Research Paper Article Excerpts

Summaries:

The Great Debate Over Stem Cell Research

This article contains invaluable information on the stem cell research debate. It explains the basics of stem cell research and uses this information to highlight the reasons it is controversial. It has a few great quotes that I will be able to use and some good information as well.

The False Controversy of Stem Cells

This article is centered around the fact that stem cells simply should not be controversial. Its main argument is that fertility clinics, which kill "hundreds of thousands of unborn children in a year," are not controversial, and therefore stem cell research should not be either. This article is very biased but makes a good exception - that if you think fertility clinics should be shut down as well, go ahead and argue against stem cell research. Otherwise, you have no right. I could use many strong, resounding quotes from this article in support of stem cell research.

Stem Cells

This article is very informative and covers a lot of ground. It briefly describes stem cell research, but I should not have to use this information because I have found it in other articles. Its strongest point is the description of Bush and Obama's separate views on stem cell research. This establishes the controversy as a national concern.

Court Lets U.S. Resume Paying for Embryo Study

This article further describes the court case surrounding Obama's support of stem cell research and the Dickey-Wicker law. I did find one good quote in this article, b ut most of the other information I already knew from the New York Times article "Stem Cells."

Stem Cell Research

This article pretty much contains everything I could possibly need. If I ever run into a problem in my paper and can't find some piece of information in my other articles, I will be able to find it in this article. Its detailed descriptions will definitely come in handy, but it won't be very good for direct quotes.

Direct Quotes:

"For pro-life advocates, the moral cost of continuing such research outweighs any potential benefits. For scientists, however, the possibilities are both awe-inspiring and bewildering." - The Great Stem Cell Debate

• I would like to use this as a quote because it captures the essence of my paper exactly. It shows both sides of the story and briefly explains why each side feels the way they do, and for some reason it is very resounding in my mind.

"No one denies the moral dilemma of the stem cell debate. But to turn back now, researchers say, would be to turn our backs on a bright, sustaining light because we are terrified of the shadows it creates." - The Great Stem Cell Debate

• This is another perfect quote from the same article as the first. It remains mostly unbiased but proves my point yet again - that the answers when it comes to stem cell research are not and will never be clear. It might be morally wrong to continue stem cell research, but the price we would pay if we were able to stop it completely would be extremely high.

"An embryo used in stem-cell research... consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope. It has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain. The smallest insiect is far more human in every respect except potential." - The False Controversy of Stem Cells

• I like this quote because it proves another very valid point - these embryos that could potentially save so many lives would otherwise be thrown out. So why NOT use them? Still, that is a very difficult question to answer because, as said before, those embryos could possibly become humans. Yet they certainly wouldn't. They could, but they wouldn't.

"This is a momentous day not only for science but for the hopes of thousands of patients and their families who are relying on... life-saving discoveries and therapies that could come from stem cell research." - quoted in Court Lets U.S. Resume Paying for Embryo Study

• This quote, which was said by a scientist, draws directly to the court ruling that federal funding could continue to support stem cell research. I would like to quote it because the fact that a professional said it makes it much more valid and strengthens my argument.

Paraphrases

The stem cell debate has no clear answers. On the one hand, using stem cells to research cures that could save millions destroys potential human lives. On the other, preserving these potential lives means slamming the breaks on cures for the countless sufferers of many different diseases. For this reason, it is often difficult for even the most obstinate pro-lifer to take a stance on the issue.

• I chose to paraphrase the paragraph this information came from simply because it was very lengthy and, while informative, none of the passages struck me as particularly inspiring. It's necessary information, but nothing I read would strike a particular chord.

Stem cells are so valuable because they can grow into almost any type of cell in the body. Therefore, they have the potential to replace ailing cells with new, healthy ones. For this reason, stem cells are extremely important to people suffering from both illnesses and diseases.

• I paraphrased this information because, if I were to use it as a quote, I would simply be regurgitating sentences from my article. It is important to my paper because it describes the bare essence of stem cells. It lays down the foundation for my paper.

