Evaluations of Rhetorical Situations

When people think of engineering they sometimes think of bridges or buildings. Little do they know engineering can cover a massive variety of different projects. Lately, I have been covering engineering in genetics. I have also recently highlighted the field in what is known as geoengineering. Geoengineering is the use of engineering to better our world's environment.

But not all see the use of unnatural techniques ethical for use on the natural world. Organizations have sprouted rising against geoengineering as well as against genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, in prominently, food products and even human stem cells.

The debate is heated in these two topics and in the following few paragraphs I will analyze three sources I found covering these subjects. People within the fields have views on the use of the methods.

Gemeinfrei. "natural gas drilling rig on the Pinedale Anticline." 01/14/2007 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Source 1 is an article in The Washington Post written by Brad Plumer. He interviews climate scientist David Keith with the main question in mind, "Should we use geoengineering to cool the Earth?" The article is biased based on Keith's opinions. He supports the methods being used in geoengineering to harness the power of the earth from within the ground. Some people are not at all happy with his views.

Brad Plumer was a reporter at The Washington Post at the time of the article being published covering domestic policy, particularly energy and environmental issues. He is currently the senior editor at Vox.com, where he manages the site's science, energy, and environmental coverage. Plumer currently resides in Washington, D.C. 

The man he interviews is David Keith, a climate scientist. In recent years, he has earned the first prize in Canada's national physics exam as well as being listed in TIME magazine's Heroes of the Environment. He is a professor of applied physics at the Harvard Paulson School and a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is also the president of Carbon Engineering, a company developing technologies for capture of CO2 from the air.

The primary audience for this article is a reader who has an interest in the debate whether geoengineering is a ethical method to solving the world's climate crisis. The article is very biased in that Keith supports the ideas that engineering can have on the earth. Others may disagree with Keith, so they may not be a suitable audience.

Source 2 is an article published by The New York Times. John M. Broder, a NYT writer, published the article in September of 2009 with the title, "A Skeptic Finds Faith in Geoengineering." The article address the issue of global warming and centers around Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist. He is the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist." He argues his support of the use of geoengineering to alter the climate and to ultimately aid in cooling the planet.

Bjorn Lomburg, as stated, is a Danish political scientist who wrote the book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist." He is the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a temporary professor at Copenhagen Business School. He was named TIME magazines's 100 most influential people in the world. To add, he is the author of several other books.

The primary audience of this article is for readers to get a sense of what Lomburg thinks. The article does address however the unknown consequences that even Lomburg admits might occur. Readers who already have a stance on the subject might like or dislike the post as Lomburg is biased, but some may actually find his views reasonable.

Source 3 is an article by OuterPlaces.com, a science and technology focused website. Writer Janey Tracey highlights the comparison between genetic engineering and the law. She asks, "Is Genetic Engineering Protected Under the First Amendment?" In her article, she provides information over the subject and also includes quotation boxes all quoted by Alta Charo, a bioethicist.

Alta Charo is also a law professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School. Her quotes provided in the article are taken from her lecture at a DARPA conference. She was also a member of President Obama's transition team where she focused on the FDA, bioethics, stem cell policy, and women's reproductive health. She is an unbiased writer when talking about genetic engineering and provides much information through her article giving facts from both sides of the argument.

The article is aimed at readers who might know small bits of information on the subject of genetic engineering and are wondering the ethical views on it. As the title does refer to the legality of the method, people may want to read into this article to get a feel for what the debate stands for in an overall spectrum.

In reflection, I would consider my sources good. After reviewing Savannah's and Jessica's posts on rhetorical situations, I found that many different genres of writing can work great as rhetoric. From their evaluations, I have now considered that my second source is not much of rhetoric. Although it contains much author opinion, it does not give as much as my other two sources. I would like to point out that my first source on geoengineering and global warming contain the most rhetoric out of the three in that the author writes the dialogue between climate scientist and himself on the situation. I like to consider this source as a great find for myself.

Developing a Research Question

To start off this next project I will be analyzing a single source on the topic of controversial issues in the field of engineering. The controversy can be anything within the field, so for this post I will be researching for controversial topics and listing them here. Using the list, I will form four questions regarding the topics. And finally, analyzing the topics and looking more into the questions, I will choose a topic to research for my project.

geralt. "Question Mark Note Man Person Comic Headache." 2014 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

Some of the most controversial topics in engineering today surround the methods of genetic engineering and geoengineering. I have deeply analyzed the debate on whether genetic modifications to human embryos is ethical or not in many of my previous posts. The ideas surrounding modified genetic germlines have recently been frowned upon, especially when it comes to changing the human genome. When it comes to the methods used in geoengineering, the effects could be positive and negative as disputed by many following the subject.

One source I found on geoengineering was written by a journalist from The Washington Post. The article is formatted as an interview script. The journalist, Brad Plumer, introduces the idea of cooling the earth using geoengineering. He interviews climate scientist David Keith, who supports the idea. Unlike Keith, many people do not agree that geoengineering can be a safe method to solving the world's climate change problem.

The second source I found is an article also about climate change, but dissimilar to the post from The Washington Post, this source is more reliable in that it tunes in to both side of the argument. David Keith is again referenced in this article but in a much smaller aspect - adding his opinions for a few ongoing paragraphs. The issue of climate change has been long debated and has had multiple controversies stemming from it. What can be done to stop the crisis of global warming?

A third source highlights the debate on whether green genetic engineering is sustainable. It has been an ongoing controversy among many, especially supporters of the Non-GMO Project. The Project aims to "preserve and build sources of non-GMO products" as stated on their website for their mission.

And finally, the fourth source I've found was published by OuterPlaces.com on the topic of genetic engineering. Again the debate heats up as more and more events occur with the use of genetic engineering. People worldwide have been either up in arms or rising in support over each event that takes place. The article asks whether the methods of genetic modification are protected under the first amendment, almost implying that the processes may not even be legal. Janey Tracey of Outer Planets highlights both sides of the debate.


Here are a few research questions regarding these newly found sources:

1. Is geoengineering a solution to our world's climate crisis?

2. If people are talking about and giving possible solutions to solving world climate change, then why aren't these methods being used?

