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.