Analyzing Sources

After researching for what seemed to be an eternity, I have come up with ten of the best sources in the world, probably.

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.

Analysis of My Rhetorical Situation

Tengrrl. "Digital Rhetoric". 2/3/2016 vis Flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0.

Now that I've picked my topic, I am able to analyze my rhetorical situation.

Audience? 

Because the audience of my project will be those who would be interested in the controversy itself, it is likely that those who are interested in biology, microorganisms, or the possibility of extraterrestrial life will be interested in this project. Readers who enjoy publications from NASA,  Journals of Molecular Biology, BioEssays, Science, or any other science journal will also be interested. 

Demographically speaking, those who are more educated are more likely to care about the bacterium controversy. There are no other foreseeable demographic effects. 

People who value science, knowledge, or biology are likely to enjoy the topic. It is possible that these people do not enjoy uselessly using their technology, but would prefer to spend their time on the internet learning about new scientific developments. 

Purpose?

For myself, I want to learn something I don't know about biology. For my audience, I want to spark an interest in science. I want them to feel that science is important and relevant in coming up with new technologies and fascinating discoveries. 

Overall, I do not want to miss any details in explaining the relevance of the study and its errors to today's technology. I want to make sure that the audience understands the bias the key stakeholders had in the study, and the controversy surrounding it. The audience should understand the effect of the geographical location and time period of the controversy on the procedures carried out and actions taken by those involved.

Author?

I have recently experienced an epiphany in my life regarding the way I view learning and schoolwork. First, I now see the correlation between putting effort in to all aspects of my studies and the knowledge I gain from the course. In addition to understanding the concept, I have learned to appreciate working hard for the purpose of gaining knowledge. Because of this, I am excruciatingly excited and motivated to work on a project in which I am interested. 

Considering Genre

What genre am I going to use for Project 1?

I am committing to using the Quick Reference Guide as my genre for the controversy post-mortem. I am using the guide for this project because it is such a science-based topic, and therefore is going to be difficult to explain. With the QRG, I will be able to break down the parts of the controversy into small chunks to make it easier to understand.

What conventions will I be using and how?

I am aiming to acknowledge most, if not all, of the conventions for the quick reference guide, including but not limited to: subheadings, a title, images, links with citations, white space, question and answer format, and a brief introduction.

To accomplish the purpose of this project, I plan to break down the concepts and ideas into brief, easily-understandable and easily-readable sections. I plan to use external links to assist in my explanations and to provide more varied perspectives, and images to portray things not easily said.

How am I feeling about Project 1?

I am feeling much better about Project 1 after I have begun researching. I was initially considering doing the video essay for the first project, but I am happy to have found that the QRG will fit my topic better. I am also very excited to endeavor deeper into the world of science and to research a topic that I know almost nothing about.

I anticipate time management to be a huge issue for me next week, as I have had one hell of a time getting my assignments done this week. I will need to plan my time better, and space out the work over more than one or two days.

Cluster of Stakeholders

In my cluster of stakeholders, I used Coggle to define the major three stakeholders in the controversy with the three main branches. Next, I defined their specific stakes, opinions and biases using additional branches.

My cluster can be found here.

Evaluation of General Sources

I am excruciatingly excited to start my extensive research into the supposed arsenic-utilizing GFAJ-1 extremophile bacterium controversy. The premise of the controversy post-mortem is highlighted in this blog post from Discovery Magazine and in this article from USA Today.

URLs?

The URLs of the sources are as follows:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/12/10/arsenic-bacteria-a-post-mortem-a-review-and-some-navel-gazing/#.Vq10hFIfXu0

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/vergano/2013/02/01/arseniclife-peer-reviews-nasa/1883327/

Both URLs end in ".com", which means that the site is used by a business or a commercial enterprise. ".edu" means the domain is owned by an educational facility, ".org" is for non-commercial uses, ".gov" is governmentally owned, ".biz" by businesses, ".name" is used by individuals, ".info" are informational sites, and ".net" refers to networks.

In general, it is difficult to base the credibility of a source solely on its use of domains, but it is common for .org, .com, .edu and .info to be more credible than privately run sites.

Authors?

The author of the Discovery Magazine blog post is Ed Yong. By searching his name in Google, I was able to find that he is an award-winning science author with a myriad of impressive writing accomplishments.

The author of the USA Today article is Dan Vergano. I was able to find out about his educational and teaching histories through Google search.

Last Updated?

On Discovery Magazine, there is no "last updated" timestamp. Because of this, it is safe to assume that the information is not outdated from the time that it was posted.

The source contains many, many hyperlinks to outside sources including: related articles, the original publication, other blogs and posters discussing the topic, and many links to the authors and researchers involved in the study responding to the backlash. All of the links are working.

On the USA Today site, there is both the original posted date and the last updated date. Because of this, readers can be certain that the information is not outdated.

There are less links on this site than the first, but there are enough to provide readers with the necessary information. The links send us to similar articles, websites of institutions involved, and even a Youtube video. The links are all working; however, the Youtube video can no longer be played.

Purpose?

Both texts are trying to accomplish the same thing: to inform readers about the controversy revolved around the GFAJ-1 bacterium.

