“Specific Page Title or Article Title”  Ex: “Twilight: A negative influence on teens or just harmless fun?”	Genetic Engineering and Its Disadvantages
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc) Ex: POV	POV
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )  Ex: CBC News	Bright Hub
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given) Ex: CBC	Bright Hub
Date Page was Last Revised Ex: 10 September 2010	05/31/2011
Date You Read It Ex: 21 January 2012	2/15/2012
<URL address> (ALL of it) Ex: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/09/twilight-is-a-negative-influence-on-teens-or-just-harmless-fun.html>	http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/118757.aspx

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded): EX: The article cites Maria Nikolajeva, a professor of at Cambridge, as saying that Bella does not "in any way promote independent thinking or personal development" in women, instead portraying a woman "meek and willing to do anything for her vampire boyfriend" (POV).

The author believes that genetic engineering has "the potential to find effective therapies for diseases such as Alzheimer’s and in regenerative medicine."

The author admits that genetic engineering makes crops stronger but "may actually disturb the delicate balance of biodiversity which exists in nature."

The author believes that "This will result in destruction of economies based on these products."

The author also believes in the "ethical and moral objections which religion has to these techniques."

The author believes in a twisted future in which "perfect human specimens who are better than the creators than this may be disastrous."

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION): 
This site was intended to inform people about the negative affects of genetic engineering. The author clearly lists the disadvanteges that range from logical issues to ethics ones. The purpose of this site is to inform people of the dangers of genetic engineering. 


Credibility of Source: 
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site? 
The author is anonymous, but the article was reviewed by Irohner. The author may or not be credible , it is impossible to determine for sure.


Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business? 
The article is purely informative.


Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing? 
There is a clear bias because the author does not reference the advantages of genetic engineering.


References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility? 
The author does site references which makes his argument much stronger. The author also uses clear facts and logic.


Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?
I will use this source for its information on the disadvantages of genetic engineering.

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”  Ex: “Twilight: A negative influence on teens or just harmless fun?”	Are You Aware of How Genetic Engineering Disadvantages Your Household
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc) Ex: POV	POV
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )  Ex: CBC News	Genetic Engineered Food News
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given) Ex: CBC	Genetic Engineered Food News
Date Page was Last Revised Ex: 10 September 2010	8/24/2006
Date You Read It Ex: 21 January 2012	2/15/2012
<URL address> (ALL of it) Ex: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/09/twilight-is-a-negative-influence-on-teens-or-just-harmless-fun.html>	http://geneticallyengineeredfoodnews.com/genetic-engineering-disadvantages

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded): EX: The article cites Maria Nikolajeva, a professor of at Cambridge, as saying that Bella does not "in any way promote independent thinking or personal development" in women, instead portraying a woman "meek and willing to do anything for her vampire boyfriend" (POV).

The author believes that genetic engineering is trivialized and, "When they write about these dangers, they write it as if these are small facts which need to be ignored and that it would be better to focus on the bigger picture."

An example the author uses to support his case is "Cows that are injected with rBST, a hormone that increases milk production, produce milk that can actually be a reason for cancer formation in humans."

Another example the author uses is that "Transgenic crops that are used for food production may cause serious health problems in the future such as antibiotic resistance and allergy formation in otherwise healthy individuals."

The author is a pessimistic about the future and believes that "years from now, the problem may be such that it can no longer be controlled."

The author questions the ethically side of this issue by saying, "Nature has already provided the earth with a system by which all things should exist."

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION): 
This site has no author but was written for a specific audience. The author only focus on the disadvantages of genetic engineering, in food, humans, and in crops. The author also brings up both a logical and an ethical issue about genetic engineering. 


Credibility of Source: 
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site? 
This site does not seem credible at all. There is no author or very many sponsors. There are also many adds on the page. The site however does seem to want to get people to recognize the disadvantages of genetic engineering.


Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business? 
There is no other reason to write this article but to inform those interested of the negative affects of genetic engineering.


Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing? 
There is a very clear bias. The author only address the disadvantages of genetic engineering and does not consider any of the advantages. The argument is very one sided.


References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility? 
There are no references or studies stated which weakens the argument of the author; however, the author does use very logical examples.


Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?
Ill uses this source as a source of disadvantages of genetic engineering.

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”  Ex: “Twilight: A negative influence on teens or just harmless fun?”	Purposeful, Targeted Genetic Engineering in Immune System Evolution
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc) Ex: POV	James A. Shapiro
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )  Ex: CBC News	Huffington Post
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given) Ex: CBC	HuffingtonPost
Date Page was Last Revised Ex: 10 September 2010	2/6/2012
Date You Read It Ex: 21 January 2012	2/8/2012
<URL address> (ALL of it) Ex: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/09/twilight-is-a-negative-influence-on-teens-or-just-harmless-fun.html>	http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-a-shapiro/genetic-engineering-immune-system-evolution_b_1255771.html

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded): EX: The article cites Maria Nikolajeva, a professor of at Cambridge, as saying that Bella does not "in any way promote independent thinking or personal development" in women, instead portraying a woman "meek and willing to do anything for her vampire boyfriend" (POV).

Cell engineering, " illustrates how an evolutionary process works within the human body."

Scientists believe they have, "produced a system that engineers DNA with a specific purpose."

Shapiro explains the exact method of inserting DNA by saying, "Precise targeting of DNA cutting to variable region-coding segments allows the basic antibody structure to stay the same."

Genetic engineering in humans is, "targeted changes to cellular DNA."

One of the biggest questions for genetic engineers is, "How do cells with finite DNA, and finite coding capacity, produce a virtually infinite variety of antibodies?"

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION): 


The main idea of this article is how genetic engineering can affect the immune system in a positive way. This site only talks about the advantages and none of the disadvantages of genetic engineering. This site focuses mainly on how advances in technology and the understanding of DNA can help humans artificially strengthen the immune system


Credibility of Source: 
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?


The author is James Shapiro. He is a professor at the University of Chicago in micro biology. He seems very qualified to write about this topic.


Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business? 


The author probably gained more recognition in his specific field for writing this article.


Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing? 


There is clearly a bias because the author only talks about the advantages. The article is supposed to be more informative than opinioned


References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility? 


The author does not cite any references which only slightly weakens his argument. He is a very credible source and his article is more argumentative.


Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project? 


I will use this source as a very credible source because it was written by a professor and on the Huffington Post

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”  Ex: “Twilight: A negative influence on teens or just harmless fun?”	Advantages and Disadvantatges of Genetic Engineering
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc) Ex: POV	Makyol
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )  Ex: CBC News	HubPages
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given) Ex: CBC	HubPages
Date Page was Last Revised Ex: 10 September 2010	1/23/10
Date You Read It Ex: 21 January 2012	2/8/12
<URL address> (ALL of it) Ex: < http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/09/twilight-is-a-negative-influence-on-teens-or-just-harmless-fun.html>	http://makyol.hubpages.com/hub/Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-Genetic-Engineering-Clonnig

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded): EX: The article cites Maria Nikolajeva, a professor of at Cambridge, as saying that Bella does not "in any way promote independent thinking or personal development" in women, instead portraying a woman "meek and willing to do anything for her vampire boyfriend" (POV).

Makyol claims that," thanks to the genetic engineering, now, new ways of treatments for some diseases like cancer, Alzheimer can be found."

Makyol says that a disadvantage of human cloning is, "discrimination between clones and others."

Makyol claims that because clones will be "better" than humans, "human life will be devalued."

Even with all the disadvantages, Makyol thinks that the, "development of genetic engineering-cloning."

Makyol says that another disadvantage to cloning is that, "all features of one will be cloned," including all of the bad ones.

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):

This site mentions the advantages and disadvantages of cloning. Makyol gives good reasons claimed by both sides but states his opinion that genetic engineering is vital to the future of the human race. There were no official studies stated in the article so it is very hard to believe.

