I’m dealing with the rhetoric of using the HIV virus as a vector in gene therapy, with special considerations of using HIV to combat HIV.

I am going to give a history of gene therapy, problems facing gene therapy and how it is proceeding today. Then I’m going to introduce the idea of using HIV as a vector, and I’m going to give a historical account of using HIV – both to treat HIV and other conditions. Then I’m going to talk about the problems of using HIV as a vector, and how this is referenced through some texts, and I’m going to give some analysis using the idea of a pharmacon (both poison and remedy). I’m also going to discuss the ‘discipline-ing’ of HIV and how you overcome the problems rhetorically. I am thinking of giving a more theoretical approach also – of encounter vs. containment, and perhaps offer a different model of thinking about disease.

This is a link for a company that deals in using HIV as a vector for treating HIV.
http://www.oxfordbiomedica.co.uk/index.html

My research paper is going to tackle the issue of cloning and in particular the way that Professor Doyle framed the idea of regulation. I want to examine the attempts and rhetoric around the implications of cloning technology and how attempts at regulating it. Also, I would like to examine the basic arguments for and against it and especially the motives behind each side.

   A particular type of reversal occurs in a zone so crucial to reality. Although the hospital is the sole source of cure and support in various manners, only recently the hospitals have confronted the problem of hospital-acquired infections. Now, the hospital increasingly becomes a site for breeding, mutating, and transmitting new and resitant microbes rather than a refuge for humans to eliminate them. This switch has not only created a problem, but opens the doors for novel biotechnological endeavors to create a solution. In order to remedy this problem, biotechnology companies seek to fix the antibiotic method from the inside. This attempt is not only a reminder of the power of natural selection and survivial of the fittest, but it is also a reflection of man's continuing attempts to delineate and maintain a crucial boundary between the external from the internal, which occur in nature.

Sources Include:
Hospital Acquired-Infections; Foucault's The Birth of the Clinic, as well as various websites of medical development, research, and current issue.

My research paper is going to be focusing on SOME of the arguments surrounding Stem Cell research. The more I look into the matter, the more arguments I find against it, while interestingly enough, I only really find one argument for it. Thats of course is to better man kind and take away disease and suffering. Some of the arguments that Im going to pay close attention to are whether or not the egg cell in the dish is actually worthy of the same protection as a human being. Why are a large amount of people that are pro-life pro-stem cells? Is it fair to be destroying embryos when there are people out there trying to "adopt" embryos for the sake of reproduction? Is it unfair of Bush to fund the stem cell research, being avidly pro-life, or is it the smart thing to do so the research doesnt fall into the private sector and the government will be unable to regulate it at all? Is it unreasonable to think that adult stem cells will some day soon be able to do everything the more contriversial embryotic stem cells can? Should cloning technology be studied further so that researchers can grow stem cells with the right membrane markers? Should people be allowed to be compensated for their donation of eggs for the sole purpose of research?

Again, these are some of the issues that Im going to attempt to tackle. Im not really sure right now where I stand or what Im going to prove over all. We'll have to see where it leads me.

Edited by author 12-04-2002 12:11 PM
Rhetoric 174
Final Paper

My research is on the Grey Goo Scenario. The grey goo scenario is an apocalyptic vision that self-replicating nanobots will proliferate and take over earth, eventually making humanity obsolete. Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystem wrote an article titled, "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Using this article as a center piece, I examine the rhetoric and responses of this article to assess the validity and the seriousness of this futuristic/apocalyptic scenario.

I will argue that nanotechnology is still in its primitive stage of R&D and Joy's assessment of the future is still in the realm of science-ficiton. The advancement of nanotechnology is still centuries away, although many are proponent of Moore's Law and expontential growth of technology. Joy makes a valid argument that nanotech could be a threat, but invalid in making superficial claims that have an unforseeable technological future. The danger of nanotech is hinted and could be a reality, but not a threat as of now.

Edited by author 12-04-2002 05:57 AM
I have chosen as my research paper to investigate the relationship between rhetoric and science specifically focusing on the different rhetorical strategies employed by both Newton and Descartes with regards to their studies in optics. The three texts I will be using are "Landmark essays on Rhetoric of Science" edited by Randy Allen Harris, "The Rhetoric of Science" by Alan G. Gross, and "Persuading Science: The Art of Scientific Rhetoric edited by Marcello Pera and William R. Shea. Mostly my paper will examine the work of Newton and Descartes in terms of the relatinoship betweeen rhetoric and scientific discourse and explain, compare and contrast the different rhetorical operations taking place within the texts. I chose this topic in order to learn more about the rhetorical nature of scientific discourse and how it operates in order to function in a persuasive manner. Initially what brought about this idea was the discussion in class about the different rhetorical strategies taking place within Darwin's text (" The Origin of Species").

I am doing a research paper on how effective the Center of Disease Control and Prevention was in providing the necessary information regarding anthrax after September 11, 2002 to the public (focusing especially, but not exclusively, on the rhetoric used in their webpage) in reducing panic and anxiety. My research paper will look closely at the URL efforts of the CDC by analyzing the information on their webpage and evaluating how effective the CDC’s rhetoric is in keeping the general public calm and safe in a period of crisis. There is little to no information on how successful the CDC was in there efforts to reduce the panic of the general public so I have resorted to e-mailing journalists who wrote about the CDC during this time period for information on the topic. I have also asked certain individuals for their input by sitting with them in front of the CDC’s webpage and asking them questions about the CDC’s rhetoric. Finally, I plan to provide alternative suggestions to improve the quality of the rhetoric in the CDC’s URL efforts.

Comments, suggestions, information? Please e-mail: zdresben@uclink.berkeley.edu

From Watson to Butler, scientific advances in genetics have a profound influence on the way society views science and themselves. The application of genetics to medical practice has interesting implications towards healthcare and the doctor-patient relationship. Known as pharmacogenomics, medicine is being developed to tailor one’s unique genetic structure in order to facilitate a more efficient use of drugs. More importantly, the importance of testing one’s genes to determine potential diseases changes the grounds on which the patient is defined. Healthcare appears to place an emphasis on the future of one’s health, while ignoring the patient as the reporter of signs and symptoms. Through popular press and scientific journals, I will be investigating the rhetorical way pharmacogenomics is described. I will also compare the rhetoric presented in the biotech companies “selling” pharmacogenomics, such as GeneLink and LifeSensors, inc. How these biotech companies utilize the same discourse will suggest society’s reaction towards pharmacogenomics (because the biotech companies will be playing with the overall sentiment towards pharmacogenomics in order to sell their product.)
My specific sources include JAMA, the GeneLetter, Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Pharmacogenomics Journal, and Nature. Popular press articles include Time and Newsweek. Information from the biotech companies can be found online, where they advertise their products.