 |
| McmScience Mediterranean Center of Medical Sciences. "Research". 2/4/2016 via Flickr. Creative Commons 2.0. |
Source 1
This source comes from a blog on Discover Magazine's website. The magazine is science heavy and relatively credible. The author of the article is Ed Yong, and he is an established science blogger and has been published in a myriad of science texts. Because he is so recognized, I feel more confident that the article is truthful and complete.
The post was published on December 10, 2010, which was the same week that the controversy began to unfold. Because the article was written and published around the time of the incident, there is more detailed and accurate information, such as the timetable provided in the post.
This source is essential to my project because it is literally the postmortem report of the conflict, complete with a timeline of important events. In addition, the article represents all of the stakeholders with what seems to be no bias whatsoever.
Source 2
This source comes from Science Magazine's website, which would generally mean that it is a credible source. In this case, however, the source is the original publication of the study that proved to be false. The author is Felisa Wolfe-Simon, and she was a relatively well-perceived author before this text.
The article was published online on June 3, 2011, which was months after the original release of the study by the magazine. It is likely that the backlash from posting the original text so much after the controversy began to unfold was minimized due to the long time period given for things to settle.
This source is essential to my project because it provides readers and myself with the cause of the controversy in the first place, and proves the source of the original publication. Because the paper was written by Wolfe-Simon and published by Science, those are the major stakeholders represented.
Source 3
This source comes from a privately owned domain, operated by biologist and blogger Michael Eisen. He posts a brief description of himself on his blog, stating that he works for UC Berkeley and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which distinguishes him as knowledgeable in the world of science.
The post was published on October 3, 2013. This is nearly three years after the initial backlash, which says that there was probably not a lot of interest in the post at the time of publication. On this day, the Gambia withdrew from the Commonwealth of Nations, and 134 migrants were killed when their boat flipped near Italy, both of which likely had no effect on the thought process of Eisen.
This source is extremely sardonic, but provides readers with an extremely opinionated view of the controversy, opening our eyes to one of the two sides. Also, the source provides us with possible conspiracies that went on within the peer reviewers and the stakeholders immediately before publication.
Source 4
My next source comes from Wikipedia, and is a biography of Felisa Wolfe-Simon, head of the controversial study and lead author of the publication. Wikipedia, in my opinion, has always been a reliable source of information.
The original posting date is not noted, but the article was last edited on January 8, 2016. Because it was edited so recently, it is likely that all relevant information is presented on the page. On the other hand, the recent updated date could imply that, because anyone can edit Wikipedia pages, there may be inaccurate or incomplete information displayed.
I will probably use this source less than the other ones, as it merely tells me about the life of the major stakeholder in the controversy. In the same way, I will be using this source alone to understand more about the life of Wolfe-Simon outside of the controversy.
Source 5
This source is also from Wikipedia, and is a general overview of the GFAJ-1 bacterium that was studied in the controversy. Again, I feel that Wikipedia is a reliable source in terms of supplying readers with background information.
Similarly to source 4, there is no date of publication, but rather the most recently updated date is January 29th, 2016. In this way, it is unclear whether or not the recent updated date means that the information is more accurate or that it is less accurate.
Because the source is limited to background information about the bacterium, I will likely use it solely to help me present the context of the controversy in the beginning of my QRG. Contextually, it will be essential for me to study this source to ensure that I understand everything about the controversy. Because it is about the bacterium, there are no stakeholders represented in the source.
Source 6
This source comes from USA Today's website, which is an extremely reliable source. The author of the article is Dan Vergano, who I have done research on in a previous blog post. His previous educational and professional history is extensive, and can be found by Google searching his name.
The article was published in February of 2013, which was quite a significant amount of time since the original controversy. Because of this, the information was likely less relevant at the time of publication. From this we can infer that the author was aiming to inform readers about the controversy post-mortem, which is perfect for my project.
In addition, this article offers images that I may end up referencing in my final project, as they depict the bacterium in ways that none of my other sources do. Also, I will likely use this source to obtain new additional as there are many hyperlinks throughout the article.
Source 7
This source is found on mbio.ncsu.edu, which is an academic and extremely reliable source. The publication is an interview with Felisa Wolfe-Simon, led by Elizabeth Pennisi. She has been an employee of Science since 1996, and has been identified as a distinguished writer and biologist throughout her career.
There is no date of publication cited in the document, but within the text it states that the original publication was posted three weeks prior to the time of the interview. Because of this, the information given in the source was likely very relevant and sought after, as it is the only interview I could find with Wolfe-Simon.
This source will prove to be essential to my project because it encompasses the major stakeholder's response to the controversy, and we are able to hear her own voice for the first and only time.
Source 8
This source is found on psu.edu, which means that it is a domain run by an academic institution and thus is a credible source. The author of the article is Carmen Drahl, an independent journalist. She has little career history, but her education level implies that she is a reliable source.
This article was posted in a "News of the Week" section on the psu website on December 8th, 2010. The article was posted in the midst of the unfolding controversy, which allows for more detailed information throughout.
The article not only provides information about the scandal itself, but also gives information from a scientific standpoint on the basics of the controversy. In addition, it represents minimally the stakeholders and mostly focuses on the science behind the data and the errors.
Source 9
Source 9 is found on USA Today's website, and is authored by Dan Vergano. Interestingly enough, this is the second of his works that I am using as a source for my project. As previously stated, Vergano is an accomplished journalist and scientist and a credible source.
The article was published in July of 2012, more than a year after the controversy began. This implies that, in terms of my topic, there was next to no new information coming in. However, as the title suggests, there is critical information about the topic presented.
Similarly to source 7, this source uses words directly from Felisa Wolfe-Simon's mouth to give us an idea of what our major stakeholder was thinking, and how her thoughts have changed since the beginning of her study.
Source 10
My final source comes from one of the largest stakeholders themselves; NASA. The text can be found on science.NASA.gov, and is therefore extremely credible and generally well-received.
Interestingly enough, the article is dated as the 2nd of December, 2010, which is the exact day that the original data was questioned within the science community. It can be inferred that the response from NASA was so immediate because they are major stakeholders in the situation, and thus do not want to lose credibility for mistakenly publishing inaccurate information.
This source will be essential to my project because it provides me with information from the other of the three major stakeholders, and thus allows readers to see the controversy from an insider's perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment