Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Thursday, December 6, 2007
D#16, WP#4, Reflective Cover Letter
Mike Whipple
Adams
ENG 102
29 Nov. 2007
Reflective Cover Letter
With the fall 2007 semester at Mesa Community College coming to an end I believe that I concretely improved my writing efficiency. The combined daily deadlines helped hone in on particular skills needing attention such as research preparation and organization of research sources.
The first course competency, writing for “…specific rhetorical contexts…” was approached in, (Deadline #3). I started out on, (D#3, HW#4), by following the directions from the syllabus on methods to determine my audience toward which my research paper was specifically directed towards. In the same deadline, (D#3, HW#5 ), I also learned how to conduct an audience analysis that helped my research by determining if my chosen audience was correct for the topic. The most effective activity required to create an effective argument was the need to narrow the research question to be specific as possible, which I accomplished in (D#2, HW#4;D#3, HW#2 ). With the help of the deadline requirements, I was able to follow a structured manual that provides required development of the research rhetorical context such as purpose, topic, audience, and others.
For the second course competency, which centered upon “Organizing writing to support a central idea…,” I learned that an outline method that I previously been utilizing in my writing was the Toulmin outline which was covered at this site given by the syllabus. This method allowed me to improve in my arrangement of evidence and arguments. The most beneficial knowledge that I was able to receive was the need to put all of my arguments out first, then fine tune the delivery method by moving clumps of information around before writing the essay. When when it came to revision in, (D#12, HW#2, HW#3), and talking about how I chose my page layout in, (D#12, HW#6), I was very glad that I had made efficient use of the Toulmin outline to create a more directed and clean sounding paper. In the preparation of gathering sources (D#2,HW#3, HW#6; D#3,HW#7; D#4,HW#5; D#5,HW#4; D#6,HW#4; D#7,HW#2; D#10,HW#2), for my essay, I used annotation with my sources, which was a new tactic for me. The outline significantly helped in organizing where to pull supporting quotes.
In the third competency the frequent grammar activities allowed me to brush up on areas that I was a little rusty in and improve my papers through writing in more concise fashion. The usage of commas was an area I know I still need a little practice with, even after completing (D#4, HW#2). Also in (D#4, HW#2), I reviewed hyphens. I had never seen any correct way to use them before, but I did learn that you can use a hyphen to continue a word on next line. Another area of improvement that I believe still needs attention was my incorrect use of tense. I addressed my use of tenses in (D#6, HW#7), where I made revisions to WP#1 to create a correct flow after reviewing the Purdue OWL website. When working on (D#8, HW#5), I noticed missing abbreviations in my bibliography. With the help of the Purdue OWL website, I was able to locate the correct abbreviations. Finally, as with most humans, I noticed simple mistakes that were overlooked at first glance in my WP#3, and adjusted accordingly in (D#13, HW#1).
In order to fulfill the forth competency without having to leave my house or pull books from the shelves, I was able to utilize ebrary.com. I ended up using quite a few of the online versions of books to support my research. For internet based sources, I used the MCC library home page with electronic research links to connect to sites such as Opposing Viewpoints. Being in a hybrid (technologically current) class I was thoroughly grateful for the availability of ebrary.com and the simplicity of use. A brief example of information collected from Ebrary was presented in (D#5, HW#4; D#6, HW#4 ). This competency also helped me strengthen my skills in creating annotations, which seriously needed improvement. After completing most of the class I do feel that I understand how to create annotations that are the most efficient for the writing task at hand.
The fifth competency set out in the syllabus pertained to the integration of sources within the writing project in order to support arguments and rebuttals. Once I have my outline created and quotes and sources picked out, I believe I am fairly proficient in my skill of interweaving quotes and paraphrasing original sources with correctly formatted parenthetical documentation. I utilized quotes and paraphrases throughout my research paper, (WP#3; D#10, HW#3), and this paper in itself, (WP#4; D#14, HW#1). I believe that I am able to learn and use formatting because my best subjects are math and science which require strict formatting and settings, sort of like MLA formatting but in English.
The sixth competency is based solely on maintaining correct MLA parenthetical documentation to avoid the case of plagiarism. With my previous knowledge i had sufficient abilities coming into the class but for some unidentified reason I enjoy using MLA formatting with the technical aspects even if a teacher does not require it. With a full blown research essay such as, (WP#3), I was able to get a good deal of practice.
