Project 1

Project 1 - Defining Moments

For this project you may work in a group of at most three people and turn in one per group, or you may work alone. Sometimes when we consult books and journals, and rethink a topic using ideas from other sources to help us, we become even more interested in the topic. Other times we realize that the topic is not as interesting as we initially thought. Choose one of your group member's topics from the Library Research Part 1 reflection.

your group members' own words

a summary of the material
reasons for its inclusion
an evaluation of the source, including how current it is
a discussion of the credibility of the author(s) (empirical in presenting the thesis, good credentials, biased in any way)?

The bibliography and annotations must be in a scholarly and consistent format and style of writing, and you will be graded on the depth and clarity of your annotations. Include six, seven, or eight total sources, with

at least two sources that are found in the library but not online
at least two scholarly journal articles
at least two web pages
at least one controversial source where you summarize the controversy.
Since you will need to conduct additional research, such as looking up the credentials of the author, searching for other opinions on your sources, etc, list any other references within your annotations.
Here is a sample annotation, although your formatting and style may differ:
[1] Fricker, Lloyd. Cloning of the Zucchini Opiate Receptor (2001). Annals of Improbable Research. Vol 7. Issue 5. Sep/Oct. pp. 4-7. Also available on the following website: http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i5/zucchini.html.
1. Summary:
  This article summarizes a zucchini cloning experiment and examines pain and jumping reflexes. Materials and methods, results and discussion, acknowledgments, and cited literature are included.
2. Reasons for its inclusion:
  The idea of cloning zucchini seemed interesting and it relates to the human cloning topic. In addition, after reading the article and conducting additional research on it, I thought it would provide some interesting points as a model for your projects.
3. Evaluation of the source, including how current it is:
  The Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) is a journal/magazine that appears in print and online. AIR publishes genuine research that has already appeared in scientific journals, original research, and "some concoctions" [Marc Abrahams, editor. Improbable Research. Website: http://improbable.com/about/]. It is not a scholarly journal. For this issue, the editors remark that: The features marked with a star (*) are based entirely on material taken straight from standard research (and other Official and Therefore Always Correct) literature. Many of the other articles are genuine, too, but we don't know which ones [Marc Abrahams, editor. Annals of Improbable Research Table of Contents for Volume 7, Issue 5, Sep/Oct 2001. Website: http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i5/v7i5-toc.html]. Hence this is a non-scholarly journal/magazine source, with some works of fiction in addition to series scientific articles. This article dates to 2001, so it seems relatively current, but the acknowledgments section of the journal article indicates that the paper was originally presented as a poster at the Society for Neuroscience meeting in 1985.
4. Discussion of the credibility of the author(s) (empirical in presenting the thesis, good credentials, biased in any way):
  The author is credible. Dr. Fricker is a professor at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the departments of molecular pharmacology and neuroscience [Einstein Faculty Profile for Lloyd D. Fricker, Ph.D. (2007). Website: http://www.einstein.yu.edu/home/faculty/profile.asp?id=3930]. A PubMed database search shows 117 scholarly articles, but does not include this article. The author is empirical in presenting the experiment, and if it were not for the discussion of the jumping reflex of Mr. Potato Head and other semi-humorous phrases, discussions and pictures, then I would have thought that it was a serious scientific article. However, the author lists the motivation for undertaking the cloning in the introduction to the article, and the logic is faulty:
  1) Opiate receptors are important.
  2) Cloning things is important.
  3) Therefore, cloning the opiate receptor must be very important.
5. At least one controversial source:
  The author uses humor to highlight the controveries of human cloning and painful testing among animals, but I would not use this article for my controversial source. Instead, a source like Clonaid would make for a much better controversial source, since it is described as Founded by a gentleman (or, perhaps more accurately, an entity) named Rael, who is head of the Raelian religion, which is based in Montreal, and which discovered that aliens from outer space brought DNA to the earth... this remarkable organization is offering to fund anyone who will seriously engage in human cloning on the website http://improbable.com/airchives/miniair/twentieth-century/MINI9809.