Final Annotated Bibliography for the QRG Assignment.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/64204416@N02/5865284029

Bostrom N, Roach R. Ethical issues in human enhancement.  New waves in applied ethics. London, United Kingdom: Pelgrave Macmillan; 2008. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/human-enhancement.pdf. September 5, 2015.

The piece in the above link is intended for readers with a general interest in the ethical issues involved with human enhancements.  It was written with the purpose of exploring ethnical concerns in several key areas of the subject, such as mood and personality enhancement. The authors use evidence presented by both sides to come to their conclusions. The primary conclusion being that people need to consider all possible ramifications before undergoing enhancement. It provides some good logos based arguments that are pro enhancement that can prove useful for future papers on the subject.
Bostrom N, Sandberg A.The wisdom of nature: An evolutionary heuristic for human enhancement.  Enhancing humans. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2007. http://www.akira.ruc.dk/~fkt/filosofi/Artikler%20m.m/Posthumanism/Bostrom%20-%20The%20Wisdom%20of%20Nature,%20An%20Evolutionary%20Heuristic%20for%20Human%20Enhancement.pdf. September 5, 2015.

This piece has to do with going against humanity's evolutionary path with enhancements, and is intended for readers who ponder the ethics of human enhancements. It goes on about how evolution caused by nature is currently to complicated for human technologies to mettle with without consequences.  It concludes with stating that if we clearly understand how and why a human trait currently exists than we can safely modify it. It does provide some helpful logos based information that I can use in the cons section.
 
Corbyn Z. Live forever: Scientists say they'll soon extend life 'well beyond 120'. The Guardian. January 11, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The above is an interesting news article that talks about the possibility of anti-aging medicine and the very wealthy people who are funding the research and development. The targeted audience and purpose has to do with those who are interested in the idea of medicine that is able to extend their life span. The article mentions several different methods for prolonging life, and the idea that medicine that extends life span doesn't have to mean immortality. The usefulness of this article lies in its primarily ethos based arguments, which I plan on referencing.

Heller J, Peterson C. Human enhancement and nano technology. Foresight Institute website. https://www.foresight.org/policy/brief2.html. Accessed September 5, 2015.

This piece briefly explores nanotechnology and human enhancements, as well as ethical concerns enhancements may have.  The piece is mostly concerned with starting debates on issues that could come with enhancements, such as pressure and larger social disparity. The article provides some useful logos based insight into potential pitfalls of human enhancements that I will make reference of.

Humani victus instrumenta: ars coquinaria. Web Gallery of Art. http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/m/master/xunk_it/xunk_it4/zhead3.html. Accessed September 27, 2015.

The above is a about a 15th century painting of what appears to be a robot.  I plan to use it to break up the text wall somewhere in the cons section.

Jha A. Report raises ethical concerns about human enhancement technologies. The Guardian. November 7, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/07/report-ethical-concerns-human-enhancement-technologies. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The news article main focus has to do with the good and the bad with how enhancements will effect the work environment, so people in the workforce curious/interested about the topic are probably the targeted audience. The article provides fair points on both sides of the arguments that will be useable in my writing. The purpose of the article, like all articles in a field that has yet to reach general use, is mainly to spark debate on the ethics of using enhancements in the work place. I can use it for that purpose as well as its ethos based arguments.

 Lin P. Could human enhancement turn soldiers into weapons that violate international law? Yes. The Atlantic. January 4, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-human-enhancement-turn-soldiers-into-weapons-that-violate-international-law-yes/266732/. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The above article is for those who are concerned about military application of human enhancements, and is meant as a call to arms for the limiting of human enhancements, at least in warfare. While I personally do not like the article, what with its rampant speculation and constant use of extreme examples, It does raise a fair point on the potential role human enhancements could have in war. On a semi-unrelated note, my favorite argument in the article has to do with the ethical issues of when the man stops being a man and becomes a robot. The example used was when every part of the human body was replaced with a machine part ( at that point I think the military would have just built a robot instead.) I plan to use it for it's pathos arguments which are designed to convince people that action needs to be taken.

