Links/Bibliography
*http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/790927/debate_on_gene_therapy.html
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biomed/therapy.pdf
*http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students/bergeson.htm
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy#Problems_and_ethics
http://www.genetics.com.au/pdf/factsheets/fs27.pdf
*http://www.genetherapynet.com/what-is-gene-therapy.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/Gene_Therapy_Overview.php
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/therapy/ethics
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/gene
http://www.dnapolicy.org/science.gm.php
http://www.macalester.edu/~montgomery/GeneTherapy.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/research/biomed/therapy.pdf
*http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students/bergeson.htm
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_therapy#Problems_and_ethics
http://www.genetics.com.au/pdf/factsheets/fs27.pdf
*http://www.genetherapynet.com/what-is-gene-therapy.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/BA/Gene_Therapy_Overview.php
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/therapy/ethics
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Therapy/gene
http://www.dnapolicy.org/science.gm.php
http://www.macalester.edu/~montgomery/GeneTherapy.htm
Analysis of sources
In order from top to bottom *
These are the four sources I used most in the assignment
Source #1 Debate on Gene Therapy, Yahoo associated content, Trisha, June 6 2008
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 2/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 4/5
Coverage: 5/5
Total: 20/25
Comments: This article is written up by an nonprofessional author. Even so, I decided to reward the article as with a high score because of its accuracy, objective and coverage. The article includes citations and sources as proof of accuracy. The coverage is a debate on gene therapy and is very informative and does not include any bias comments. It is a very high standard article but was written two years ago, even so, much has not changed in argumentatively on gene therapy and the main concerns were brought when it began rather than now.
Source #2 The Ethics of Gene Therapy, Emilie R. Bergeson, 1997
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 2/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 2/5
Coverage: 5/5
Total: 18/25
Comments: Similar to the above resource, this is written by a nonprofessional writer, but also has all links listed at the end of the page. The page ended up losing on currency though, being from 1997. Though this page also talked about controversy, so currency would not really affect it nor would it affect the great coverage of technology used in gene therapy.
Source #3 Gene therapy, Wikipedia
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 3/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 1/5
Coverage: 4/5
Total: 17/25
Comments: Even though Wikipedia is said to be quite an unreliable source, I believe this was a page which was not tampered with. It had great coverage on almost everything to do with gene therapy and like usual included an in depth bibliography with footnotes. It lost on currency due to the fact there was no dates, but even so, dates were mentioned for any of the events which were listed.
Source #4 What is gene therapy, Genetherapy.net, 2011
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 4/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 4/5
Coverage: 5/5
Total: 23/25
Comments: This site received the highest rating due to not falling short on any of the criteria listed above. It surprised me because I didn't end up liking this site that much to begin with, but it had an up to date currency of this year, sources and bibliography, coverage of many topics in gene therapy (videos as well), a normal objective and a excellent authority of being a site dedicated only to that topic. There are options to contact them the site and is lead by a professional (D.A. Bleijis, PhD).
These are the four sources I used most in the assignment
Source #1 Debate on Gene Therapy, Yahoo associated content, Trisha, June 6 2008
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 2/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 4/5
Coverage: 5/5
Total: 20/25
Comments: This article is written up by an nonprofessional author. Even so, I decided to reward the article as with a high score because of its accuracy, objective and coverage. The article includes citations and sources as proof of accuracy. The coverage is a debate on gene therapy and is very informative and does not include any bias comments. It is a very high standard article but was written two years ago, even so, much has not changed in argumentatively on gene therapy and the main concerns were brought when it began rather than now.
Source #2 The Ethics of Gene Therapy, Emilie R. Bergeson, 1997
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 2/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 2/5
Coverage: 5/5
Total: 18/25
Comments: Similar to the above resource, this is written by a nonprofessional writer, but also has all links listed at the end of the page. The page ended up losing on currency though, being from 1997. Though this page also talked about controversy, so currency would not really affect it nor would it affect the great coverage of technology used in gene therapy.
Source #3 Gene therapy, Wikipedia
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 3/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 1/5
Coverage: 4/5
Total: 17/25
Comments: Even though Wikipedia is said to be quite an unreliable source, I believe this was a page which was not tampered with. It had great coverage on almost everything to do with gene therapy and like usual included an in depth bibliography with footnotes. It lost on currency due to the fact there was no dates, but even so, dates were mentioned for any of the events which were listed.
Source #4 What is gene therapy, Genetherapy.net, 2011
Accuracy: 4/5
Authority: 4/5
Objective: 5/5
Currency: 4/5
Coverage: 5/5
Total: 23/25
Comments: This site received the highest rating due to not falling short on any of the criteria listed above. It surprised me because I didn't end up liking this site that much to begin with, but it had an up to date currency of this year, sources and bibliography, coverage of many topics in gene therapy (videos as well), a normal objective and a excellent authority of being a site dedicated only to that topic. There are options to contact them the site and is lead by a professional (D.A. Bleijis, PhD).
