Analyzing Message in "Stem Cell Controversy"

ClkerFreeVectorImages. "Teacher Silhouette Black Isolated Classroom." 2014 via pixabay. CC0 Pubic Domain.

In this blog I will be analyzing the message of the text Stem Cell Controversy by using A Student's Guide to First- Year Writing.

The two messages mentioned in the Guide that relate most to the text I have been analyzing are:

• analyzing, synthesizing,or interpreting an idea.
• and reflecting on a topic. 

The author, Dr. Ananya Mandal, is analyzing the two sides involved in the controversy in relation to the use of stem cells. She first gives a description of stem cells and talks about the part of the research and the use of them that has people upset. She is interpreting the controversy as she sees it and it trying to make it easier for the average reader to be able to understand what is going on within the issue.

 She decided to analyze the stem cell research with cloning. This tells the reader more about what side the argument against stem cells is coming from considering the similarities of the two ideas. "Cloning and stem cell research are two different procedures all together. They have a common link, however, and this is use of a laboratory technique called nuclear transfer." 

Mandal is reflecting on the stem cell conflict. She is not only talking about the different players involved in the controversy, but the benefits and applications of stem cells. This plays into her opinion by seeing what information she included and what aspects of stem cells she did not really talk much about. 

Bullet points that do not seem relevant at all in the book reading are the author:

• persuading an audience of something.
• advocating for change.
• moving the reader to feel a certain way.

The author is not using a very persuasive tone in the article but seems to state a lot of information surrounding the issue and the argument that it has created. She first introduces the issue by telling the reader about how this issue first arose, then goes on to say what the issues were that the people had the biggest problem with. According to her bio, it seem that her main intention is to inform the general public about medical issues rather than try to persuade them one way or another on whether they should or should not approve on stem cell research and the means in which the stem cells are acquired. 

Like I mentioned early, she is not really advocating anyone to create a change in stem cell research policy but merely informing the reader of the current restricts put on stem cell research. If people feel strongly enough to change those policies, they most likely already had that motivation before reading this article. 

Once again, the article is not trying to make you feel a certain way about stem cell research. She is giving you information on the controversy and leaves more of the interpretation up to the reader based upon their own opinions, culture, etc. 

As I continue to point out, I don't really see many hidden ideals within the article. It seems she is informing the reader of both sides of the argument and what aspect of the stem cell research they are most against. If you fit in with that culture or religion, than you may have those same ideals. She has organized this very much like a quick reference guide in that she states what the article is about in the title, gives an introduction with more detail of the topic and uses subheading to organize out the information. She talk about certain practices being "prohibited" which makes them sound more dangerous than putting it as "it can no longer be practiced." She doesn't really come back at the end and support one side over another but just leaves the reader with more facts.