In this paper I reviewed two articles and provide an analytical summary of them both. The first article summarized analytically is Predictive Probes: Scientists are Focusing on Genes Predisposing People to Illnesses --- New Methods Will Facilitate Prevention but Will Raise Ethical, Legal Questions --- Should Employers Be Told? Written by Jerry E. Bishop. In this article, I identified the three ways that the author used evidence to support assertions. I went on to identify the places where evidence was employed as well as how the author used the evidence. I discussed the evidence “as the reason” vs. “the support for the reason.” I also discussed evidence as dependent on the issue and context. Lastly for this article, I analyzed how the author signaled the usage through elements with his word choices, transitions, and logical connections. The second article summarized analytically is Dark Prophecy: New Test Tells Whom a Crippling Disease Will Hit – and When --- Gene Responsible for Ataxia Has Same Flaw as Those Causing Some Cancers --- the ‘Stutter’ in the DNA by author Marilyn Chase. In this article, I identified the author’s use of the three elements: experiment, correlation, and speculation to support assertions, and analyzed how the author signals the use of these elements through language such as word choices, transitions, and logical connections.
There are three great examples of ways the author; Jerry E. Bishop; used evidence to support his assertions in the article, Predictive Probes: Scientists Are Focusing on (sic) Genes Predisposing People to Illnesses --- New Methods Will Facilitate Prevention but Will Raise Ethical, Legal Questions --- Should Employers Be Told? Bishop’s assertion that ethical and legal questions w...
... middle of paper ...
...ients now are choosing to conceive children -- only to face a prenatal testing dilemma.”
Works Cited
Bishop, J.E. (1984, September 12). Predictive probes: scientists are focusing on genes predisposing people to illnesses --- new methods will facilitate prevention but will raise ethical, legal questions --- should employers be told?. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved January 22, 2014, from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/397923305/142BF1EC4C524F61E66/128?accountid=34899
Chase, M. (1993, December 8) Dark prophecy: new test tells whom a crippling disease will hit – and when --- gene responsible for ataxia has same flaw as those causing some cancers --- the ‘stutter’ in the DNA. The Wall Street Journal, p. A1. Retrieved, January 22, 2014, from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/docview/398480392/142BF2278516F21AA0D/168?accountid=34899
Those who were affected by the testing in hospitals, prisons, and mental health institutions were the patients/inmates as well as their families, Henrietta Lacks, the doctors performing the research and procedures, the actual institutions in which research was being held, and the human/health sciences field as a whole. Many ethical principles can be applied to these dilemmas: Reliance on Scientific Knowledge (1.01), Boundaries of Competence (1.02), Integrity (1.04), Professional and Scientific Relationships (1.05), Exploitative Relationships (1.07, a), Responsibility (2.02), Rights and Prerogatives of Clients (2.05), Maintaining Confidentiality (2.06), Maintaining Records (2.07), Disclosures (2.08), Treatment/Intervention Efficacy (2.09), Involving Clients in Planning and Consent (4.02), Promoting an Ethical Culture (7.01), Ethical Violations by Others and Risk of Harm (7.02), Avoiding False or Deceptive Statements (8.01), Conforming with Laws and Regulations (9.01), Characteristics of Responsible Research (9.02), Informed Consent (9.03), and Using Confidential Information for Didactic or Instructive Purposes (9.04), and Debriefing (9.05). These particular dilemmas were not really handled until much later when laws were passed that regulated the way human subjects could be used for research. Patients
White, Mary. “Making Responsible Decisions: An Interpretive Ethic for Genetic Decisionmaking.” The Hastings Center Report 29.1 Jan./Feb. (1999): 14-21.
Barry successfully conveys the many traits that scientists will endure in their work, and the qualities essential in order to be successful by using three effective rhetorical devices-- exemplification, powerful diction, and insightful figurative language. He uses his experience with the flu epidemic and rhetorical strategies to prove his claim that there is much more to science
During the process of research, professionals collect data or identifiable private information through intervention or interaction. While this is a vital part of the scientific and medical fields, every precaution must be taken by researchers to protect the participants' rights. Ethics, outlined by the Belmont report; requirements, described by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); and regulations, laid out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are verified by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This procedure assures that all human rights are safeguarded during the entire research process.
Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron, “Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 44, No. 7 (Oct…1982). This article, written by Robert Root-Bernstein and Donald L. McEachron sheds light on the controversy of evolution vs creationism in schools and the validity of each being called a scientific theory. The work was created to answer the questions, “Which of these theories is truly scientific and which is a religious belief? Which should be taught in schools?” The article concluded in favor of evolution as a valid scientific theory that should be taught rather than creationism, but also mentioned the worth of understanding the latter.
