Cultural Analysis of "Genetically Engineered Babies?"

In the post below, I will be performing a cultural analysis on the article "Genetically Engineered Babies?".

No author. "Baby, Child, Cute." June 22, 2010 via Pixaby. Public Domain Dedication.

The cultural keywords of this article are "uncertainty", "eugenics" and "ethics." All three words describe the author's argument against designer babies. Uncertainty describes how genetic engineering is not guaranteed to succeed. Eugenics explains the potential of where genetic engineering can take our society. Ethics explains how genetic engineering is not only unfair to the baby, but how it's unfair to society as well because the baby will have "desired" genes. Favoring the ban against genetically engineering embryos is the main idea of this article. The author provides evidence against how unethical engineering a human is.

Free Write:

As presented in the article, "mother nature does not care." Even if scientists were 99.9% sure their experiments would work, there is still a 0.01% chance of failure. Because of this, designer babies come with uncertain outcomes. In addition, there are millions of genetic sequences for one characteristic, so it's nearly impossible to alter every single one and create a desirable outcome.

The article mentions that designer babies could be a step towards "eugenics." The author uses Nazi Germany as an example of how unethical eugenics really is. Creating a "perfect" human is impossible because the perception of perfectness is subjective based on each individual.

Genetically engineering a babie is also unethical. The author mentions it's unfair to the baby for someone else to decide his or her fate. In addition, the baby is given an unfair advantage in life if he or she was designed to be smarter than others, for example. Because of this, genetically designing a baby is unethical.

Project One Final Draft

In the post I will include a link to the final draft or my Quick Reference Guide.

JohnnyMrNinja. "Krispy Kreme Donuts." October 6, 2010 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

My QRG can be found here :)

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

In this post, I will be rhetorically analyzing three different sources that are acts of opinionated speech about engineering.

Micky Aldridge. "Question Mark Cloud." June 10 2003 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

1. The Ethics of Designer Babies

Author

The author of this article is Tia Ghose. She is a a well-written journalist for Wired, a magazine that provides updates on the latest technology and scientific advancements. In addition, she is a investigative reporter and researcher for the Center for Investigative Reporting. Tia Ghose reports on scientific topics and debates and has interest in science.

Audience 

The primary audience is adults because the article discusses the ethics of designing a baby. More specifically, the audience could be married couples or couples who want to have children. In addition, this article is posted on the Huffington Post; therefore, the audience is anyone who reads the news. This article assumes the audience cares about their children's welfare and have in interest in customizing their baby.

Context

This article was published in March of 2014, therefore the information is current and relevant. In addition, the information was posted on an accredited news source. Because of this, the article is credible and reliable. It was posted via LifeScience. There are videos included in the article about genetically designed animals. In addition, there are other related articles included at the end of the post.

2. Bringing up Designer Babies

Author 

The author is Ana Harris. She is from Texas and says she is a feminist in her bio. Therefore, she advocates women's rights and probably other ethical rights. She is a senior at Wellesley College studying philosophy; she works as a journalist for hobby rather than a career. However, her article appears on the Huffington Post and is therefore credible.

Audience

The audience is anyone who is interested in stem cell research, gene alteration or even people who want to have kids. This article discusses "designing" a baby and the dangers involved with genetic changing. This article assumes the audience is concerned with the ethics of genetic engineering and has an interest in customizing their children.

Context 

This article was posted May 2015 and is therefore up to date and contains relevant information. It appears in the Huffington Post as an opinion article; therefore, it is credible but contains bias. This article is presented as a an argument; the author begins with an anecdote and then proceeds to present and support her argument throughout. There are related articles included at the bottom of the pages and a few ads surrounding the text.

3. Genetically Engineered Babies?

Author 

The author of this article is Wynne Parry. She has various articles in scientific journals like Scientific American and Live Science. In addition, she reports on biological sciences and a few other scientific topics. She graduated from Columbia University and currently writes about genetics, health and our bodies. Her article appears on the Huffington Post and is therefore credible.

Audience

Just like the other two articles, the audience is adults interested in having kids or even the ethics of designing babies. The article assumes the audience has heard of this new technology because it discusses the ethics of gene altering and gene selecting. However, this article is appropriate for any audience if they are interested in learning about this controversy.

Context

This article was posted February 2013. This is not as recent as the first two articles; however, it is still pretty recent and relevant. Again, it was published in the Huffington Post and is therefore credible. There are related links at the end and ads surrounding the text. The author presents her information with facts and thoroughly explains the ethics involved in designing a baby.


Reflection:

Morgan's post had a thorough analysis of her sources. They were all very recent and had credible authors. In addition, I like how she had articles for three different controversies within her discipline; therefore, she gave herself a lot of options to choose from. After reading her analysis, I realized I could find more information about the authors of my sources. Nick's analysis, just like Morgan's, was thorough. In addition, he found very credible sources. I like how he has similar research ideas as me because we are both in engineering. After reading his analysis, I realized I could develop my analysis more. Finally, I like that Nick has a source with a bigger issue involved (first amendment rights) rather than a specific event.

Developing a Research Question

In the post below, I will be discussing three research questions I am interested in further investigating, about ongoing debates in the engineering field. In addition, I will explain why I am interested in each one.

Kyle Flood. "Waaah!" February 20, 2007 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

Optimizing genomes has become a popular topic in the field of engineering. Scientists and engineers are working to create the "best" set of gene sequences for plants, animals and even humans. Personally, the idea of stem cell engineering is very interesting. Stem cells can regenerate tissue, recreate organs and possibly even regrow limbs. However, some people tampering with the human genome is "unnatural." Because of this, I have developed a few questions to research the stem cell controversy even further.

