Today I wrote a paragraph and editted two.

My next session will be tomorrow afternoon. I will continue to write.

Exploratory Draft

Thesis Statement: Many will argue that embryonic stem cell and cloning research could cause overwhelming positive outcomes and should be pursued on federal/universal levels, but there is a point where scientific advancement can go too far and require a universal legislation to limit the extent of the advancements.

Science has many numerous advances that have changed our lives drastically. We have medicine to make us better when we are ill, vaccinations to prevent us from getting ill, and technology to simplify everything. Our realm of knowledge and advancements are constantly changing and much scientific advancement is at the point where they can change the world as we know it drastically. Over the past few years science has turned to researching the use of embryonic stem cells and cloning to serve as cures or corrections to medical ailments. At this current time there is no universal legislation limiting how far science is allowed to go, but there is a need for one.

Embryonic stem cell research and cloning are very controversial issues that challenge many ethical and religious views. In the United States, we as voters play a role in deciding how far science will federally be allowed to go by electing officials that side with us, and yet each state creates their own legislation to handle the topic. Nor, is there any good by just one country limiting the advancements because those interested in perfecting this technology will just move elsewhere, like Clonaid already did. To understand the need for such a universal limit, one needs to clearly understand the matters at hand clearly. The issues of embryonic stem cell research and human cloning are very complex and cannot be completely restricted or allowed to go one without restrictions.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research is a rather new technology that can use embryonic stem cells to repair almost any part of the human body. Since the stem cell is not specified just to the brain or lungs it can be used to treat many health problems, such as: AIDS, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, heart disease and more. But the controversy comes from how an embryonic stem cell is retrieved; to use the stem cell the embryo is destroyed. Rather that is right or wrong depends on when one considers life to begin. In the United States researches can only use already existing stem cell for research; they are not allowed to harvest new ones. Researchers argue that this restriction is drastically hindering the advancements they can make and possible cures they can find.

Cloning is a bit more complicated. There are three different types of cloning: tissue, organ, and human. The difference between the three is the end result, tissue cloning produces tissues, organ cloning produces organs, and human cloning produces a human embryo or a copy of a human, and is the most controversial. Within the types of cloning there are different types, there are two ways to achieve a tissue or organ clone, depending on the way used determines if it is considered ethical, by most. But, for the sake of this argument, human cloning will be the focus.

Human cloning is still considered a sci-fi fantasy to most, but the truth is that there are those in pursuit of making a human clone, and becoming closer and closer to achieving their goal. Some have issue with the idea of human cloning because of religious beliefs, they feel that creating a human clone is trying to play God, but that is not a universal valid argument against cloning. To encourage a universal ban on cloning it needs to be shown that it violates universal ethics and could drastically damage human life. In order to do this many take the approach of thinking of the clones. If clones are created, what problems will occur with them and non-cloned humans?

Summary of Peer Evaluation

Overall,peer editting gave me rather positive feedback. I was given the advice to use more quotations in my annotations, I only had a quotation in one. For my introduction I am going to try and find a nay sayer, and I forgot to have my sources in alphabetical order, so I am going to do that in revising, as well.

Annotated Bibliography

Types
Cui, ke-Hui (2005). Three Concepts of Cloning in Human Beings. Reproducitve BioMedicine Online, 16-17. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from Academic Search Complete.

This source gives readers information on three different types of cloning: tissue, organ, and human cloning. Cui encourages the use of tissue and organ cloning for the future, but implies the human cloning will completely change the human race. This article will help in my research because it seperates the different types of cloning and breaks down what he percieves as being ethical.

Laws and Restrictions
Koutnik-Fotopoulos, Eileen (2007). The Stem Cell Debate: What Does the the Future Hold?. Pharmacy Times, 105-106. Retrieved October 31, 2007, from Academic Search Complete.