Stem cells are controversial because they are taken from human embryos. Usually these embryos are leftovers from fertility clinics. Pro-life advocates see this practice as the destruction of potential human life. In one case, a clinic even grew embryos specifically for research purposes. Stem cells can also be taken from aborted fetuses, a method that is frowned upon even more heavily than leftover in-vitro embryos.

• This information describes exactly why stem cells are controversial and will be very valuable to me, but there were no exact quotes that stuck with me.

Many stem cell opponents argue that adult stem cells can be used. However, these cells do not yield results as promising as cells taken from embryos. Adult cells can only create immune system, brain, or muscle cells and do not reproduce as quickly as their younger counterparts. For this reason, their potential is much more limited than those of cells taken from embryos.

• This information both shows and shoots down an opposing view at the same time. It shows that, for the best results, stem cells must be taken from embryos and not adult cells. I took the information from two different articles and combined it, so it would not be easy to quote.

Stem cells are important because they have the ability to help the countless people suffering from diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and heart failure. They can develop into any of the 200 different types of cells found in the human body in unlimited quantities. For these reasons, their potential is endless. They hold promise for hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are affected by debilitating illnesses and injuries.

• This passage is very important to the core of my paper - the reasons why stem cell research is so important. I collected this information from several areas within the same article, so I would be unable to quote it.

It is important to note that stem cell research has not yet yielded any specific medical treatments. However, as with all biomedical studies, this will come with time. Procedures like bone marrow biopsies, blood transfusions, kidney dialysis, organ transplants, and even simple antibiotics all took time to evolve. The most important thing is that stem cell research be continued. Unfortunately, due to its speculative nature, it has not been fully carried out. In order for the greatest good to come from stem cell research, it must be unhindered by any laws or protests.

• This information would be great for support of stem cell research. It admits that stem cell research has not yet yielded results - but it will, as long as the controversy and limitations surrounding it dies down. I also collected this from a broad articlea nd therefore cannot and do not want to quote it directly.

In "The False Controversy of Stem Cells" author Michael Kinsley uses the example of a state representative who decided to support stem cell research after his wife's success with in vitro. This proves the connection between fertility clinics and stem cell research labs. Both "destroy" embryos. They really are no different, and yet people do not protest against procedures like in vitro. This shows how unfair the stem cell controversy is.

• This paraphrased passage would be great for support of stem cell research. It is basically a summary of the entire article, which would be WAY too long to quote. It provides a specific example, which would grealy strengthen my paper.

The Dickey-Wicker amendment of 1996 states that tax dollars cannot be used to create human embryos that are meant to be "destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury."

• I mixed the quotes here because I didn't want the whole passage to be a quote, but I wanted the actual definition of the amendment to be clear and correct. I can further draw off this information and discuss legislation that came later.

President George W. Bush was extremely conservative when it came to stem cell resarch. He allowed only minimal research and placed many strict restrictions on this research. He even vetoed a bill that would have reduced some of these limitations. When President Obama took office he made it very obvious that the Democrats would support stem cell research. Due to the Dickey-Wicker amendment, however, research can only be conducted on existing colonies of cells taken from embryos previous to the passage of the law. A recent court battle decided that the government can research on these cells but cannot create new embryos for further studies.

• This is a lengthy paraphrase, but it ccaptures the main essence of the article and will be very useful in my legislation paragraph. Because the article was written in a no-nonsense, purely factual manner and contained no bias, it did not have any quotes I would like to use.

The embryos used in stem cell research are only about five days old. Embryos are not even considered to be fetuses until an entire eight weeks after conception.

• Thsi is important information because it helps people understand exactly how "young" the embryos used in stem cell research are. I took this information from two different parts of the same article.

Thousands of leftover embryos are unceremoniously discarded each year and hundreds of thousands more reamin frozen indefinitely. Why should these otherwise "useless" embryos not be used to improve the lives of many?

• These sentences cannot be quoted because I did not find them directly in any article. I mostly inferred them for myself based on the articles, and I feel like they would go well in a conclusion. Still, there is always the "but" that comes afterwards.

