Evaluation of General Sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3051365/Scientists-tweak-genes-human-embryos-time-Controversial-technique-lead-designer-babies.html

     In my field of study, another major controversy is how genetics is treated. I am fascinated by genetics, as it seems crazy that meters of this 'stuff' creates the person I am. It is even crazier that we can fit so much of it inside our bodies. 

      The first source I found for the controversy of genetics is from NPR. Since this website ends in a '.org' we know it is an organization that has higher standards and is more reliable than a '.com' or '.net' address. This article was posted on April 23, 2015 and has not been updated since then. The author of this article is Rob Stein, who has been publishing scientific and health-related articles for twenty-five years. He has experience, so someone reading this can be sure to trust the author knows his stuff.

     The purpose of this article is to inform the reader about a new controversial 'designer baby' technique that was implicated in China. Essentially, its genetic modification of your rugrats. This could be useful in eliminating an incurable genetic disease. On the other hand, people may use it to create a genetic anomaly that could not exist with their mixture of genes. The child would look nothing like its parents, not to mention it is dangerous. The author is highlighting these dangers in his article. Also, the author briefly discusses the use of new genetic editing techniques, called CRISPR/CAS9. This article uses only one picture of DNA, to illustrate the issue.
     The second source I used was from DailyMail, which is a British version of the Huffington Post. This website has a '.co.uk' ending, which is equivalent to '.com' in the United States. This article was posted on April 22, 2015, and was published by three scientific journal authors, Ellie Zolfagharifard, Richard Gray, and Ben Spencer.
This article used many illustrations and included a video as well. Most notably, there is the picture of a newly formed zygote. The purpose of this article is to explain what designer babies are, how they were created by scientists in China, and the benefits versus the risks of this new procedure. The authors explain the CRISPR technique in more detail, and offer both sides of the argument in a compelling manner. 

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

http://www.stemcell.life/stem-cell-therapy.html

     As noted in my other blogs, I am passionate about the field of Molecular and Cellular Biology. I am so interested in this field because it is a way for me to add to science, and be constantly learning something new as the years go on. Biology has always been rooted in controversy, from the Scopes' trial in the 1920's, to research ethics in the 21st century. I wanted to break down the stem cell controversy, because it highlights the importance of research in my field.
     The first article I will be using is from ScienceDirect. ScienceDirect is a '.com' website, which cannot always be trusted. However, this is actually a published paper in the journal Seminars in Spine Surgery, from Elsevier, which would make you pay hundreds of dollars to read this one research article.
     This article was added to the journal in June of 2015, so I know the research and data is current. The authors are Islam Elboghdady, Hamid Hassanzadeh, Benjamin Stein, and Howard An, who all currently have MD's and are actively researching. Their ethos is enough to guarantee this is a genuine study, and not a gimmick. The article has not been updated since its publication.
     The purpose of this article was to educate readers and illustrate the potential dangers of utilizing MSC stem cells in spinal surgery. The authors did not take a side, rather they emphasized that more research needed to be done with the cells. This scientific journal did not have any images, which I found odd.
    I also found information about the stem cell controversy from the Indian Journal of Medical Research on the National Center for Biotechnology Information's website. The NCBI is a '.gov' website, which means it is monitored and run by the government. This is a great source of information, but runs the risk of being bias towards big companies.
     This article was published in February of 2015 and highlights the potential advantages of MSC's, VSEL's and if they are even considered true 'stem cells'. The author is V.M. Katoch, who presents the data from Dr. Deepa Bhartiya's research. It has not been updated since February, so new information could be out there. The publication has no images, rather a list of other publications fills that space. The author does not hold a position, but points out the bias in the research.

My Discipline: Molecular and Cellular Biology

      The discipline I am studying in college is Molecular and Cellular Biology. This seems like an oddly specific field for an eighteen year old to be pursuing, but I am here today thanks to an awesome high school teacher. Starting my junior year of high school, I signed up for a class called Biotechnology. I had the most inspirational teacher for this class, her name was Mrs. Musheno. Mush, as my class calls her now, had worked in this discipline for many years. Mush took her experience and tried to recreate it in a classroom. I did labs were I extracted our own DNA and searched for genes, as well as engineered bacteria to glow green, and even survive in -20 degree C freezers. The coolest thing I did, was second semester. Long story short, a few friends and I worked as a team, and got two plant genes published in a real scientific database, before graduating high school. (The genes are here for Hibiscus, and here for Lavender, if you are interested.) After getting my feet wet, I decided this field was really interesting, and I would love to pursue a career in the discipline of Molecular and Cellular Biology.
     Anyone who pursues a career in Molecular and Cellular Biology learns how to work in a research lab setting, as well as write reports and publish findings in a scientific journal. This major prepares you for any work situation you might encounter, from hospital labs, to work with the WHO or CDC. It really depends on what you want to pursue, as there is a lot of specialized training that follows undergraduate training.
     Students working in the field of Molecular and Cellular Biology learn how to work with and understand life on the microscopic level. This major can really be broken into two parts. Molecular Biologists tend to look at DNA and RNA to understand how life works. These people go off to work in research on cures for diseases using controversial techniques like gene therapy, or become genetic councilors. However, they require extra schooling after college, either in Medical School or working for a PhD. Cellular Biologists often look at how cells interact with their environment. These people study bacteria like, Streptococcus pneumoniae, viruses like Rubiola (causes measles virus), and do controversial research with stem cells.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867411001279

