The field of genetically modified organisms

The field of Genetically Modified Organisms is rapidly growing and has the potential for many benefits. . This upside, however, comes with many possible risks. Some members of the medical field may be blinded by the success of genetically modified plants used to feed the hungry and provide nutrition to third world countries. Biological researchers, on the other hand, thoroughly test the newly created organisms to make sure that the risks don’t outweigh the benefits. GMO’s are created by moving DNA from one organism to a completely unrelated organism in order to manufacture a superior organism. For example, scientists have genetically modified an ear of corn with DNA from sample bacteria to create a pesticide resistant crop. This is done so that farmers can spray an entire field and not worry about possibly hurting the corn crop.

Supporters that encourage the advancement of Genetically Modified Organisms without limitations, would most likely agree with the analysis done by Sciencemag. Basically, this paper discusses a small case study done in India with cotton plants. It is very common for small farmers in developing countries to suffer a substantial crop loss because they lack the resources to combat pests and other possible hazards. When the farmers were given the genetically modified plants, their crop yield significantly increased because of how resistant the plants were due to modification. The farmers in this case study experienced greater growth in crop yield than large scale farmers in first world countries. Farmers who have large scale operations already have the resources to protect their plants more efficiently, thus explaining the outcome of this experiment. The total harvest of the two fields were proportional, however the growth of the third world country crop yield was much greater.

The proven success of genetically modified plants increasing the crop yield paves the way for solving major problems such as world hunger. The perfect example of this would be golden rice. Golden rice is a genetically modified plant that can be mass produced and fed to humans lacking vitamin A. Normal rice lacks β-carotene, which is what a human body uses to produce Vitamin A. Vitamin A is important because it helps develop the immune system. Without a developed immune system, the body has a hard time fighting off common and serious illnesses, alike. As of now, it costs about two million dollars to run a golden rice operation, which seems like an unimaginable enterprise for a poor country. Consequently, this steep cost is what causes most countries to opt out of growing it. Supporters hope that now that golden rice is approved and marketable, they can move on to the next step of making it more financially available, especially to third world countries.

Cost is a large worry for the supporters of genetically modified plants because of cases such as Monsanto corn. Monsanto corn is a GMO also created to be immune to pesticides. This allows farmers to spray an entire field of pesticides, instead of focusing on just one area. The pesticide they use is also created by Monsanto, giving the entire monopoly to this one company . To add onto this, farmers aren’t allowed to replant the corn they grow seeing as technically it is Monsanto’s patented product. This can cause huge legal and financial problems for farmers wanting to increase the crop yield by using genetically modified corn created by Monsanto. Not to mention, there are also potential health problems that surround this specific GMO. Unlike Golden Rice, this product was created simply so that it grows more effectively by being immune to the pesticides that the farmers use. Monsanto corn contains no more nutritional value than regular corn. There is evidence that Monsanto corn can actually cause health problems. In a study done with rats, fifty percent of males and seventy percent of females that ate these corn seeds with a resistance to roundup (a pesticide) had a shortened lifespan. To add onto this, the United States does not require companies to label their GMO products as such, but this can be changed on a state level. According to labelgmos.org only forty percent of the world have labels on their genetically modified foods. What is shocking is that two of the biggest countries, the United States and Canada, do not. The study with rats shows why researchers of genetically modified organisms would have differing opinions than humanitarians or nutritionists whose main goal is to develop new ways to feed the hungry and malnourished.