3. Is genetic engineering legal with regards to law, more specifically the First Amendment?

4. Do humans have a future using strictly green genetic engineering as a food source?

These questions all pose an important topic that can be discussed widely in open dialogue. The world is already taking a stance on each subject, but it is still just the beginning of an ongoing debate. Should companies be allowed to use geoengineering to harness the earth's fuels? One such way that is extremely controversial is the use of "fracking," a method to gathering the ground's natural gases. Or should we as a nation turn towards genetically modified food products for a healthier and more sustainable lifestyle? These are questions that still remain out in the open. People are stubborn with their views, and in my next project I will be able to analyze those opinions.

Reflection on Project I

Now that I have posted and published my final product of my quick reference guide, I will now reflect on it by answering a few questions. If you were not able to find the link to my QRG previously, here it is.

Paul Reynolds. "Kitten and partial reflection in mirror." 05/13/2006 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Question 1: What challenges did you face during the QRG project and how did you deal with them?

One of the biggest challenges I faced trying to construct my QRG was finding notable and reliable sources to draw from. Utilizing the databases that Mr. Bottai had given me, I was able to find more than enough articles for my research. Another challenge was overcoming my writing style. I am not a great writer by any means, but I do consider myself a decent one. Publishing my posts, "Clarity, Part I" and "Clarity, Part II," helped me realize the importance of grammar and wording. I went back and revised heavily to have the result I have published.

Questions 2: What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?

There were a notable amount of successful events through the writing process of my project. Prominently, the correction of grammar mistakes and the addition of further information made up most of the successful things of my project. I was able to make my QRG better and better as I kept reviewing and revising after learning something new to include. One of the bigger skills I learned was how to format a QRG the right way.

Question 3: What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?

Again, what I have learned creating my posts on clarity has helped guide me to making a better QRG. The lesson I've learned will also help me in the long run as I continue my journey through college. I really enjoyed the topic of a controversy and will want to learn more about what current events are happening in my field of study. For the most part, every section to constructing my quick reference guide has helped make me a better writer for the better.

Question 4: What did you find that was not effective for your project? Why?

This question is very hard to answer due to the fact that I really enjoyed the project and most of everything I've learned in the process of creating it.

Question 5: How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you've had in the past?

The writing process for this project was not much similar to my experiences in high school. In high school, the idea of a five paragraph essay and the use of elaboration beyond standard are what categorize itself as entirely divided from the writing process for this project. During this project, I felt more in tune to what was happening with my topic and I greatly appreciated that I have the ability to research beyond what is needed.

Question 6: How was the writing process for this project different?

This project was very different from my past writing experiences, especially in high school. The teachers I had in high school were not very helpful in helping students write; their main goal was to simply help kids learn formatting rather to understand convections of in depth writing. You may argue than in college, it most likely is not any different. But going through the process for this process I feel that I've taken many new learnings to heart. I attribute my success to my professor, Sean Bottai, and his very detailed "to-do list" due at the end of each week.

Question 7: Would any of the skills you practices for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?

The answer to this questions is simply, Yes. I have gained knowledge that I never thought imaginable. Alright, I am exaggerating, however my experience with writing has increased greatly. The lessons I've learn in writing through this project will help me in the future.

In conclusion, I learned so much from this project. I learned the importance of information and what it can do to help explain an event. Especially if that event has sparked controversy in minds of many.


Reflecting on my quick reference guide after reviewing Kelly's post and Alyssa's post had me happy with my opinions on the project as a whole. I agree with many of their thoughts over the QRG process. I stated on their posts that I agree with most to nearly all of their views. For Kelly's opinion that she was uncomfortable creating a writing with very short and concise paragraphs, I on the contrary actually like typing short for this project. Reviewing Alyssa' post, I greatly agreed with all the views she had on the project, so I had no objections. Overall, I loved this project and have learned  a lot. On to another project!

Project I

The time has finally come to unveil my masterpiece. I have got to say, this project made me really think about how much information is out in the world. The power of opinions and views have such a great effect on the fact of certain topics. The learning process through this project, in my opinion, made me a better understander of informational writing. Personally, I like reading facts and information about subjects. I am not a big fan of reading fiction at all. High school sort of ruined that likeness for myself.

Please follow the link here to view the final version of my quick reference guide. Enjoy.

NCDOTcommunications. "Paul Humberger crosses the finish line as the overall male winner."
12/02/2012 via flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Clarity, Part II

In a previous post, I highlighted what I learned from reading my textbook, "Rules for Writers." From the text I learned a thing or two about how to make my writing more clear. The clarity of a writing is imperative to making a work the best it possibly can become.

Through that prior posting, I skimmed the topics of active verbs, needed words, mixed constructions, and misplaced modifiers. In this post I will analyze four new topics from the textbook and then briefly discuss what I have learned from them. I will use this newly obtained knowledge to then revise my quick reference guide.

HoneyGoddess57. "Blurry Scene." 11/17/2009 via Deviant Art. Public Domain Dedication.

Parallel Ideas

From the textbook, I've learned the importance of balancing each sentence so that readers, and myself, can better understand what is in the context. Examples of good paralleling include the use of pairing single words with other single words, and also balancing a phrase with another. When similar ideas are not matched with the same grammar format, readers can become confused as to what the tense of a sentence is. The textbook stresses the need to balance parallel ideas in series or in pairs. It also presented the method of linking with than or as.

From these suggestions, I have leaned that I need to start watching my word and grammar choice when presenting paralleling ideas. Likewise, I need to link the ideas in a way that also makes the reader enjoy what he or she is viewing. This is not much of a surprise to me as a novice writer, but it does remind me that I need to watch for these grammar mistakes.

Emphasis

Emphasizing key ideas is a must in a writing especially a quick reference guide. Highlighting the main points of a sentence helps the reader better understand what is being presented. The words that receive the most attention by readers are the subject and the verb. Utilizing these in an independent clause helps convey a point with much ease.

I have learned that I need to always introduce a new point in this form to convey it in the best possible format. Also from the textbook, I have learned that coordinating these main and key ideas in this correct format is a must to grab the readers' attention to the maximum.

Wordy Sentences

As the textbook states, "Long sentences are not necessarily wordy, nor are short sentences always concise." From this I learn that a wordy sentence is defined by a sentence that can be shortened further without any loss of meaning. The importance of simplicity of wording writings such as QRGs is a necessity to keep readers focused in on the content.

Many lessons have been learned from reading this. From the textbook, I will now scan in depth for redundancies in my wording, repetition of unneeded words, and cut out empty and inflated phrases. I will take this topic to heart when I write and tell myself, "If it can be shortened, then I will delete the unnecessaries." 