In Christopher Gillen’s chapter “The Data Suggest” in “They Say/I Say: The moves that matter in Academic Writing”, Gillen (2010) addresses to the readers his rendition of the correct way to present scientific writing. He first explains that in order to convincingly portray the author’s point about the scientific issue that they either agree with, disagree with is to begin with the data. He states , “Data are the fundamental currency of scientific argument” (Gillen, 2010, pg. 204). Meaning, in order to appear knowledgeable and to open an argument at all, the data, including their numbers, methods and conclusion, from previously existing theories and from the author’s own experiment is crucial to present in the writing. Gillen claims that by
Myers, J., Frieden, T., Bherwani, K., & Henning, K. (2008). Ethics in public health research. American Journal of Public Health, 98(5), 793-801.
The genetic technology revolution has proved to be both a blessing and a blight. The Human Genome Project is aimed at mapping and sequencing the entire human genome. DNA chips are loaded with information about human genes. The chip reveals specific information about the individuals’ health and genetic makeup (Richmond & Germov 2009).The technology has been described as a milestone by many in that it facilitates research, screening, and treatment of genetic conditions. However, there have been fears that the technology permits a reduction in privacy when the information is disclosed. Many argue that genetic information can also be used unfairly to discriminate against or stigmatize individuals (Willis 2009).
Overall, John M. Barry was able to define and characterize scientific research. Using rhetorical strategies such as, comparison, specific diction, and contrast Barry is able to show how scientific research is uncertainty
" Strong readers often read critically, weighing, for example, an author claims and interpretations against evidence-evidence provided by the author in the text, evidence drawn from other sources, or the evidence that is assumed to be part of a reader's own knowledge and experience."(p.12)
The Human Genome Project is the largest scientific endeavor undertaken since the Manhattan Project, and, as with the Manhattan Project, the completion of the Human Genome Project has brought to surface many moral and ethical issues concerning the use of the knowledge gained from the project. Although genetic tests for certain diseases have been available for 15 years (Ridley, 1999), the completion of the Human Genome Project will certainly lead to an exponential increase in the number of genetic tests available. Therefore, before genetic testing becomes a routine part of a visit to a doctor's office, the two main questions at the heart of the controversy surrounding genetic testing must be addressed: When should genetic testing be used? And who should have access to the results of genetic tests? As I intend to show, genetic tests should only be used for treatable diseases, and individuals should have the freedom to decide who has access to their test results.
Prenatal genetic testing has become one of the largest and most influencial advances in clinical genetics today. "Of the over 4000 genetic traits which have been distinguished to date, more than 300 are identifiable via prenatal genetic testing" (Morris, 1993). Every year, thousands of couples are subjecting their lives to the results of prenatal tests. For some, the information may be a sigh of relief, for others a tear of terror. The psychological effects following a prenatal test can be devastating, leaving the woman with a decision which will affect the rest of her life.
In today’s world, people are learning a great deal in the rapidly growing and developing fields of science and technology. Almost every day, an individual can see or hear about new discoveries and advances in these fields of study. One science that is rapidly progressing is genetic testing; a valuable science that promotes prevention efforts for genetically susceptible people and provides new strategies for disease management. Unnaturally, and morally wrong, genetic testing is a controversial science that manipulates human ethics. Although genetic testing has enormous advantages, the uncertainties of genetic testing will depreciate our quality of life, and thereby result in psychological burden, discrimination, and abortion.
Genetic testing, also known as screening, is a rapidly advancing new scientific field that can potentially revolutionize not only the world of medicine, but many aspects of our lives. Genetic screening is the sequencing of human DNA in order to discover genetic differences, anomalies, or mutations that may prove pathological. As genetic screening becomes more advanced and easily accessible, it presents society with difficult questions that must be asked about the boundaries of science and to what degree we are allowed to tamper with the human genome. To better understand the potential impact of genetic screening on our society, we must examine the potential benefits in comparison to the possible negative impact it may cause. With this knowledge in hand, we can examine what the future holds for this field of study and the best possible direction to take.
As a young adult, it may seem foolish to predict what your future family life will look like, especially in regards to children. Often times this reality is forced upon a select few, particularly homosexual couples; however, with the innovation of in vitro fertilization (IVF), a couple is met with promise and the hope of a successful family life. IVF can be described as a process by which a fetus is genetically formed in a laboratory setting. Though this process may seem unnatural in essence, it allows for a more diverse family arrangement through medical innovation. This procedure, though controversial, is seen by many as an advancement in the medical field and can be accredited to procuring a healthy child for an unfortunate family, whether