Researchers and developers from the biology field would prefer to take a more risk and benefit approach to genetically modified organisms. Springer has a paper that outlines how someone in this field would feel. In summary, the paper discusses why GMOs have not been fully explored and why there are still lingering questions. Some countries are jumping onto the bandwagon of genetically modified organisms in order to increase crop yield, while others are taking a more cautious route. The countries that are taking a slower path to legalizing GMO’s are weighing out all of their options, first. They are carefully searching for a scale to effectively analyze the risks and benefits of GMOs before making them accessible to the population. However, these “scales” were created long before genetically modified organisms, making them outdated and ineffective. Researchers are on a mission to create an entirely new risk analysis scale that will encompass all aspects of adequately judging GMOs. Some of the things the new scale takes into account is importance of impact, magnitude of change, sensitivity of the environment, and probability of impact on the environment. All of these are given numerical values are based on levels of severity. For example, importance of impact can go all the way to four, while probability of occurrence can only go up to one. This also gives the different categories weights to compare to each other because some categories are clearly far more important than others seeing as reversibility of impact is far more important than the probability of impact. All of these categories are taken into account while looking at information such as, location, biome, and possibility of effect on the biome. They tested their scale by applying it to a study case they conducted in South Africa. In South Africa they already had a GMO act that reviewed genetically modified organisms before allowing them to be raised and consequently sold into the markets- but they wanted to test the effectiveness. Researchers presented the South African Government with their analysis about the risks and benefits during a recent proposal of using genetically modified maize. They wanted to do this because South Africa had traditionally been against using anything that was genetically modified, not limited to plants. The researchers behind this paper are in favor of genetically modified organisms. They just want to make sure the right procedures are in place to protect the environment and the wild species that could potentially be harmed. The eventual goal for these researchers is for their system of evaluation to be implemented across the entire world.

These two disciplines are very complex in terms of relationship. They are both supportive of the use of GMOs, but their approach are completely opposite of each other. Humanitarians who are pushing for better nutrition for the hungry wouldn’t take the time and effort to create a risk analysis system like the researchers from Springer did. They have the best intentions when promoting the use of things such a golden rice, a GMO that has no known possible side effects. Researchers from Springer would never take such a bold approach. They push for the advancement of genetically modified organisms, but have other motivations than just solving world hunger, as well as different standards. Their motivations are mainly the advancement of genetically modified organisms, but with caution. By caution they mean putting a system of standards in place in order to create a universal way to weigh pros and cons of these GMOs. In a perfect world, there wouldn’t be a need for a system of evaluation for anything that is genetically modified, but nothing can be considered completely safe. Monsanto Corn is a prime example of why there needs to be a global risk and evaluation scale for genetically modified organisms. On the other hand, for the medical and nutritional field, golden rice is the perfect example of why someone wanting to combat malnourishment and hunger would push for the advancement of all genetically modified organisms.

The advancement of genetically modified organisms is important to both medical and biological research fields. With genetically modified organisms growing exponentially, there will be massive breakthroughs. These, however, have and will come with many risks. Humanitarians pushing for a cure for worldwide hunger may be blinded with the success of genetically modified plants and other organisms in third world countries. At the same time biologist want to develop GMO’s. The difference, however, is that they want to take a much different approach to it. They want to know for sure that the benefits far outweigh the potential hazards of what could go wrong.

Interdisciplinary Analysis: BCI Systems

Imagine being able to control objects such as a robotic arm, a cursor, or a computer mouse with just your mind. With the technological advances occurring in the world, this is becoming more of a reality than just an idea. Now devices called BCIs are being created and studied to help benefit those that have neurological illnesses or are disabled. These devices aim to restore or replace useful function to people disabled by neuromuscular disorders. The future will bring faster, more reliable BCIs. BCI systems involve many different fields and studies. Two important fields required in BCI systems are neurology and Biomedical engineering. Neurologists focus more on the study of the brain when researching BCI systems while Biomedical engineers focus more on the technological advances involving BCI systems. When using these systems, neurologists will often use noninvasive BCIs to study components of the brain such as brain waves and electrical impulses while biomedical engineers will use invasive BCIs to try and advance the technology for easier use.

BCI, which stands for brain-computer interface, is a device that can decode human intent and thoughts from brain activity to direct some external activity, such as control a cursor or a prosthetic limb. Essentially these systems receive the input of brain signals and use complicated recognition algorithms to create devices. These devices allow for a direct communication pathway between the brain and the object to be controlled. For this, no actual movement of the body is required. BCIs can be used for communication, computer access, or control of devices such as a wheelchair or prosthetic arm. Almost anything a computer can control, potentially, can be controlled by BCIs. BCIs are being studied and used as a rehabilitation device to help people regain motor skills and as a prosthetic device to replace motor skills that will never be able to return. There are two types of BCI systems: invasive and noninvasive. Invasive systems require surgery to implant electrodes on the brain while noninvasive BCIs are placed on the scalp and held in place with a cap and gel. Noninvasive systems usually involve using Electroencephalograms(EEG) to read brain signals.

