a lot of power to engineers, and what they do with this power is completely up to them.  Could their knowledge actually be used to endanger humans?

Reflection on Project 1

Project 1 is complete!  Well, almost.  Reflection on an assignment can be just as important as the assignment itself.  Knowing your strengths and weaknesses or successes and failures is only half the battle; understanding them and learning how to improve them is the other half.  Here is my second half of the battle.

WikiImages. "Civil War" 2013 via Pixabay.  CC0 Public Domain License.

The most challenging part of creating the QRG was researching the opinions and voices of the general public.  Although this topic concerns many individuals of society, few people, if any, are adamantly arguing that the research should continue full steam ahead.  This means that the only people speaking out on social media are those that are mad at the researchers, rather than being mad at fellow Americans. 

It was clear that there was a general concern among many, but few people were voicing it.  I had to make a general statement regarding the feelings of the general public, showing an example of mild concern and one of extreme concern, and thus showing the opposite ends of the spectrum.

My most major success was finding claims from multiple viewpoints of the argument.  From the scientists to the public, many people had a different take on the ethical considerations and the solutions to the problems.  This came about by following a websites sources or by looking into another website mentioned in an article.  This helped me find the route of what was said or the exact research and claims.  This broadened my understanding of the topic as well.

I found that asking lots of questions helped guide conveying the importance of the topic as well as keeping the reader engaged with the text.  The questions also prompted me to do my own thinking and led to deeper analysis of the arguments and the debate as a whole.  Although this was a convention of the QRG, writing in subsections and small paragraphs really helped me construct my paper.  My paper had to be clear and easily understood since the topic was foreign to most people.  By writing in small paragraphs, I was forced to keep the ideas short and concise, but meaningful.  The subsections helped me focus on one argument and analysis at a time.

Trying to bring parallels into the QRG often proved counterproductive for the clarity of my argument.  Although a few were effective, many seemed to make the paragraph confusing and overwhelmed with the reader with too much information at once.  This was especially true if the section title stated that you would be focusing on this one idea instead of multiple.

The process of this paper was very similar to other writing assignments, especially in regards to the research.  The research collected was the foundation of your paper and without it, the paper had gaps.  Peer editing is always important, but even more crucial here since you are dependent on your reader understanding your controversy and following along with your paper.

The process was very different in the sense of the last step making sure the paper was visually appealing.  In other assignments, the final step was always to make sure your formatting matched the approved style so that everyone’s paper looked the same.  In the QRG, the final step was to make sure the article was most effective for your readers’ understanding, which would have varied between every student.

With a future of writing science papers ahead of me, it is important that I learn to be crystal clear about my ideas and analysis.  The QRG highlighted those areas in which my wording and structure were sometimes confusing.  Also, writing in concise detail will be just as crucial as doing in-depth analysis.  Even in presentations, it will often be important to get the point across in as few words as possible so as not to lose the interest of your listeners.  This skill can also be applied to life skills such as job interviews.


Reflection:

Getting to look at other students' reflection made me understand some of my own frustrations and challenges a little bit better.  Lia Ossanna's post reminded me how this article was meant solely for the internet and not to be a hard copy.  This 21st century style of writing is indicative of just how much I had to break away from a lot of the "norms" of my previous writings.  Even looking back now I can see that I could have improved my writing if I was more willing to get away from the "rules" I had been taught my entire life.

Allison Perger and I really related in the thoughts we shared after our completion of project 1.  In her post, she discussed how her challenges made her dig deeper into her research.  I experienced the same thing, and it thus reaffirmed that when I run into difficulties in future assignments, I should use them as building blocks to strengthen my piece.

Project1

Read The Case for Genetically Modifying Human Embryos here!

Clarity: Part 2

You remember those commercials that would start out all fuzzy and then someone would say "That's why I use Claritin Clear" and the screen would be clear?  Well, hopefully, that's what these tips will do for your paper.  This is Clarity: Part Two.

Perry, Zack. "Majiscup" 03/31/2014 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic License.

Using Active Verbs

Writing in an active voice makes the actor of the verb the subject of the sentence.  Often times, forms of the verb “to be” are weak and can be turned into stronger, more active sentences.  However, sometimes it is necessary to use passive voice when the attention of the sentence is not on the one doing the action but the noun receiving the action.

Repairing Misplaced and Dangling Modifiers

Phrases and clauses that modify a noun must be immediately followed by the noun they are modifying, or there may be confusion.  Other modifiers must be adjacent to their noun or verb, or else they be be modifying the wrong word.  It is also awkward to have modifiers that break up the flow of a sentence or break up an infinitive.