Appropriate Language

Using appropriate language is imperative in keeping a reader on track to understanding what you are attempting to convey. The textbook starts by suggesting writers to stray away from using jargon. Again, like keeping sentences simple, cut out he elaborate wording that you might think elevates your writing. Keeping a sentence concise is always the best, but keep in mind, concise doesn't always mean short. Still maintain the amount of detail an uneducated person would need to comprehend the topics.

From the textbook, I've learned to keep sentences simple and concise, not wordy or elaborate. Confusing a reader is one of the worst effects that a writer can have on them. For me, I now know that I must keep the detailed information needed to tell readers about my subject, but to keep the information simple. If I do this, then I know I can become a better writer.

After reviewing and revising my QRG, I have found several errors from each of the categories I have elaborated upon above. Once I completed revising, I found myself much more relieve and reinvigorated that I now have a better writing. Learning from the textbook is a great tool for me in that I have taken the information and have applied it to the best of my ability to improve my writing.

An example of an error I found was, "Technology, presently, has skyrocketed and innovation is seemingly traveling faster than the speed of sound." In this sentence, I have mixed paralleling idea and I also have using inappropriate language that would leave a reader confused. My ideas of technology and innovation should be written about in the same tense. As for the inappropriate language, it is very hard to visualize innovation "traveling" the speed of sound.

From these corrections I might change the sentence and include the before sentence to:

"Ultimately, human genome testing will continue as the years go on, as seen looking at the growth of technology over the past century. Innovations in science and technology are seemingly expanding faster than the speed of sound."

Another error example I located was, "In the same discussion board, users have started a sub-thread discussing the possibility that the real world may turn into a similarity of the late 90s movie, Gattaca." After reading through this sentence several times, I found myself confused over my own writing. I nearly abuse the use of the and that. Also I do not give description to Gattaca, or even a hyperlink.

Thinking over my thoughts yet again, I have come up with the following revise sentence:

"In the same discussion board, users have branches a new topic on the 90s movie, Gattaca. These users are discussing whether the real world may in fact warp into a parallel of the movie's references. This late-90s made film was set in the future where genetic modifications to forming human babies were common."

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

Structuring a paragraph is very important the the lesson of learning how to write. Utilizing what one may learn from analyzing a paragraph will help in the long run of formatting an entire essay or paper with the correct style of writing.

PDPics. "Grammar Magnifier Magnifying Glass Loupe Book." 2014 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

In the Google Document I will link in this post, I have analyzed my largest paragraph in my quick reference guide. If you recall, I have posted my QRG on my blog in the past (Here is the link to that).

In the Google Document, titled "Longest Paragraph for 109H," I have broken down the paragraph into the following grammar types:

• parts of speech

• sentence patterns

• subordinate word groups

• sentence structures

• sentence purposes

For the link to my document containing my analyzation, please click here.

Analyzing my paragraph made me realize that there are many different ways to format an essay. Being tedious about what you include in a paper can make it better than what it would turn out if you had quickly drafted some thoughts together and turned it in. After learning about what I can do to make my writing style better, I now want to make my products, namely my QRG, the best they can possibly result in.

Paragraph Analysis

In this post I will explain what I have learned and found out from analyzing each of my paragraphs in my quick reference guide. Enjoy!

Don Sutherland, US Air Force. "Alonzo Babers (No. 882) crosses the finish line to win the gold medal in the 400 meter race at the 1984 Summer Olympics." 02/01/2009 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Here is the link to my Quick Reference Guide that I have analyzed paragraph by paragraph. Please click here to view.

In my paragraph analysis I provide readers with information and a breakdown of what my QRG entails. From analyzing my own writing I have learned that everyone has their own way of writing about topics. Topics obviously range widely based on what the subject is and fact of the matter is that people are inherently different, so everyones writing style is unique.

From reading over what I have written for this project, I have learned that I am a better writer than I believe. Or at least I think I am better than I fantasize myself to be. Please take a close look at my quick reference guide and I hope it will provide much insight on the controversy I have been researching for the past several weeks.

Reflection on Project I Draft

Today I reviewed two of my classmates' blog posts that contained their Project 1 drafts. Looking at Savannah's draft tentatively titled, "GMO or GM-No? The Story Behind Genetically Modified Food Products, Explained" and Trey's draft titled, "The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: A Guide to the Fight Surrounding the Program," I found that my draft could use an immense amount of reediting and reworking.

roseoftimothywoods. "Baby kissing mirror image." 07/29/2005 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

AUDIENCE

1. Who is going to be reading this document? Who am I trying to reach?

For the most part, my peers in English 109H will be reading my quick reference guide. Also, my professor will also be reading it. It is formatted however to accommodate anyone who would like addition insight on the controversial battle between supporters and opposers to genetically modified human stem cells.

2. What are their values and expectations? Am I meeting those expectations?

The QRG is to inform readers on the present subject. They wouldn't hold many values unless they held an opinion on which side of the controversy they might choose. The only expectation a reader would have of a QRG is to be more informed on the matter.

3. How much information should I provide? How much background should I include without insulting their expertise?

Since this writing is a QRG, I need to include nearly all of the information that I might think an ordinary person would be confused about. I need to cater mainly to the people who know nothing at all about the controversy. By doing this, my QRG will pretty much cater to anyone who may be reading it.

4. What kind of language is suitable for this audience?

Language should be unbiased and straightforward. It is imperative to be concise and just include the premise of a topic. If illustration on a topic is needed then the writer must provide one. Being confused about a certain topic is the biggest issue, and thus QRG are perfect for informing these people.

5. What kind of tone should I use with my audience? Do I use this tone consistently throughout the draft?

I should be calm and collective. I should not be biased towards one side of the debate or the other. I am strictly here to inform readers about the controversy. Indeed I do use this tone consistently throughout my QRG draft. Although mistakes and errors were found by my peers, I had no comments pertaining to my tone.

CONTEXT

1. What are the formatting requirements for this assignment? Do I meet these requirements?

For QRGs, concise and simple paragraphs are essential in format. Including a subheading or multiple subheadings can help a reader navigate the guide much easier. From our textbook, the PIE format is sometimes a great tool to help organize the writing. I do meet these requirements to writing a QRG although I have had to make a few corrections already.

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

A QRG is to inform on a single subject. For my controversy, I presented unbiasedly the worldwide debate on whether modification of human stem cells should be allowed or not. Not so much as allowed but whether it should be widely frowned upon.

3. Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own ideas?

My draft indeed does reflect knowledge and skills that I have gained in class. My own ideas for formatting as well as organizing have helped aid in my drafting of a QRG.