The first text utilizes a detailed timeline, links, and insider information to inform readers in the most holistic way possible. The post is largely informational, but the facts are presented in a manner that encourages readers to believe the most recent information.

The second text also serves to inform readers about the controversy. There is some bias in the article towards the new information, similarly to the blog post.

Graphics?

There are only two graphics in the Discovery Magazine blog post; one image of the geographical location of the bacterium, and a screenshot of a Twitter post. In my opinion, the graphics used are semi-irrelevant to the controversy as a whole and therefore do not serve a purpose other than being aesthetically pleasing.

USA Today's publication includes a time-lapsed video of the bacterium, an image of their location, and an image of the bacteria under a microscope. This source better utilizes their graphics, as they provide readers with relevant information not otherwise contained in the article.

Position on Subject?

Both sources understandably display moderate bias towards the newest released information. It appears that no one profits if readers believe the information portrayed, as they are disputing a scientific study with scientific reasoning and facts. It is extremely easy to verify the information in these sources with other sources.

Links?

As previously mentioned, both sources contain links to other, related sources. The links take us to credible sources, such as other online science magazines or other publications on the study.

Reddit and What I Found There

I didn't think it was humanly possible for me to love Reddit anymore than I did already, but in exploring forums related to biology and health I discovered fantastic new sources of information, discussions, and news. I spent a lot of time on the biology forum on Reddit, which is where I will be drawing my responses from.

Guo, David. "Reddit-logo". 1/30/2016 via Flickr. Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Generally, Reddit is a place for questions, discussions, reviews, complaints, music, links, articles, and many, many more resources. On the biology forum, most of the posts were external articles, open discussions, and specific questions. Similarly to the rest of Reddit, people share their ideas informally and the majority of posts spark debate from the community.

This post in particular struck my interest. As an undergrad biology student myself, I love to see someone I can relate to asking questions of the biology community on Reddit. Though the actual question itself is not as relevant, the responses and the discussion that ensues encompass the site's helpful and discussion-based environment. The way the responders and the original poster interact to problem solve is fascinating to me, and I am confident that Reddit possesses a wealth of information if used properly.

Secondly, I came across this article, linked from the biology forum. Again, I am not particularly interested in the specific topic of the article. What drew me in was the fact that Reddit, a community-based site, is a recipient of this kind of information.

To expound, errors in studies are not extremely common, especially in those that have been refined and confirmed as intensely as this one. In addition, I thoroughly enjoy when people are able to admit when they are wrong, especially in the science and health fields, as I believe that acknowledging errors in this context will lead to new, more correct information.

Overall, from experiencing Reddit, my views on people in the biology community did actually get altered. As previously mentioned, admitting you are wrong in the world of science is an admirable feat, and I would not expect that from the majority of humans. Also, I was glad to see that the forum was not entirely composed of professors and doctors, but also of students like myself seeking help or advice from those more knowledgeable than themselves.

Evaluation of News Magazine Stories

Both online magazines The Atlantic and The Week provide information about everything current and news worthy. In the cases of science and health, both sites provide enticing, debate-worthy topics, found here and here, respectively.

What are the debates? 

The article on The Atlantic discusses the use of psychedelics, such as psilocybin or LSD, to aid in beating a nicotine addiction. Though most of the article is made up of direct quotes from outside sources, it is a good source for essential background information on the topic. The article references Daniel Miller's publication in Newsweek, in which he tells first-hand how he overcame his nicotine addiction after using LSD.

The study started at Johns Hopkins University, and has spread around the world since then. According to the article, even the BBC has written an article on the study.

On the other hand, The Week reports on an unproven study that poor eating habits by ancestors may affect later generations' variety of stomach bacteria. In short, if our grandparents didn't eat enough fiber, it is possible that we have less forms of helpful bacteria in our digestive system, which can lead to health problems down the road.

A similar study on mice was conducted out of Stanford University and was lead by Erica Sonnenburg, a senior research scientist at the university. The study confirmed that a non-fibrois diet in older generations can indeed pass poor bacterial genes onto offspring.

Who are the most sympathetic people in the articles?

In the first article, it is extremely easy to relate to and sympathize with Daniel Miller, as he is quoted telling his own story about his overcoming of addiction. His story, and the fact that it is authored by himself, allows for readers to feel closer to the issue of addiction and relate to his feelings of relief upon quitting.

In the second article, it was more difficult to assign levels of sympathy to each of the characters. For no other reason other than the fact that she lead the study, it was most easy to relate to Erica Sonnenburg. By initiating an experiment on a topic otherwise nearly untouched, it is apparent that she is passionate about the topic, and thus evokes a sense of admiration for her determination.

Who are the least sympathetic people?

In article one, the author, Chris Bodenner, is the least relatable person by process of elimination. As previously mentioned, the majority of the article is direct, paragraph-long excerpts from other sources, with brief comments and opinions from Bodenner sporadically throughout.

In article 2, professor Kelly Swanson is the least relatable. Again, this is solely based on the process of elimination. Everyone loves a good professor of animal and nutritional sciences, but one comment from Swanson just isn't enough to relate to him in any significant way.