1. What is chimera? How does it tells us about stem cell behavior and how will it benefit humans?

This was interesting to me because chimera is an organism made out of more than one biological being. It seems very strange to create a new animal from other animal's genomes. However, this allows scientists to test the behavior of stem cells and predict how they will affect humans. I saw a movie called "Splice" once and it was a similar idea so it would be interesting to learn how it works.

2. What are the complications and advantages of "designer babies?"

Designing a baby before its actually a baby is very interesting to me. I want to be a mom one day but I would want my children to be a surprise. In addition, I would not want to know what illness or diseases my baby could potentially have because then I would worry his entire life. This also leads me to question who gets to design their baby, how much it costs and whether or not it is actually successful.

3. What are scientific hurdles to still overcome involving stem cells?

This is interesting to me because I do not know if stem cell regeneration even works or the effectiveness of the technique. In addition, how will new advancements change the course of stem cell application? Will new knowledge advance or eliminate using stem cells for therapy. In addition, I would like to know what limits stem cell research in order to gt a better understanding of its usefulness.

Reflection on Project One

In this post below, I will be answering questions to reflect on the Project One, creating a Quick Reference Guide.

The White House. "Barack Obama Takes One Last Look in the Mirror." January 20, 2009 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

1.What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?

It was hard for me to pinpoint a direct controversy because I was confused where to go with engineering. Also, sorting through the requirements was very hard for me because I'm not very good at navigating the web. Finding quality sources was another challenge for me; however, I was able to find many with research. In order to combat these challenges, I revisited my work everyday. Taking it step by step helped sort through everything and made it less of a burden. Eventually, I was able to easily find sources and navigate my way around with more time.

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

Finding information on my topic was relatively easy; genetic engineering is such a hot topic that it was easy to find sources. In addition, organizing my QRG was easy because there are many different topics within the debate that I could have included; therefore, I had a wide variety of information to choose from.

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

The most effective writing practice for my project was drafting and revising many times. This helped because there was so much information to sort through; it was a little challenging to decide exactly what to include but after revising I finally was able to. In addition, arguments from news articles and from blog posts were most effective for my project. News articles presented facts impartially and blog posts provided insight to how consumers truly feel.

4. What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?

The least effective sources and arguments were those found in scholarly journals. I did not include any information from these sources in my QRG because it was not relevant to the specific event itself. These sources provided information that was too broad when I was trying to explain one specific event. In addition, it did not help me to write without evidence. When I did not have any examples to support my argument, the paragraph and informative lacked credibility.

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

This project was similar to previously writing experience because of the research that was conducted before the first draft. I've had experience in choosing a topic and researching it, as well as creating an annotated bibliography.

6. How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

This process was different because I've never had an assignment that required me to figure out the conventions of the genre myself from examples. In addition, I've never included pictures and captions in my writing. Also, I had to cite my information in the ASME style, which is a citation I've never encountered before.

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

The skills learned from this project will benefit me in future coursework. This assignment required heavy revision and peer review. This is important because in the future, I will know to revise a lot before I can consider my work complete. In the past, I barely ever revised my work. In addition, I will be able to find the conventions of any genre and hopefully replicate them. When I have future assignments, I will be able to look at an example and create something with the required characteristics. Finally, learning ASME citation style will benefit me in my field. When I have to write papers for my engineering courses, I will already know how to cite my references. 

Reflection:

Alyssa's post was very similar to mine. We both has generally the same similarities, differences and approaches to our QRG. In addition, we both found navigating the web the most challenging part of this project. I'm glad to know I'm not the only grandma when it comes to pursuing and technology. Just like Alyssa's post, I agree with Isabel's reflection. We both found the same things effective and not effective and we both feel as though this assignment will benefit us in the future.

Clarity, Part Two

In the post below, I will be discussing and explaining four addition topics from the "Clarity" section in Rules for Writers. In addition, I will be providing examples I found in my own writing based on the sections I read about.


1. Active Verbs

This section discusses how to use action verbs and explains "passive voice." It explains exactly what active verbs are and when they should be used. Also, this section explains what passive verbs are and why they are inappropriate to use, I found it interesting that the book describes passive voice as "weak" because the main subject indirectly receives the verb. In addition, I liked how the book advised when using passive is actually appropriate, like when emphasizing the receiver of the action and minimizing the importance of the actor.

Example from paper:

Original Sentence:
The controversy at hand deals with genetically modified organisms, specifically, modified seeds.

Revision:
The genetically modified organisms controversy specifically targets the ethics of modified seeds for sustainable farming.

2. Parallel Ideas

This sections discusses how to balance ideas in a sentence. A writer can balance a series or ideas or even a pair of ideas. Also, the book explains when to use function words, like that, to clarify the parallelism. I found it interesting that sometimes a function word is needed; I subconsciously add it into my writing so its nice to know what a function word actually is and does. In addition, I found it strange that the book only mentions two types of parallelisms.

Example from paper:

Original Sentence: The major components of this controversy involve safety, how to label product and whether of not GMOs are beneficial.

Revision: Safety, labeling and beneficiality of genetically engineered products [8] are the major points of the GMO controversy.

Alecmconroy. "Parallel Postulate." August 1 2006 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

3. Emphasis

This section discusses how to use emphasis. The book explains how to "coordinate" and "subordinate"; this section was the most interesting to me because I've never been explained how to do that. Essentially, if a writer wants two ideas of equal emphasis in a sentence, he should coordinate the clauses. If he wants only one idea to be the main emphasis, the writer must subordinate the clauses. In addition, the book advises not to subordinate main ideas because the emphasis will be eliminated. The book explains how to combine choppy sentences and avoid excessive subordination/coordination.