This source informs readers of the current legislation on stem cell research and how each state can individually fund research under their own jurisdiction. The article also makes a clear arguement that stem cell research is not going to be stopped by any means because of the many medical cures it could offer. The Stem Cell Debate is significant to my research because it is a strong advancement in science that is very controversal. Stem Cell Research can either be thought of as a wonderful effort or, a terrible experiment. I want to get the views of Americans to see if there should be a limit on science, and it seems, from this article, that most Americans are in support of stem cell research.

Public Opinion
Nisbet, Matthew C (2004). The Polls--Trends: Public Opinion About Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), p131-154. Retrieved November 5, 2007 from Communication & Mass Media Complete.


--------------------------------------------------

Dinc, Leyla (May 2003). Ethical issues regarding human cloning: a nursing perspective.
Nursing Ethics, 10(3). Retrieved on October 31, 2007 from Academic Search Complete.

Rai, Balwant, Dhattarwal, S. K.., Kharb, Deepa, Jain, Rajnish, Kharb, Latika, Kharb, Simmi, &
Anand, S. C. (2007). Human Clone: Who Is Related To Whom. Internet Journal of Law,
Healthcare & Ethics, 4(2). Retrieved November 1, 2007 from Academic Search
Complete.

Annas, George J., Andrews, Lori B., & Isasi, Rosario M. (2002). Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 28(2/3). Retrieved November 1, 2007 from Academic Search Complete.

Should the United States limit scientific advances?

Primary Sources (first-hand research): I plan on interviewing my past physics teacher,who has a PhD in science and has worked in many major scientific advances in Russia. I will ask him questions such as:
-what could the downside be of cloning, stem cell, and A.I.?
-how close do you believe we are to achieving any of the above to their fullest?
-what are potential positives of stem cell, cloning, and A.I.?
-do you think there should be a limit set on how far science can advance?
-what limits are already set?
Secondary Sources: I will examine the laws already in place in the U.S. that limit scientfic advances, examine what progress has already been made in cloning, stem cell, A.I., examine the counter arguements and what groups oppose or support scientific advances.

Roles for Research

Should the United States limit scientific advances? Advocate in a Controversy

What is the current view of experts on scientifc advances, such as A.I., stem cell, and cloning? Synthesizer of Current Best Thinking on a Problem

What are the current arguements for and agaisnt cloning, stem cell, and A.I.? Reviewer of a Controversy

Progress Report

What I have learned so far...
There is a lot of information regarding cloning and stem cell, but most opinions on it are either fully for it or fully against it. Some of the information is very technical, too far over my head, and others are a little to basic as to what is exactly being done in the process of cloning or stem cell.

What do I still need/want to know as I shift to library research?
I really want to know the threats that cloning, stem cell, and A.I. pose to the world. I might have to take a more philosophical/ethnical approach. I still need to get a better grasp on the details of the science.

Possible Links

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/007120.htm

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/classes/biology/bio610/bernstein/PDFS/Dr.Ryder/Trends_in_Biotech_cloning.pdf

http://www.aaai.org/AITopics/html/overview.html

Key Research Terms

stem cell
cloning
Artificial Intelligence
stem cell controversy
genetics
cryobiology
cognitive science
transhuman

For a possible interview, I will contact my old physics teacher, Dr. Baron, who was a scientist and worked in Russia on many different projects.

Plans for Research Paper

Plans to Do:

Audience: voters, college students

Purpose: Inform people of the progress science is making or is close to making, and future goals that want to be achieved. I want to illustrate a world that would have no limits on scientific advances and show how severly life could change. I will also argue that it is possible for science to go too far and that limits need to be set to protect life and ethics and that it is possible that we have already gone too far.

Refining Research Topic: Scientific Advances

Would the benefits of scientific advances, outweigh the possible shortcomings?

Is it moral to clone, create A.I., and/or use stem cell?

How far should scientific advances be allowed to go before a limit should be set, have we already past that line, or is there no need for a limit?

How necessary are all the scientific advances we are trying to make? Are the advantages worth pursuing? (cloning, A.I., Stem Cell)

How should the advances be used, should we be able to create clones, A.I., etc. and not use them fully or should we mainstream all scientific break throughs?