Emphasizing Key Ideas

The way sentences are arranged can lead to lessening the importance of the main idea in a sentence.  This is fixed by putting ideas in parallel of in coordination so that two ideas have equal importance, or by putting an idea in subordination so that it does not distract from the main idea.  Coordination and subordination can also improve choppy sentences and run-on sentences.

Choosing Appropriate Language

It is important to know your audience so that you can use the appropriate language.  In writing any sort of formal paper, using Standard English is the most appropriate.  This means avoiding slang, euphemisms, and pretentious language.

Reflection

The topics discussed in “Clarity” seem fairly basic, but I realized how easily one can make those mistakes.  While dissecting my paper, I found multiple sentences that technically and grammatically made sense, but were unclear enough to impede the reader’s understanding.  Many of these were quick fixes that only involved changing the position of a word, but once modified, sounded a lot clearer when read aloud.

In this phrase “…a gene possibly responsible for a deadly disorder in the blood,” the original sentence read “a possible gene responsible…”  The modifier said that it was possibly a gene instead of possibly responsible.  In addition, the sentence “The National Institute of Health (NIH) is taking a major stand against the testing,” the sentence was inverted so that The National Institute of Health was the subject of the sentence, making the sentence active voice.

Indentifying Basic Grammar Patterns

During my childhood, I became a master at picking through a salad to find the croutons and bacon bits.  Today, I improved my skills on picking through my writing to find the different grammar pieces and the various grammatical structures of my paragraphs.  Though it may not be bacon bits, here is what I found. 

W., Jeffery "A salad with bacon, chesse, and croutons" 08/01/2011
via Wikimedia.  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Through the process, I realized how basic sentence structures and patterns are. There are few variations, and if one is not careful, it would be easy to fall into a trap of writing the same sentence pattern over and over again.  In light of this, I would like to add some more variety to my paragraphs, especially in the area of compound and complex sentence structures.  For a QRG, it is important not to lose the interest of the reader.  By providing different sentence patterns, my paper will hopefully keep a fresh rhythm to it.

Paragraph Analyisis

Hisgett, Tony. "Bird  tracks" 01/07/2011
via Wikimedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

I was assigned the task of walking a mile, or rather, a thousand words, in the footprints of a fellow stranger.  Indeed, this stranger was the reader.  Separating myself as the writer to look at my own work from the audience’s perspective proved more challenging than I thought.  Even still, the rewards off doing this paragraph analysis were quite eye-opening.

My QRG contained strong main ideas that drove the writing all the way through.  These ideas were often explained and analyzed, yet I found holes in which I shared an idea but left it hanging there with no explanation. 

My paper contains effective transitions that help the reader move from idea to idea, opinion to opinion.  The transitions let the paper flow from section to section, but also allow the paragraphs stand on their own.  The sections lack however in their topic sentences.  While the section title addresses a question, the topic does not always follow through with the answer to this questions, leaving the reader confused on the direction of the section.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

I quite agree with Franklin P. Jones who once said, “Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger.”  No matter who it is, having someone mark up your masterpiece with a red pen is no fun.  Fortunately in these situations, one also gets to be the one holding the red pen to someone else’s masterpiece.  During the process of creating our QRGs, I had the opportunity to peer edit Carrie Belle Kent’s piece on the TMT telescope debate as well as Michaela Webb’s piece on the Oak Flat controversy, while another student got to evaluate mine.  After reading the comments and taking a second look at my own work, I recognized some key areas for improvement.

McPhee, Nic. "Editing a Paper" 01/26/2008
via Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic 

Audience

My classmates and my teacher will be reading my QRG.  However, my audience expands past this group to the general public.  More than just the people interested in human genetics, the aim of my QRG is to inform the general population of an important technological advance and the benefits and consequences that may come with it. 

Anyone reading the QRG is expecting to be told why this matter applies to them.  Although my writing has highlights of this expectation, it is not a main concern throughout my entire paper.  This is definitely an area for improvement, as pointed out by my peer-editor.

As my controversy deals with technological advances of scientists, one of my major roles is to provide clarity and explanation of the science involved without overwhelming the reader.  My writing covers this aspect thoroughly without insulting the reader, as well as includes links for further clarification if the reader wishes to know more.

Most people with a knowledge of genetic engineering will presumably already know about the debate at hand.  Therefore, my audience is mainly the common man and using simple language will suit them best.  In addition, the QRG should invite them to the conversation, not scare them away with the possible dangers of the new technology.  Encouraging my readers to take part in the debate as well as come to their own conclusions will greatly strengthening my paper.

Context

This genre of writing demands to be easily read with subsections that are easy to locate and allow the reader to skip around.  This is achieved through white space and organized formatting, something that my paper greatly lacks.  In order for my text to be more reader friendly, I need to focus on making it look less like an essay an more like a brochure for Disneyland.

