 |
| https://www.flickr.com/photos/wackyvorlon/8763349786 |
The first draft I received was a concise two page draft. As I read through the draft, I wondered if the draft I composed was too long. The paper also had statistics. Maybe I should have included a table or graph into my quick reference guide. Not only that, but the headings for each section was not only bold, but they were also in larger font which I thought was smart on the writer's part.
The second draft I revised was also short. It seemed to be slightly underdeveloped, but still hit the main points that need to be addressed in the quick reference guide. Like the paper before it, it did not seem to utilize all ten sources. I brooded over this for a few seconds and thought that maybe I did not have to explore each of my sources extensively, but to utilize the relevant ones so as to not clog up my quick reference guide with unnecessary fluff.
When I received my paper back, I scanned the underlines and E's on the margins noticing that my paper did in fact seem to follow a PIEIE pattern which reassured me that maybe I was doing something right. Although my draft in the eyes of its reviewers did not seem to have any points of concern or ideas missing, I could not help, but feel as if I could have done much better.
As I read through my thesis statement, I decided to make some adjustments to it. Before it was:
"Several key scientists and writers, both experienced an/or interested in the field of gene therapy have voiced their opinions about scientific breakthroughs or in some cases, even presenting one, disclosing their fears, doubts, excitements, and hopes so that the broader more educated audience, not just people in the scientific community, could understand the miracles gene therapy can perform and the ethical lines that these geneticists have yet to cross."
Now the revised one is: "Gene therapy has stirred up much controversy involving not only those in the scientific community, but the broader more educated audience who may soon be patients to this technique in hospitals. Because of the various sources of media that expert scientists or skilled science editors use, ranging from easy to understand articles to erudite scientific journals, to reveal their discoveries as well as opinions of gene therapy, not everyone has a complete understanding of the miracles gene therapy can perform and the ethical lines that the geneticists have yet to cross and as a result, uncertainty arises which fuels this controversy."
Based on the thesis statements that you have written, I am assuming that you will be attempting to clarify any complicated rhetoric found among the scientific community that could confuse the public concerning gene therapy. It also seems as if you are implying that you will also be delving into the publications and social media activities of scientists and reporters involved or associated with gene therapy to not only simplify and interpret the data there, but to also implement those writings to elaborate on the different sides of the controversy. It is definitely an interesting topic to explore, and, besides maybe adding a few more commas into your statement, I have no remarkable criticisms to give. Very good!
ReplyDeleteFrom your thesis, it seems like you will be discussing the controversy around gene therapy. You will discuss all the sources that talk about gene therapy and how not all people completely understand gene therapy and the ethics surrounding it.
ReplyDeleteReading your thesis I would assume that you would be discussing the positive and negative views of gene therapy.
ReplyDelete