4. Shifts

This section explains how to avoid shifts throughout a piece of writing. The book advises to maintain consistent verb tense, perspective, mood and voice. In addition, the book says to avoid shifting from indirect to direct questions because it makes the writing "awkward." I found it interesting that the book says shifting mood and voice confuses the reader. I never really consider why its inappropriate to change mood in a piece of writing, but now I know.

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In this blog below, I will be providing a link to my "longest paragraph." I will also be explaining what I had to analyze in my paragraph and what the analysis taught me about my writing.

Hasanber. "Magnifying Glass." May 27, 2015 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Within the paragraph, I was asked to identify six different parts of speech, three different sentence patterns, one subordinate word group, two sentence structures and two sentence purposes. The link to my longest paragraph analysis can be found here.

This exercise taught me I do not vary my sentence structures very much. It was hard for me to find three different patterns. In addition, I use a lot of simple and a few complex sentences. In the future, I could vary my structure by including more compound sentences and maybe a few more complex sentences. Mainly, I want to focus on varying my structure in order to make my writing more interesting and less redundant.

Paragraph Analysis

In the post below, I will be explaining what I learned from doing a paragraph analysis on my Quick Reference Guide.

Tom Wood. GSD Puppy. June 13, 2014 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication. 

After analyzing my QRG, I realized each of my paragraphs have the same general strengths and weaknesses. First, I am good at focusing on the main topic of each paragraph. Only occasionally will I deviate from the main point. However, I could probably expand more on each topic and develop my paragraphs a little more. Also, each of my paragraphs' internal organization is good. My ideas are presented and then explained, allowing for clear information. Because of this, my transitions and ideas are coherent and smooth. Overall, my paragraphs are pretty well written; however, they could use a little more development. A copy of my paragraph analysis can be found here.

Reflection on Project One Draft

We were instructed to peer review two of our classmates QRGs. The first one I edit was Jessica's. Her QRG was about the controversy over Japan's expensive 2020 Olympic Stadium design. Next, I edited Nick's QRG. He discussed the debate over editing the genes of human embryos. In the post below, I will explain what I gathered from peer reviewing about questions pertaining to "audience" and "context."

Splintercellguy. "Audience Frontier Fiesta." 1950 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

Audience

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

Mainly my classmates will be reading my Quick Reference Guide. In addition, my professor will be reviewing it. However, it's written so anybody can read it and learn about the GMO controversy; a Quick Reference Guide is intended for all. Also, I am trying to reach anyone who reads it to inform them about this controversy.

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

Generally, a QRG is intended to inform readers about a certain topic; therefore, the reader should have no expectations or limited knowledge about the subject. In addition, the reader will expect to feel educated after reading a QRG. I feel as if my QRG is informative enough to meet the expectations of the reader.

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

Because I am writing a QRG, I need to provide enough information to fully inform the reader; he should have little to no previous knowledge about the GMO controversy. Therefore, I must include as much detail it takes to teach the reader. In addition, the reader wants to learn so my QRG will not insult their expertise.

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

A QRG should be concise and informative; however, it must appeal to all reading levels because of the conventions of a QRG. Therefore, I must use simple but explanatory diction to educate readers of all levels about the GMO debate.

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

I should use an informative tone because that is another convention of a QRG. However, I must be careful not to sound pretentious or all-knowing. I do use an informative tone throughout the entire draft.

Context:

1. What are the formatting requirements of this assignment? Do I meet them?

The conventions of a QRG are concise paragraphs, subheading for each paragraph, left alignment, relevant images, and informative tone. I do meet all of the formatting requirements for this assignment.

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

A QRG is intended to completely explain one topic. In my case, my QRG must fully explain the GMO controversy. I must include both sides of the debate, key speakers for each side, what they believe and say and how the controversy is playing out. I do meet all of these requirements.

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

Yes. In class we learned how to analyze different sources and genres of writing. Because of this, I was able to find adequate sources for my document. In addition, I was able to learn the conventions of a QRG and implement them in my draft.

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

Yes. I performed local revisions and also accepted the revision suggestions from my peers. Because of this, all grammatical issues were addressed.

Clarity, Part One

In the blog post below, I will be discussing what I learned from the "Clarity" section in Rules for Writers.

_BuBBy_. "365 Day Project." Jully 28, 2011 via Flickr. Public Domain Dedication.

Mixed Construction

This section explains mixed construction of sentences. It reviews how to "untangle" syntax, connect subjects and verbs and how to to avoid using "when", "is where" and "reason." This section was interesting because it explains how to revise sentences so they make sense; I did not know that beginning a sentence with a long prepositional phrase causes a "double subject." Also, I found it interesting that using "is where" to explain a subject is incorrect unless the subject is an actual place.

Variety 

This section explains how to provide sentence variety in a draft. When a piece of writing becomes long and wordy, the content can become redundant and boring. The book suggest to combat this by inverting sentences, varying sentence opening and changing sentence structure every now and then. I learned that an inverted sentence does not follow the normal "verb-object" pattern; rather, the verb would come after the object. In addition, I found the examples of different sentences (simple, compound, complex and compound-complex) helpful when considering how to vary structure. 

Choosing Appropriate Language

This section was the most interesting to me because it was a little humorous. The book explains how to use the correct language and how to avoid offending the audience. I learned what "jargon" really is: a language only certain groups share. Also, the book advises to avoid using pretentious, sexist or slang language. These are important in a QRG because its intended for all audiences; therefore, the content must be approachable by all. I also like that the book advises to consider revising language that may offended certain groups of people; when drafting I consider a single reader rather than a group so I must be careful to make sure I will not offend a bigger audience. 

Wordy Sentences

This section is the most helpful to me because my sentences are usually wordy and unclear. In this section, the book provides advise on how to tighten sentences, avoiding repetition, cutting out "empty" phrases and simplifying the sentence structure. I found the advise "reduce clauses to phrases and phrases to single words" because I usually feel like my sentences are too simple when I do that; however, they can be too confusing if I don't. 