The content of my writing covers the major aspects of a well written QRG, such as the event and background, the controversy, an analysis of the debate, etc.  However, my paper only touches the surface of some of these topics and adding more explanation will really help the audience make the connections they need to make to understand the controversy.

Overall, my QRG takes into consideration the important conventions of a QRG as well as how to properly include quotes and examples.  The writing covers the essentials of a QRG but contains room for more in-depth conversation.  My voice provides a personal connection with the audience that helps convey the importance of the controversy in the life of the general population.

Clarity: Part One

O'Connell, Eve. "Leadership" via
Unrival. Public Domain License.

Often times, but not a lot, a little of the majority are clearly and precisely vague.

Say what?

My point exactly.  

This is clarity: part one.

Lesson 1: Balancing parallel ideas

Helping the reader make connections is vital to their understanding of the writing.   Connections can be made through parallels by incorporating words such as and, but, or, either, by, because, etc.  When these parallels are made, writers must use the correct form of the verb or noun so that the parallel is clear and effective.

Lesson 2: Providing variety

Variety helps the reader stay entertained as well as focused throughout the work.  In a text, variety can be achieved through differing sentence beginnings and sentence structures (such as alternating between simple and complex structures).  Both of these can sometimes be accomplished by inverting the structure of the sentence, as long as the sentence retains its original meaning.

Lesson 3: Tightening wordy sentences

It is surprising how emphasis and redundancy can be so easily confused.  Writers tend to add adverbs and different phrasings to help drive home their point, but most of the time these additions make the sentence wordy and confusing.  Oftentimes preciseness in wording provides the most clarity for the reader, which leads us to our final point.

Lesson 4: Exact wording

Finding the perfect word to capture the idea of a sentence is key to the clarity of a paper.  Words are often misused when they imply the wrong connotation or the wrong meaning all together.  Using a thesaurus is great for finding exact words, not making the author sound more intelligent.  In addition, avoiding words such as “things” give the reader a clearer picture of what is going on.


Reflection:

It is clear why clarity is so important, and even more understandable how it is extremely easy for someone to not recognize their own un-clarity.  For example, in her QRG, Carrie Belle Kent wrote, "Although just recently much debate has sprung up regarding this controversy there has been much talk about the building of telescopes in Hawaii for years." Even though the sentence makes sense, the idea is somewhat lost in the wordiness and repetition. Possibly inverting the first part of the sentence would help the reader flow from one idea to the next.

Michaela Webb's QRG showed me that the concept of paralleling ideas can span across paragraphs, not just within a section. She writes, "Native American groups have a history of losing battles like this." Earlier, she had provided an example of similar past events. By now taking this opportunity to parallel the two stories, she can really strengthen her analysis.

Thoughts on Drafting

Not that kind of drafting either.
SPV999. "Drafting" via Super Cheats.

The Arizona Cardinals choosing D.J. Humphries as their first round draft pick was probably the worst move they could have made, as the Cardinals were in desperate need of improving their offensive team.   Oh wait, not that kind of drafting?  Okay, okay.  I guess will spend some time analyzing the drafting of my writing instead of the drafting of football players.

A Student’s Guide to First-Year Writing presented the idea of writing paragraphs in PIE form (Point- Illustration- Explanation).  Although this idea does not correlate exactly with a QRG, it does provide a way of ensuring clarity in your writing, which is key in this genre.  I used the PIE form as beginning with the statement said or the argument being made (the point).  Then I included a picture of how that related to the rest of the argument (the illustration).  Finally, I concluded with an analysis of the statement: why the person said it, how serious the reader should consider it, and how the thoughts being expressed impact the reader (the explanation).

The book’s thoughts on creating an introduction were helpful to the drafting process but did not fully align with the QRG genre.  For example, the book explained the importance of letting your reader know the exact direction you plan on taking your writing piece.  This is essential as clarity for the reader is important in a QRG.  However, the books tips of how to form an effective thesis did not coincide with this genre QRGs do not have thesis statements as their ultimate goal is to explain rather than prove or persuade.

The organization of a QRG differs greatly from that of many other writing pieces that the book was trying to cover.  A Student’s Guide to First-Year Writing enforces the idea of having the paragraphs and ideas build upon one another.  Although this important, in a QRG, the subsections of the writing should stand alone and not be dependent on the other paragraphs, since many readers will want to skip around and only read certain portions of the article.

On the other hand, the book’s suggestions for a conclusion are spot on for a QRG.  The book highlights the importance of answering the question “So what?”  In a QRG, the reader should understand why this controversy pertains to their lives.  As mentioned in the book, the conclusion should also give an overview of what was just talked about along with an insight as to the future of the argument.  This will be essential in keeping the reader thinking about your topic even after they are done reading.


