Global Perspectives Summer Assignment- Two Sources Annotated Bibliography and

Deconstruction
Plagiarism and/or use of AI to complete this assignment will result in a grade of a 0. Your
work will be submitted on canvas through turn it in the first week of school.
Directions: Find two quality articles (credible sources, at least 1 page in length) and complete
an annotated bibliography and deconstruction on each. Both articles must be related to the issue
of food insecurity. Work must be typed.
**If you are unsure of what to do at any point, see the sample deconstruction and sample
annotated bibliography at the end of this document
For the annotated Bibliography: Include full APA or MLA citation and a detailed annotation
of the source. Be sure to complete them in alphabetical order.
Annotated Bibliography Format
• All entries should be alphabetized by FIRST WORD appearing in the citation
• All citations should be in ONE consistent style (APA, MLA)
• Avoid citation generators (which often produce incomplete or inaccurate results); rather,
consult a style guide and create your own citation- for example: owlpurdue
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/resources.html
• An annotated bibliography asks you to think critically about WHY or WHY NOT a
source will help support the argument you’re crafting. The more information you can
provide now, the better off you’ll be when selecting evidence that appears in the final
draft of your paper.
• Length 200-400 words
For each source you find, include
Properly formatted citation in either APA or MLA format- be consisted for both sources
Then, in paragraph format, analyze and discuss the quality of the source.
Include:
• A summary of the source and what it’s about. (Minimum of 5 sentences)
• Credibility of author(s) and source
• The source’s strengths and weaknesses
• An evaluation of the research methodology (not likely to be in the source you use
for the summer assignment unless your source discusses how the research was
conducted)
 • The source’s conclusion
• How and what will you use from the source in your paper? Relevance to your issue
(in this case it’s food insecurity)
• How does this source connect to other source of evidence you’ve found? (If this is
the first source you’ve looked at, then you need to go back to answer this after
reviewing other source)
• What perspectives (viewpoints) are represented in the source and what does each
perspective say?

For the Deconstruction- transfer questions 1-10 on to a separate word doc and complete your
responses next to each question.
Source 1:
1. Provide an APA citation of the source:
2. What are the credentials of the author? Provide a detailed explanation:
3. What continent/country does this article represent?
4. Provide a summary of your source:
5. Detail at least 2 perspectives within your article.
6. What are the key components of the argument or claim?
a. Facts presented:
b. Arguments presented:
c. Opinions presented:
d. Speculation presented:
e. Predictions presented:
f. Conclusions presented:
g. Assumptions presented:
h. Assertions presented:
i. Supporting evidence presented:
7. What are the implications of the conclusions, arguments, reasoning or claims?
8. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, reasoning or claims?
9. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses.
10. Suggest any other evidence required to substantiate or refute claims or counterclaims.

Source 2:

1. Provide an APA citation of the source:

2. What are the credentials of the author? Provide a detailed explanation:
3. What continent/country does this article represent?
4. Provide a summary of your source:
 5. Detail at least 2 perspectives within your article.
6. What are the key components of the argument or claim?
a. Facts presented:
b. Arguments presented:
c. Opinions presented:
d. Speculation presented:
e. Predictions presented:
f. Conclusions presented:
g. Assumptions presented:
h. Assertions presented:
i. Supporting evidence presented:
7. What are the implications of the conclusions, arguments, reasoning or claims?
8. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, reasoning or claims?
9. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses.
10. Suggest any other evidence required to substantiate or refute claims or counterclaims.

Example Deconstruction
1. Provide an APA OR MLA Citation of the source:
RISKS AND REWARDS OF GENE EDITING. (2020). Issues in Science and Technology, 36(4), 11+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A632367564/OVIC?u=novaseumain&sid= OVIC&xid=20256d42
2. What are the credentials of the author? Provide a detailed explanation:
The article is written by Marcy Darnovsky who is the Executive Director at the Center for Genetics and Society
in Berkeley, California. She earned her doctorate from History of Consciousness program at the University of
California, Santa Cruz. Her focus is typically on biotechnology and bioethics and she has been published in The
New York Times, Nature, The Guardian, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Harvard Law and Policy
Review, Democracy, and New Scientist. Darnovsky used to work as a professor at Sonoma State University and
at California State University East Bay.