Mosbergen D. Brain implant to cure mental disorders may soon be a thing. The Huffington Post.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/brain-implants-mental-disorders-darpa_n_5395708.html. Published May 27, 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.

The above post is about how a new type of device, similar to the brain pacemaker, is being developed to help people with mental disorders. I plan to use the device as an example of the benefits of enhancement. The target audience of the article is those who are interested in such a device.technology. An interesting thing to note is that DARPA is giving grant money to two institutions to work on this device. It is interesting because people are commenting on how untrustworthy the device is because of that (admittedly, I don't think some of those people read the article, but just saw the word DARPA and the title.)  I plan on using it in conjunction with the other Mosbergen article as examples of how ethos is being used in the rhetoric surrounding the human enhancement controversy.

Mosbergen D. Military's tiny implant could give people self-healing powers. The Huffington Post.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/implant-self-healing-neuromodulation-darpa_n_5869072.html. Published September 26, 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.

This news post is about a new implant being developed. This implant would be a closed looped system that aids in healing various problems in the body, one of which is arthritis. The interesting and useful for my purposes part is not just the device but people's reaction to the device. An interesting tidbit about this device is that it is being developed by DARPA, a branch of the Defense Department. The reaction being, for some, immediate distrust and/or damnation of the implant.  I plan on using it in conjunction with the other Mosbergen article as examples of how ethos is being used.

Petersen J, Ryberg J, Wolf C, eds.  New Waves in Applied Ethics (New Waves in Philosophy). Amazon.com.  http://www.amazon.com/New-Waves-Applied-Ethics-Philosophy/dp/0230537847. Published January 22, 2008. Accessed September 25, 2015.

The above is an amazon.com page that I plan to link to in my papers, it contains the top most Bostrom and Roache essay, that a part of the target audience might be interested in getting.

Revised paragraph

The rhetoric surrounding the idea of a person’s capability can take many forms, and is achieved in a variety of ways. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the university of Oxford, and Rebecca Roache, a lecturer on philosophy at Royal Holloway, have written an essay1 in a book where, while claiming to take a neutral stance, provide some interesting arguments about enhancements in general. A few things to know is that for this particular example they are talking about enhancement via drugs, which is possible for people to do now, although some do argue that long term testing for side effects is needed.2 The main way Bostrom and Roache are getting their point across is by providing real world  examples about part they are arguing for, in this case that it is potentially okay for drug enhancers to be used in sport. For example, they explain how if the drugs were legal that it would not create an uneven playing field. They even look back at the original reasons that sports exist to provide support that drug enhancement wouldn’t ruin the spirit of the sport.1

There are some philosophers out there that comment that the use of enhancing drugs in sports can be considered ethical. Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the university of Oxford, and Rebecca Roache, a lecturer on philosophy at Royal Holloway, have written an essay, "Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement, which was published in a book, New Waves in Applied Ethics, a section of which contains commentary on the ethics behind using drugs in sports. Their primarily logos based arguments are focused ideas that the enhancing drugs do not necessarily create unequal fields. On page nine, they comment that "For example, permitting the use of a drug that enabled all competitors to improve their performance ... —would not—if all competitors used such a drug—change the fact that men can generally lift heavier weights than women[,] ... [and it would,] by itself[, not] enable the second-best competitors to beat the best competitors." Their main purpose behind this section is to convince their audience that taking drugs need not be an open and shut case. They are encouraging their readers and those interested in debating ethics to ponder the case, as well as to come to their own opinion on it.


Notes:

One of the biggest edits here, which greatly improved clarity and coherence, was trimming off the fat, i.e. unneeded sentences that cluttered up the paragraph. Also, by restructuring so that the focus is on the two philosophers I was able to narrow down the paragraph to focus on the topic. Also, a better analyzation on the rhetoric behind their arguments aids the paragraphs coherence to the QRG as a whole.