4. Have I addressed any grammatical issues that were addressed?

I have addressed grammatical issues in my QRG and have either edited them out or have reorganized my thoughts to put something new in my draft. I have also accepted and addressed grammatical errors present to me by my peers as well.

Clarity, Part I

To start off, I'd like to say that writing, and english in general, is not my forte. I struggle with drafting up essays on the spot especially for those infamous in-class essays that were asked of us in high school.

In the following few paragraphs, I will briefly and in concise wording, but in detailed grammar, explain what I learned (in boating school) from reading our class textbook. Drawing from The University of Arizona's "Rules for Writers: Seventh Edition," four topics of writing will be discussed in this post.

Hermann. "Books Education School Literature Know Reading."
03/21/2015 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

First, as I look at previous essays and writings I have created in the past several years, I notice that my word choice is very bland. Reading through the textbook I begin to wonder why I have not gained any further intelligence in the field of writing.

The first topic I looked at was titled, "Prefer active verbs." From this section, I've learned that from now on I must use active verbs rather than verbs in the passive voice, as they lack strength due to the fact that subjects receive action other than performing it. Not that passive voice is bad, it doesn't convey the energy many great essays hold. I want the energy during a University of Arizona basketball game packed into the size of my essays.

The next topic I will explore to better my writing understanding is titled, "Add needed words." From this title I am not exactly sure what they mean by this but I will nevertheless read further into it.

To note, my vocabulary is not quite the library it should be as an honors college student either.

Adding words in the necessary places in place of others is a large issue that I have not taken into consideration. Reading through the chapter pertaining to adding comparison words has enlightened me on the importance of widening a person's vocabulary.

The book enforces the need to make paragraphs logical and complete, something I need to do to make my writing the best it can be.

In earlier drafts of essays or papers, it is unfortunately common for many to construct mixed constructions in their writings, thus confusing their readers. Another topic the textbook covers is the importance to untangle these wordy messes.

Making sure the ideas of a writing runs smoothly is one of the crucial objectives that writers need to heed to. Unlike the previous idea's need to add words to the context, making a sentence the best it could possibly be may have the writer erase portions of the text.

To conclude this post I will bring up the four and final topic I will briefly talk about. Another lesson that may need learning by many beginner writers such as myself is the elimination of distracting shifts, especially when it comes to stating people.

Making the point of view consistent in a writing is essential to creating a work that stays on topic and does not confuse audiences by having them wonder who the context is referring to. Along with staying consistent with people, staying consistent with verb tenses is generally just as important.

In many of my drafts of past essays, I have unknowingly and stupidly used multiple verb tenses in a paragraph and even in a sentence. The textbook stresses the need to "maintain consistent verb tenses." It also asked writers to maintain a consistent mood and voice throughout.

From these four topics I can learn immensely the importance of simple writing, something that I obviously have not mastered. Referring to the class textbooks have helped me become a better writing when it comes to updating my blog with new information on exciting topics.


Reflection: Viewing Trey's blog post hyperlinking his controversy as well as Savannah doing the same in her post, I found a few grammatical errors that I would like to point out.

For Trey, his writings contained some very wordy sentences including the following, "The premise behind building one aircraft for three separate military branches is that the aerial needs of the branches have enough commonalities that one basic design can be altered slightly to accommodate each branch." He has some of the same words in this sentences, repeating himself too often. I suggested that he cut down on the word count as well as finding new word choice.

In Savannah's QRG on her controversy, I could not find as many errors as I did Trey. This is largely due to the fact that a person had already previously edited her article. A large issue I did find was in her title; before she changed it when I pointed it out, her title was very bland and uninteresting. The title originally read, "GMO or GM-No?" I suggested including additional information to help grab an audience's attention. It now reads, "GMO or GM-No? The Story Behind Genetically Modified Food Products, Explained."

Thoughts on Drafting

My thoughts on writing in general are pretty messed up. So here goes nothing explaining my thoughts on drafting. In the previous posts I've been talking about the heated debate on whether Chinese scientists broke ethical codes by genetically modifying human embryos.

All this occurred earlier this year and since then debate has still continued but without the original flame it produced. Nevertheless we must discuss and breakdown this debate for those who are still confused or are just now hearing about this. 

In this post I will analyze the conventions of a quick reference guide as explained by the book, "A Student's Guide to First Year Writing: 36th Edition." The topics we will explore are:

• Drafting a Thesis statment

• Writing paragraphs in PIE format

• Writing introductions

• Organizing information

• Writing conclusions

_________________________________________________________________________________

ClkerFreeVectorImages. "Confusion Left Right Straight Confused Choice."
2014 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication

_________________________________________________________________________________

To begin we will highlight the book's helpfulness to readers on these topics. On drafting a thesis statement, the book helps break down this topic into sentences for those still confused. Questions include asking writers, "Is it interesting?" and "Is it manageable?." These questions help writers decide whether their thesis' are adequately formatted to be a good thesis statement. 

Using the PIE (Point, Illustration, Explanation) format, we find a great way to develop paragraphs for use in quick reference guides. PIE is a helpful way to use in paragraph development in persuasive arguments and analysis essays.  

Going on to the topic of writing good introductions, the book very clearly explains to readers in numbered form how to write them. In each one of your introductions, a thesis must be included as well as a way to grab a reader's attention. 

From writing a good introduction, we must construct a well organized contextual body that conveys a fairly large amount of information.  Again, the book provides multiple questions it asks the reader to answer while he or she forms each explanatory paragraph. 

To conclude, one must end each explanation with a way to provide readers with closure on the topic. A point on conclusions that I saw that was most important was to "paint a picture" for the audience over the topic and to help draw all sections to the center.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Now for the dark side of the textbook. We will now explore what the book doesn't explain well or just not at all.

According to the book, organization is key to formatting a "good" quick reference guide. In all reality, a QRG can be formatted in any way from what the writer pleases. As long as the guide helps readers learn a specified topic, then organization does not need to be a strictly monitored as the book says it should be.

As for the PIE format, the idea of including a point and illustration for every point throughout a QRG is not that necessary. If the point is introduced, then an illustration should only be drawn for readers who may seem confused by a subspecific heading.