Reflection:

After reviewing both Jessica and Nick's blogs, I learned more about mixed construction and wordy sentences.

One of Jessica's sentences says "Zaha Hadid wasn’t expected to design a cheap stadium by any means and the skyrocketing cost of the stadium is the reason why it is being scratched." I suggested she break up the sentence to reduce the amount of information presented. I also suggested she vary the construction by changing the second part of the sentence to "The design is being rejected because of the skyrocketing cost."

One of Nick's sentences stated "Even the Chinese researchers behind the study have agreed that the technique is not ready to be used in a clinical setting." From this, I learned how to condense wordy sentences. I suggested Nick replace the last part of the sentence to "....not ready for clinical use" in order to eliminate empty phrases.

Thoughts on Drafting

In the post below, I will be reviewing the helpfulness of the the textbook's advice on drafting.

MarmadukePercy. "Woman with Underwood Typewriter." January 1, 1918 via Wikipedia. Public Domain Dedication.

1.What parts of the book’s advice on the above bulleted topics are helpful for writing in this genre?

Drafting a Thesis:
The book was helpful in explaining what a strong thesis should look like. The biggest help to me was making sure my thesis was interesting; it should be the key catching point for your reader, but it also must be concise. Therefore constructing a strong thesis can be tricky.

Writing Introductions:
I think an introduction is important to include in a QRG because it introduces what the guide will be focusing on. The book helped in advising how to keep the introduction interesting but general enough to briefly explain what the piece of writing will be about.

Writing Conclusions:
In addition to an introduction, including a conclusion is important in a QRG because it wraps up the piece of writing. The book advises well on how to summarize the entry and come to a full circle ending.

2. What parts of the book’s advice on these topics might not be so helpful, considering the genre you’re writing in?

Writing a Paragraph in PIE format:
Writing in PIE format isn't really necessary for the QRG genre. Although the book provides good advice on how to construct an explanatory paragraph, this format is too lengthy for this genre. QRG are intended to be concise and to the point and a PIE format defeats that purpose.

Organization:
The book says that organization is central to an effective essay. However, in a QRG organization can be considered loosely because it has subheadings for every paragraph. Naturally, there should be an introduction of the topic and a conclusion at the end, but the organization in the middle of the QRG doesn't really matter since the reader can look at the subheadings to find what information they want to read.



Reflections:

I agreed with almost everything in Alyssa's post; however, I do think a conclusion is important in a QRG, just to summarize the article. In her post, Alyssa didn't find the conclusion section in the textbook to be helpful. Her post was nicely organized and she was thorough and complete in her responses. Just like Alyssa, I agree with Morgan's post. Just like me, she feels as if including an introduction and conclusive is important to the QRG. She also values the importance of a thesis, which is something I need to make sure I include. After reading these posts, I realize I need to work on my 1. thesis; I'm not sure I even included one. I also need to construct an 2. introductory paragraph; I need to make sure it's general enough and explains the purpose of my QRG. Finally, I need to make sure my 3. organization is understandable and includes the necessary information to meet the QRG requirements. 

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

In this post I will be discussing my rough draft of a quick reference guide about the GMO debate. I will also include a link to my rough draft so you may view it and give me input.

Ritt, Stefen. "Canada's Fireworks at the Celebration of Light." July, 31, 2013. Free Documentation License. 

When reading my rough draft, could you please check to see if I met all of the requirements.Also, if there is anything I should expand or be more clear on. Or if there is anything more I should add. Also, if somebody could explain how to add a citation to pictures I would appreciate it!

The link to my rough draft can be found here.

Practicing Quoting

In this blog below, I will demonstrate how I utilized two in-text quotations from two sides of the GMO debate.

Screenshot taken by me via Google docs. September 11, 2015. 

The above quote is in support of genetically modified crops.

Screenshot taken by me via Google docs. September 11, 2015. 

The quote above is a quote in opposition to genetic engineering.


The red highlights show my signal phrase.
The yellow highlights contextualize the information.
The blue highlights establish the author's authority.
The green highlights show my use of ellipses and brackets. 

QRGs: The Genre

In the post below, I'll be explaining the conventions of a "Quick Reference Guide." We began dissecting this topic in class and with further research, I was able to identify some conventions of the genre.

OpenClipartVectors. Untitled. 2014 via Pixabay. Free for non-commercial reuse. 

1. What are the conventions of a Quick Reference Guide? 

Some of the conventions my group and I observed in class are of the following:

• Introduction paragraph 
• Subheading- bold and generally questions
• Relevant images
• Use of white space
• Left aligned text
• Answers questions and informs about a specific topic
• Hyperlinks to outside sources
• Title
• Impartial and informative tone
• "Storytelling" genre

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

In the Gamergate article, the author clearly formats her blog with the above mentioned conventions. She utilizes bold subheadings, all of which are questions; underneath each subheading she answers the question with relevant information. In addition, her text is left aligned and she included a few different graphics relating to the topic. In addition, the author of Gamergate include working hyperlinks. When looking over other Quick Reference Guides, they all shared these conventions. 

3. What does the purpose of the QRG seem to be?

The purpose is to inform readers about a specific controversy or topic. By utilizing the question and answer style, authors are able to fully explain the topic at hand, thoroughly informing readers.

4. Who is the intended audience of QRGs?

The intended audience is anyone who is interested in learning all about a specific topic. Generally, the information is written so that all may approach it; the diction isn't too scholarly and does not require prior knowledge. Because the QRG varies between topics, the audience varies with it. Depending on what interests certain people will determine what they would like to learn about.