Credibility of Source:
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site?

The authors last name is not given and none of his credentials are stated in the article. He or She is most likely just an average journalist.

Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business?

The article is simply informative. I believe the author just wants to get his opinion out into the world.

Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing?

There is only a slight bias. Although the author mentions both the disadvantages and advantages he clearly states that he is for genetic cloning

References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility?

The author does not refrence any studies or quote any people which severly weakens his arguement.

Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project?

I will use this source for its quotes and as a credible sources because it states botht the advantages and disadvanteges of genetic cloning

Research Source Log for Online Source

“Specific Page Title or Article Title”  Ex: “Twilight: A negative influence on teens or just harmless fun?”	Effects of Genetic Engineering
Primary Contributor to the Website (if given) (author, editor, producer, etc) Ex: POV	Jerry McPhersson
Title of the Entire Website (not www. )  Ex: CBC News	Disabled World Towards Tomorrow
Publisher or Sponsoring Organization of the website (if given) Ex: CBC	Disabilities news
Date Page was Last Revised Ex: 10 September 2010	8/24/08
Date You Read It Ex: 21 January 2012	02/01/12
<URL address> (ALL of it) Ex: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/pointofview/2010/09/twilight-is-a-negative-influence-on-teens-or-just-harmless-fun.html>	http://www.disabled-world.com/artman/publish/genetic-engineering.shtml

FIVE FACTS FROM THE SOURCE (Embedded): EX: The article cites Maria Nikolajeva, a professor of at Cambridge, as saying that Bella does not "in any way promote independent thinking or personal development" in women, instead portraying a woman "meek and willing to do anything for her vampire boyfriend" (POV).

Jerry McPhersson says that "Through genetic engineering, people could maintain their lifestyles without the threat of AIDS and cancer." This shows the positive aspects of genetic engineering and how in the future it can be used to cure cancer and aids.

Proponents of Jerry McPhersson say that "people fear that it is "playing God" and trying to "program" a human being. This is one of the biggest counter arguments to genetic engineering. By producing something completely man made strikes fear into the devoted followers of religions.

Genetic engineering isn't just used for medical reasons, claims Jerry; It is alo has "application to genetically modified plants and animals." This shows another positive aspect of genetic engineering. It can be used to created a super plant , immune to droughts and may someday lead to the end of world hunger.

Jerry addresses the counter point by saying there is a "possibility of causing an imbalance in the ecology of a region." This gives Jerry's argument more credibility and makes his argument seem unbiased.

Jerry claims that the most terrifying part of genetic engineering is the fact that "Terrorist groups or armies could develop more powerful biological weaponry." This is one of the major drawbacks of genetic engineering.

Summary of Source (Three-Four Sentences of the Who, What, Where, Why, and How in your own words. NO OPINION):
This source address the advantages and disadvantages of genetic engineering. Jerry McPhersson tries to address both issues equally but it is clear that he is pro genetic engineering. The Author does not use hard facts to support his case but just broad general statements.


Credibility of Source: 
Author or Site: Who is the author? What training have they had? If there is no author, examine the site. What is the purpose of the site? Who funds the site? 
Jerry McPhersson is just an average newspaper journalist. This article was meant to inform the people about genetic engineering. This site is funded by Disabled World.


Attachment: Does the author or site have anything to gain from writing this, or is it simply informative? For example, is it a cigarette business posting an article about the benefit of cigarettes, or is it a scientific community unaffiliated with the cigarette business? 
It is simply an informative site.


Bias: Do you detect a bias (a favoring of either side) in the author's writing? 


There is a slight bias because whenever the author mentions a negative point he makes it seem that others believe in it and not him.


References: Does the author cite references in the writing? If so, do these add or take away from the credibility? 
The author does not cite anybody else which weakens his argument.


Use of Source: How will you use this source in your project? 
I plan on using this source for its qoute. I also plan to use it as support for my case that genetic engineering is a good thing.