The book does not explain the ideas of organization and the PIE format thoroughly enough. Either topic can be bended to the writers likeness and no direct goal is presented by the book. Overall, the textbook guides the writer in the right direction but does not give any options.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Reflection: After viewing Kelly's blog post and Dylan's blog post, I found that my views are similar to my peers. There are however some difference in opinions for this post on what is helpful and what is not from our class textbook. For the most part, Kelly and I have very similar views while Dylan and I have dissimilar opinions on the idea of PIE formatting. Overall, I can learn a lot from the textbook as well as my classmates so I am taking what my peers say as good advice.

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

After multiple postings and after endless hours of working typing analytical breakdowns of articles, I have finally reached somewhat of an end product. In this short post I have included a link to the rough draft of my quick reference guide.

PublicDomainPictures. "DNA Biology Medicine Gene Microbiology Analysis."
2013 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication.

The controversy my guide covers is drawn from all the sources I have gathered over the great debate on genetic modifications to human embryos. Is this ethical or not? To find out more continue reading and follow the link later in this post.

If you haven't heard, Chinese scientists from the Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China have genetically edited the genome of human embryos. The alterations were successful in 28 of 86 embryos but none resulted in the goal genetic coding; all suffered considerable damage with the formation of unexpected mutations.

These testings have prompted worldwide controversy into whether doing so violates the dully drawn line that marks the halting point to where people should not be allowed to research into. As these tests may produce disease riddled embryos, many think that human modifications to this extent should not be progressed through.

For the rough draft of my Quick Reference Guide over this controversy click here.

Practicing Quoting

As the controversy trudges on (in my blog), I am now assigned to publish an article of my own. (At least I think this is what I was suppose to do for this post.)

In my very own article - "Chinese Scientists Attempt to Genetically Modify Human Embryos, Sparking Worldwide Controversy" - I bring up aspects from both the supporting side and the opposing side. Both sides are debating whether the genetic modification of human embryos is ethically appropriate.

The following two screenshots break down two quotes by conventions of correct integration of quotes in a published work. I researched how to do so in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) style but they do not state a specified method. 

Screenshot from Nick Quon. Quote taken from article by National Public Radio. Accessed 09/09/2015.

Screenshot from Nick Quon. Quote taken from discussion thread on Reddit. Accessed 09/10/2015.

Highlighting Legend:

• Green - Source materials put into effective context
• Blue - Use of appropriate signal words is integrated
• Yellow - Establishment of source with the correct authorization
• Orange - Use of brackets to shorten quotes with words not originally stated by the source

QRGs: The Genre

Ever witness an event and you have no clue what some of the references presented are? Quick reference guides are published all over the internet. These serve as guides, as contextually stated, to help inform audiences on a certain topic they may be interested in.

If you watched this past Winter Olympics held in Sochi, Russia, you may have had a few odd questions. Abby Ohlheiser and Connor Simpson of The Wire posted a QRG on the site that highlights some of the confusing aspects of the opening ceremonial show.

If you took the time to read through the article and connect the dots from event to explanation, then you just read through a carefully thought out quick reference guide. In the rest of this post I will address the conventions and other aesthetics every QRG should contain. Enjoy.

K. Latham. "Quick Reference Guide to NCAA Rules." Uploaded 09/23/2013 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

The following questions will focus on these examples of Quick Reference Guides:

• E-cigarettes and health - here's what the evidence actually says

• The only guide to Gamergate you will ever need to read

• Greece's Debt Crisis Explained

• The Sochi Olympics Opening Ceremony, Explained

• #BernieSoBlack: Why progressives are fighting about Bernie Sanders and race

1. What are the convention of a Quick Reference Guide (QRG)?

QRGs utilize subcategories to divide the guide into sections. Many times the use of questions will help orchestrate the path of the reader. Questions will point to a specific time during an event that a reader may be wondering information about. The division of the guide in this way helps readers easily navigate their way around. It also helps to anticipate what a readers' looking for, opens up a way for readers to be interactive with the article, and also helps spike curiosity among audiences.

2. How are those conventions defined by the author's formatting and design choices?

All five authors used questions to direct readers to specific answers. In a QRG, these answers have to be well thought out, and be often drawn from multiple sources and additional research. Questions leave a reader wondering, Why?, with the author present to provide a response.

3. What are the purposes of the above stated QRGs?

The purpose of each of the QRGs is to inform their audiences of the events that occur on the topic presented. Questions were posed in each of the articles to entice readers to want to find out more.

4. Who is the intended audience for each of the ORGs?

Going from the first to the last article I have stated previously above: The first guide caters to users of e-cigarettes as well as to those looking to start. The purpose is to educate them on the negative effects of "vaping." They state that although it is healthier than tobacco smoking it still is very harmful to the human body.

In the next article, the author shoots to inform her readers of the Gamergate movement happening online over debates in gaming. Surprisingly, the controversy takes a political spin on the subjects. It could even be said that it is informally a battle between liberals and conservative gamers.

The third article on Greece's debt crisis highlights country's money management. Statistics are presented in the forms of graphs and tables. Author uses these visuals to show the reader just how bad the situation is. He assumes his readers are already informed on the matter of a national crisis, but included just enough to get even the simplest of readers up to speed.

On to Sochi, Russia, this QRG was published in early 2014. The authors provide the answers to a few of the sequences of the Opening Ceremony of the Winter Olympics that left viewers dumbfounded. the authors include the use of a separate text color for the subtitles to help readers find the answer they're looking for specifically. The audience is basically anyone who does not understand Russian folklore or historic culture.

The fifth and last article listed discusses the deal between progressives and Bernie Sanders, a democratic candidate for the upcoming presidential election. The QRG aims to inform readers of how Sanders and race collide. Audiences of this articles are almost meant to evoke a reaction to reading. Tweets from frustrated followers of the controversy are included to help the article relate to its viewers.

5. How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why are they used in this way?

All five of the QRGs use imagery for the better improvement of the context. Especially in the article referring to the Sochi Winter Olympics, the imagery was used to help readers get a sense of what the author is trying to talk about without having to type it all out. If flying horses pulling a sun were tried to explain over text, it would be much harder to contextualize than to simply include a photograph.


In reflection to my peers' blog posts on the same topic of QRGs, I am happy to see that many people are understanding the details of a quick reference guide. We all seem well informed about what makes up a guide and what it should point to with regards to an audience. My peers, Jessica, Kyle, and Savannah, all presented valid points on writing a QRG equally. I can definitely learn a thing or two from each one of them as we all progress through finalizing our guides on our controversies.

Cluster of My Controversy

To illustrate main ideas and the wide variety of topics in a controversy, usage of cluster maps or mind maps are very useful for portrayal. In this short but informational post I have included a cluster map on the controversy I have been analyzing for the past week.