5. How do QRG use imagery or visuals? 

QRG, just like blogs, include relevant images to the specific topic. Many times, authors with try to humanize the topic by including images of people who are affected by the topic in order to invoke pathos in the reader. In addition, many author utilize graphs, charts and data to consecrate their position and information. The images often also provide the reader with a mind break.


Reflection:

Jayni's post taught me in a concise way what QRG are all about. She set up her post like a QRG which provided an example for what it actually looks like. Carter's post, just like Jayni's, explains clearly what a QRG is. He includes thorough explanations which pinpoint the common themes within QRGs. Just like the first two blogs I read, Kyle's post explains the conventions of a QRG. He keep his information brief but informative. I did like how his post was constructed differently; he included a picture at the end rather than the beginning which gave an example of a different blog set up. 

Cluster of My Controversy

In the blog below, I created a cluster map of the GMO controversy I have been researching. The questions are the first stem from the middle and the answers are the second set of stems.

Taken by me via Coggle. "Genetically Modified Organisms." 2015. 

In addition, you may access the bigger image here.

Reflection: Morgan's cluster map acted as a model for mine. Her information was neatly organized and she answered the questions concisely, which I really liked. Also, I am always commenting on her posts because she usually always has them done early. I appreciate her hard work. Isabel also used Coggle to create her map. She organized it a little different than Morgan and me but it was still understandable and answered all the questions. She was organized and included all the necessary parts.

Annotated Bibliography in ASME Style

As an engineering student, citations are done in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) style. In the blog below, I will be creating an annotated bibliography of the six sources I used for the GMO controversy.

McCoy92. "American Society for Mechanical Engineers Logo." July 1, 2012 via Deviant Art. Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial. 

[1] Keim, B., 2015, "Monsanto's Newest GM Crops May Create More Problems Than They Solve", Wired, "http://www.wired.com/2015/02/new-gmo-crop-controversy/", [accessed 09/03/2015].

This article discusses the issues involved in Monsanto bio-engineering seeds to resist weed killer. The audience is consumers in America because Monsanto is a major seed company in America. The author highlights how creating herbicide resistant seeds can cause more problems, like soil erosion and the development of pesticide resistant weeds referred to as super weeds. By adding interviews from different specialists who have research the effect of these seeds as well as explaining Monsanto's vision for their creations, the author is able to prove his stance that these tools can be detrimental to the environment. This article will benefit me in the future when opposing the position of genetic engineering. 

[2] Edwards,M., 2013, "Monsanto's Controversial Past", Nation of Change, "http://www.nationofchange.org/blogs/martin-edwards/monsanto-s-controversial-past-1385076006", [accessed 09/03/2015]. 

The author of this article is explaining Monsanto's history. He states that genetically modifying products is no new practice for them and that essentially this was expected from the company. His audience is those in opposition to Monsanto. He provides examples on how Monsanto has been corrupt since their founding in 1901 and even explains the harm that comes from genetically modified organisms. By researching the products used by Monsanto, the author is able to support his argument on the risks of their products. He utilizes various scientific sources as well. Edwards disagrees with the practices of Monsanto and he clearly explains that in his article. In the future, this article can be used to support the opposition to genetic engineering and Monsanto. 

[3] Noussair, C. and Robin, S. and Ruffieux, B., 2004, "Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?", The Economic Journal, 114, (492), pp. 102-120.

The purpose of this article is to explain French consumer's reluctance to buy genetically modified food. The audience is the people of France because this experiment was conducted in the French market. Through a survey, the authors of this article were able to determine the percentages at which French consumers were willing or not willing to pay for foods containing or not containing GMOs. They found a less than half unwilling to buy products with GMOs, almost half indifferent and about 25% willing to buy products with GMOs if they were inexpensive enough. This article will provide evidence for supporting the idea the this is a global debate, rather than just a debate within America. 

[4] Taxler, G., 2006, "The GMO Experience in North and South America", The International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 2, (1/2), pp. 46-64. 

This article discussed the distribution of crops containing GMOs in the Americas. The audience is mainly people in either North or South America who are concerned with GMOs. In addition, this article discussed the benefits of genetically modifying crops. The author states that these engineered seeds cause farmers to use conservation tillage as well as use less pesticides on their crops. In the future, this article can be used to support the use of genetically engineered seeds because it explains the benefits instead of the risks. 

[5] Hansen, F., 2015, "GMO Foods: We Still Don't Know if They're Safe", The Adrenal Fatigue Solution, http://adrenalfatiguesolution.com/gmo-foods-still-dont-know-theyre-safe/?utm_content=buffer9bcf8&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer, (accessed 09/05/2015). 

The authors conveys both sides of the argument in this blog post. By remaining unbiased, the author intends to inform readers about the pros and cons of genetic engineering. The audience is people who want to educate themselves on GMOs. Through research and facts, the author is able to support both sides of the argument. However, in the end, she does explain that despite the benefits, genetically modified products can still be detrimental to one's health. In the future, this article can serve as support to either side of the argument. It contains facts and unbiased information. 

[6] Lipton, E., 2015, "Food Industry Enlisted Academics in GMO Lobbying War, Email Shows", The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html, (accessed 09/05/2015). 

This article explains the debate between Monsanto and consumers. The audience is anyone in America concerned about GMO labeling. In this article, the author highlights Monsanto's attempts to remove GMO labels on their products. In addition, the author provides examples from specialists about the detriment and risks of GMOs to our environment and self. The author explains how Monsanto wants to persuade the public with research; however, he says many people will not believe them. In the future, this article can be used to highlight Monsanto's corrupt business practices and serve as evidence in the debate against genetic engineering.

[7] Purcell, A., 2015, "GMOs: Are We Crossing the Tipping Point?", Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-purcell/gmos_b_7547414.html, (accessed 09/09/2015). 