Link to revised QRG

2nd draft: https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1mq0DXVMwBS1GG6Ob6EOweKdqoSHRS8OwFUf_UeQdueM/edit?usp=sharing

3rd draft: https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1zsRHxDhcf_eB81QSIBjG7cmV6SqFcH1qNMhW4b7dcHo/edit?usp=sharing

Peer Review and Revised Thesis

The in-class peer review exercise was a great learning experience in regards to what I need to learn for myself. The first is probably obvious, but it still happened, and that is that I should order the paragraphs as their subjects are in the thesis. In other words, if the thesis is 1, 2, and 3 then I should introduce the topics like that instead of, 3, 2, and 1. Another thing that I noticed is that I need to work on introducing and telling who sources are, for example Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher working at Oxford. Also, I need to improve wording in the introduction.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nics_events/2349632625

There were also some things I noticed when editing other people's draft that I should avoid in my own. The big one to avoid is to, when possible, don't put down just some people, but instead give credible example, for example some people, such as so and so.

After having my paper peer-reviewed, some of the comments were to work on my thesis, so in the following bulletin points will be my original thesis and the revised thesis. Feel free to comment on the revision below.

• Old thesis: The following will hopefully provide more information on the human enhancement debate in the following areas: implants, cybernetics, genes, drugs, and a bit on nanotechnology.
• New Thesis: Human enhancement is a wide topic to discuss, in the following paper the use of implants, cybernetics, genes, drugs, and a bit on nanotechnology will be covered. The paper will go over both the argued pros and cons of these enhancement categories.

For the teacher:

people who's blogs I commented on.

• Kat Reidy
• Laura Shoemake

Thoughts on Drafting

After reading and editing drafts in class, we were tasked with answering some questions on the advice the A Student's Guide to First-Year Writing 36th edition by Brad Jacobson, Madelyn Paulowshi, and Emma Miller. The questions are at the bottom of this blog post

1: Arguably one of the most important advice the book gives is on the draft's flow. The flow being important for the QRG genre as you want the reader to be able to easily understand and follow what the writer is saying. All the introduction tips are useful, especially the tips regarding the thesis. The intro is the first thing people are going to be seeing when reading the work after the title. If you can't hook them and convey what you're going to be saying, well why even bother writing the rest (still do write the rest if your introduction isn't quite up to snuff.)

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001839.html

2: Now for the not as helpful, but still good advice. It is my opinion that rewording major claims in one's conclusion is not the most helpful of advice for QRGs. While it is still helpful and useful, it just isn't as helpful as some of the other conclusion advice, such as a call to action.

Quoting Practice

QRGs: The Genre

I have read some interesting quick reference guides (qrg) about recent events that have been going on, in order to answer some questions assigned by my course instructor.  Firstly, it appears that all the qrgs I have read have divided the main idea into several sections. Each of these sections having its own heading. Second, all of them without exception have used some form of insertion (pictures, videos, tweets, etc...) to enhance what the article is about in some way. Whether that way is adding a face to an issue or to emphasize a point is all up to the author and his or her chosen insertion. Furthermore, these insertions are relevant to the section where they are located. Also, they all had a introduction and extra spaces between paragraphs, as well as section headings.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/horiavarlan/4268896936

The authors of these qrgs all followed what was said above in their own way. Some of them written it like an essay. Another, who I am having difficulty describing, had multiple levels of headings, and looks like something you might see in a text book. Heck, one even turned theirs into a 11 part list, I assume to make it easier to read. They all, however, are intended to thoroughly inform the reader on the subject matter, in their own way. With that being said the intended audiences to these qrgs are similar in that they want to be informed on a subject, but differ in what that subject is. I write this, since the only other people who would read these articles are those who think the title is interesting.

*Note if you are looking for the answer to question 5 (the one about imagery and visuals) it is in the first paragraph. It is the part where I talk about insertions.

