Martin 1

Annotated Bibliography

Are there adequate checks and balances in place to protect human rights while advancing the
study of genetic manipulation?

Melissa Martin
Professor Malcolm Campbell
English 1103
25 October 2016

Martin 2

Annotated Bibliography
Adams, Amy et al. Weblog post. Scope Blog. Stanford Medicine, 09 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Oct.
2016.
Scope Blog is an academic blog published by Stanford Medicine that explores different
advances in health and medicine. Written by faculty and staff of the university, this
reliable website provides a database of information I can use as a stimulant for my
research. Many of the postings provide examples of medical advancements achieved
through genetic modification. For example, one post by Jennifer Huber, a PhD physicist
who specializes in medical imaging and writes for this blog, discusses a lifelong,
universal flu vaccine that may be in humanitys future. This advancement is not directly
related to my topic of inquiry, but it still showcases how medicine is progressing through
research on a genetic level in viruses. In addition, this post raises questions of biological
ethics: Who do vaccines get tested on? What long term effects could tampering with the
stems of flu viruses have?
More directly related to my topic of preventions in the field of genetic manipulation is
one posting by Becky Bach, a graduate science communications writer who explores
health and policy on this blog. Entitled Are at-home gene splicing kits a good idea?
Stanford researchers weigh in, this listing explores possible outcomes of allowing
genetic research to progress without interference, including the availability of gene
splicing to the general public through at-home science kits. Because many different
scientific writers update this blog, bias is limited and facts are verified. This single source
covers several topics of interest. I can use it to describe issues with genetic engineering as
well as advances. It is unlikely I will use more than three blog postings in my paper. As

Martin 3

such, I will be able to cite each post individually through in-text citations (which is the
standard MLA formatting citing for blogs) rather than in my works cited page.
Gunderson, Martin. "Enhancing Human Rights: How The Use Of Human Rights Treaties To
Prohibit Genetic Engineering Weakens Human Rights." Journal Of Evolution &
Technology 18.1 (2008): 1-8. Academic Search Complete. Web. 6 Oct. 2016.
Compared to the other sources I have found thus far in my research, this academic article
is the most directly related to my topic and helpful in discussing different policies that
have been enacted or proposed to limit genetic manipulation. It argues genetic
modification should be governed by international treaties rather than human rights
treaties. I was unaware of the different types of treaties already in place limiting
bioengineering before reading this work. This source, because it has been peer reviewed
and cites other credible sources including specific treaties, is in itself credible. It is
relevant to my research despite being written eight years ago because it defines
international and human rights treaties, both of which are still in use. In addition, it
informs of the dangers of applying human rights to the limitation of genetic modification.
These dangers take many forms. Human rights treaties must be broad enough to apply
across cultures, but specific enough they cant be ignored. In addition, the author argues
human rights themselves may be degraded if exceptions are ever made to human rights
treaties, even for beneficial tasks like curing diseases, because human rights are supposed
to be constant and should never be worked around. This article is biased towards
international treaties over human rights treaties. Because of its direct relevance to my
topic and high credibility, I plan to rely heavily on this source in my extended inquiry
project. I will acknowledge different types of treaties limiting genetic engineering as this

Martin 4

article does, as well as further explore the specific treaties it quotes. To counter the bias
against human rights, I also found a news source that examines human rights in regard to
genetic engineering.
High-Tech Foods: Is Genetically Engineered Food Safe? Films Media Group, 2000. Web. 17
Oct. 2016.
In regards to genetic modification, controversy surrounds more than the manipulation of
the human genome. Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are also a matter of
heated discussion. This video defines GMOs, gives a brief history of when and where
research of this variety originated, and shows two sides to the debate surrounding
genetically modified food. According to this work, GMOs are promoted as a method to
increase food production, but critics argue there is not sufficient evidence GMOs are safe.
Several scientists and GMO manufacturers are interviewed in this piece. This, in
conjunction with the articulation of both sides of the argument, makes this a credible
video. This resource has been useful in my research because of its concise descriptions of
the current issues surrounding GMOs, and has broadened my knowledge of the topic. For
my actual paper, I may not use it as much as the first two sources in this annotated
bibliography simply because it focuses less on policy and more on defining the issue; I
can use the other sources for both purposes. As I continue to do my research, I also want
to find more sources articulating the benefits of genetically modified foods and
bioengineering as this will expand my research and improve my argument in my paper by
including all sides of the issue.
Philpott, Tom. "Wait, Did the USDA Just Deregulate All New Genetically Modified Crops?"
Mother Jones. N.p., 8 July 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.

Martin 5

Mother Jones is an independent news source that reports on politics, and, more
importantly, human rights. Because genetic engineering threatens human rights, this news
source is an important location for me to find evidence regarding whether or not more
policies should be enacted limiting genetic engineering. News sources are often biased to
please a specific audience; this is especially true for Mother Jones, a nonprofit that
depends on pleasing the audience to continue production. However, they do this through
the types of stories they report, not how they report them. Mother Jones articles focus on
the role of government in different controversial areas. This article examines the
deregulation of genetically modified crops that occurred in the United States in 2011.
First, the article criticizes the bureaucratic decision of the USDA (United States
Department of Agriculture) to make this pronouncement before a holiday weekend when
news sources get less traffic and attention. It goes on to report the U.S. did not replace the
regulations it removed, instead leaving U.S. citizens without protection from the possible
chemical backlashes that could result from ingesting genetically altered crops. This
article describes different acts that previously regulated genetically modified crop
production, including the Plant Pest Act, but it shows how such acts were really a fiction.
I can use this article in several ways: first, it shows the limited policies currently in place
regulating genetic modification on foods in the U.S. Second, it describes how crops are
genetically modified and the results of tampering with them (such as bug resistance to
herbicides). Finally, I can cite specific examples of genetic modification that commonly
take place from this article.