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.