Bare Outline

Intro
BP1: What stem cell research is
BP2: Why it's important
BP3: Why it's controversial
BP4: Opposition's arguments, other options
BP5: Supporter's arguments, why other options won't work
BP6: Legislation, continuing national concern
Conclusion

Research Paper Thesis

For my research paper I am planning to write about stem cell research. There is a lot of information available on this subject, and there would be plenty for me to discuss in the 7-11 pages.
My thesis for this paper will be, "Stem cell research is a rapidly expanding scientific technology with the potential to save an infinite number of lives, but many people wonder if the price paid to save these lives is morally acceptable."

In the rest of my paper I will describe stem cell research in-depth: what it is, how it works, what it has the potential to do, etc. I will also include the stem cell controversey: why people think it's immoral, legislation surrounding the immorality of stem cell research, etc.

Behind the Stem Cell Controversey

Reaves, Jessica. "The Great Debate over Stem Cell Research." TIME Magazine. TIME 
              Inc., 11 July 2001. Web. 25 October 2011.

In this article, author Jessica Reaves discusses the different controversies surrounding stem cell research. She explains the basics before highlighting both scientific and political debates concerning the topic. She also demonstrates different methods that could be used in place of stem cell research to light and discusses the pros and cons.

Reaves' intended audience is anyone who wishes to learn more about stem cell research and the debates surrounding it in particular. Her main intent is to show out both sides of the story and highlight that stem cell research is a difficult subject to form an opinion on due to the undeniable points that can be made from both supporters and non-supporters.

The article begins by telling why stem cell research is controversial in the first place. It then moves on to political and scientific debates surrounding stem cell research to show that both the government AND scientists are concerned about the subject. Reaves uses supports from both supporters and non-supporters to strengthen her writing.

At the end of the article, Reaves discusses possible alternatives to using embryos in stem cell research. However, she notes that these methods (using adult stem cells instead, for example) do not work as well. Adult cells do not grow as fast or replicate as easily as young stem cells.

Reaves shows no bias in her writing. She shows the sides and supports of both pro-life advocates AND scientists and makes valid points for each.

This article has many good, almost haunting quotes that could be used in support of stem cell research. One of the best is, "... to turn back now, researchers say, would be... turning our backs on a bright, sustaining light because we are terrified of the shadows it creates." This could be very useful in research paper supporting stem cell research.

This article could be extremely helpful in my research paper. It does a great job of showing both sides of the controversey in a condensed manner, and it has also opened my eyes to the fact that there are other methods that could be used. For my next article, I will most likely explore these methods more in-depth.

Hardcore Stem Cell Research Facts

“Stem Cell Research.”University of Michigan. Regents of the University of Michigan, n.d. 
               Web. 8 October 2011.

This is article is a large collection of information concerning all aspects of stem cell research. It provides everything from the basics to the very most intricate details and covers everything from the benefits of stem cell research to the legislation surrounding it. It is set up in a very easy-to-read, informative way.

The author’s intended audience is anyone who wishes to learn more about stem cell research. Their intent, obviously, is to educate these people on the many aspects of stem cell research.

It is very difficult to write a summary of this article simply because it provides so much information. It covers recent stem cell legislation, the different types of stem cells, the benefits of stem cell research, public views and ethics on stem cell research, myths surrounding stem cell research, and even more specific information. This information is organized very neatly in an easy-to-read format.

The article contains no bias. It is presented in a strict fact-only format and leaves out any opinions the author may have had. For this reason, it would work perfectly for a research paper.

This article will undoubtedly be an invaluable resource as I write my research paper because it presents its information in a straightforward, no-nonsense way. It explains the basics AND the details of stem cell research and is not corrupted by bias, so I will be able to base my opinions strictly off of fact.

Stem Cell Legislation

Gardiner, Harris. "Court Lets U.S. Resume Paying for Embryo Study." The New York Times.
            The New York Times Company, 29 April 2011. Web. 11 October 2011.

In "Court Lets U.S. Resume Paying for Embryo Study," author Harris Gardiner elaborates on the battle that is being waged between stem cell research supporters and naysayers. He provides many details on the most recent court debates concerning the many controversies stem cell research entails.

