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.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Hardcore Stem Cell Research Facts
“Stem Cell Research.”University of Michigan. Regents of the University of Michigan, n.d.
Web. 8 October 2011.
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.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
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 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.
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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)