Using one of the most beneficial tools available to almost any writer, peer review; I was able to complete with improvement the seventh course competency. With the help of my seemingly always decreasing number of classmates, I was able to improve vastly through peer review. As I previously said in, (D#8, HW#3), having other people review your writing allows you to instantly see what mistakes you are blind to and understand how in what manner the tone is perceived by another person. From removing “fluffy” sentences to noticing annotations that needed buffing up, I improved my writing skills by noticing which skills needed improvement, and using deadlines that allowed me to focus upon areas of improvement in my writing. Through a peer review reflection, (D#5, HW#3), it was brought to my attention my occasional misuse of word tenses, which later in (D#6, HW#7), I was able to work upon.
Competency number eight requires that I am able to assess not only my own faults and ways to improve but also successes. I feel confident that I am able to use MLA formatting and documentation in my writing. I do often feel that my word choice sometimes could be boring, but I feel this is my “style” of writing. One area I would feel better if I can improve in is my word tense. It has helped to improve and decrease my mistakes of tense through peer reviews and rereading multiple times. While during the course it seemed that reflections were getting obsessively annoying, I can look back and notice that while the repetition killed the benefits from being able to look back at, what I did learn or had issues with, allows me to plan or outline a future method of improvement. While I would list individual deadlines and reflections it would just be time consuming as there are thirteen of each I recorded all on My Blogger.
Competency number nine is possibly the most natural to my pre-ENG102 (Hybrid) class experience. Number nine requires that one have a working knowledge of, “…appropriate technologies,” in order to, “…generate, format and edit.” With a previous great deal of knowledge about troubleshooting and designing all aspect of computers I was able to easily adapt to the hybrid class format. While, I have never extensively used Google to the extent I have now, I was able to use it effectively with such tasks as peer reviews, peer editing, and posting drafts and final copies. Another important site I learned to use was turnitin.com. I had known such sites existed but never used one for a class. I enjoyed the paperless effort with no printer issues, no staples, and ,no smearing. Also, I was able to use my previous account with my high school to access Noodle tools which I believe was a great asset to my writing and should be utilized in class. It seems that I created a whole new gang of free accounts with everything from a new Gmail to getting a del.icio.us account. One thing about the del.icio.us account I was slightly disappointed about was the lack of support in class. It seemed that I could be used more, such as having an account with all the deadline reading links contained within.
As with the purpose of the course to “…further improve [my] written literacy skills,” I feel that this class improved my skill to write a precise and effective research paper, but also strengthened my confidence to believe in myself that I can write a well-organized paper.
D#16, WP#3 Revisions
One of the first things to work on this paper would to be updating the information of where stem cells come from. Almost a day or two after turning in this paper i read in the news paper there was a breakthrough in which stem cells replicas were created from skin cells. This would create multiple revisions needed to removed and update the block of research that relied upon that argument. I did miss some source formatting that should have been underlined to provide a more flawless argument source. Also, once again i wish that i would have remembered to fluff out my annotations to be specific in the details that i found after reading more in depth to write my paper.
Mike Whipple
Adams
ENG 102
21 Nov. 2007
Cloning Eradicates Existing Life
Once upon a time, cloning was a element of science fiction stories; today, it is closer than one may believe. Whilst one pioneers an field of discovery, boundary lines and restricting rules must be created to benefit not only the discovery, but also all subjects it relates with currently and in the future. Human cloning has the potential and if not banned will harm traditional human ways of life, cause massive public outcry of morals and lastly allow corporations to "follow the yellow brick road," gaining access to create humanoids for specialized task. On this note, the global scientific community and Legislature of the U.S. need to manifest enforce strict rules and complete ban of human cloning.
If allowed to persist in a non restricted environment, cloning will ruin traditional life. The reasoning is that currently only methods of cloning destroy life. In order to perform either therapeutic or destructive cloning one must start with an embryo from a human female and then extract stem cells; which in turn results in killing the embryo (Best). Author Megan Best, states that “…it is not ethical to sacrifice one human life for the real or potential benefit of others.” Sacrificing life for life is a false reasoning in logic, that in order to increase experimental life, life must be taken. For example, in most of the countries around the world, it is against the law to murder another human without significant cause. Since earliest of times of human society, it has been instinctively programmed into the brain to save lives. This is still evident in today’s society through hundreds of volunteer search and rescue crews; in addition to the publication of multiple stories in which lives are saved by average citizens. Another example in direct relationship of harming humans is the exploiting and damaging effects upon women that are results from research cloning (Best). In destructive (also known as full-body) cloning success rates currently are at un-motivating lows in one to two percent of animal subjects succeeding in a living embryo (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). In order to produce clones in any manner greater than one or two specimens, a large donor base must be established; causing exploration of women strictly to harvest eggs from participants (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56). Donors would be constantly in demand and must deal with the procedure of harvesting eggs which can lead to reproductive harm and exposing procedures (Human Dignity and Human Cloning 56) . In objection, others argue that benefits from donating are worth the side effects due to the fact that donors are pioneering an expanding research field. In contrast to the pressure on individuals to simply deal with side effects of donating, “…the National Academies recommend that ‘Human reproductive cloning should not…be practiced. It is dangerous and likely to fail’” (Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee 16). Like most research, cloning has its risk, but to remove chances of life from embryos and causing reproductive harm to humans should not be a risk that needs to be accepted.
