 |
| 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.
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.
Being a pre-physio major, I write in the AMA style. Both of our styles seem similar, except I notice a couple differences. For example, AMA style requires that author names be bolded. Furthermore, I too need to number my citations, but my numbers do not need to be in brackets. I also do not need the date accessed, but AMA does require a full link like ASME style does. Overall, your annotated bibliography looks professional. Good luck with your project!
ReplyDeleteYour citations look great! I like comparing our blogs because it makes me feel like I'm actually doing it right! I think my summaries might be a little long though. I also like your topic. I didn't even consider embryo engineering! Artificial genetics are so interesting, especially because that is our future. Good luck on your project!
ReplyDeleteRemember that each annotation should end with an explanation of how the source will be useful to you in working on your project....
ReplyDeleteYour citations look pretty good. They look almost identical to the example that you provided. I have noticed that a lot of the citations look very similar. Only small differences in the between your ASME style and my AMA style.
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteI read thi post and I think its preatty nice! Thank you for sharing with us! Also I want to recommed one article for reading. It is called annotated bibliography writing. There are some interesting things!