Reflection:

With no rules or set guidelines, it is helpful to look at what others have to say about the QRG genre.  I discovered three aspects that I could improve in my paper that would really add to the quality of my work.

#1: Michaela Webb provided a key point that I had overlooked when creating my conventions for the QRG and while I was writing my draft.  She pointed out that one must be "intentional with every decision and sentence."  A QRG must be detailed so the reader understands but concise so the reader will not loose interest.

#2: Along with this idea, Aaron West discussed how the book outlined a conclusion that would be too in depth for this genre.  I had thought about lengthening my conclusion to have a more comprehensive ending.  However, I may need to consider finding a way of adding these things without being overly wordy.

#3: Aaron's post also mentioned how every genre needs some organization or it would just be one jumbled mess.  Although it is important that the paragraphs stand alone, they must also follow an order that gives clarity to the argument and doesn't leave the reader having to skip around in the article to understand what is going on.  Finding this balance will benefit my QRG greatly.

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

Davies, Ben. “Blastocyst Embryonic Stem Cell Injection” via Image Stack. Public Domain License.

My QRG deals with the genetic modification of human embryos and the ethical questions it raises. As this is a scientific debate, please critique if the context of the argument was clear and you understood the reasons the research caused such debate.  Along with this, if there is any place where you feel it would be helpful to have hyperlinked more information that explains the scientific stuff of the debate, please indicate that.  There is no group that believes the testing is ready for live human trials.  Hence, the different groups are categorized by what they believe the future of the research should be, not necessarily who is for or against.

QRG Draft

Practicing Quoting

According to artist and ceramist Peter Anderson, "Quotations are a columnist's bullpen.  Stealing someone else's words frequently spares the embarrassment of eating your own."  Whatever your reason for quoting is, it is essential that your quote has a "signal phrase," establishes authority, gives context, and uses proper conventions of quoting.  Here is a breakdown of these key factors.

Ebi, Abrahim. "Quotation Mark" 10/18/12
via Wikimedia. Creative Commons
Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

"Signal Phrase"- Green

Establishing Authority- Orange

Context- Blue

Conventions- Yellow

QRGs: The Genre

From scholarly journals on humpback whales to teenage romantic fiction books, it is always important to remember who your audience is.  If we delve into today’s general web sources, we come across many articles that discuss popular controversies and debated topics.  In a genre that could be classified as a “Quick Reference Guide” (QRG), there are many standards and conventions that are important in relaying key information to your audience in a way that will help them grasp your topic to the fullest extent.

ClkerFreeVectorImages. "Group" 2014 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.

The Conventions

Most QRGs contain titles and subheadings that help guide the reader through the reading.  These subheadings are often questions that let the reader know the information they are about to be given.  This also helps guide the reader and let them search specifically for the information they are interested in.  Interspersed throughout the articles are pictures, graphs, and quote boxes that serve to break up the text and give the reader a visual of what is going on. 

QRGs also contain hyperlinks that connect the viewer to other sources that expand on the information presented.  In addition, these articles include quotes from major speakers in the controversies as well as from the general public to give a fuller understanding of the controversy.  The most important aspect of a QRG is readability.  The writer will include white space and short paragraphs to help the reader easily navigate through the reading without feeling overwhelmed.

The Purpose

Most QRGs serve to provide the public with a comprehensive picture of the debate going on.  This picture is often free of bias and includes both sides of the argument.  It encourages the reader to consider many key questions (whether ethical or otherwise) regarding the situation as well as helps them make an informed opinion on the debate.  Finally, the author analyzes the points being made from the opposing sides to spur thoughts that the reader should contemplate.

The Audience

The intended audiences range depending on who the controversy might affect; however, most are meant to inform the general public of the situation.  Many QRGs work toward making their audience feel as though their topic is important to the reader, whoever they may be.  Even still, QRGs can affect or interest a large group of readers (such as racism in society) or smaller audiences (such as political actions in North Korea).

The Visual Appeal

QRGs are consistently scattered with imagery and photos.  Some photos help the reader connect the data and statistics to real life events.  They may evoke sympathy or simply help give a clearer picture of what is going on.

Other visuals include graphs and statistics.  This helps break up the writing and gives the reader an understanding of why the data is important or significant.  Authors also use quote boxes which help point readers to specific key points or reinforces what has just been read.


Reflection:

After reading how my fellow classmates described a QRG, I better understood the overall purpose of the genre.  Reading Allison Perger's blog reminded me that your QRG is going to have many different types of readers with various levels of knowledge on your topic as well as different types of readers with varying interest in the topic.  Thus, the article must appeal to all readers as well as being conducive to whatever their knowledge may be.