Another topic of issue is the global scientific community need to restrict and set in order the fine lines of cloning research in order to prevent chance of massive public outcry of morals. The principle leading this declaration is rules are needed in order to draw the line between ethics and experimentation of human embryos in cloning research. In response to this opposition claims that if ban or more restrictive ruling is put in place for widespread use of cloning, it will inhibit future potential discovery of other aspects in the field of genetics that perhaps would be ethical accepted and beneficial to life. However, if a moratorium, or a halt of activity to determine all aspects, is imposed, in a several years information on safety and success rate of human cloning will be significantly greater. Thus, giving the scientific medical board more time to understand and examine the legislature. After the process of examination occurs then it would be plausible if new methods in the field of cloning could be amended into legislature. One example of damaging decisions is the hidden consequences that often occur within quick unreasoned decisions. In this year, 2007, the United States House of Representatives turned down a cloning bill, H.R. 2560 (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The bill was “…carefully constructed to encourage the creation of any number of cloned human embryos” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). In addition, the created embryos would be grown for a number of days ”…so that in order, they can be killed…to harvest their stem cells or used in other research that [would] kill them a practice opposed by about 75% of the public” (“U.S. House Turns Back”). The goal of the bill was to create a pathway that could be taken by research teams in order to continue progress at unregulated rates.
The last addressed reasoning is the allowance of biotechnology corporations to gain control of many aspects of life due to relaxed or nonexistent legislature. In normal practice an inventor or investment group completes a request for a patent once a product is designed and prototype is created. This is the case of “…life science companies [having] leaped…by patenting both human embryos and stem cells” (Gerdes). With human embryos and stem cells already claimed in patents, human life would slowly be reduced to a product (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning). Imagine walking by the puppy store in the mall, seeing kids adoring over baby puppies; pressuring the parents to buy the cutest one. Then, in the next store window down seeing cloned human babies in viewing units dressed to sell, much in the same fashion as pets. The true push for life science companies to obtain a patent is to gain an advantage on the retail market. While some state that companies are needed to aid in the covering cost of development and funding for programs, it can be seen that the goal of most companies is to produce the most perfect product while still maintaining profit. Companies would strive to produce the genetically perfect human body (Gerdes). Of course it can be conceived that no company would risk creating a "ugly" faulty clone, because it would be undesirable to most of the public and never sell. Also, creating a defective clone would defeat the purpose of taking control and playing “God” through selective breeding. Other evidence points towards the potential that specialized clones could be created with programmed task and missions. It would be of no issue for the government or powerful companies to create mass armies of soldiers or highly trained groups of clones designed to wreck havoc such as creating a marketing protest or simply a riot (Ethical Issues in Human Cloning 127). Through mass training with special environment upbringing human clones could create large scale genocide and in wrong hands kill off races considered to be of lesser quality. On a much larger scale one could use human clones as weapon of mass destruction.
While the saying goes "rules were meant to be broken," it is rules that establish the world’s opinion as a hole. If you disagree with an issue, speak out in peaceful manner. Many of the people that oppose a cloning ban, due to the restriction of research, do not realize that it allows anyone with good or ban morals to effectively create mayhem at free will. An enforced and proficient ban would produce a stable grasp on government and corporation cloning research, prevent widespread outcry, and secure the traditional respect to human birth and life. There are already new birth defects everyday being discovered, imagine if more were lab created.
Annotated Bibliography
Best, Megan. "Human Cloning Is Unethical." Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Community College. 20 Sep. 2007 . In this resource it is presented against allowing any type of cloning from destructive to therapeutic purposes. It also contains a list of four reasons for cloning to be unethical. In brief order they are: not ethical to destroy potential life for aid to those already alive, creation of embryo for destruction is opposed, exploitation of woman, leads to reproductive cloning.
Committee on Science. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. National Academies, 2002. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007
Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. Ed. Michael C Brannigan. Seven Bridges, 2001. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 26 Sept. 2007
Gerdes, Louise I, Ed. “Human Cloning Will Harm Society.” Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007
Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Ed. Silja Voneky. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004. ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007
Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Advisory Committee(CB). 2007 Amendments to the National Academies' Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research . Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2007.