This article explains how even big business are attempting to avoid products with GMOs. The audience would be anyone who is a customer of various chains, like Pizza Hut, Chipotle and Taco Bell. In addition, it explains the reluctance of consumers to support companies who have ties with Monsanto, like Starbucks. The author consecrates her point that many consumers do not want products with GMOs by including examples of other countries who aren't in support of genetic engineering. In the future, this article will provide concrete evidence that this is a global issue, not just a national issue. In addition, it will demonstrate that not only consumers are concerned with GMOs.

[8] Olster, M., 2013, "GMO Foods: Key Points in the Genetically Modified Debate", Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/gmo-foods_n_3693246.html, (acceessed 09/09/2015).

This article provides the key points in the debate of genetically modifying organisms. The author provides explanations and examples of both sides of the debate. Because this is a quick reference guide, the author easily describe the subtopics of the debate. The audience would be anyone who is trying to understand each side of the debate as well as what the issues within the debate actually are. This article will be useful in generalizing the debate and giving an overview of what's actually being talked about.

[9] McAuliff, M., 2015, "House Votes to Ban States From Labeling GMO Foods", Huffington Post, 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/gmo-labels-food_55b12fabe4b08f57d5d3f393, (accessed 09/09/2015).

This article presents an interesting side of the debate. Rather than the consumer's perspective, the author presents the government's perspective. By explaining how the government has found a way around food labeling, the author suggests that government isn't concerned with the well being of consumers; just like major companies that genetically modify their products. This article mainly describes what laws are involved in this issue as well as the role of government in this particular debate. In the future, this article will provide a new perspective on the debate as well as what laws are actually involved.

[10] Kloor, K., 2012, "GMO Opponents are the Climate Skeptics of the Left", Slate, http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/09/are_gmo_foods_safe_opponents_are_skewing_the_science_to_scare_people_.html, (accessed 09/09/15).

This article is contains the opposition to the GMO debate. Instead of stating reasons why GMOs are bad, the author present arguments for why those reasons are wrong. He provides counter arguments for most of the reasons why people are against GMOs in the first place. By providing examples and research, the author is about to consecrate his position. In the future, this article will provide a viewpoint on the other side of the argument as well as evidence for why some claims may or may not be true.

Although I couldn't find an example of an annotated bibliography, I did find a style guide for ASME citations with examples under each type of source citation.


Reflection: Nick's blog was done in the same citation style as mine. I learned by comparing ours that we both have the same annotations, so I feel better about my bibliography. I think  next time, though, I can shorten my summaries a little bit because they are pretty lengthy. I'm excited to read Nick's paper because genetic engineering is so interesting to me. Mika's post taught me about the controversy in China. I like how he is doing a topic from somewhere else in the world because it is different than what we are used to. Also, his annotations looked really well  written and provided a good example of an annotated bibliography. 

Ideology in My Controversy

In the blog post below, I will be answering questions on the controversy of genetically modified organisms in our food. After researching various types of sources, the questions can be answered in regards to my controversy as a whole.

LloydtheVoid. "Stop GMO." 1 January 2014 via Pixaboy. Free for commercial use.

1. Who is involved in the controversy? 

Everyone is affected in this controversy. Mainly, the opposition lies between major seed producing companies, like Monsanto, and concerned consumers who don't want to purchase unnatural food. This debate is not only limited to America either; other countries in Europe and even South America are struggling with the integration of bio-engineered food on the market. 

2. Who are some major speakers within these groups?

On the consumer side, many of the speakers voice their opinions in blogs and other comment threads.Even some medical specialists have blogs where they discuss the pros and cons of GMOs. Other major speakers include various news sources, like the New York Times or even CNN. They present  unbiased breakthroughs in the argument. Finally, Monsanto employees are a major proponent of this debate. They provide information on developments and even the benefits that have come from modifying seeds.

3. What kind of power does each group hold?

Consumers hold political, social and even economical power in this debate. Without willingness to buy these foods, major companies will suffer. The collective society of America has the biggest say in what goes on the market and what they don't want on the market because they are purchasing these goods. Also, social activists can arise from this debate in opposition to bio-engineered foods. On the other hand, Monsanto has power socially and economically as well. Without their mass production of goods, we wouldn't have access to as many products as we do. Because Monsanto is a major seed producing company, farmers rely on their product to cultivate their own. Therefore, consumers are willing to sacrifice personal health for sustenance and convenience. 

4. What resources are available to different positions?

There are academic journals available for those opposed to GMOs that discuss studies conducted by specialists who research the health benefits, as well as, risks of consuming GMOs. There are articles on the practices and history of companies like Monsanto, or those who want to know the motives of the company. In addition, there are articles that explain the research each company is involved in and how they feel their product will benefit society. 

5. What does each group value?

Concerned consumers value natural products. They care about their personal health and want to consume produce that will not be detrimental to them. In addition, people who oppose bio-engineering are concerned about the well being of others, plants and even animals. They don't want their food to be affected unnaturally with hormones and additives. Big seed producing companies care about profit and yield. By producing "weed-resistant seeds", companies like Monsanto will have more farmers' support because the farmer can save time and weed killer. Seed companies view agriculture as a business and are less concerned about the welfare of the consumers. 

6. What counts as evidence for the different positions?

Because companies like Monsanto continue to bio-engineer their products, we can identify their lack of concern for the opinions of consumers. Even in Europe, citizens are reluctant to purchase foods containing GMOs. Despite these oppositions, seed companies still alter their products. Because of farmers' support and profit of these companies, we can infer that they are still successful on the market. On the other hand, concerned consumers are trying avoid purchasing these products. With the development of organizations, such as the Non-GMO Project, we can identify consumers aversion to genetically modified foods. These activist groups are concrete evidence for the opposition to "unnatural" products on the market.