Gardiner's intended audience was most likely people who already understand the fundamentals of stem cell research and have formed an opinion on it. Without any background knowledge on stem cell research it would be difficult to follow this article. His intent is to tell these people exactly how the national government is dealing with this "issue."

Last August, a court made the decision that the Obama administration's support of stem cell research was illegal because of a law that bans spending federal money on research that destroys human embryos. This is the Dickey-Wicker law I read about in my other blog article. This ruling, made by Chief Judge Lamberth of the Federal District Court, disappointed many people because it halted research that could have led to treatments for many diseases.

Just recently, a higher court appealed this decision. Stem cell research can once again be funded by federal monies, which allows many families to hope once more. There are many different sides to this controversey, and the article shows the viewpoints of scientists and court members from both.

This article is not biased. It includes the views and the support of both people who support and people who do not support stem cell research. It simply tells the story and allows the reader to make their own judgments.

This article could greatly help me in writing my research paper. It is very detailed and makes it easy to understand how stem cell research has become a national concern. It also shows the differing viewpoints of many people. It also demonstrates that stem cell research is a growing, current concern. I will definitely be able to use this information to support my paper.

The Bare Bones of Stem Cell Research

"Stem Cells." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 2 May 2011. Web. 11  
            October 2011.

In "Stem Cells," the New York Times explains the basics of stem cell research and addresses a few of the controversies that have surrounded it. It also mentions legislation that has been passed to either ban or encourage stem cell research.

The author's intended audience is simply anyone who wants to know more about stem cell research. This article is mostly informative, so its main intent is to explain the background information on stem cell research.

Even though this article is short, it does a great job of covering a lot of ground. It discusses three different main points - what stem cell research is, why it is controversial, and the things people have done to either prevent or promote it.

The article explains that stem cells are cells that have the capability of developing into any other kinds of cells. It builds off this information by explaining that stem cells can be used to "replace or repair damaged cells, and have the potential to drastically change the treatment of conditions like cancer, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease..."

The topic then shifts to the controversey surrounding the use of fertility clinic embryos for research. This is seen as immoral because many people see the destruction of embryos as murder.

The article draws off this information by talking about legislature that has been passed concerning stem cell research. It begins with the Dickey-Wicker amendment of 1996. This amendment states that tax money cannot be used to create embryos for the sole purpose of destruction. It then moves to the restrictive semi-support stem cell research received from the Bush administration and the full-on support shown by the Obama administration. It goes on to describe various court battles that are still being fought and debated.

The author of "Stem Cells" shows absolutely no bias. This article does a great job of representing both sides without forming any kind of opinion. For example, it states, "Few quarrel with predictions of the awesome potential stem cell research holds." But it also says that some people see this research as inhumane. These are two conflicting viewpoints, but the author does not agree with either of them. It is simply stated.

This article could really help me on my research paper because there are no biases and it does a good job of supplying solid background information that I will be able to draw off of. For example, thanks to this article I will know to look for more articles concerning legislation related to stem cell research. It provides a good "skeleton" of sorts for me to elaborate on.

Blog Reflection

I have enjoyed our blogging experiences so far. It has been interesting to delve deeper into popular issues and search for both sides of stories that are often featured on the news or in the classroom.

The purpose of these blog articles was to find articles to use for both an argumentative paper and, later, a research paper. I was successful in doing this. I was able to find pertinent articles that I will be able to use for both essays.

The first article I blogged about was on stem cell research. It was extremely biased, but it still stated lots of great facts and showed me that there is a lot of information out there on stem cell research. Because of these reasons, I think I am going to use stem cell research as my research paper topic. I will be able to further explore the pros and cons of stem cell research, and there will be plenty to write about. I can research the different diseases stem cell research might help cure, how it is being conducted, the progress it is making, and its future. I can also mention the debates that have surrounded it from the beginning.

The second article I used was on wind energy. I am going to use this topic for my argumentative essay because I feel very strongly about it and would like to see some things changed. Using this article and others, I will be able to morph my individual source paper into an essay supported with solid facts. This is a great topic to use because it personally affects me and there is a lot of information available that back up my views.