What negative effects could stem from scientific advances? (Matrix theory, robots taking over, play God, etc.)

What are the advantages of having unlimited scientific resources? (no limit on scientific advances)

Possible Research Topics

Part I: Exploration
1. Identify the issue or problem that you plan to focus on in your research project.
Scientific advances, When should we draw a line on how far science can go, are we already past were the line should be drawn, should there not even be a limit?

2. What is your personal connection to and interest in this topic?
I'm in philosphy and a lot of examples that we use in class deal with how far science can go. I have my own personal beliefs, but I notice that the more I learn about the topic, the harder it is to actually form an opionin or it becomes a lot easier to.

3. What opinions do you already hold about this topic?
I think we need to have a limit on how far science can go in certain areas, and that our advances in science should be looked at carefully before we allow them to be used massively.

4. What knowledge do you already have about this topic. What are your main questions about this topic? What are you most curious about?
I know basics about it, but not a lot of details. I'll probaly focus on cloning, AI, and possibly stem cell.

Works Cited

MLA: arts/humanity/philosophy
APA: ethical/social science
CBE: Bio/Nat Science

Cawthon, W. S. (2007). Hidden Benefits and Unintended Consquences of No Child Left Behind Policies for Students Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 460-492. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/44/3/460


Goodwin, B. (2003). Digging Deeper: Where Does the Public Stand on Standards-based Education?. Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning Issue Briefs, 1-7. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://sif.edreform.net/download/98/C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Larry%20Fruth/Desktop/SIF%20CoP%20Development_files/Tool%20Resources/SBE/MCREL%20Public%20and%20SBE.pdf


Hanushek, E and Raymond, M. (2003, Summer). High-Stakes Research. Education Next. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3347781.html


Ryan J. E. (2004). The Preverse Incentives of The No Child Left Behind Act. Law Review, 79, 932-989. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from
http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/vol79/no3/NYU303.pdf



Uzzell A. L. (2005). No Child Left Behind: The Dangers of Centralized Education Policy. Policy Analysis, 544, 1-28. Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa544.pdf

What the public says about what they say

In his article, "Digging Deeper: Where Does the Public Stand on Standards-based Education?", Bryan Goodwin discusses how the No Child Left Behind Act does not meet all the needs communities would like the see in public schools. He discusses his point through research done by McREL to see what the public is saying about what the policymakers are doing. According to NCLB, "schools must demonstrate that 100 percent of their students test at proficient levels on statewid assessments by 2013-2014" (Goodwin 1).
Goodwin addresses that there are commonly two views on the NCLB, either that it will force schools to take all students seriously and be a positive effect or that it is unrealistic and could lead to tons of state takeovers and closures of public schools. But Goodwin argues that both these opinions come from the "theys", the policy makers and school officials, not the parents, communities or students.
Through the research, it was found that majority of communitiy members agree with the basic outline of the NCLB, there should be standards and accountability. And they even agree that the best way to test these are through test, but they don't think it should stop there. Communities have a slightly different take on accountability then state officials. Communties believe that schools being more responsive and open to parents and communities is also a large part of accountability, everything should not be geared towards the officials.
The biggest problem communities see with public schools have little to do with the standards and academics but more with community involvemnet, student safety and values. As Goodwin sites, a concerned community member said, "We have to figure out how to get the communitiy involved. Students need to know people care about them...education is the responsibilty of not just schools, but the entire community" (6).
Goodwin concludes his points by agreeing that NCLB supports what the public wants, but does not meet all the needs.

