My Sources

What makes a source credible? Is it how it’s presented? Or perhaps who wrote the piece? We are here today to explore the variety of sources that will be used in my essay.

1.     This first article is published by PM or Popular Mechanics. This website explores all types of advancements and varying subjects of science. The source does (somewhat) limit its credibility, but that is only because it talks about the possibilities of things without ever mentioning any research on the subject. The author (Jay Bennett) has essentially no credibility other than that he is a writer for PM. This source came out in January 29, 2016. There weren’t any large events happening around this time other than the discovery of a new frog genus and an explosion in Istanbul. These should have no effect on this article. The fact that this article is so recent shows that it is a new development. The article discusses the numerous possibilities that CRISPR has in altering life. People who should be concerned with this are people with cancer, malaria, disease, and farmers. This article discusses the possibilities and really gives a general overview of what CRISPR can do. It will help me understand the matter more so that I can better discuss the controversy of the gene.

2.     The article was written by Gizmodo which is a fairly reliable cite. This cite discusses a lot of scientific innovations (much like PM). It is also very thorough in its evidence. This makes it more credible than an article entirely based on opinion. The author has, essentially, no credibility at all other than being a writer. However, she is very involved in writing scientific articles which does increase her knowledge in general science. The source came out in May 06, 2015. While this occurred during the legalization of same-sex marriage in Ireland and the removal of Cuba from the U.S.’s Terrorist list, there are no events that could influence this article. The article provides informative information on how the gene works. Although there are none specifically stated, the stakeholders include people with diseases and those interested in genetic modification to either treat a disease or “improve” their life. This article provides me with more information in order to better understand the controversy.

3.     The next source is from Kurzweil. Although the creator of the website is extremely credited an is currently the Director of Engineering at Google. That, and along with the contributors being PhD students at universities makes this source highly credible. One is a student at UC Berkley, one holds a PhD, and another is a co0founder of Accelerating Intelligence. The source came out in September 10, 2015. Other than the Pope visiting the U.S., there were no news stories that could have influenced this scientific article. The recent publication of the article makes the source current and modern. This article talks more about the controversies that CRIPSR holds. This involves newborns (who could be modified to prevent some disease) and people concerned with the morals of genetics, such as religious leaders and Christians alike. This article provides a lot of insight as to the controversies that follow with this scientific discovery.

4.     This article is published from the Los AngelesTimes and from an author named Deborah Netburn. The site is fairly credited, although it can certainly be bias. This reduces the credibility of the source. The author is also just an author for this website and writes for all departments. This also decreases the credibility of the source. The article was written on December 20, 2015. Syrian reporters were killed during this month and the attacks on France occurred the month before. Again, this most likely had no influence on the article. This publication provides a lot of information about the entire story of CRIPSR. The source talks about the scientists behind it, what the gene does, and the controversies at hand. With that being said, it discusses the ethical controversies. People involved with these conflicts include Christians, religious leader, political personnel, etc.

5.     The next article was published by a site called PRI. This company is a publisher of all sorts of media. The website appears to be slightly more biased in its writing, which may actually be beneficial for my project. However, there is little credibility in this source. The article was written by an author named Robert Boos who has no description of any credentials or any information about himself whatsoever. The story came out in May 14, 2015, which makes it a fairly recent story. Any events occurring around this date have already been discussed in this post. This article, unlike the others, discusses the potential harm that this could bring to society. It also includes an audio segment in which an individual is interviewed for the article. It discusses how the gene could actually cause more problems than anything else because it can be inaccurate (if not coded properly). The stakeholders are the same as discussed earlier in this blog post.

6.     The next publication is a video demonstrating how CRISPR works. This video was published by McGovern Institute for Brain Research by MIT. This source is extremely credible as it is one of the top engineering universities in the nation. The animations were created by Sputnik Animation, the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, and Justin Knight. All of these sources are extremely credible (although it is not known who Justin Knight is). The video was published in November 5, 2014. Although this about 14 months ago, CRISPR is still a current development. The only news events happening around this time were the legalization of same sex marriage in S. Carolina and marijuana in three states. None of these (likely) had any influence on the video. The video provides an in depth informative piece on how CRIPSR functions. This allows for me to further understand how the gene works and the possibilities it holds. There were no controversies discussed during this video (although the same stakeholders still stand).

World Economic Forum. "Life in 2030: Humankind and the Machine: Jennifer Doudna" 01/22/16 via Flickr.
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

7.     The next segment is a TED talk done by one of the cofounders of CRIPSR. TED talks can certainly be subjective, but this one is highly scientific and is extremely credible. The reason it is so reliable is because it is done by the UC Berkley scientist Dr. Doudna. The source was produced on November 12, 2015. This is the month in which the terrorist attacks on France occurred. Although this event most likely impacted various new stories, the attack most likely had no influence on the discussion of a CRIPSR. The TED talk goes in to detail as to how this gene/protein work and the potential that they hold (in terms of treating cancer and such). Dr. Doudna also discussed the controversial topics that follow with genetic engineering. There is possibility to modify human embryos and human genetics in general. This raises ethical concerns among a wide group of people. These people may include the average citizen, political leaders, farmers (genetic crops), and those with cancer or diseases.

8.     The next source that is important to this project is published by New England BioLabs Inc. This website is a very credible source as its only focus is on genomic research and it performs actual research in its lab (conducted by highly educated professionals). The article was written by four individuals who have their PhDs, making the source highly reliable. It was written in 2014 and gave no information as to what month it was produced in. Although there was no specific date mentioned, not many events surrounding the publication of this article would have influenced it (because it is so scientific). This article is purely informative of what CRISPR/Cas9 does on the cellular level. It also skims the possibilities that the genome has. The stakeholders for this article would mainly be researchers, doctors, and anyone interested in genetic engineering.

9.     Healthline provides a very informative article about the development of CRISPR. This website is fairly trustworthy because all of the articles it has are on medical issues and appear to be purely informative. The only thing that decreases their credibility is that there is no information on the author. This article was published on April 2, 2015. Although the death of Freddie Gray occurred during this month, there were no stories that could have influenced this scientific article. The article largely discusses the potential harm of CRISPR and the ethical questions it poses with designer babies. This article applies to the general population as well as Christians, political leaders, and people with diseases such as HIV.

10.  The last source is from The Guardian. This website can be objective as it contains hundreds of articles on science technologies and topics in an unbiased manner. However, it also contains seemingly biased articles on recent news topics and trending current events. The author is a journalist who is a freelance who specializes in science topics. Although this gives her some credibility, there is not much merit behind a freelance journalist who has no degree in the sciences. The article was published on May 10, 2015. Any relevant current events have been previously discussed and have no impact on this article. The main focus of this essay is the limiting factors of this protein in our body. Sure, it does have the possibility to cure just about any disease and treat any cancer, but is only has the possibility to do that. The genetic coding on the DNA must be extremely precise or the entire thing will be a fluke. Another problem with genome engineering in this case) is that the RNA will not only destroy DNA that has its exact coding but also any similar DNA strands. This could potentially give someone a disease and even kill them. The stakeholders for this article are similar to the others: political figures religious activists, and everyday citizens.