I blogged about four other articles concerning gun laws, freedom of religion, undergraduate acceptance into colleges, and misleading labels. I feel like any of these would be a good topic for other people to consider. The gun laws and freedom of religion could be combined in a research paper on American freedoms, and there is a lot of information on acceptance requirements and considerations in colleges. Misleading labels would also be good because it is very easy to find the loopholes and draw on them. I would highly recommend any of these topics to people looking for solid topics to use.

Blogging really helped me find a good topic by forcing me to research more than one topic. Otherwise, I might not have realized that some issues have more information available than others.

Unfair Admissions Considerations

Link: http://www.good.is/post/college-admission-race-conscious-but-need-blind/

Khan, Shamus. “College Admission: Race-conscious but Need-blind.” GOOD Education.

GOOD Worldwide, LLC., 7 June 2010. Web. 27 September 2011.

In “College Admission: Race-conscious but Need-blind,” author Shamus Khan addresses a very popular topic in today’s college admissions race. He has two main issues. The first is that colleges should not be what he calls “need-blind.” In other words, colleges should take the wealth of the applicant’s family into account when deciding on admission and financial aid. The other is that colleges should take race into consideration in order for our country to become more integrated.

Khan’s intended audience is undoubtedly the admissions officers of colleges who are “need-blind” or “race-conscious.” However, his writing also appeals to people who want to know more about the subject – for example, teenagers who are applying to college and their parents. His writing is meant to be both persuasive and informative. He wants to show college admissions what the problems are and persuade them to fix these problems.

Khan addresses the fact that some colleges claim to use only the “hard work and talent” of students when making admission decisions. According to Khan, however, colleges should not be “need-blind” because this provides an unfair advantage for wealthier students. He writes that students from poorer backgrounds probably never had “private tutors… enrichment camps… piano lessons… cultural tours of Europe.” He also states that they most likely attended underfunded schools. His main point here is that poorer students simply do not have as many opportunities as their wealthier peers.

Khan’s second topic, race, is supported using factual evidence. He says that in 1951, African American students made up only 0.8 percent of Ivy League schools compared to 8 percent today. He uses this evidence to support his claim that NOT taking race into account would send us right back to the bottom of the proverbial hill. He ends his article with the haunting statement, “There is a missing revolution in our nation: one in which poor and average Americans can have a fighting chance of acquiring the kind of education and advantages that elite education provides.” This brings the writing full-circle by mentioning the need-based admissions once more.

Khan’s article is very biased. He is a college professor, but he is writing from the point of view of an underprivileged student. He very obviously leans towards colleges dropping “need-blind” policies and taking race into account. In fact, he states these opinions directly.

This article makes some very valid points. College should be an option for everyone. However, race simply should not be a factor. It shouldn’t make any difference if an applicant is African American, Caucasian, Asian, or any other denomination. The only thing colleges should take into account is the abilities of the individual student. As far as need goes, college should be an option for everybody. However, hard-working students that just happen to be from wealthy families should not be punished either. Financial aid solves this problem in part. However, shouldn’t wealthy students whose parents are NOT paying for their college receive financial aid benefits as well? It is very difficult to decide where and to whom aid should go.

This is a perfect topic for me. I have already turned in many college applications, and I am interested to know how race and the income of my family could affect both my admission and financial aid packages. It’s a good subject for others as well because many of us are going through these same processes and college admissions decisions will greatly affect us in coming months and years.

Freedom of Religion vs. Law

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/us/14amish.html

Hamill, Sean D. “Religious Freedom vs. Sanitation Rules.” The New York Times. The New
            York Times Company, 13 June 2009. Web. 27 September 2011.

In “Religious Freedom vs. Sanitation Rules,” author Sean D. Hamill draws on a very intriguing subject – where does religious freedom intersect into law? In the United States it is common knowledge that anyone is free to practice any religion they choose. In fact, it is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. But in this article Hamill wonders where the line should be drawn. He uses an Amish community as a perfect example. The Amish say it is against their religion to have modern new tanks for their outhouses, but the state says their hand-made tanks are against regulations and standards. Which wins out – freedom of religion or law?

The author does not have a clearly intended audience. This article seems to be meant simply for the public in general. His intent is to draw on both sides of the argument – the view of the Amish and the view of the government.