If you do not recall, the controversy is whether the Chinese practice of genetic modification to human embryos' DNA coding is ethically appropriate. Some even have gone to call it illegal. Draw from the cluster map to understand more in depth of both sides of the debate:

Image created by Nick Quon utilizing Google Draw.

In the above cluster map, I have included the main topic titled, "Genetic Modification of Human Embryos." I have not portrayed my view at all in the debate but have drawn from multiple sources to construct main points on the controversy. This cluster map contains branching ideas to further explain the sub-topics after the central theme.

Update 09/08/15: *cluster is still too complex to understand*

Update 09/10/15: *after looking at peers' clusters ... concluded this cluster is still impossible to understandable*


In reflection to viewing my classmates, Kelly's and Isabel's, blogs I have concluded that my cluster map is too complex and nearly non-understandable. I am considering changing it but I also find my cluster very unique in its own unexplainable way. Both of these girls' cluster maps are fantastically laid out. Very organized as well as spread in detail, their clusters should be enlarged printed and displayed in art galleries around the world.

Annotated Bibliography in ASME Style

For engineering students, citations are written in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) style. In this post I will be constructing an annotated bibliography containing the six sources I used in my series of posts on the controversial debate whether it is ethical for people to genetically modify human embryos by changing their gene coding.

Internet Archive Book Images. "Tentative revised boiler safety orders."
Uploaded on Flickr by Sacramento, California state printing office. Public Domain Dedication.

[1] Sample, I., 2015, "Scientists genetically modify human embryos in controversial world first," The Guardian, "http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/23/scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-in-controversial-world-first," [accessed 09/02/2015].

Sample outline the controversy behind the modification of human embryos. He present both sides of the debate whether the practice is ethically appropriate or not. Bias is not conveyed and the author does not lean in either way in the discussion in this article. This article can help provide useful information in aiding my project.

[2] Cryanoski, D., Reardon, S., 2015, "Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos," Nature, "http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378," [accessed 09/02/2015]

The authors of this article posted on Nature.com, a reputable scientific journal. Both work for Nature and wrote this article with no bias. The intent was to inform readers of the occurrence of the modification of human stem cells on the genetic level. Both side of the controversy was provided similar to Ian Sample's article in The Guardian. Nature has provided excellent quotes from the main sources of the experimenters for use in my project QRG.

[3] Schwartz, R., Lederman, N., 2008, "What Scientists Say: Scientists' views of nature of science and relation to science context," International Journal of Science Education, 30 (6), pp. 727-771.

The scholarly journal, International Journal of Science Education, included a survey / study by Renee Schwartz and Norman Lederman. The survey was conducted with 24 scientist participants and all were asked questions pertaining to their views on the nature of science and scientific inquiry. Four categories of scientific fields were chosen to pool in the sample of 24 scientists. The categories were: physics, chemistry, life science, and earth / space science. This study could provide much needed background on the general views of scientists as I begin to draft  my quick reference guide.

[4] Liao, L., Li, L., Zhao, R., 2007, "Stem cell research in China," Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 362 (1482), pp. 1107-1112.

The authors of this scholarly paper are of Chinese ethnicity. Although this may be of bias to many who see the modification of human stem cells as unethical, authors, Liao, Li and Zhao, present China's view on such experimentations. They justify their studies on scientific fact, but it is obvious that this alone would never be able to quell the opposition. Able to find a study specified on the cell alteration by China, I will utilize much of what the paper has to offer in my QRG.


[5] DAHBOO777, 2015, Scientists In China Are Genetically Modifying Embryos Despite Huge Concerns," YouTube, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSK-RfpPvX4," [accessed 09/04/2015]

YouTube user, DAHBOO777, is a news reporter who shares his opinions, often extreme, with his subscribers on his YouTube channels and on his website, Underground World News. He presents extreme bias and is unarguably a non-reliable and non-credible source of daily news. Not much can be drawn from DAHBOO777, but that he is an unbiased source; won't be able to use him much in my QRG but to point out the extremes.


[6] Sleasman, M.J., Cunningham, P., 2015, "What's Wrong with Designer Genes?," desiringGod, "http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-s-wrong-with-designer-genes," [accessed 09/05/2015].

The article cited was presented via the organization's co-founder and chairman, Jon Bloom. He gives no input on the matter, but his editorial staff does. Sleasman and Cunningham present an opposing side to the genetic modification of human embryos. On the factors of faith and the belief in God, they write about how the procedure was ethically inappropriate. They add that the human life is a gift and not a product. Although biased and not credible, this source can be seen a very reliable.

Again, like DAHBOO777, this article although professionally displayed, is not a very credible source in general. I will not be able to use much of the information provided in my QRG except for stating a religious opposition to the controversy.

[7] Stein, R., 2015, "Critics Lash Out At Chinese Scientists Who Edited DNA In Human Embryos," National Public Radio, "http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/04/23/401655818/critics-lash-out-at-chinese-scientists-who-edited-dna-in-human-embryos," [accessed 09/09/2015].

Rob Stein of the National Public Radio published this article to inform readers about the controversy behind the genetic modification of human embryos by Chinese scientists. From Stein's choice of context, he includes mainly the statements of professionals who oppose the procedure. However, he states key points on the methods and a statement by a Chinese scientist which makes this article neutral on the debate.

This article would be great to use in my QRG, especially since both sides are equally presented by the author/writer from the National Public Radio.

[8] begaterpillar, 2015, "Chinese scientists just admitted to tweaking the genes of human embryos for the first time in history," Redditt, World News, "https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/33j731/chinese_scientists_just_admitted_to_tweaking_the/?," [accessed 09/07/2015]

Taken from Redditt, this discussion thread was first posted by user, begaterpillar. The thread has since accumulated over 3000 comments in the four months it's been posted. Posts range incredibly from calm and reserved to outright anger. Commenters expresses their thoughts on the matter and bring up other main ideas that not even popular journalists have brought up.

For a QRG, this source would not be as useful as many of the other articles I have drawn together because it only provides one-sided views. Although the thread could be used for opinions and extreme thoughts, it would not fit well in a QRG. The only time I would see myself using this source is if I included a title, "What Reddit Users Think."

[9] Kolata, G., 2015, "Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns," The New York Times, "http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/health/chinese-scientists-edit-genes-of-human-embryos-raising-concerns.html?_r=0," [accessed 09/09/2015]

Something that surprised me was how much opposition this New York Times journalist included in her article. Only a single paragraph out of the many the article contained referred to the Chinese scientist that led the procedure. The rest seems to point to readers the fault and the immorality of the outcome from testing the 85 human embryos.