Lia Ossanna discussed the importance that no matter what your QRG looks like, the formatting and content decisions should always be based on the reader.  The spacing should help make it easy for the reader to navigate and the content should be easy for the reader to comprehend.  All the conventions of a QRG should point back to how it is benefiting the reader.

Stef Antonopoulos's post reminded me that I should be pulling my conventions from the examples given.  If I have any questions (such as whether or not to include a thesis sentence), I should be referencing these examples to find the answers.

Cluster of My Controversy

Ramdlon, Fathromi. "Idea" 01/20/2015 via
Pixabay. Public Domain Dedication License.

"Writing is easy.  All you do is stare at a blank sheet of paper until drops of blood form on  your forehead" (Gene Fowler).  Truthfully, we've all been there.  Getting those first words of a writing are anything but easy.  However, if we can get those tangled webs of thoughts in our brains to a tangled web of thoughts on a piece of paper, now we have a starting point.

On the controversy of modifying embryos and the dangers of CRISPR-CAS9, I created a mind map broken up by the major groups involved in the debate along with their thoughts and ideals.  It's not perfect, but it's a starting point.

Created via Coggle.com

Reflection

The mind maps and clusters of my classmates had different concepts that each played a role in the future writing process.  All of the prewriting was clear and easy to read.  However, Jon Wirtzfeld's cluster gave short phrases and words that would help spur ideas in his writing process as well as give an order of what he wanted to talk about.  On the other hand, Carrie Belle Kent's mind map had two distinct parts of her map (for and against) which would help her compare and contrast the two groups.  Even still, my map gives more complete thoughts and phrases that will help me put sentences and paragraphs together when I'm writing.  By viewing other's prewriting process, it gives me more ideas on how I can make better use of my planning stage.

Annotated Bibliography in APA Style

Plagiarism: the eighth deadly sin.  Whatever your're writing it is important to know what style of citation is most appropriate and how to use it correctly.  While engineers use many different citation styles depending on their field, most sciences tend to use an APA format, which is outlined (with annotations) below.

Paley, Nina. "Thief" 07/30/2010 via Wikimedia.  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License

References

Berry, K. (2015, April 24). Ethics for CRISPR and the Big Leap Forward [Blog post]. Retrieved from Bill of Health website: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2015/04/24/ethics-for-crispr-and-the-big-leap-forward/

This blog gives a very comprehensive view of the controversy going on.  This will be helpful in my QRG as it contains many of the key sections that I will need to include.  The site gives background as well as the event, the controversy, and the ethical considerations.

Butler's Scrolls Of Love - Religious Bookstore. (2015, September 6). For the love of children: Genetic technology & the future of the family [Facebook status update]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=509300759218251&id=149097108571953

The bookstore PR is proclaiming her views in an attempt to rally support against what she believes is very wrong.  Her ultimate goal is to sell the book that preaches against genetic engineering of embryos as well as other modifications.  She uses a religious moral standpoint to anger people about what is happening.  She raises ethical questions about genetic modification but provides no answers or facts.  I will use her post to represent the concerns that some of the general population have, which is important to consider so as to represent all groups of people in the debate.

The case for genetically engineered babies. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/01/fear-of-designer-babies-shouldnt-distract-us-from-the-goal-of-healthy-babies

CRISPR-CAS9. (n.d.). Retrieved from Tumblr website: https://www.tumblr.com/search/crispr-cas9

CRISPR- Cas Nuclease. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2015, from Fundementals of Synthetic Biology website: https://bchm218spotlight.wordpress.com/crispr-cas-nuclease/

This source simply explains what the process of CRISPR- Cas 9 is and links to more in depth explanations.  It's purpose is to inform.  This source can be used to give the reader extra information if they wish to know through a hyperlink.

Cyranoski, D., & Reardon, S. (2015, April 22). Chinese Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos. Retrieved September 6, 2015, from http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378

This article serves to inform the public of the controversy that is happening and the details that surround it.  Their goal is to give the facts and raise the ethical questions so that the public can make their own informed decision.  However, it makes no clear conclusions.  The authors point out that the test results are far below the accuracy they would need to be to prove successful and that many science journals are rejecting their work because of the ethical concerns the research raises.  This article is essential to my work as it provides much of the ground work and background information for the debate.

David Pakman Show. (2015, April 23). 1st Ever: Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5EYXF1rtFQ

This video serves to start a debate of what this breakthrough in research could result in.  David Pakman tries to get people thinking of the long term consequences if this technology available to us.  He includes an equal amount of facts and emotional appeal to prove his point.  He and his partner bring up questions of who gets this technology (the rich?) and will we create two different races (one of genetically perfected humans and the rest).  This video brings important ethical questions to the table that consider the large scale consequences which will be important to discuss in my paper.