This source is a very recent overhaul of the guidelines put in place for cloning. This covers all types of cloning stating which methods are related to humans and/or to lab animals. In addition, it defines different types of cloning available to scientist and the specific procedures entailed within.
"U.S. House Turns Back Stealth Attempt by Democratic leadership to Pass 'Clone-and-Kill' Bill." National Right to Life News 34.7 (July 2007): 11. General OneFile. Gale. Mesa Community College. 12 Oct. 2007
This source is a recent report on how a bill, to allow widespread use of cloning embryos and harvesting for research, was attempted to be pushed through the House of Representatives. However, this bill came up short of votes and was shot down. The abstract also contains a great deal of facts and statistics such as 75% of Americans oppose harvesting of lab grown embryos. Also includes list of other nations already with ban on cloning.
D#16, WP#2 Revision
Mike Whipple
Adams
ENG102 7891
25 Oct. 2007
Annotated Bibliography - Final Draft
I am researching the field of human cloning in order to answer the question of, “Should cloning research in relations to humans be allowed to continue without restrictions, even though the safety and normal humane practices could be compromised?” (Whipple). Human cloning is a controversial topic due to mainly the fact of exploring the unknown effect and morals. While in the pro form, cloning could save lives, yet others could feel it causes death to embryos, potential life forms. This leads me to conduct a balanced research, to be able to accurately and openly present my position of regulating cloning, to the audience of my work.
Annas, George J. American Bioethics : Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries. Oxford University, 2004. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 26 Sept. 2007
This source is helpful to add on the information side of the aspect of ethics and morals, such as whether destructive cloning that could be viewed as murdering or withholding a life from an individual human. In addition, it contains also human rights content which goes into the aspect of using human waste products such as stem research to aid in understanding of genes in order to help cloning research. Also, it includes the health law angle of the controversy which will help support information for my main audience.
Best, Megan. "Human Cloning Is Unethical." Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering. Ed. Louise I. Gerdes. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll. 20 Sep. 2007.
In this resource it is presented against allowing any type of cloning from destructive to therapeutic purposes. It also contains a list of four reasons for cloning to be unethical. In brief order they are: not ethical to destroy potential life for aid to those already alive, creation of embryo for destruction is opposed, exploitation of woman, leads to reproductive cloning. This source will help me choose my topics for discussion for each paragraph of my refutes.
Committee on Science. Scientific and Medical Aspects of Human Reproductive Cloning. National Academies, 2002. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007
In this source I was able to find a chapters on should and how banning cloning would be carried out. Also, the source documents what current legislature actions have taken place and are currently in action. Most interesting is it contains a list of twelve findings on why cloning should be banned. This once again could be used to pick broad areas of topic for a paragraph to center upon.
Ethical Issues in Human Cloning. Ed. Michael C Brannigan. Seven Bridges, 2001. Ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 26 Sept. 2007
This resource could become a central backup of all technical aspects of cloning because it dives straight into my research question on the ethics and issues created by the research along the lines of human cloning. It contains information on both sides, such as the benefits and downfalls. This source is useful because it backups information that has been previously stated in other sources giving a different wording for a point or quote that in other words is the same point.
Gerdes, Louise I, Ed. “Human Cloning Will Harm Society.” Opposing Viewpoints: Genetic Engineering 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007
This source claims that cloning will produce a controlled world ran by corporations that control reproduction and traits of any human. Also, included in source is documentation of the patent on cloning. Furthermore, the source claims it is owed to humans to naturally reproduce and have offspring. This source goes into the more naturalistic view of humans and steers away from biological alterations. Definitely this source is opposed to open cloning.
Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Ed. Silja Voneky. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004. ebrary. Mesa Comm. Coll., Mesa, AZ. 5 Oct. 2007
This source contains multiple aspects and different religious beliefs and culturing. This demonstrates the religious viewpoint which could pertain to the audience selected for human cloning. Near the end of the book there are a few chapters that cover the legal in U.S. and internationally. This source is typically not useful as viewpoints centered around religious beliefs are often overlooked by the scientific community as i believe, but it will add another source to pull positions and quotes.
Jacobs, Margaret A. "Few Legal Barriers Prevent Human Cloning." Contemporary Issues Companion: Cloning. Ed. Lisa Yount. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2000. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll. 20 Sep. 2007 .
This article was written after the publication of the sheep being cloned in Scotland. It refers to President Bush's decision and position on trying to ban cloning yet nothing has been passed through the legislature. At end of paper there is a paragraph that states a patent was available at the time of publication for anyone wanting to coin in on the monopoly for the next 20 years.
