Scholarly Article Blog

First and foremost, I would like to provide an understandable explanation as to how all of this stem cell, human cloning phenomenon came about. Stem cells are not only helpful for patients, they also help doctors and medical researchers discover new reasons as to why certain conditions and diseases come about. Researchers are trying their best to make a way for stem cells to be trained to become certain cells to mend damaged and diseased cells that match the healthy, stem cells. Another great reason for the use of stem cells is to test out new medications instead of trying them on patients first. In the article the example provided was if nerve cells were to be generated, they could test a new drug for nerve disease. This would help because no one could be hurt from the experimentation, and scientists and doctors would be able to see whether the cells were effected or harmed. Essentially, there are some pro’s to the use of stem cells but how far is too far?

This particular scholarly article is an expert-written article on the topic of human cloning and stem cell research. Stem cells were originally designed as a way to help people and cure them of big diseases that are otherwise, incurable. If someone with heart disease were facing death or sickness, they could be injected with specialized stem cells that had been created with genes of a healthy heart so that the diseased heart could be cured. Those new and healthy cells recently added to the heart would then fight off the disease in the heart muscle. To many people, this process is a miracle although it is an unnatural process due to the way the stem cells are generated in labs. Although stem cell transplants originated to cure disease and keep people from dying, they are the beginning forms of human cloning, also known as “somatic cell nuclear transfer.” This process takes place when a cell goes bad or contains a bad nucleus, it can be injected with a nucleus that comes from a human donor with healthy cells so  where it can match the identity of whatever cell it needs to take the place of. When the nucleus is transferred, an entire line of stem cells is created which then essentially creates a clone identical to the donor of the cells used in the somatic cell nuclear transfer. 

This process may sound somewhat easy on paper, but scientists have yet to be successful with human cloning. Animal cloning has been a great success, numerous times but human cloning just will not happen it seems like. This topic is interesting to me because it contains a great deal of obvious controversy. I plan to address these articles about the process of cloning human beings from a Christian perspective. As a Christian, I believe it is not right to create an identical match to something that is a creation of God. He intended for us to all be different and our changes in appearance, size, knowledge or personality is what makes people unique. 

Public Domain Article

Gibbs, Nancy, and Dorfman/New York. "Human Cloning: Baby, It's You! And You, And You... - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 19 Feb. 2001. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999233-1,00.html>.

Scholarly Journal Article

Mayo Clinic Staff. "Stem Cells: What They Are and What They Do - MayoClinic.com." Mayo Clinic Medical Information and Tools for Healthy Living - MayoClinic.com. 20 Mar. 2009. Web. 30 Sept. 2010. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/stem-cells/CA00081/NSECTIONGROUP=2>.

My Reflection about the Forum Discussion

I found the discussion forum to be somewhat confusing when I was beginning the assignment. I was overwhelmed by all of the posts and confused as to where I was supposed to submit my part. However, I did find it interesting to be able to read what  some of my classmates wrote on their posts. Many students had a lot of the same ideas and thoughts which showed unity among our class. 

The worst part of this assignment for me was the article in which we were asked to derive all of our thoughts and ideas from. The articles about science, research and how bad of writers they can be was very puzzling and a lot to take in for this kind of assignment. I spent majority of my time reading the articles so that I could get what they were saying enough to form a comparing and contrasting opinion between the two articles. Some of the sentences and information in the articles was extremely hard for me to understand so I had to go back and re-read it over and over again. When I was finished, I felt well educated on scientists writing problems and how they should address the public audience in better, more understandable ways. 

Personally, I would not like any more forum discussions for future assignments unless the topics we are assigned to read are more simple to follow. It was very hard for me to follow this last one because there was so much text and the articles were very lengthy. I had to take notes on notebook paper then I had to correlate my notes into paragraphs on “pages” on my computer. I also did not find this forum discussion assignment to be enjoyable because it was overwhelming to comment on others posts and where to post everything. Reading through my classmates posts were interesting and informational but in the long run, I was becoming more and more confused about my own opinion for this particular assignment. Sometimes reading other peoples work can mess me up because I begin to question my own thoughts and ideas after reading theirs. I compare my writing to other peoples and it scares me because I think that what I wrote is not up to par with that of my classmates. I find myself changing and re-wording paragraphs because I do not think they are as good as students from my class. Usually, my writing is not even that bad, I just freak myself out into thinking it is not as good as my classmates, but this is something I have to work on. In the future, if given forum discussions, it would be easier and better for everyone if the articles that are to be discussed would be easier to read and shorter in length. If given a short, somewhat easy article to read I will be more than happy to discuss my opinion on a forum. 

Entering the Conversation

Liberman essentially is addressing scientists to work on their lack of good writing skills. He attacks scientists about lying or rewording the way their real story is supposed to be displayed. If there is so much controversy over science and its important connection with the public audience, wouldn’t scientists be trying to write the best they could so that the public can fully comprehend what they are saying? Science only wants and needs an active public audience for financial support. They know that if the public is not involved, then they will have no way to perform experiments to then further create and research new things. 