7. Is there any power differential between the groups?

Because Monsanto is such a major aspect of the agricultural industry, their products are necessary to farmers, consumers and the market. Without them, we would have a shortage of available produce. However, many consumers won't support these products anyway; therefore, these companies lose a portion of their profit and support. Without the products of seeding companies, we wouldn't have the market we do; but without the support of consumers, the companies wouldn't have the success they do. Therefore, we can consider the power differential a standstill because neither side would be without the other.

8. Is there any acknowledged common ground between the groups?

There isn't an acknowledged ground between these companies and consumers; it's more of an unsaid agreement and acceptance. 

9. Is there any unacknowledged common ground? 

The grounds between these groups is all unacknowledged. Like I said in question eight, there is an unsaid agreement between GMO producing companies and consumers. Consumers know that getting away from GMOs is nearly impossible, so many of them just accept the products produced anyway. Also, many consumers will continue to support foods with GMOs for convenience and economic reasons being they are so ubiquitous and usually cheaper than organic products. Seed companies know this as well; therefore they continue to produce and modify products anyway. 

10. Do the various groups listen to each other?

Apparently not. Companies disregard the opinions and concerns of consumers because they haven't stopped engineering products. Also, consumers opposed to GMOs won't consider the benefits of these products to farmers. There are continuous debates around the world and nothing seems to be resolved.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In this blog post, I will be reviewing the credibility of posts made on social media about the GMO debate within the field of engineering.

Source One [5]

Screenshot taken from Storify. 5 September 2015. 

Credibility- The author of this tweet can be Googled. She has her own blog about the "Adrenal Fatigue Solution." She is a holistic health consultant who lives in Vancouver, Canada.

Location- Fawne lives in Canada and is therefore not directly affected by the GMO debate in America. However, she is a health consultant and probably concerned with the well being of others.

Network- Fawne Hansen only follows eighteen people on Twitter but has 107 followers. Her tweets mostly contain information on what makes up various products like lipstick, what sort of food is good for you and how to deal with adrenal fatigue. 

Content- All of her tweets contain a hyperlink to outside articles. Therefore, she includes others opinions and viewpoints topics of personal health. Because of this, she proves her credibility by not only including her own opinion, but rather the research and opinions of others.

Contextual Updates- Fawne does not post about the GMO debate very often. Her last tweet contain information on a list of food to help relieve adrenal fatigue. She is more concerned with adrenal fatigue than GMOs; however, she still tries to help others by providing information on how various additives and modification to products can affect the body.

Age- On her blog, Fawne explains her background. She doesn't say her age but she does have two kids, a husband and lives in Vancouver,Canada. She says some of her hobbies include being active and going to farmers markets; therefore, we can infer she is probably mid 30-40 and cares about personal, familial and even other's health. 

Reliability- The information on her blog is reliable because she has first hand experience with adrenal fatigue. Also, the information in her tweet leads to an article posted on her blog about GMOs. She includes both the pros and the cons of GMOs and therefore remains unbiased. Because of her research and inclusive of both sides of the argument, the information presented is credible. 

Source Two [6]

Screenshot taken from Storify. 5 September 2015.

Credibility- Jennifer Pearlman is a medical doctor who focuses on women's health. She is a certified menopause practitioner. Also, she is an expert in holistic approaches to cosmetic medicine. She has published numerous health articles Globe and Mail national Newspaper.

Location- She lives in Toronto, Ontario in Canada. Therefore, just like Fawne Hansen, she is not directly affected by the GMO debate. Also, her career focuses more on women's health and holistic comestics rather than studying the affect of GMOs in our body. However, because she is concerned about women's health, she still has credibility in her tweet about GMOs and organic food.

Network- Jennifer Pearlman has 409 followers on Twitter and is following 395. Her latest tweet was the one I included above, about the GMO and organic food debate. However, most of her tweets involve skin care and promoting various skin care products. In addition, her Twitter promotes her healthcare business.

Content- In her tweet, Jennifer includes a hyperlink to a New York Times article discussing the debate between bio-engineered foods, companies and consumers. Many other tweets I found on Storify also included a link to the same exact article. We can corroborate this information because the New York Times is a trustworthy news source.

Contextual Updates- Her last tweet was the one shown above and it was posted a few hours before I found it. Because of this, the information is up-to-date. She doesn't have many tweets concerning the debate on GMOs; however, she does tweet every now and then about cosmetics for skin care, her business and women's health. Because of her concern for women's health, we can infer she cares about what she and others consume.

Age- Pearlman was born in 1966 and is forty-nine years old. She doesn't seem to have a family; however, she has an established profession as a hormone expert and women's health doctor. Because of her career and age, we can assume she knows what she is talking about when dealing with the body and health.

Reliability- The article in Pearlman's tweet is from the New York Times and is therefore reliable. Being such a popular source of news in America, we can assume the information is mostly accurate. The author of the article, Eric Lipton, has been a journalist for the NYT since 1999. He mainly writes stories about politics and governmental relations. He is credible because the debate over GMOs concerns the government and relations to consumers.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

Genetically modified organism are a hot topic of debate within not only America but other places like Europe as well. In this post, I will  be analyzing two scholarly sources about genetically modified organisms and their relationship to the public.

Source One [3]

Screenshot taken from JSTOR. "Do Consumers Really Refuse to Buy Genetically Modified Food?". 4 September 2015. 

Purpose: The purpose of this article is to discuss consumers views on food contains GMOs. By observing consumer behavior, the authors are able to make inferences on whether or not the majority of people do or don't mind purchasing foods with GMOs. This source contributes to the debate of genetically modified organisms in our market.

How and Where is it Published? This article was publish by Wiley. Wiley is a company devoted to publishing scientific, technological and accurate information to teach those interested about topics in science. It was publish in The Economic Journal, on behalf of the Royal Economic Society. 