Doudna, J. A. (2015, April 3). A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science, 348(6230), 36-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1028

Dresser, R. (2004). Genetic Modification of Preimplantation Embryos: Toward Adequate Human Research Policies. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(1), 195-214. Retrieved from JSTOR database.

The purpose of this article is to point out how the laws regarding genetic modification of embryos do not protect against what the author believes is very wrong.  She takes her paper from a legal standpoint, which will give my work a very different but much needed perspective in considering all aspects of the debate.  She concludes that the law has many wholes that do not protect humans as they should.

Newman, L. H. (2015, April 30). NIH won't fund research that involves editing DNA in human embryos. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/04/30/nih_bans_gene_editing_research_in_human_embryos.html

This article reminds me that there are three groups, those who believe testing embryos is wrong, those who believe that the research will lead to unethical consequences and therefore should stop, and those that believe the research should continue at a safe pace.  However, few if any at all believe that the research is ready for actual implantation.  It highlights the timeline of the controversy and events.  This is helpful in describiing to the reader who the major sides are.

Sample, I. (2015, April 23). Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first. Retrieved September 6, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/23/scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-in-controversial-world-first

This article's purpose is simply to inform of the running debate that is happening.  It gives the background information for the research taking place.  It does not raise many questions of its own but does give an account of the questions and answers of professionals in the field.  The article points out how the modification of human embryos could affect generations to come.  It also states how the research is far from being safe and ready to use, as well as how people may be overestimating the power of the research.  This source is very helpful in providing accounts of what both sides of the researchers are saying and the pros and cons involved.

Sykora, P. (2015). The ethics of biotechnological interventions into human genome: Arguments of high risk and destroying human nature. Filozofia, 70(5), 329-342. Abstract retrieved from Web of Science database.

This source points out the how the genetic modification of embryos is going too far.  The author points out how we could actually be damaging the human genome through this process.  He explains that we may be destroying the nature of human beings if these tests continue.  The author makes scientific points as well as ethical points which are both important to consider in my work.

Wade, N. (2015, March 19). Scientists seek ban on method of editing the human genome. Retrieved September 11, 2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/20/science/biologists-call-for-halt-to-gene-editing-technique-in-humans.html?_r=0

This source details the concerns many are having as well as the solutions that could that could be implemented to at least slow down the testing.  The article expresses that there are still many flaws in the process but that many scientists still want to continue with the research.  This article will help add a new side to the argument and also explain the future of the controversy.

Reflection:

Grace Mahan also used the APA style for her annotated bibliography.  I realized through her annotations that the writing does not need to be fancy or have great sentency fluency.  It is simply for the author's benefit to have their facts laid out in plain language that is simple and easy to access.

Gabee Mazza's bibliography used the APSA style.  This style uses paragraph breaks to separate citations, while APA uses indentations.  This showed me that one of the major aspects of bibliographies is that they should be organized and easy to read with easy-to-find information.   The other differences in styles only helps to show first what the reader might find more important (whether it author, source, etc.).

Ideology in My Controversy

Mühlberg, Georg. "German students of a Burschenschaft fighting a sabre duel"
01/29/2011 via Wikimedia. Public Domain License

Mark Twain once said, “I thoroughly disapprove of duels.  If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."  While this may be one way of solving a debate, it is more important to analyze the groups involved and the arguments being made.  And thus, our research on the controversy regarding genetic modification of embryos continues…

Three main groups speak out in this debate over the genetic modification of embryos.  The Chinese scientists who discovered the process, the educated science scholars, and the general public.  Junjiu Huang is the leader of the researchers in China who are experimenting with the embryos.  Many professors have the leading voice among the scholars, such as George Daley, a stem-cell biologist from Harvard.  Among the general public, it seems to be those with religious beliefs that are opposed to the issue and therefor speak out.

While the general public may spark some scientists to reconsider their views, it is truly the scientific community that holds the power to decide if the genetic modification of embryos continues.  The Chinese scientists who discovered the process also hold power as they are the ones who control the knowledge and could potentially proceed with their own plan despite others’ views.

The people involved in opposing the issue are more limited to using an emotional appeal, although some arguments can be made using the scientific research of the harmful effects.  On the other hand, the Chinese scientists are limited to using their factual evidence to show the benefits of their discoveries.

Much of the general population values this idea of not playing God.  Secondly, those with knowledge in the field understand and value the avoiding the consequences (many unforeseen) that could occur with the modifications.  The Chinese scientists and those who approve the research value the benefits it could make to human health and beyond.  They may also value the profit that the research makes.

While pathos plays a large role in the voice of the general public, the main evidence that will actually lead to change will be the scientific proof.  This applies to the Chinese scientists as well.  The scientifically proven pros must outweigh the scientifically proven cons, or vice versa. 

