D#16, WP#2 Revision

For this revision if i was to conduct i would by far improve my annotations to be more specific as later on when i am writing it is hard to remember which source had specific details and not generalized information. Secondly, I would revise/word my first paragraph to include more information on the topic being researched and to inform the reader of what the group of annotations is attempting to prove.





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.