Link to personal QRG on human enhancement on google docs: https://docs.google.com/a/email.arizona.edu/document/d/1mq0DXVMwBS1GG6Ob6EOweKdqoSHRS8OwFUf_UeQdueM/edit?usp=sharing

Reflection:
After reading Kian Blackey, Dieter Mohty, and Gaby Dodson's blogs, as well as Michael Gee's comment below, I Have come to some more conclusions on QRGs. The biggest one is the use of hyperlinks, by nature QRGs tend to only brief a reader on the subject, so they provide hyperlinks to allow the reader to look up more specific information. Secondly, that pictures also serve the purpose of breaking up giant walls of text that would discourage some readers.

Cluster of Human Enhancement

For the above mind map/cluster I started around the central idea of human enhancement, and expanded from there. It should be noted that specific details were omitted in the above mind map, details about why they believe it exemplifies man's arrogance. I also chose not to include each individual type of enhancement, as it would have turned this cluster map into a clustered mess.

Reflection:
Upon viewing my fellow classmate's blog, Benjamin Weiss and Cora Nelson, (alternate hyper links: Benjamin and Cora) I have made several conclusions. First is that the mind map might be better if I spread out the points and lines, in order to enhance how easily it can be read. Second, that I should include backups sources to key elements that might fail due to technical errors, like the cluster plot. Third, some more details probably should have been added, maybe also a better summary. Lastly, I agree with Benjamin's point of view that the mind maps are an useful strategy. However, they might not work for everyone, but the step they are a part of in the process, pre-writing/ idea organizer, is a crucial step.

Draft 2 Annotated bibliography in AMA style.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/austinevan/1225274637

Bostrom N, Roach R. Ethical issues in human enhancement.  New waves in applied ethics. London, United Kingdom: Pelgrave Macmillan; 2008. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/human-enhancement.pdf. September 5, 2015.

The piece in the above link is intended for readers with a general interest in the ethical issues involved with human enhancements.  It was written with the purpose of exploring ethnical concerns in several key areas of the subject, such as mood and personality enhancement. The authors use evidence presented by both sides to come to their conclusions. The primary conclusion being that people need to consider all possible ramifications before undergoing enhancement. It provides some good arguments that are pro enhancement that can prove useful for future papers on the subject.

Bostrom N, Sandberg A.The wisdom of nature: An evolutionary heuristic for human enhancement.  Enhancing humans. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2007. http://www.akira.ruc.dk/~fkt/filosofi/Artikler%20m.m/Posthumanism/Bostrom%20-%20The%20Wisdom%20of%20Nature,%20An%20Evolutionary%20Heuristic%20for%20Human%20Enhancement.pdf. September 5, 2015.

This piece has to do with going against humanity's evolutionary path with enhancements, and is intended for readers who ponder the ethics of human enhancements. It goes on about how evolution caused by nature is currently to complicated for human technologies to mettle with without consequences.  It concludes with stating that if we clearly understand how and why a human trait currently exists than we can safely modify it. It does provide some helpful information that I can use for the against(ish) side of the argument.


Cochlear implants. National Institue on Deafness and Other Communication Diseases.  http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/hearing/pages/coch.aspx. Updated August 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.

The above is about the cochlear implant, which allows for the deaf and the extremely hard of hearing to hear better. As one might guess, it is intended for people interested in such a device. I plan to use the information on this page to cite potential benefits of implants/ human enhancement. 
Corbyn Z. Live forever: Scientists say they'll soon extend life 'well beyond 120'. The Guardian. January 11, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The above is an interesting news article that talks about the possibility of anti-aging medicine and the very wealthy people who are funding the research and development. The targeted audience and purpose has to do with those who are interested in the idea of medicine that is able to extend their life span. The article mentions several different methods for prolonging life, and the idea that medicine that extends life span doesn't have to mean immortality. It is that last part that might prove useful in any paper I might right, as so many get stuck on immortality.

Heller J, Peterson C. Human enhancement and nano technology. Foresight Institute website. https://www.foresight.org/policy/brief2.html. Accessed September 5, 2015.