This article would be semi-useful for inclusion in my QRG. I could state the bias writing by the New York Times journalist. For some odd reason, this writer seems to convey an opposition to the genetic testings and only includes a very minimal amount of statements for support of the cause.

[10] Cooper-White, M., 2015, "Scientists Genetically Modify Human Embryos For First Time. Are We Facing A New Era Of Eugenics?," The Huffington Post, "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/24/embryo-genomes-edited-first-time_n_7127640.html," [accessed 09/05/15]

This article on the controversy provided by The Huffington Post includes a video created by the Post to help viewers better understand the situation. The article is unbiased and provides information and neither support nor discontent with the procedures. This posting simply wants to inform readers of the current situation in the field of genetics.

This article is a great source for use in my QRG. There is a video made by the Huffington Post that would be useful as a good back-up source. Bias from the writer is not present and a clear explanation of the situation is brought forward.



Reflection:  After looking over my peers' blog posts elaboration on their annotated bibliography, I found that much of the formatting in really any style is very similar. I viewed Savannah's post as well as Alyssa's post and found that Savannah's bibliography was very similar to mine in that she is an engineering student as well. Alyssa's formatting style is through the American Psychological Association (APA). Her formatting isn't much different from the method of ASME; the biggest and just about only difference is that they do not require a citation number to their annotations. 

Ideology in My Controversy

Now, time to look at the controversy I have been discussing as a whole. Drawing from all the sources I have researched into about this great debate, I will now answer a series of questions that pertains to all sources and all I have analyzed.

Paul Frymoyer. "Children's Genetics Significantly Affect How They Are Parented."
September 5, 2013 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. Who is involved in the controversy?

All of mankind is involved in this controversy. If the world allows for the genetic modification of human genomes, then mankind will literally be the subject behind this debate. The oppositions currently however as those who support the modification of human embryos to those who do not. Worldwide discussions have occurred since the announcement of the original experiment underwent the procedure.

2. Who are some of the major speakers or writers within these groups?

Major speakers include the hundreds of thousands of people so far that have spoken up about their opinions on turning humans into genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It is unclear where the line has been draw as to how many support and how many disagree with the procedures. A major group citing the benefits of the procedure is the scientists themselves who conducted the experiment, along with the Chinese government who backs and funds their research.

3. What kind of social power does each group hold?

Many scientists are against the idea of turning humans into GMOs, but some obviously are not. Take the Chinese for example, although they have placed restriction on hybridizing embryos, they still allow for the modification of human stem cells. On the other side of the spectrum, many say this is unethical and should be halted immediately. Their argument is based on the assumption that the cultivation of human life should not be altered genetically.

4. What resources are available to different positions?

There have been studies as well as surveys on the topic of genetic modifications to living species. Academic and scientific journals side with both ends on GMOs just about equally. However, looking at the altercation of human life, the statistics on whether how many support or do not support is not yet obtainable.

5. What does each group value?

The scientists who conducted the tests on the human embryonic cells support their ideals that humans should live to prosper and not to suffer. They claim they are finding better way to combat disease and disorders that birth at the molecular levels within the body. Ordinary people, religious followers and scientists alike however do not think the human being should be labeled as a test subject and therefore express their opposition.

6. What counts as evidence for the different positions?

For the Chinese scientists, prior studies and experiments on previous organisms besides humans have proven to be worthy of glorification. People have been studying living organisms and testing on them for centuries; this is why the Chinese think it is accepted for them to test on human subjects. For the opposition, the evidence is more an opinion based. They do not believe that humans should be the participants in their own tests of rigorous capacity. Altering cells in a human can mean catastrophic consequences especially since our mental capabilities and genetics vary greatly from the subjects that have been tested on previously.

7. Is there a power differential between the groups?

There doesn't appear to be a power differentiating factor between the groups. It is obvious however  that there is widespread discontent with the Chinese allowing their private and governmental science sectors to test on human embryonic cells for their experiments. Many believe that their methods are unethical and some even wonder if the legality is present.

8. Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?

There is no acknowledged common ground between the groups. Each side has their views and for the most part intend to stick to their morals. Whether action for or against human GMOs, if any, is implemented will be the deciding factor.

9. Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

There is much unacknowledged common ground. People know that the study of cells living and dead has been occurring for centuries around the world. It is almost certain that the people of Earth will inevitably use human altercation to their embryonic cells in the future, it is just uncertain when. Opposers will still continue to express their unhappiness on the matter and the debating seesaw will forever fluctuate back and forth.

10. Do the various groups listen to each other?

For the most part, no. The Chinese people have not voiced their opinions much since the tests. The Chinese scientists argue that their studies will greatly improve life on Earth in the coming centuries whether we like it or not. They disregard anything others have said that oppose their scientific goals. Some people see some benefit modifying humans to test for disease or irregularity in the human genome while others like them find that playing with the human life is equivalent to playing with fire.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Adding to the controversial fire I've laid out in the past couple of my posts, I have included in this new post two snippets from social media sites. The following people's posts, comments, and/or opinions were randomly chosen solely based on the amount of information they presented on the topic.

Said topic, if you don't recall, highlights the controversy behind the genetic modifications of human embryos by Chinese scientists. Earlier this year, an experiment was conducted to test for the survivability of human embryos that were modified to turn off a gene that would cause a disease in the offspring.

A worldwide debate has sparked since then on whether this process was ethical. Here are two social media sources that I have found talking about these events:


Social Media Source #1

The video, or more like a sound clip, above was taken from YouTube. The YouTube user DAHBOO777 shares his opinion on the controversy of genetically modifying embryos.

From DAHBOO777's profil on YouTube, I found that he discusses hundreds of topics found all over the news media. He runs his own website, undergroundworldnews.com. He has just under 100,000 subscribers to his YouTube channel and has over 30,000,000 views to his videos and profile as a whole.

Credibility

Although this guy seems like a legitimate source for your daily news, he expresses his opinions on his topics tremendously. His videos are one-sided and argue for that side. Some commenters on his page note that he blocks users that disagree with his views. DAHBOO777 is not a credible source at all, although he claims to deliver the truth that the local media outlets won't show viewers.

Location

His tweets on Twitter and his posts to his YouTube channel vary greatly as he pools his information from possibly hundreds of different news sources to gather what he calls "news." He covers events from the US as well as across the world, just depending on whats trending at the time.