NCLB links

http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawreview/issues/vol79/no3/NYU303.pdf

http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3347781.html

http://sif.edreform.net/download/98/C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Larry%20Fruth/Desktop/SIF%20CoP%20Development_files/Tool%20Resources/SBE/MCREL%20Public%20and%20SBE.pdf

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa544.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.pdf

http://aer.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/44/3/460

Deviants vs. Gamers

Computers are becoming more relevant in classrooms and life everyday, in Ohmann's and Shaffer's et al. articles, it is expressed that computers will alter the way students learn, but they disagree on whether it will boost or decrease educational value. There is no question on whether or not computers will change education and the way we learn, the question is whether it will help or damage the educational system.
In the articles, "Computers and Technology" by Ohmann and "Video Games and the Future of Learning" by Shaffer et al. the advantages of using technology are highlighted, but Ohmann exposes that the positive media portrayal isn't always accurate. It is described by Business Weekly that a New Jersey school “went from failure…to the highest scores…partly by becoming ‘one of the most wired’ urban school districts in the U.S” (Ohmann 2). But, if readers look at the footnote they quickly realize that a lot of other efforts were made in improving the school, not just computers, like portrayed. In other words, it isn’t just as easy as adding a computer for every five students that will boost education, school budgets, teacher training, and the arrangement of the school day also plays a large role.
On the other hand, Shaffer et al. seem to believe that technology will have a positive effect that won’t be fabricated by the media. They propose the idea of having video games based on the theories of learning that will allow students to “inhabit roles otherwise inaccessible to them” (Shaffer et al. 3). For instance, educational games would allow students to develop several skills, like: situated understanding, effective social practices, powerful identities, and shared values. Students would be able to explore virtual worlds and learn hands on in a sense. The virtual worlds would not be about memorizing definitions and facts, but about applying facts and definitions in the ‘real world’. Video games would help students learn, as Shaffer et al. suggests, “by doing something as part of a larger community of people who share common goals and ways of achieving those goals” (Shaffer et al. 5).
But, Ohmann claims that the priority of technological learning isn’t to increase educational value, but to increase capital in the world of economics, Ohmann uses colleges as an example, saying that computers have always come before they are exactly deemed useful. “Think about it: do any of you on college faculties…identified a curricular or pedagogical need, then realized…we could use computers to do that; let’s ask the president for some?” (Ohmann 3). The start of technology in classrooms came from the markets for profit, not from teachers for the betterment of learning, education has become a business. It has also taken away the prestige in many educational triumphs, by making it easier for students to plagiarize and “multitask their way though their M.B.A’s” (Ohmann 3).
Regardless of the outcomes, technology has already become a permanent fixture in the classroom. Ohmann can even find some positive in that, “it eases some work that we choose to do; enables some to do work they could not otherwise do at all…facilitates some kinds of libratory teaching; helps troublemakers organize against the WTO, GATT…lets deviants and subversives like us circulate counter propaganda fast; and so on” (Ohmann 5). For Shaffer et al, there is no question to the benefits and virtually no down side. The believe that technology will serve as a, “fundamentally grounded in meaningful activity and well aligned with the core skills, habits, and understanding of a postindustrial society” (Shaffer et al 8). It all depends on how the technology is going to be used that will determine the benefits in the world of academia.

Plan for Synthesis

Computers are becoming more relevant in classrooms and life everyday, in Ohmann's and Shaffer's articles, it is expressed that computers will alter the way students learn and the value of education.

Positives of Computers:

-increase in volunteerism and parent involvement (Ohmann)

-New Jersey school goes from failing to highest scores on state test (Ohmann)

-allow players in inhabit previously inaccessible roles (Shaffer)

-explore new identities (Shaffer)

-Madison 2200- urban ecology (Shaffer 8)

-Corporations profit (Ohmann)

Negatives of Computers:

-profibility uncertain/ educational results more uncertain (Ohmann)

-students tune out professors (Ohmann)

-multitask way through M.B.A. (Ohmann)

-computers there in large numbers but not well intergrated into classrooms (Ohmann 3)

-not all schools, students, parents know what to do with them (Shaffer 10)

-money going to computers (Ohmann)

-plagerism made easier (Ohmann)

Struggles:

-how to shape learning based on games and intergarate game based learning in schools (Shaffer 10).