The article begins with the story of Andy Swartzentruber, an Amish man who served 90 days in jail after refusing to upgrade an outhouse located on his land. The state said his methods for removing the waste – collecting it beneath the outhouse and then dumping into a field – were unsanitary. Swartzentruber said the safety measures required by the state were “too modern.”

Hamill uses this example to very clearly show how law and freedom of religion can overlap, ultimately causing some major problems. In the article he goes on to tell the stories of other people in the Amish community who faced similar outhouse-related problems.

The article may seem like it is based solely on the Amish. The majority of it is used to explain Swartzentruber’s predicament. However, there is a much deeper message here. In writing this piece, Hamill’s purpose was not simply to enlighten others on the plights of the Amish community. It was to show an example of the “gray areas” where laws and freedoms collide.

Hamill did not use bias when writing his article. It was very straightforward. He uses direct quotes from both the Amish and government officials affected by the situation. For example, he quoted a neighbor to the Amish who said, “The rules should be the same for everybody...” as well as an Amish man who replied, “Our forefathers, that’s why they came across the sea, for religious freedom.” These are two very different points of view, and Hamill leaves it up to the reader to decide which is correct.

We are guaranteed many freedoms in our constitution, but it is not always easy to discern how far these freedoms extend. Religion and laws sometimes do not coincide. However, it is true that every person should have to live by the same rules and standards. Unfortunately, in situations like this, that may intrude on certain peoples’ way of life. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to form an opinion on this subject.

This is a topic that I am very interested in pursuing. It is fascinating to me that one part of our legal system could contradict another. It would be an easy topic to delve into further, and I’m sure there is much information available. It would also be easy to find other specific examples to support an opinion on either side. The only problem I see is MAKING an opinion. It may seem easy to say, “Oh, of course you have to follow the law,” but first a person must put themselves “in the shoes” of an extremely religious group of people like the Amish. For these reasons, I think this would be a great topic for others as well.

Are We TOO Free?

Klein, Joe. “Arms and the Unbalanced.” TIME 24 January 2011. Print. 20 September
        2011.

In “Arms and the Unbalanced,” author Joe Klein addresses problems surrounding too much freedom. He supports his argument using examples of treatment of the mentally insane and the right to bear firearms. He also makes his writing personal by including the story of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the woman whose progress was observed by thousands after she and multiple others were shot by a schizophrenic man at a political rally.

Klein’s main intent is, at first, masked by his explanations of mental illness and gun laws. But he makes it very clear when, at the end, he says, “Beneath these two issues… lies a deeper one: Where does one draw the line between freedom and anarchy in a democratic society?” This, simply put, says that it is difficult to decide exactly how much freedom is TOO much. The article could be intended for any person in a country considered to be “free,” particularly the United States.

Klein supports his argument well. He begins with the history of mental illness. According to the article, most “mentally dangerous” people were sent to institutions in the 1950s. However, very few towns were willing to have these institutions in their backyards. Therefore in the 1960s, the huge number of mentally unstable people became a problem. Klein claims the American Civil Liberty Union, which supported legislature that does not allow mentally ill people to be sent to institutions like the type that were popular in the 1950s, is partially responsible for lack of mental illness programs today.

He also points blame on the National Rifle Association for pushing the right to bear arms individually in recent years, and (in an offhand way) the Supreme Court for ruling that local governments cannot set gun laws. He uses the powerful example of, “Loughner could simply walk into a gun store, buy his Glock and… He carried it into a political rally. And used it.”

Klein’s writing is very obviously biased. Throughout the article, he hints that freedoms surrounding mental illness and gun use are not stringent enough. He further supports these views by ending with the message that people today have “excessive liberties” and inferring that a balance must be reached.

Politicians have debated for years over just how much independence individuals should have. There will never be a set solution. Someone will always abuse the powers are given, while others will not use them enough. Unfortunately, there are people who threaten the rights of others every day. The best example is stated in the article - the man who used his freedom to buy a gun and then chose to kill people with it.