3. What continent/country does this article represent?

The articles author and the viewpoints explained are both from the United States. It should be mentioned that
Iceland is used as an example.
4. Provide a summary of your source:
The main focus of the article is a response to an interview published in the previous season’s issue of the same
journal, Issues in Science and Technology. The interview was with Jennifer Doudna and the ethics surrounding
the CRISPR gene-editing technology. The article presents two viewpoints on the interview from Roger
Stoffregen and the author Marcy Darnovsky.
Roger Stoffregen stresses the question of why it is the responsibility of bioethicists to create guidelines
for the technology. He explains how the people in charge of many of the institutions have religious or other
interests which would affect their opinions. He explains that the decision should go past bioethicists and even
include people within different faiths. He uses the example of Iceland, where fetuses with Down syndrome are
identified and aborted, to show that he is unsure about the bioethicist’s opinion about the morality of this
practice but he knows that no one would accept it as a “law.” He ends with how important it is that the decisions
about this new technology be made beyond just bioethicists.
Darnovsky’s perspective is clear as well where she explains that Doudna’s interview showed us that
there is now a way to alter genomes and traits of children in utero. Darnovsky points out that she, along with
many others, noticed that Doudna’s interview did not explain what is termed as responsible use of this
technology and how mistakes can be avoided.
Darnovsky tells us that Doudna claimed that the main issue with embryo editing is the ethical
ramifications that come with editing genes like consent, enhancements vs. medical necessity, and possible harm.
Darnovsky critiques that the interview Doudna gave did not mention how these issues could be solved or how
gene editing would make current inequalities even starker. Darnovsky says the interview tasks scientists to
guide a vague public conversation about how gene editing should be done, rather than letting the public decide
if it should be done at all. Darnovsky says that Doudna failed to explain why these others should be left out of
the conversation other than the research is necessary.
Darnovsky ends the article advocating for a conversation about whether the practice of gene editing
should be permitted at all rather than focusing first on how it should be used.

5. Detail at least 2 perspectives within your article.

The article is written from the perspective of a scientist and bioethicist. The article explains the effects that the
technology will have on the general public and even future children.
Doudna:
The first perspective is that of Jennifer Doudna who appears in the initial interview that the article
responds to. Doudna focuses on the importance of the CRISPR technology for the future. She stresses the
importance of bioethicists to determine the moral and ethical “codes” of how to apply the technology, especially
as it relates to editing the genes of a child before they are born.
Stoffregen:
Another perspective within the article is Roger Stoffregen who disagrees with Doudna’s assertion that
bioethicists should create the so-called rules of this new technology.
Darnovsky:
The author of the article, Marcy Darnovsky continues with the perspective that Roger Stoffregen
presents and explains that not only should bioethicists not be responsible for creating the code for what is
appropriate for gene editing, but the entire process should be part of a wider conversation for if the practice
should be done at all. Darnovsky claims that Doudna is trying to keep other audiences out of this conversation
when it is integral for them to have an understanding of the technology and potential impacts.