The power truly lies in the hands of the Chinese scientists since they hold the knowledge and the research.  They could continue operations without any consent until a group was able to shut them down based on real dangers.  It is harder to stop progress than to keep it going.

Both sides of the argument acknowledge many of the scientific advantages and disadvantages and agree with them.  However, the decision (if their truly is one) will come by deciding if the benefits outweigh the dangers and risks.  There is little other common ground as the two groups have different ethical beliefs.

The general public most likely only talks to those who agree the genetic modification is unacceptable.  Whether they want to or not, the scientific community is forced to respond to the claims of research made by the opposing parties.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Howle, Jason. "Runkeeper and Health on iPhone"
03/23/2013 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

While professionals and professors present the facts and include their personal opinion on the subject, the general population also wants to make sure that their voice is heard.  Through Facebook, Twitter, and so many other sites, humans can do just that.  As we continue our research on the modification of embryos controversy, let us evaluate what people have to say about it on social media.

Source 1:

A video on YouTube includes a session from The David Pakman Show (TDPS) entitled “1st Ever: ScientistsGenetically Modify Human Embryos.”  TDPS is aired on the radio, cable (DISH and DirecTV), podcasts, and YouTube.  This gives the show a lot of credibility as many companies are willing to associate with TDPS. 

Pakman has no connection to the event and probably little knowledge outside the facts of the story (i.e. the engineering/ process involved, etc.).  His broadcast comes out of Massachusetts, giving him no connection to the events happening in China.  However, the information presented in the video clearly aligns with the facts about the controversy on other sites and articles, adding to the shows reliability.

TDPS Facebook page has over 38,000 likes ranging from multiple groups of people who share sections from the show on their Facebook pages.  TDPS has been airing for at least 8 years, but this video is the only post concerning the genetic modifying of embryos in China.

Source 2:

A Facebook page called “Butler'sScrolls of Love - Religious Bookstore” posted their opinions on the controversy.  It is clear that the person who created this post has a high position in Butler’s Scrolls of Love as they control the public image of the company.  This person seems to have credibility speaking about the ethical implications relating to a religious perspective.

The bookstore is out of Indiana and therefore has little knowledge of the implications in China, but nonetheless can speak for some of the opinions from the U.S.  This probably includes many of the page’s followers who share very similar thoughts on the issue.  The page has long history of posts but only mentions this topic once.

The post contains little facts that make it hard to assess the reliability of the information.  We can only consider the ethical considerations the post contains.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

The internet is a powerful thing; with it, professionals on any topic can publish their work for anybody and everybody to read.  Looking once again at the ethical debate over the genetic modification of embryos, we are going to analyze two more sources, this time scholarly.

Holley, Michael. "Science 1883 Cover" 05/31/1883
via Wikimedia. Public Domain License 

Source 1:

Rebecca Dresser’s “GeneticModification of Preimplantation Embryo’s: Toward Adequate Human Research Policies” was written to inform people (most likely those with authority in biomedicine) about the dangers associated with this genetic modification.  She hopes that with the proper information, those with control over the issue will make the right decision about the ethical implications of genetically modifying embryos.

Dresser received her Juris Doctor at Harvard University.  She now works at Washington University Law as a Professor of Law as well as a Professor of Ethics in Medicine.  Her article was published by Wiley on behalf of Milbank Memorial Fund and appeared in The Milbank Quarterly.  It is now accessible on JSTOR. 

In the article, Dresser references nationally recognized organizations such as the National Institutes of Health.  The information cited is from the late 1990s and early 2000s, which would have been very current information for when she wrote the article in 2004.

Source 2:

“The Ethics of BiotechnologicalInterventions into Human Genome: Arguments of High Risk and Destroying HumanNature” addresses the risks involved in the genetic modification of embryos and how these risks could affect generations to come.  It aims to have the biomedical community reconsider the effects of their technology.

The article was written by Peter Sykora, a professor at Masaryk University with his PhD. From Comenius University.  This article was published in 2015 by Klemensova Filozofia in Filozofia, and can now be found on Web of Science.

Sykora cites many current scholarly articles and books that deal with the same ethical implications of science and technology.  He gears his information toward people who already have knowledge on how embryos are being genetically modified and informs them now of the ethical considerations that have to be made.

Evaluation of General Sources

The internet is a powerful thing; with it, anybody and everybody can claim to be a professional on whatever topic they want.  Taking a look at the latest controversy in the field of engineering involving the ethics of genetic modification of embryos, we will examine the reliability of two sources on the debate.