Lackey, Hilliard (2001, August 22). The Naked Truth: Cloning may be answer to survival of white race. Mississippi Link,p. 10. September 20, 2007, from Ethnic NewsWatch (ENW) database. (Document ID: 625310091). < url="http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did="625310091&sid="1&Fmt="3&clientId="3314&RQT="309&VName="PQD">.
This article talks about a poll given by CNN that showed the public opinion of that sample outreach in that approximately three-fourths were against human cloning. It also states factual evidence that there are races of humans that are not reproducing at a positive rate and leading to decline in that race on the world. This source helps me produce my argument through giving a sample of the public opinion which is generally broad. Most likely i will not use this source.
Musser, Susan, and David Haugen. Technology and Society. Opposing viewpoints series Unnumbered. Detroit: Greenhaven/Thomson Gale, 2007.
This book contains chapters dedicated to the pros and cons of therapeutic cloning and the arguments to support both sides. In addition it talks about the enhancing of our children through genetics. This book adds a new element compared to other resources as it contains a viewpoint of using cloning to perfect the human race. This will most likely be used to add a neutral argument.
Pence, Gregory E. "Common Beliefs About Human Cloning Are Myths." Contemporary Issues Companion: Cloning. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. Mesa Comm. Coll. 20 Sep. 2007 .
This source is a great quick info and run down about cloning. It debunks common myths that often are believed to be true or stereotype. This would go great in introductions of develop paragraphs or the main paper introduction. Being almost like a source only of quick and dirty data that is often very useful if needing a tiny bit of extra information for my introduction paragraph of my writing project.
In all, I already have been able to just by summing up sources noticing a change in my position, which at first was in support of all cloning. This realization clearly demonstrates the absolute must of keeping an open mind when researching in order to present the strongest argument to the selected audience and the author. While some perspectives of both sides seem almost repeated I believe that in my selection of sources I will have significant amount needed to complete my work in sufficient fullness.
D#16, WP#1 Revision
With it being such a long time since writing WP#1, i can immediately see things such as grammar primary and some formatting i would change. First i would start out with reformatting my research question as suggest to prevent it from hanging out in the "middle of no where" to comply more with MLA standards. Secondly, i would expand the topic of how cloning became a popular topic of debate around the world by talking more about the first cloned sheep. Thirdly, i would expand more on the types of arguments pro and con to farther the proposal setting up what the grounds are for the research paper in a more effective manner.
Mike Whipple
Adams
ENG 102 7891
3 October 2007
WP#1 – Research Proposal
Cloning is a controversial topic that pertains to any human, yet often many individuals choose sides with with wrong, little, or no knowledge of the topic. This is one of the first thoughts that ran through my head during my brainstorming for topics to create a paper sufficient enough to allow my interest to enhance the research Also, I choose cloning because of the technological advances in today’s world that could allow cloning to become a bigger topic, in addition to my little understanding of the field and research areas. Through careful steps in structured productivity, I manifested my research question to be:
Should cloning research in relations to humans be allowed to continue without restrictions, even though the safety and normal humane practices could be compromised?
Cloning possibilities became a reality in February 1996 when Dolly the sheep was born from an adult somatic cell grown in an laboratory. This news headliner brought a wave of emotions and opinions for and against future cloning research. In addition, articles and protest surged in numbers. Currently the number today has significantly dropped but still is a debatable topic.
There are several reasons against cloning, however two aspects are predominately most controversial. These two methods are, the ethics and morals of creating clones of humans/animals, and harvesting clones/organs for medical treatment or transplants. Others are fearful of abuse of the technology. While even more claim cloning interferes with religious beliefs.
On the pro position side, the leading components are the ability to cure many diseases and prevent cell mutation, such as cancer. Also, therapeutic cloning could be used to create transplants for select individuals. Other areas are to have a greater knowledge of how cells grow and what can be accomplished by changing certain variables.
My purpose is to inform and create
a greater interest in the aspect of cloning. Currently my position is half and half. Meaning I am for therapeutic cloning but against destructive cloning. My audience of my final research project is the legislative branch that regulates medical practices and research. Sub audiences are candidates who need transplants, chronically ill, or candidates who meet both circumstances.
The analysis of my audience brought forth the understanding of needing the balanced argument of pro and con human cloning. The information will need to be concise and relevant.
Possible limitations of this project would be the chance and availability to do any polls or interviews of those in the medical research field. The hardest challenge to date would be selecting one side as I am divided and basically situational.
D#16, HW#1, WP#4 Final
7891 Whipple - WP#4 - Class Portfolio