Network

He manages, runs and airs in his own videos on all his social media sources. He runs his own news website called Underground World News. As stated previously he has nearly 100,000 YouTube subscribers; he also has over 7,000 followers on Twitter and over 12,000 likes on his website's Facebook page.

Content

The information presented by DAHBOO777 can indeed be corroborated from other sources. He heavily relies on information from other media outlets to conduct his discussions on the topics reported by other sources.

Contextual Updates

He does not post regularly on the topic of human embryo modifications. He generally posts about daily news and whats trending on all social media sites. He bases his claims off of Twitter, Facebook, news and media outlets, and most likely other sources.

Age

His YouTube channel, the one that posted this video, was created in 2013. His Twitter account has been active for the same amount of time as well, since May 2013. The Facebook page for his website was launched even before his Twitter, possibly a few months prior.

Reliability

This source is not reliable. His posts on all his media location are based off of personal opinion. He does not present either side of a debate or controversy at any point in any of his videos or postings. Many of his followers have even commented disregarding him as a formidable source of actual news.




Social Media Source #2

Screenshot taken from Twitter. "What's Wrong with Designer Genes?" July 21, 2015 via Jon Bloom.

Jon Bloom is the author of Not By Sight (2013) and Things Not Seen (2015). He also is the chair and co-founder of the organization Desiring God. He links the organizations website on his Twitter profile, desiringGod.org. The group's Twitter account has over 330,000 followers and posts regularly.

Credibility

Bloom tweets his organization's article on altering the genetic coding of humans. He is well followed on Twitter and likewise for his organization's account. However, we know by context that all opinions will be based on religion. The labeling of credibility for Bloom can sway either way - whether you're a follower of God or not.

Location

Looking off of Bloom's Twitter profile we can deduce that he is currently living in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The organization, Desiring God, is also based in the same city. Their location does not matter in the sense that they tweet about anything of their faith. It is probably that they could be directly involved in the process of genetic modification - possibly through opposition like public argument or petitions.

Network

Bloom is an extension of Desiring God. Both are followed by believers in God on their Twitter accounts. Followers include pastors, school administrators, actors and actresses, sports coaches, and many others who have faith in the Lord.

Content and Contextual Updates

The content presented on Bloom's Twitter or the organization's are based from news outlets. The news that Chinese scientists genetically modified human embryos and the journalists at Desiring God published an article with argument against it. They derived their topic from other sources and added their opinions.

Age

The launching of Desiring God's Twitter account came several months before Bloom created his in March of 2009. Since then Bloom has accumulated over 8,500 followers and amassed nearly 5,000 tweets. As for the organization, it has tweeted some 16,000 times since its launch.

Reliability

Both sources are very reliable if the criteria were set for info based on a religion standpoint. For those who don't agree with the faith, then this is a different story. The article does in fact included a sided argument against the modification of human embryos. These sources can be labeled as reliable but not at all credible.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

In a previous post, I presented two articles on a controversy that is still culminating to this day. What is your take on the genetical modification of human embryos?

In this post, I will analyze two scholarly sources on the topic of the nature of science and scientific inquiry, as well as a more specific topic on Chinese stem cell research.

Sarah Nichols. "King James Bible and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Christian Science's central texts." July 18, 2011 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Scholarly Source #1

From the International Journal of Science Education, Volume 30, Issue 6, 2008:

What Scientists Say: Scientists' views of nature of science and relation to science context

This source is from a compilation of multiple journals into a single issue of a much larger volume.

The purpose of the study presented was to inform readers of scientists' views on the nature of science and the relation to scientific context. The study utilized a question-based survey for a participant group of 24 scientists representing four disciplines (physics, chemistry, life science, earth/space science). Associations between nature of science views, scientific disciplines and methods of inquiry were examined during the study.

The study was published online on April 11, 2008 along with other papers. The overall publication was published online by the International Journal of Science Education, titled as Volume 30, Issue 6.

The study cites and references over 50 different sources to draw its information from. All sources provided have to do with scientific fields. Some outline the broad topic of science and beliefs while some look other journals that point to the idea of science views in context.

The authors of this study are Renee Schwartz and Norman Lederman. Schwartz has her doctorate in philosophy and has earned a bachelors and a masters in scientific fields of biology. She is an associate professor of science education at the Department of Middle and Secondary Education.

Lederman is a distinguished professor of mathematics and science at the Illinois Institute of Technology. He has a PhD in Science Education and has earned a bachelors and a masters degree in biology and secondary education, respectively. He has published over 200 articles in scholarly journals.

The intended audience in this study is mainly for professional use by surveyors of science education. Other readers may include scientists interested in learning about their colleagues' views on the nature of science and scientific inquiry.

I found this article using Academic Search Complete, which then redirected me to Taylor & Francis Online. I searched, "views on science" to find this article on the study conducted.

PublicDomainPictures. "Stem Cell Sphere Three-Dimensional Shape Division." 2013 via pixabay.
Public Domain Dedication.

Scholarly Source #2

From The Royal Society's Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, Volume 362, No. 1482, Biological Science in China (Jun. 29, 2007):

Stem Cell Research in China

This source is also a compilation of multiple journals into a single volume.

The purpose of the study presented was to discuss China's role in stem cell research. The research by China focuses mainly on bone marrow and embryonic stem cells based on the context from the paper. The study is more of an explanation of China's studies on adult embryonic cells of various organisms and also more specifically, of human embryonic stem cells.

The paper was published online on March 5, 2007, along with other papers included in the volume. The publisher, The Royal Society, is an organization created in the 17th century in the United Kingdom that studies and publishes scientific journals. Since the creation of the society, it has been the UK's prestigious national science academy with a connection with over 1600 of the world's most distinguished scientists.

The authors of the paper are: Lianming Liao, Lingsong Li, and Robert Chunhua Zhao. Liao has his PhD in biology, and teaches at the Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Li is a professor at Peking University's Health Science Center. He has his PhD in molecular and cellular biology. Zhao is currently the chief scientist of the National Basic Research Program of China and is a regional editor of the Journal of Stem Cell and Development.

The intended audience of this specific journal is mainly scientist based, but other professionals of teaching and learning occupations may also use the journal as a way of enacting their studies themselves. Professors and scientists alike use these journals as a center point to draw their interests from.

I used the University of Arizona's JSTOR search engine to find this scholarly journal. I searched, "human embryos AND chinese scientists."