Gaige Wessling's Rhetoric Shtuff

Notes: Preferred News Sources Notes: ·          Ab: A little bit more about the context of the research would be nice. You talk about the significance but not about any surrounding research/ lit. review material. ·          Ab: Can’t say, ‘because ….,’ your study doesn’t focus on why younger generations are turning to social media more. Instead say that your study suggests younger generations may be… ·          Intro: both the concepts of Agenda Setting and politicians come up early, but don’t seem to play a role in the research. I would early try to take that out or clarify that it’s just an example. The way you introduce and explain agenda setting makes me think that’s what the paper is going to be about. ·          Intro: second paragraph feels like it’s all quote and no content. I’d minimize the use of quotes and try to just explain the findings in a more significant way yourself. ·          Intro: I think you could definitely expand on the lit. review portion. Talk ab

Collegiate Opinions on Prenatal Genetic Engineering and its Uses University of Iowa Abstract Many scientists have written, countered, and fought over the ethics behind genetic engineering, and what its implications would be. Over the last few years genetic engineering has taken leaps and bounds forward with the creation and study of the CRISPR technique, and will only continue to become more detrimental to the fields of medicine and biology in the years to come. With so much in store for the future of genetics, what do college students, future scientists and researchers, believe about this up and coming technology? Are college students as secular and scientifically progressive as we make them out to be? A short survey was formed in order to get the opinions of college students on genetic engineering, specifically prenatal. 39 participants were ultimately recorded, all of which took the survey anonymously online. The data showed that students’ opinions were extremel

Introduction                 In 2013, the scientific community was blown off its’ feet when they were introduced to a new biological process called clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, better known as CRISPR. CRISPR has the potential to turn the medical world on its’ head, as it offers the ability to search for, cut out, and replace specific genes from our DNA, potentially allowing us to destroy a variety of diseases by simply erasing them from our own gene sequences. This comes with one rather large hurdle, however. This kind of technology could allow gene manipulation, eugenics, and essentially human building possibilities. Are we has a population fit to ‘play god,’ with our own genes? What kind of ethical boundaries does this cross, if any?                 It’s generally believed by scientists that we could very well control genetic engineering technologies, like CRISPR, to make large bounds in the medical field. Even at this moment, CRISPR is currently be

S1. http://www.pitt.edu/~rqj1/wa3.pdf S2. https://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~jagadish/ethics_ge.pdf S3. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joel_Anderson5/publication/249147936_Jurgen_Habermas_The_Future_of_Human_Nature_translated_by_Hella_Beister_Max_Pensky_and_William_RehgThe_Future_of_Human_Nature/links/57ac449108ae42ba52b1f7f3/Jurgen-Habermas-The-Future-of-Human-Nature-translated-by-Hella-Beister-Max-Pensky-and-William-RehgThe-Future-of-Human-Nature.pdf S4. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.10101/full S5. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1471491415001562

Genetic Engineering Survey

1. Have you ever thought about, considered, or been interested in Genetic Engineering? y/n 2. Prenatal G.E. is the concept of using genetic manipulation in order to change traits of a baby while still an embryo in order to eliminate negative traits or add positive ones. Do you agree with this strategy? In other words, do you find it ethically acceptable? y/n 3. If your child had a negative genetic trait such as Autism, Crohn's, or Huntingtons, would you be willing to use genetic engineering to replace those genes? y/n 4. In the future, it could be very plausible for scientists to recognize genetic coding that could correlate to things such as depression or schizophrenia. In which case, would you be willing to use genetic engineering to correct this? y/n 5. Do you have any known genetic disorders, even repressed, that you know of? Or perhaps any that don't effect you but you know have effected past relatives like grandparents? This can even be things like

I'm hoping to do a experiment pertaining to political party prejudices and how people act based on preconceptions of not only parties, but those who explicitly identify as being supportive of one of the parties. In other words, how do act around those who are explicitly political vs. someone they see as neutral or indifferent? How do people respond, if at all, to those whose opinions can be presumed based on their party association? Is college truly as biased towards republicans as some suggest? The general plan is to go somewhere with lots of bystanders, say the pentacrest or the front of one of the bigger dorms. Once there, I'll stop people by and ask if they'd answer a few questions. I'd try to ask 15 guys and 15 girls. The goal is to approach each person in the exact same way, so as to limit outside variables. If they agree to answer questions, I'll ask them on their opinions over various topics that are heavily split along the party lines. During this, I'

I've got it down to three main topics, two of which deal with societal issues, and one with my future field and major. *Political Polarization: Does college draw people farther to the left or right then they already were? It'd be a survey studying how people felt about politics during high school and how they believe they fell in the political spectrum. Then I'd ask about how their beliefs and how they've changed over the last six months/year. *Party Association: How do people subconsciously feel about people related to the parties? I give a questionnaire about a few basic feelings about cultural issues like race, religion, and current events. However, I'd do a session of random street interviews three different times, each time dressed up in either republican/pro-trump clothes, democratic/pro-hillary clothes, and then in neutral, non political clothing. Although I'd record peoples answers, I'd also take notes on how they responded: were they hostile? De

1. As far as my own thoughts on my speech, I thought I did okay. I was a little bothered because I thought my first speech was a bit more comfortable and had better delivery than the second. Nonetheless, I thought I got all my info across clearly and concisely in a easy to follow manner. I just wish I could've delivered a bit yet. 2. As far as how I delivered, I think I could've been more engaged with the crowd. I had a good hook and what felt like good humor in the beginning, but then I got so wrapped up in trying to make sure that I got all of my info across that I stopped focusing on the crowd and how I was speaking. On top of that, I think I was a bit stiff, and got progressively more monotone through the presentation. 3. Really I think I need to stop worrying about memorizing certain points and patterns and just have guided thoughts. The more I try to give this completely planned out speech, the more I go monotone and fail to engage. I think if I really just try to foc