This piece briefly explores nanotechnology and human enhancements, as well as ethical concerns enhancements may have.  The piece is mostly concerned with starting debates on issues that could come with enhancements, such as pressure and larger social disparity. The article provides some useful insight into potential pitfalls of human enhancements that I will make reference of.

Jha A. Report raises ethical concerns about human enhancement technologies. The Guardian. November 7, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/07/report-ethical-concerns-human-enhancement-technologies. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The news article main focus has to do with the good and the bad with how enhancements will effect the work environment, so people in the workforce curious/interested about the topic are probably the targeted audience. The article provides fair points on both sides of the arguments that will be useable in my writing. The purpose of the article, like all articles in a field that has yet to reach general use, is mainly to spark debate on the ethics of using enhancements in the work place.

 Lin P. Could human enhancement turn soldiers into weapons that violate international law? Yes. The Atlantic. January 4, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-human-enhancement-turn-soldiers-into-weapons-that-violate-international-law-yes/266732/. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The above article is for those who are concerned about military application of human enhancements, and is meant as a call to arms for the limiting of human enhancements, at least in warfare. While I personally do not like the article, what with its rampant speculation and constant use of extreme examples, It does raise a fair point on the potential role human enhancements could have in war. On a semi-unrelated note, my favorite argument in the article has to do with the ethical issues of when the man stops being a man and becomes a robot. The example used was when every part of the human body was replaced with a machine part ( at that point I think the military would have just built a robot instead.)

Mosbergen D. Brain implant to cure mental disorders may soon be a thing. The Huffington Post.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/27/brain-implants-mental-disorders-darpa_n_5395708.html. Published May 27, 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.

The above post is about how a new type of device, similar to the brain pacemaker, is being developed to help people with mental disorders. I plan to use the device as an example of the benefits of enhancement. The target audience of the article is those who are interested in such a device.technology. An interesting thing to note is that DARPA is giving grant money to two institutions to work on this device. It is interesting because people are commenting on how untrustworthy the device is because of that (admittedly, I don't think some of those people read the article, but just saw the word DARPA and the title.) 

Mosbergen D. Military's tiny implant could give people self-healing powers. The Huffington Post.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/implant-self-healing-neuromodulation-darpa_n_5869072.html. Published September 26, 2014. Accessed September 13, 2015.

This news post is about a new implant being developed. This implant would be a closed looped system that aids in healing various problems in the body, one of which is arthritis. The interesting and useful for my purposes part is not just the device but people's reaction to the device. An interesting tidbit about this device is that it is being developed by DARPA, a branch of the Defense Department. The reaction being, for some, immediate distrust and/or damnation of the implant. It is these two things that I plan to use for my paper.

Munkittrick K. Should we use Nanotech, genetics, pharmaceuticals, and augmentations to go above and beyond our biology?  Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/features/2011/debating_extreme_human_enhancement/should_we_use_nanotech_genetics_pharmaceuticals_and_augmentations_to_go_above_and_beyond_our_biology.html. Published September 13, 2011. Accessed September 13, 2015.

The above article, while odd in that it reads in a way that implies that the author is having a conversation with people that, while real, aren't actually there, poses the question of should we and do we want to when it comes to human enhancement.  The answer being yes, but not right now. The article is intended for those interested in the debate on human enhancement. I plan to use the article and the questions it poses in my quick-reference guide, as they are key questions to consider when talking about human enhancement.

Annotated Bibliography First Draft.

(note the following is suppose to be AMA style)

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/eclecticlibrarian/9450783/

Bostrom N, Roach R.  New waves in applied ethics. London, United Kingdom: Pelgrave Macmillan; 2008. http://www.nickbostrom.com/ethics/human-enhancement.pdf. September 5, 2015

The piece in the above link is intended for readers with a general interest in the ethical issues involved with human enhancements.  It was written with the purpose of exploring ethnical concerns in several key areas of the subject, such as mood and personality enhancement. The authors use evidence presented by both sides to come to their conclusions. The primary conclusion being that people need to consider all possible ramifications before undergoing enhancement. It provides some good arguments that are pro enhancement that can prove useful for future papers on the subject.