What Kinds of Sources Does it Cite? It references 54 different articles. Most of them contain information about the dynamics of the market, how to measure consumerism and even other articles concerning the same debate. They all seem to be from other scholarly sources, as well. 

Who is the Author? This article was written by Charles Noussair, Stephanie Robin and Bernard Ruffieux. Charles is a professor at Tilburg University and he teaches in the Economics department. In addition, he has a PhD in Social Sciences. Stephane works with MIA Paris, which work with statistical inferences about biology and even agriculture. Bernard has a degree in Political and Social Sciences and is also a professor at the University of Laval. 

Who is the Intended Audience? The intended audience is anyone who is concerned about GMOs and their food. Because this article was publish in France, the main audience is French consumers. In addition, the survey was conducted in the French markets; therefore, this article benefits anyone who is curious about the patterns of French markets. 

How Did I Find It? I found this article on JSTOR, the online database for academic articles. 

Source Two [4]

Screenshot taken from Inder Science Online. "The GMO Experience in North and South America." 4 September 2015.

Purpose? This article is intended to explain the impact GMOs have played in both North and South America. Also, it explains hows GMOs have benefited not only farmers, but consumers as well due to a lesser usage of pesticides.

How and Where Was it Published? This article was publish in the International Journal of Technology and Globalization. It's an academic journal devoted to analyzing and making inferences about the relationship between technology and consumers, markets and even the globe. It was publish through Inderscience Publishers; they are a company who have been publishing academic journal since 1979. Their main goal is to inform readers about business, technology and the market.

What Kinds of Sources Does it Cite? The article cites 42 sources dealing with subjects based around agriculture, like farming in developing countries as well as various studies on cotton production. All of the citations come from other academic journals and are therefore credible.

Who is the Author? Greg Traxler is a professor in the department of Agriculture for the Auburn University. He received his PhD from Iowa State University. He is also involved in research dealing with technology and agriculture; therefore, his credentials make his article credible.

Who is the Intended Audience? The intended audience is people who are interested in learning about the impact of technology on agriculture. It is for a more mature audience because it is a scholarly article. Also, because the main focus is on the Americas, people of these continents are probably the main readers.

How Did I Find it? I found this article through searching Google Scholar. In addition, it was found on the InderScience Publishers website in a journal that was published on there. 

Evalutation of General Sources

GMOs are a source of major controversy within the field of engineering. The seed company, Monsanto, believes "weed resistant seeds" will be beneficial because farmers will be able to spray entire fields with herbicides, rather than targeting specific weeds. However, many believe this will only create weeds even more resilient, commonly called "super weeds." In the sources below, both articles discuss Monsanto and the controversy they present to the world of agriculture. 

Showtime. "Weed Logo." 7 April 2007 via Wikimedia. Public Domain Dedication. 

1. Source One [1]

• URL- the URL is "wired.com." This shows that this source is not a scholarly article and could contain bias as well as inaccurate information. However, it is a magazine that deals with various technology, so it pertains to the field of engineering. 
• Author- Brandon Keim is a journalist for Wired magazine. He's interested in various technology as well as culture; therefore, it could probably be assumed that he did his research before writing an article about genetically modified organisms. He has also written for other magazines, including National Geographic News, NOVA and Scientific American Mind. Therefore, he is rather qualified. On his Twitter account, he has around 7400 followers; in addition, his tweets are mostly science based.
• Last Updated- This article was last updated February 2, 2015. This is very recent and therefor contains up-to-date, trustworthy information. The hyperlinks provided redirect us to various sources containing more information about the conflict between Monsanto and the people; they are still working and all contain relevant information, all within the past few months. 
• Purpose- The purpose of this article is to mainly inform and entertain. Keim doesn't present bias either way; rather, he objectively presents the argument of what is happening within the conflict. He provides quotes from both Monsanto as well as specialists within the field of researching GMOs. 
• Graphics- There are graphics of plants and farms. They are trying to provide the reader with an image of what kind of plants are being modified and affected. 
• Position on Subject- Keim doesn't seem to be leaning one way or another. He just presents the events that are occurring without including his opinion. However, based on the facts presented, the people against GMO seeds would profit. We can verify the information with other news articles and even from the hyperlinks provided by the author. 
• Links- Keim does include hyperlinks so the reader can further investigate and fully educate themselves on the controversy. He even quotes reputable scientists and researchers throughout, providing concrete facts against GMOs. 

2. Source Two [2]

• URL- This article comes for "nationofchange.org." Because it is a ".org", the site is automatically more credible than a regular ".com." It is reliable because the organization must filter and review everything published on this website before it is actually published. 
• Author- The author is Martin Edwards. He is a novelist as well as critic; therefore, he is well versed in writing. In addition, he has publish many legal books, which proves he is legalistic and thus subjective. 
• Last Updated- This article was last updated on November 21, 2013. Even though that was a few years ago, the article is still reliable because it isn't too far back. However, this article could have been written before the controversy had time to develop or even settle. There aren't any links provided for further research. 
• Purpose- The purpose of this article is to explain how Monsanto's genetically modified seeds are "no new controversies." Edwards argues that ever since the founding of Monsanto, they have had a "dark past" of artificial products; for example, artificial sweeteners. Essentially, Edwards says that this should have been expected from Monsanto and isn't a new issue.
• Position on Subject- Edwards clearly implements bias within this article. He provides many examples of Monsanto's "dark past" and how they have never been a moral company. If viewers agree with his bias, then Monsanto will suffer because they will lose support. 
• Links- Edwards doesn't provide any working hyperlinks in his article. Therefore, the chance t further investigate is the reader's responsibility. This consecrates the authors bias even more because he doesn't provide outside sources.