Altmann, Gerd.  "Http" 2013 via Pixabay. Public Domain Dedication

Source 1:

“Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos in Controversial World First” is from the website The Guardian, a “.com” website.  This means that the website has no professional standing or scholarly editing like a “.edu” or “.org” would.  However, this does not make the source unreliable.

The author’s name is Ian Sample, a graduate from Queen Mary’s, University of London who received his PhD in biomedical materials.  He is well versed in journalizing, and his previous jobs as well as his PhD makes him very qualified to write this article for The Guardian, where he holds an editor’s position.

The post was last updated in April of 2015, making it a very current article.  The sources and other articles that the post links to are also from this year, confirming that the information is up-to-date and therefore credible.

Ian Sample successfully informs the reader of the information without including personal opinion.  The opinions expressed in the article are credited to other individuals and organizations.  Additionally, he presents both sides of the argument, leaving little room for bias.  The post is meant to bring awareness, and effectively neither side benefits from the information presented.  

To give a visual of the science involved in genetically modifying embryos, Sample includes a photograph of the microscopic work done on the embryo.  The photo neither affirms nor condemns the act, but rather is included for clarification.

The information used in the article is continually credited to the individual or organization that said it.  These people are professionals in the field and have authority on what they are speaking about. The post links to additional articles that confirm the reliability of the claims.

Source 2:

“Chinese Scientists genetically Modify Human Embryos” was posted on nature.com.  As with the previous source, unfortunately it does not have official backing criteria that would ensure the information has been properly edited for correctness and accuracy.  These sources can still can still be reliable though if we consider the author, or in this case, authors.

They are David Cyranoski and Sara Reardon.  Cyranoski has studied many years in Asia, giving him some credibility in referencing China and the work being done there.  Reardon has worked multiple jobs in journalizing, establishing her credibility as a factual and potentially unbiased writer.  Both authors have extensive knowledge biology.

This article was last updated on April 22, 2015.  The links that are included lead to current information that agree with the sources claims.  The text includes in-source citations to back up the information presented.  These citations lead to further reading about the topic.

The authors included a graphic of an embryo.  While the picture puts into perspective the topic being discussed, it provides no relationship to the ethics being examined.  Therefore, the graphic neither adds nor detracts from the credibility of the source.

Cyranoski and Reardon write to inform people of the situation.  Their purpose is to present the ethical questions and have people make their own opinions on the issue at hand.  They present both sides of the argument accrediting the statements to university deans and other authorities on the subject.  This suggests that the information is reliable and does not have a personal agenda.

My Major

D., Jason. "Engineering Logo" 05/03/2012 via Deviant Art.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported

It’s not rocket science.  Well, it could be, but that is probably not the kind of engineering I will be dong.  Even still, exploring what engineers have to say about their discipline will help give me a sense of what direction I want my college education to go.

Ask any engineer what their job is and their answer will boil down to the simple idea of solving problems.  Students in the college of engineering acquire knowledge about the science and mathematics that people have discovered so far in the hope to further their discoveries and make discoveries of their own.  The discoveries will in turn become ideas, designs, and products that benefit the daily life of humankind.

With a degree in hand, engineers go out into the world and get jobs improving technology in areas such as medicine, aeronautical, and research (just to name a few).  They also help the lives of impoverished people by improving clean water filters, farming equipment, and so much more.

With no idea of what I wanted to study in college, I did know three things.  1: I was good at math.  2: I was good at science.  3: I had (and still do have) a hunger and desire to better the lives of the people I share this planet with.  With this knowledge, I found myself in the college of engineering looking for specific area of this major that I want to pursue.

Currently, the top Engineering companies ranked by the Engineering News-Record are AECOM and Jacobs, and many of the companies on the top ranked list are centered in California and Texas.  In addition, many of the top engineers are a part the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).  However, among many students in the engineering field, you have really arrived when you have a job at NASA.

To experience more about what each field of engineering is like, it is interesting to look at what engineers are researching and writing about.  Here are the top engineering scholarly journals.

• IEEECommunications Surveys & Tutorials (published online)
• NatureNanotechnology (published in engineering journals)
• IEEE Journal ofSolid-State Circuits (published in engineering journals)

Reflection

It is inspiring to see how others came to choose their majors.  Although very different majors, the people I read about decided their studies for the same two reasons as me.  A: Choosing a major that had many options since I had very little direction yet (as expressed in Betsy Volk's blog).  And B: Choosing a major because you were inspired by the philosophy behind each discipline (as expressed in Jon Wirzfeld's blog).

Reading about others' passions and dreams makes me all the more excited about mine.  It is the realization that this is truly the time when I am becoming my own person, making my own goals, my own ideals, and my own things to strive for.  It is also encouraging, the idea that everyone else has these aspirations, and I am not alone in the desire of (through these college years) creating the best future possible.