Bostrom N, Sandberg A.  Enhancing humans. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2007. http://www.akira.ruc.dk/~fkt/filosofi/Artikler%20m.m/Posthumanism/Bostrom%20-%20The%20Wisdom%20of%20Nature,%20An%20Evolutionary%20Heuristic%20for%20Human%20Enhancement.pdf. September 5, 2015

This piece has to do with going against humanity's evolutionary path with enhancements, and is intended for readers who ponder the ethics of human enhancements. It goes on about how evolution caused by nature is currently to complicated for human technologies to mettle with without consequences.  It concludes with stating that if we clearly understand how and why a human trait currently exists than we can safely modify it. It does provide some helpful information that I can use for the against(ish) side of the argument.

Corbyn Z. Live forever: Scientists say they'll soon extend life 'well beyond 120'. The Guardian. January 11, 2015. http://www.theguardian.com/us. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The above is an interesting news article that talks about the possibility of anti-aging medicine and the very wealthy people who are funding the research and development. The targeted audience and purpose has to do with those who are interested in the idea of medicine that is able to extend their life span. The article mentions several different methods for prolonging life, and the idea that medicine that extends life span doesn't have to mean immortality. It is that last part that might prove useful in any paper I might right, as so many get stuck on immortality.

Heller J, Peterson C. Human enhancement and nano technology. Foresight Institute website. https://www.foresight.org/policy/brief2.html. Accessed September 5, 2015.

This piece briefly explores nanotechnology and human enhancements, as well as ethical concerns enhancements may have.  The piece is mostly concerned with starting debates on issues that could come with enhancements, such as pressure and larger social disparity. The article provides some useful insight into potential pitfalls of human enhancements that I will make reference of.

Jha A. Report raises ethical concerns about human enhancement technologies. The Guardian. November 7, 2012. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/nov/07/report-ethical-concerns-human-enhancement-technologies. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The news article main focus has to do with the good and the bad with how enhancements will effect the work environment, so people in the workforce curious/interested about the topic are probably the targeted audience. The article provides fair points on both sides of the arguments that will be useable in my writing. The purpose of the article, like all articles in a field that has yet to reach general use, is mainly to spark debate on the ethics of using enhancements in the work place.

 Lin P. Could human enhancement turn soldiers into weapons that violate international law? Yes. The Atlantic. January 4, 2013. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/could-human-enhancement-turn-soldiers-into-weapons-that-violate-international-law-yes/266732/. Accessed September 5, 2015.

The above article is for those who are concerned about military application of human enhancements, and is meant as a call to arms for the limiting of human enhancements, at least in warfare. While I personally do not like the article, what with its rampant speculation and constant use of extreme examples, It does raise a fair point on the potential role human enhancements could have in war. On a semi-unrelated note, my favorite argument in the article has to do with the ethical issues of when the man stops being a man and becomes a robot. The example used was when every part of the human body was replaced with a machine part ( at that point I think the military would have just built a robot instead.)

Reflection:
Upon looking at the blogs of fellow class mates Cati Krutilla (Chicago style) and Yazmin (I assume MLA style) (here are some links to their blogs in general, in case for whatever reason those other two hyperlinks fail: C and Y,) I realized some things about my own post. First, it is rather hard to find another AMA style, guess I just wasn't looking in the right places. Either way I'm indifferent on that. Secondly, I should say in the annotations that these are mostly philosophical pondering. Therefore they have no experiment to annotate about. The importance of these citations is to properly attribute the work to their rightful source and avoid a serious hassle. However, I not very fond by the fact that there are so many citation styles out there. To me at least, it just seems so unnecessary to have some many styles.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

For this assignment I browsed twitter to see if I could find anything useful on the subject of human enhancement. One of the things I found was asu_transhuman, a twitter account belong to an Arizona State University group. Their twitter page has been around for about seven years, and includes some interesting articles on human enhancement. These articles may not be back to back but they do provide some helpful information. I don't know who follows them, since I do not have a twitter account, but if it is related to a university, than it is probably credible. The other one is Science @_bioengineer, and while I may be only able to trace back the tweets to December 5, 2014, it contains a vast amount of bioengineering information that could play key roles to human enhancements. Again, my lack of a twitter account prevents me from seeing who follows them, and it doesn't appear that they are a part of a credible network. However, the external articles that it links to do appear to be relatively credible and backed by others. An interesting side note is that if it has been existing for less than a year (which I doubt), it has been insanely busy having posted 1783 tweets by this blog's publishing.