     Two big names in this field currently are Dr. Douglas Hanahan and Dr. R.A. Weinburg. They are responsible for publishing The Hallmarks of Cancer in 2000, and follow up research called The Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation. These articles focus on the biology of tumors, and why they are so difficult to treat. The major reason these two doctors are so important, is people had no idea tumors were so advanced. Before these articles, people assumed cancers were all the same, and could all be treated the same. Medicine and science advanced significantly thanks to their recent works, in the fight against cancer.  Since my field is so broad, there are many journals that publish data. The top three scientific journals are Nature, Science, and Cell. 
*Edit: After reading Micheal Gee's and Laura Shoemake's blogs, I realized everyone is pursuing a career they are truly passionate about. I feel like many years ago, people would pursue a career in something they were great at, not necessarily passionate about. I realize now that my career has so many options, thanks to advancements in both of my peer's fields of study. I also realize I will be applying concepts from both medicine and mathematics for the rest of my life, as these two majors are necessary for me to hold a job as a researcher. Thanks to people who are passionate about work, new fields of interest can be discovered and worked in, like Molecular and Cellular Biology.

Emotions in Rhetoric, Our Friend or Our Foe?

http://oddpad.com/exclusive-check-out-this-official-limited-edition-inside-out-screenprint/

      

If you are anything like me, when you think of emotions, you instantly think of Disney's Inside Out. That movie portrayed emotions in a way we have never imagined, as characters. These embodiments of emotions behaved similarly to commentators in The Atlantic and people who enjoy debating the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

     I believe emotion should be used in civil discourse, as a way to connect with your audience on a personal level, alongside the facts. For instance, when something like the 'prank' at Old Dominion, it can have an emotional impact on everyone. The facts show the signs that Sigma Nu created had an effect on the community. Some people were shocked, while others were not even moved by their signs. However, the comments showed a different perspective. Everyone in the comments section of The Atlantic used pathos to guilt the reader into believing two sides. On one side, this as the norm in today's "rape culture", and on the other this is a crime that should result in the imprisonment of a fraternity. Although people who comment enjoy interjecting their opinions, it did not take away from the main message.
     In my controversial article, there is debate whether or not embryonic stem cells are the cure for all disease, or is considered the murder of innocent lives. Science is beginning to use facts to prove this research is beneficial to humanity. On the other hand, it is also considered one of the most unethical because it ties into other controversies including abortion, genetic modification, and human testing. In this field, emotions have steamrolled the logos, leading to many misconceptions about stem cell research. However, with enough logos and pathos, as well as new breakthroughs in medicine, I am confident that the science will come out on top.

Embryonic Stem Cells: Murder or the Ultimate Cure?

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/how-scientific-progress-is-changing-the-stem-cell-debate

This article from Pacific Standard Magazine discusses the recent breakthroughs in medicine involving embryonic stem cells. I found this article interesting, as it highlights the importance of utilizing embryonic stem cells to cure 'incurable' diseases. This article also discusses innovations in the discipline of cell biology, which could help end this controversy.

Leave your comments below....

http://goingconcern.com/post/aicpa-taking-your-comments-cpa-exam-now

     Nowadays, everyone wants their opinion to be heard. Some people go to their friends on twitter or Facebook to share their opinion, like me. I enjoy using social media to share stories I find interesting or extremely funny. This leads to people leaving their opinions under my article, in the form of comments.
     Most comments I read on an article I have shared fall in line with my beliefs. For instance, I recently posted a satirical article about Donald Trump's campaign from The Onion. All the comments highlighted the fact this article was satirical, and poked fun at people who seem to support candidates, without listening to what they are actually saying.
     Unlike my outlet of social media, comments on public websites are much more vicious and evil-spirited. For example, the comments section on this article from The Atlantic. People voicing their opinion here were using lots of ethos, but not backing it up with factual evidence. It was more of a reaction to what happened in Old Dominion, and arguments whether this was considered 'news'. All of these comments were aimed at any reader, but were not credible. They were not attempting to prove anything, rather they were trying to get under each other's skin. One reasonable person under the pseudonym 'Blogvader' made a point that would discredit the article, "Fratboys acting stupid isn't newsworthy or shocking". Most commentators were speaking from their hearts, and could not be trusted. They could not provide any facts and therefore did not have a leg up on this article. 

How Controversial is Our Rhetoric?

     The way we present ourselves in public is important. You don't want to be the kid who can't match their clothes, or doesn't understand where to bike around campus. Those same rules apply to rhetorical situations. If you are asked how to describe yourself to an employer, you wouldn't describe yourself as a 'foxy mama' or a 'sugar daddy', rather you would be mature and cautious about how you respond. ADVICE: Don't describe yourself as that in general, people just laugh at you.
     On Monday, we were asked to create three lists of five words to place ourselves in three different situations. This was the first time I had dissected any rhetorical situations. The first situation was to describe yourself to an employer, the second situation was to describe yourself to a date, and the third situation was to describe yourself to a roommate. As a group, we found it easy to distinguish between the three situations. Words like "clean" and "friendly" gave away the roommate situation. On the other hand, words like "sexy" and "suave" gave the date away right away. Finally, words like "adaptable" and "responsible" fit the typical mold for an employer.
     In the past, I have used rhetorical skills to persuade others there was no correlation. Over the summer, I worked in a research lab. We were looking at stroke patients and preventing falls, something that happens way to often. My job was to look for a correlation between MRI scans and fall values. After diligently looking through the data, I found nothing. However, I had to truly convince a room full of people that there was no correlation. Just stating to a group of research scientists "Oh I can't find a correlation, so all that work is useless" is never acceptable. I had to use rhetoric like "inconclusive", "nonexistent", and "insignificant" to properly persuade this group. In the end, I was successful in being the bearer of bad news.