Uses of Computers:

-email, record keeping, preparation of material, BUT not for planning (Ohmann 3)

-prepare for standardized test (Ohmann 3)

-social practicies [Sims Online] (Shaffer 4)

-become critical consumers of information (Shaffer 4)

-learn by doing (Shaffer 7)

-develop ways of thinking like lawyers, doctores, etc. (Shaffer 7-8)

-

Wired Schools Sparking Education

A revolution is beginning, as stated in Richard Ohmann's article, Computers and Technology. Schools are becoming more "wired" by depending on computers to boost the qualitiy of education in schools. In Colorado Springs, Roosevelt-Edison Charter School gave every student a computer in their home and volunterism and parent involvement soared. Another success story Ohmann mentions is a failing inner city school suppling all students with granted lab tops for classes and then becoming one of the highest testing schools for inner cities. But, besides mentioning the a few success stories, Ohmann's main point of this article is to shed light on the not so outstanding effects of computers and technological based education. "Thirty percent of college courses had websites a year a year and a half ago, and sixty percent used e-mail "as a tool for instruction", but only 14 percent of the administrators surveyed on this subject held that, "technology has improved instruction on mt campus" (Ohmann 2). That is less than half that found technology useful. Ohmann fears that too many schools are putting too great an emphasis on technology and computers and not enough on what exactly is being done with the computers, and instead of boosting educational value they are aiding in the diminsh of value in education.

I see both sides of the arguement, I believe that if used in moderation, technology can be very useful. By calling it a "revolution", I don't think they mean technology in moderation. But by going full out and suppling students with lab tops, the teacher gets zoned out because the students have access to just about anything at their finger tips. If used correctly technology can aide greatly, it can give easier research material, decrease the hassel of flipping through pages or even going to the library, but restrictions have to be set and the use in a school setting moniterd. There are educational sites that allow you to watch videos explaining complex functions of Earth or CD-roms that demonstrate the eruption of a volcanoes or the geo cycle. So if used correctly, technology can boost education, but if used constantly without diversity it will just give the temptation to play games instead of take notes on lectures.

Fast Food Companies Pulling a Fast One

In David Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater" he argues that sueing fast food companies, may not be as rediculous as it is first percieved. He examines the circumstances surrounding the kids that eaten fast food to such an excess that they are obese and at health risks. It is mentioned that it is much easier to drive down any highway in America and find a fast food company then it is to find an affordable, quick healthy meal, or even a place to buy fruit. By explaining his own personal weakness with fast food, Zinczenko has a rather bias opinion when it comes to this topic. There are many healthier food options available, and claiming that you didn't know the nutritious facts is not a reasonable excuse to eatting fast food. Common sense tells a person that a greasy, quick meal is not as healthy as an apple, or fruit salad. There are many stores that sell all foods in bulk, take the time you would spend in the lunch line at Mc Donalds and go to the store and buy soups, fruit, vegatables, rise, etc. It just takes a little extra searching then looking for the golden arches.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In "Don't Blame the Eater", David Zinczenko declares that fast food corporations should take responsibility for the obesity of their customers. He says that the restaurants don't probaly display the nutrional facts of the menu items and lead many customers astray by breaking their salads into pieces and serving a two and half serving dressing package. Though nutrional facts should be clearly displayed and easily understood for all customers, can you completely blame a fast food company for causing your obesity? What did you expect to happen when you dined on McDonalds, Burger King, and Taco Bell for all three meals of a day, that you would lose weight? Many factors go into making a person obese, not just stuffing their faces with greasy food. The companies are doing what any company would do, trying to make a profit. No matter how unhealthy their food is they aren't forcing you to eat there, maybe the consumer should take responsibility for themselves.

What they say about my safe place

http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ (A Safe Place)

In, A Safe Place, the writer opens with explaining where she got the idea from the topic from and addresses common initial reactions. She shortly states that at first the idea seems strange and shouldn't be taken seriously. Then she takes you through her thought process of it and offers some information that was cited in the first article about the guided imagery helping hospital patients to recover. The writer also explains connections between the mind and body very briefly.

In the next paragraphs she strays from the "they say" and describes her attempt at guided imagery. She explains her frustration with not being able to just let her mind relax and wonder.

At the very end of the passage she simply states that it, "Makes me smile and relax just writing about it."