Source: https://pixabay.com/en/social-media-blocks-blogger-488886/

Evaluations of Scholary Sources

Source: http://www.acmssearch.sl.nsw.gov.au/search/itemPopLarger.cgi?itemID=868573

Today, while using google scholar to look for highly cited scholarly articles on human enhancement,  I stumbled upon these two interesting articles. The first article is by Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, and Rebecca Roache, a lecturer in philosophy at Royal Holloway, University of London, titled "Ethical Issues in Human Enhancement" from the book New Waves in Applied Ethics. The work appears to target those who are looking into the ethical controversies surrounding human enhancement. The piece itself stands that while enhancements are good, serious consideration needs to be given to possible ramifications of the decision to be enhanced. It cites various works, some for enhancing, against it, and general information the article makes mention of. The second article from the book Human Enhancment called The "Wisdom of Nature: am Evolutionary Heuristic for Human enhancement" by Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg, a James Martin Research Fellow at Oxford University. Written a year before the
first article in 2007, it goes on to explain why evolution should be the point on which we base enhancement off of. Its stance is that if we can't figure out why humanity evolved a certain way, then maybe we shouldn't modify that aspect. Citing various sources from both sides of the argument.The intended audience most likely being those who want to look for ethical debates and or concerns regarding human enhancement.

Evaluation of General Sources

Today, I have read two articles concerning the topic of human enhancement.  One, a 2013 article on The Atlantic titled "Could Human Enhancement Turn Soldiers into Weapons that Violate International Law"' by Patrick Lin, an associate professor of philosophy at California Polytechnic State University. The two year old .com article goes on to explore possible ethical issues with human enhancement and on how people still have time to enact rules controlling/limiting it before it reaches the theaters of war. The article, both articles actually, have a single graphic at the very top of the article. The apparent purpose of the article is to inform people about the issue and to take a stand. It also contains several useful hyperlinks to relevant material, and it has not been updated. The second article is on The Guardian and is titled "Report raises  ethical concerns about human enhancement technologies" by Alok Jha, currently a science correspondent for ITV News. The 2012 .com article goes on to warn about people possibly being forced to take human enhancements by their employers. The article takes a stance that their should be debate about how human enhancements are treated at work. It contains a multitude of useful hyperlinks, to relevant sources and web pages.

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/6249635827/in/photostream/

My Field of Study

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/6811745567/

Source:http://www.bls.gov/oes/2010/may/chart_08.png

The field of study I am currently interested in is Biomedical Engineering, I don't currently know which sub-division though. I am currently leaning towards either biomaterials or biomechanics. The definition of biomedical engineering as provided by dictionary.com is the application of engineering techniques to the understanding of biological systems and to the development of therapeutic technologies and devices. One of the main things that draw me to this field is the idea that the devices I design can have a direct positive impact on other people. Also, the idea that I could be making cyborgs also directly appeals to me for a much more self-centered reason.  People who pursue the field are usually employed in a wide range of sectors as shown by the 2010 Bureau of Labor Statics chart in this blog post. As far as leaders in the field go this hyperlink will take you to the main page of a society that provides some very useful information, connections, and three separate journals related to biomedical engineering. another leading society in the field is http://aimbe.org/.  Moving on, some good biomedical journals out there are the Journal of Biomimetics, Biomaterials, and Tissue Engineering, Nature Biotechnology, and Journal of Biomechanics. The following hyperlink leads to a useful website that ranks scholarly journals.