6. What are the key components of the argument or claim?

a. Facts presented:
 i. Some of the facts presented within this article include the interview from Jennifer
Doudna that discusses the CRISPR gene-editing technology which is the subject of the
debate.
b. Arguments presented:
i. Jennifer Doudna argues that bioethicists should be the creators of the guidelines and
developers of the management for this new technology which would allow scientists to
edit genes more extensively.
ii. Roger Stoffregen argues that Doudna is incorrect, citing many institutions of higher
education and religious authorities would be making decisions for the general public. He
explains the ethical ramifications of leaving the guidelines of this technology simply to
bioethicists.
iii. Marcy Darnovsky argues that then entire concept of using this technology, as whole,
should be a discussion first before the implementation or the guidelines are visited. She
explains that the inequities caused by the inception of the technology would be vast and
the conversation cannot just be had between scientists.
c. Opinions presented:
i. The opinion presented by Jennifer Doudna is that the CRISPR gene-editing technology
will be accepted throughout the community because it is revolutionary. Jennifer Doudna
believes that the bioethics community will determine the moral and ethical guidelines
because they are the best to do so.
ii. The opinion that Roger Stoffregen presents is that there is corruption and inequities
within the community and that the community is too small to determine or accept
guidelines as fact.
iii. The opinion that Marcy Darnovsky presents is that gene editing as a whole is a social
justice issue that needs to be discussed. She believes that Doudna fails to address any
risks that the new technology presents.
d. Speculation presented:
i. The main speculation of the article is Doudna’s belief that the public and other figures
outside the science and bioethics community would not be able to determine the
guidelines of how to implement the gene-editing technology.
e. Predictions presented:
i. Some of the predictions presented include: Darnovsky’s claim that there would need to
be further conversations about the morality of gene-editing in our society; Stoffregen’s
worry of the possible corruption of those who would create guidelines for the technology;
and Doudna’s prediction that CRISPR would be implemented within our society.
f. Conclusions presented:
i. Conclusions presented by both Darnovsky and Stoffregen stress the need for taking a step
back to ethically and responsibly decide when and how to address the use of the gene
editing technology.
g. Assumptions presented:
 i. The main assumption within the argument is that this new discovery of gene-editing
technology should be used. Doudna assumes that the CRISPR technology will be
something implemented and has progressed to the discussion of who will decide on the
guidelines of its implementation. This assumption is later criticized by both Stoffregen
and Darnovsky.
h. Assertions presented:
i. The assertion presented in the article is that this CRISPR gene-editing technology will
provide new avenues into eugenics. Arguments proceed for if that is moral and how these
directions should be taken ethically and responsibly.
i. Supporting evidence presented:
i. Supporting evidence for Doudna’s interview was presented in an article in the Fall 2019
issue, "Incorporating Ethics into Technology Assessment," by Zach Graves and Robert
Cook-Deegan, which described the role of bioethicists in the assessment of new
biotechnologies.
7. What are the implications of the conclusions, arguments, reasoning or claims?
The implications of the arguments in the article are life changing. If, as Doudna argues, the CRISPR gene-
editing technology is implemented without including the general public in the conversation, issues of ethics may
be overlooked. As Stoffregen pointed out, there can be issues within both faith based and educational
institutions with the concept of gene editing all together than can have negative consequences. Another possible
consequence is highlighted by Darnovsky discussing the lack of equity in access to the technology which would
only increase the current inequalities in our society.
8. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, reasoning or claims?
An important strength in this article is its use of logical reasoning from both Stoffregen as well as Darnovsky.
They explain the risks of both leaving the decision making to bioethicists alone as well as the risks of
implementing any system of gene editing. Stoffregen uses an example of Iceland to defend the idea that
instituting guidelines does not necessarily make bioethicists accept an idea. Darnovsky highlights a strength by
appealing to pathos and discussing how the conversation is one that needs to be had with all communities, not
just the elite. As the author, she highlights how important understanding and creating a system for the use of the
technology is to all members of society.
One of the weaknesses of the article is that Stoffregen is not given academic credits. We are aware of
Darnovsky’s credentials and we respect her opinion based on her biography, that which we do not have of
Stoffregen. Another weakness within the article is the lack of quotes from the original interview it references.
Without knowing Doudna’s exact arguments, we must take the two other author’s rebuttals as all the facts we
have received.
9. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses.
Though without the original interview, or even a few excerpts, a true weakness of this argument, the
counterclaims presented have a strong effect on all people in our society. The magnitude of implementing how,
when, and who decides what gene-editing technology will become available to the general public cannot be
understated. For that reason, this argument is important to the conversation.
10. Suggest any other evidence required to substantiate or refute claims or counterclaims.
The most important evidence required to substantiate or refute these claims would be the original interview,
which I can access as well. In order to weigh the claims within this article, we must first look at the assertions
made within the interview. Another important piece of evidence needed would be to complete research into the
gene-editing technology to determine its reach and abilities.

Sample Annotated Bibliography

Warrington, James. “Germany’s Biggest News Publisher Strikes Deal to Let Chatgpt Read Its Stories.” The
Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 13 Dec. 2023, www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/12/13/axel-
springer-strikes-deal-with-openai-to-let-chatgpt-read/.

This article is about a German company called Axel Springer which made a deal with Chatgpt. It is the first
deal of its kind. The news company is giving Chatgpt access and permission to their newspaper for training
purposes. Chatgpt will use the access to train its program to give stronger responses in its chatbox. Axel
Springer will be financially compensated for its use, but the exact amount is currently unknown. The author;
James Warrington, is a senior business reporter for the Telegraph which is a well respected British newspaper
which has been publishing since the late 1800’s. This is one of the article’s strengths. In addition, the article
quotes individuals with direct knowledge of the deal such as the chief executive of Axel Springer and the chief
operating officer of AI. Another strength is the inclusion of other corporations which are in talks of making
similar deals with AI. Weakness would include not giving the amount of money or how Axel Springer will be
paid. Another is that the perspective of journalists doesn’t include names or direct quotes.
Perspectives in this article include journalists who are upset not to have been involved in the negotiations.
Matias Dopfner is the chief executive of Axel Springer and his perspective is that it’s a great deal for both his
company and AI. He feels this is an opportunity to see how AI and journalism can work together. Brad
Lightcap works for open AI and his perspective is that his company is looking to help the journalism field be
stronger and more effective. The perspective of Owen Meredith (chief executive for New Media) is that this is
a good start in protecting the intellectual property of media, but more needs to be done. I plan to use quotes
from this article from the executives to Alex Springer and AI to demonstrate how this type of deal benefits both
corporations. I will also use it to show the perspective of individuals in the journalism field and how they want
and need their intellectual property protected.