This topic interests me, but I don’t know if it would be a good one for me or anyone else to write an argumentative paper on. I’m not quite sure which side I support. Freedoms all really come down to individuals. I have never believed in people being punished for someone else’s wrongdoing. However, Klein makes some valid points in his argument that we might be just a little too free. Therefore, I find it hard to form an opinion on this matter. It would be a good subject for anyone who feels strongly about how much independence people should be allowed.

Misleading Labels

Walsh, Bryan. “Where’s The Beef?” TIME 7 February 2011, 50-51. Print. 20
           September 2011.

In “Where’s The Beef?” author Bryan Walsh discusses the popular issue of what is actually in the food we eat. He supports his argument with an example of a lawsuit filed against Taco Bell concerning the percentage of actual beef in their meat. He then moves on to and supports his main point – that we ultimately cannot trust labeling.

By writing this article, Walsh intended to raise awareness of the fact that we never really know what we are putting into our mouths (especially when fast food is concerned). He most likely meant for his audience to be the average American or any other person who indulges in McDonald’s every once in a while. After all, the ingredients in our meals affect us in many ways we are unaware of.

Walsh’s argument revolved around his example of the Taco Bell case. To summarize the lawsuit, a woman was unimpressed with the quality of her taco meat. She sued Taco Bell, saying their beef was not actually beef at all (or an extremely low percentage of it).

Walsh uses evidence from a few different sources, and it is difficult to decide which one to believe. However, that is part of the nature of the subject – it is hard to find the truth when it comes to food labeling. He wrote that Taco Bell claims their meat is 88% beef, the USDA says 40%, and the lawsuit says 35%. So who should consumers trust?

This leads to questions about the ingredients in other meals. And it’s not just about meat. Many people are unaware of the extreme amounts of additives in their food. For example, as Walsh quoted, “A McDonald’s Chicken McNugget… has an ingredient list that looks like a page from a chemistry textbook.”

Walsh also provides examples of other misleading labels. For example, McDonald’s “Fruit and Maple Oatmeal” does not actually contain maple syrup, and Juicy Juice’s “100% juice” claim is correct, but not usually about the actual type of juice inferred on the label.

Walsh wrote his article with just a hint of bias. While he does compromise slightly by saying that none of these ingredients will actually HARM you, he obviously supports more truthful food labeling. He ends with a kind of call to action, but he changes his tone slightly by saying that “The scandal in fast food isn’t what’s missing; it’s what’s there.” By doing this he acknowledges that labeling is often untruthful but also encourages people to look closer to other things like calorie and fat content.

Fast food companies should definitely be more truthful when it comes to food labeling. People deserve to know exactly what they are eating. If more lawsuits like that against Taco Bell come out, people may stop trusting fast food chains altogether. It would benefit the restaurants and the people who eat there if they were to tell the truth from the start.

This would be a good topic for me. It has always interested me that commercials and advertisements could lie about the products they promote. I could expand the subject beyond food and into other areas like infomercials as well. For this reason, I also believe this would be a good topic for others. It’s interesting and affects every single person who has ever eaten at a fast food restaurant or bought something based on an advertisement.

Wind Energy Controversy

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1115667,00.html

“Energy: War of the Winds.” Time Magazine. TIME Inc., 9 October 2006. Web. 12  
             September 2011.

The article “Energy: War of the Winds” debates one of this century’s most highly controversial topics - clean energy, particularly in the form of wind turbines. Wind turbine farms have sprouted up all over the United States and Europe in the past ten years, and there are many people who do not think they are worth it. As the article states, the main concerns surrounding wind turbines are noise pollution and scenery disruption that lead to local dissatisfaction and drops in property value. However, wind turbines also offer what many see as irreplaceable benefits.

This article's purpose is mostly informational. It begins with an example of a woman who escaped the suburbs of Detroit for a picturesque beach on Lake Michigan only to learn that the dunes would soon be dotted with giant, towering white windmills. Of course, the woman was none too happy. However, this example is followed up with the views of one of her neighbors, a man who is grateful to receive yearly payments for renting out his land to the wind farm owners.

This leads into one of the article’s main points – money. This is the main draw for many people who allow windmills to be placed on their land. If everyone opposed windmills, it would be easy for them to disappear completely. However, farmers and ranchers cannot resist the draw of an extra couple thousand dollars a year.