Liberman’s blog post is an excellent source for people who are looking for answers about the mysterious ways of scientific writing. It lets the public audience know that scientists do not always word things the way they are supposed to be worded. They either beat around the bush or create white lies to make the information appear to be more glamorous. He used excellent sources for evidentiary support including, the story about children’s capabilities to learn better at school by taking fish oil supplements. The actual scientific study repeated itself three times and grammatically made no sense whatsoever. However, the professional science writer provided a subject to base the results off of, he mentioned the drug involved and how often it should be taken and lastly he concluded the paragraph by stating the supplements factually showed an increase in performance at school where children have to pay attention. This evidence is very helpful to the public audience because it shows how much work goes into bringing the public into the light about scientific discoveries and projects. It’s not all about the scientists because the “bad science writers” have to go in and clean up everything the scientific study really said. 

There are several ways to go about addressing and mending the conflict with awful science writing. Perhaps scientists could be required to attend some form of writing workshop once or twice a year so that they are always reminded of improving their writing skills. Maybe the bad science writers could return the scientific studies that are given to them and request the scientists reword what they wrote the first time so that the bad science writers job is a little easier. If it became so difficult for bad science writers to determine the gist of a study, then they should enforce a rule that they will not post the information if it is not clearly stated in the study they are given. If any of those options were to fail or to be to far fetched, then maybe people who are seeking to be in journalism and newspaper writing could see this article as a job opportunity. After all, Mark Liberman’s title of his blog post is “We need more Bad Science Writers.” If this post becomes popular maybe newspaper staffs will take into consideration the need and demand for more professional science writers. 

Feedback and Criticism Blog

Criticism is something I am not used to giving because I am young and just now reaching the point where I have to participate in it. I’ve always been used to being the one to get the criticism, not give it to other people. Since I am somewhat shy and afraid to tell people the truth if it something I know they will not want to hear, I would have to say I am not the best with confrontational criticism. However, over the internet when I am not telling the person directly what I feel needs improvement, I am pretty good at it because I know they cannot judge me right then and there. Also if the paper I am criticizing is really bad and I can easily recognize what needs improvement I am good at it. If the paper I am critiquing is really good and hard to find mistakes then I am a bad at trying to give tips and pointers because I cannot find enough things wrong with the paper. 

Good, constructive criticism will usually entail several key things to fix in an assignment. Also, each tip or note that is made will be very detailed in how to change it and the person critiquing will usually give an example of a way for the person who wrote the essay to fix the mistake he or she made. Usually, it is just small ideas on how to reword a phrase or make a sentence sound better to the readers. 

I believe I can produce good criticism if I really focus and understand what I am trying to criticize. In the brief past of my peer criticism, I think I did a decent job of giving advice and helpful hints to enhance my classmates work. I tried to give around three big tips to each classmate and I always end my criticism with one, lengthy, positive quality that the paper holds. I feel it is important to give honest pointers for others to make so that they can improve their work. It is also imperative to compliment that person on their strongpoints in their work so that they have the confidence to continue working on making their assignment the best it can be. 

The best criticism I have ever received came from my bible teacher in high school. We always had to write really in-depth papers about certain biblical topics. Although the assignments were very difficult, she always helped us through them with her critiques. We would have to turn our papers in by first draft, second draft, third draft and then final copy. Each time, she wound write a massive paragraph on the back page and if we corrected what she said we got good grades on our papers. The reason why this was the best system for me is because it was organized and laid out in a way that there was no excuse not to be able to fix what she said. The structure was really helpful plus it made me learn from my mistakes after I was finished with the entire assignment.  

"Shitty First Drafts"

Jaimie Thomas

This article sums up my whole approach to writing. I always try so hard to make my papers sound good and look pretty but really they do not make sense at all. I always ramble and make a mess instead of write organized, planned out thoughts that correlate  with the topic of the paper. 

I like how she gave me hope to improve my “shitty” writing, however I am still confused on how to go about that. She said The best writers can have something good if they just get it down on paper. It doesn’t have to be in order and you don’t have to start with the opening paragraph. Basically, I need to start forming paragraphs based on when the ideas pop into my head. I do not do well without order and structure but then again my papers haven't been the greatest after working with a certain structure. I am going to give this new method a shot on my next big writing assignment. 

This lady has quite a vast imagination, either that or sever A.D.D. She said she has to quiet the voices in her head, which wasn’t exactly a helpful or useful hint to me personally because I do not hear voices in my head when I sit down to write a paper or a draft. I find myself getting distracted by many other things like music or the sound the air conditioning, or the noise it makes when I type on my keyboard. Those are all things I cannot help, well except the music but I do not like it dead silent when I write either. 

Maybe I could start writing my papers and essays at different times or spread it out. I could start doing a little bit one day and the last part the next day. Then after I finish the writing I could use what Lamott said about making corrections with different colored pens and markers. That would help me find a way to organize whatever I was trying to say in the first place. She has such a strange way of thinking about how she organizes her thoughts in her twisted mind. The part where she talked about picturing a mouse saying each thought and dropping it by its tail into a jar and trapping that thought to be used later in her writing, I found very odd. I do not understand how tat could work for me because I would just get confused as to what thought was in what jar. 

Maybe, she is trying to say that everyone develops their own writing style. Her’s is very far fetched from the average persons writing process. Maybe she is trying to tell people they need to come up with their own quirky thing that will help them get their ideas at least down on the paper. 

I learned quite a few pointers from this essay by Lamott. Even though I’m not going to organize my ideas in jars inside my brain, I can still just get the thoughts down on paper and worry about arranging them later.