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