Inversely, windmills can also lose people money. According to the article, a Michigan man’s property value dropped nearly $20,000 over the course of three years simply because windmills were installed in his area. It is also known to be difficult to sell homes located near wind farms due to scenery disruption, noise pollution, and annoying shadows created by the huge blades.

This article is not very biased. It states both sides of the story and supports both the opposition and the supporters throughout. One of its main goals is to highlight that wind turbine usage is very debatable and will continue to be in upcoming years. For this reason, it is probably meant for audiences that have not yet decided if they support wind energy or not.

Wind energy is a difficult subject. It is hard to decide which is more beneficial – ruining the skyline by installing gigantic metal beasts or clouding that same skyline with coal and oil smoke. At the present time, wind energy will probably be met with opposition no matter how convincing the pros are. However, as time goes on and natural resources run out, it will become necessary to harness the power of the wind. Eventually, people will not be able to argue against it.

Wind energy is a perfect subject for me because I have experienced it firsthand. I live about a mile from a gigantic wind project, and next year they will be installing turbines in the field next to my house. My grandpa has even signed his land off for a few windmills. I absolutely despise the blinking red lights at night and the sight of the dusty white blades churning away during the day. However, I would like to read up on the benefits as well. My opinion may be swayed if I find a few convincing arguments. I think this is a good subject for other students as well. Most people in this area have to deal with the windmills, so it is important for us to learn more about them before deciding if we support them or not.

The Great Stem Cell Debate

Link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2c9171%2c641157%2c00.html

Kinsley, Michael. “The False Controversy of Stem Cells.”Time Magazine.TIME Inc., 23 May

2004. Web. 12 September 2011.

In “The False Controversy of Stem Cells,” author Michael Kinsley enlightens readers on the much-debated topic of stem cell research. His main objective is to highlight the similarities between the usage of embryos in fertility clinics, abortions, and stem cell research. He makes the valid point that stem cell research is considered more highly controversial (especially when compared to fertility clinics), even though the differences are minimal. Kinsley uses this argument to support stem cell research.

For those who are unfamiliar with the stem cell debates of recent years, stem cell research involves the use (and, many argue, destruction) of human embryos. It can be viewed along the same lines as abortion, except the embryos used are only a few days old.

Kinsley argues that stem cell research is unfairly portrayed. He makes a major point of comparing it to in-vitro fertilization. Fertility clinics create far more embryos than they actually need. When a couple finishes in-vitro, their extra embryos are either destroyed or frozen indefinitely.

To highlight the connections between fertility clinics and stem cell research labs, Kinsley uses the example of United States representative Dana Rohrabacher, who changed his mind about Bush’s research-restricting policies after his wife successfully used in-vitro.

Kinsley’s article is strongly biased. He argues that because stem cell research is controversial, fertility clinics should be as well. He also points out that embryos are incapable of any feelings or emotions and that “the lives of real people desperately awaiting the fruits of stem cell research are being weighed against a purely symbolic message.”

However, Kinsley does offer a small exception. He says that anyone who strongly opposes both abortion and fertility clinics has a right to also oppose stem cell research. “If not,” he concludes, “please get out of the way.” By ending the article this way, Kinsley more strongly emphasizes his pro-research opinion. He also attempts to compromise with the opposing side. Because of this, his intended audience can be either people who oppose OR support the research.

The points made in this article are very true. Many people do not consider them before deciding they are against stem cell research. For them to oppose one and not the other is unfair. Morals should be the same no matter what the subject. Some people may find that if they looked at the similarities between stem cell research and in-vitro fertilization, they would be more willing to accept the research that could ultimately save or improve thousands of lives.

Stem cell research and its many debates greatly interest me. There are many different sides to the controversy, and I enjoy collecting opposing points of view before forming my own opinions. For these reasons, this would be a good topic choice for my personal research paper. I believe stem cell research to be a good topic for others as well. Due to its highly controversial nature, there is a wealth of information available. Furthermore, it is an interesting topic that must be further explored before beliefs can be formed.