An important aspect of brain-computer interfaces is the study of the brain. It is very important to know how the brain works and how messages move through the brain before discussing BCI’s. The human brain is ultimately responsible for all thoughts and movements that the body produces. The brain is made up of nerve cells which interact with the rest of the body. When we talk about signals and messages being sent from the brain or to the brain, we’re talking about electricity carrying messages. These electrical messages are passed throughout the brain and body by cells called neurons. These cells are the core component of the brain and there is an average of about 100 billion neurons within the brain. Information transmission within the brain is only successful with the combination of electricity and chemicals.

Before looking at the two different disciplines, it is important to look at the purpose of the two careers and how they approach BCI systems. Neurology is the branch of medicine that studies and treats disorders that involve the nervous system. Neurologists are the medical doctors that treat and study disorders that affect the brain, spinal cord, and nerves. They do not perform surgeries and if a patient requires surgery, then they refer them to a neurosurgeon. Neurologists also monitor patients that have had surgery and oversee patients’ continuation of treatments. These neurologists also study patients’ past medical histories and conduct tests to determine problems in the nervous system. With the common aim of helping others, biomedical engineering is the application of engineering principles and concepts to medicine and biology for healthcare purposes. Biomedical engineers will analyze and design solutions to problems in biology and medicine to try and improve patient care. These engineers work with a number of different field workers such as doctors, therapists, and researchers to develop equipment and devices. At research institutions they do extensive research, supervise laboratories, and participate in or direct research in collaboration with other researchers with backgrounds in medicine, physiology, and nursing. Even though these two fields are different, there are times when workers from these will come together to work on different types of projects. The difference between the two when using BCI systems are the types that they use. Neurologists will generally use noninvasive BCI systems as they are used more for research purposes while biomedical engineers use invasive BCI systems to try and further advance the technology used. However noninvasive and invasive BCI systems are still used in both studies.

When using BCI systems neurologists aren’t as concerned about the technological advances, as they focus more on the study of the brain and how it functions. The main reason neurologists use noninvasive systems is because it involves no surgery. The noninvasive BCI systems that they use usually involves EEG. These are by far the most widely used BCI technique because it is cheap and portable. EEG as well as MEG(magnetoencephalography) is used to study brain signals and reflect the average activity of dendritic currents in a large population of cells. The temporal resolution of EEG and MEG to measure changes in neuronal activity is high; however, the spatial resolution to determine the precise position of active sources in the brain is poor. The components that neurologists study when using BCI systems involve brain waves, electrical impulses, neuron activity, and magnetic fields. Research areas include measurement of brain-activity and evaluation of brain-activity that can be used for communication. Using these systems has led to substantial progress in understanding and deciphering the neural code of the brain. An example of this would be the work done by Brodersen and collaborators who used a computational model of neurodynamics to improve decoding. Even though they are still very far from decoding the brain as a whole, with BCI systems neurologists are getting ever so close.

One example of using BCI for neurological studies is the Kübler and Kotchoubey experiment. This line of research used BCI techniques to better diagnose non-responsive patients and, possibly, to communicate with those in a minimally conscious state. The BCI system used in the study allowed patients to select letters, words or items on a computer screen for neuroprosthesis control. Another example of using BCI for studying the brain would be the Sellers’s and Donchin’s original experiment. Sellers and Donchin used a four-choice paradigm and tested their system with three subjects suffering from ALS and three able-bodied subjects. From their research they showed that communication is possible in the visual and auditory part of the brain. The research also showed the difference in brain activity between able-bodied subjects and disabled subjects. In the brain of the disabled, there were certain parts of the brain that no longer functioned or was able to communicate with the rest of the body effectively.

For biomedical engineers, they approach BCI systems in a different matter; they focus on making more technological advances. They more often use invasive BCI systems because it gives a more accurate and clean signal for them to analyze, seeing if the machine is working effectively or not. Since invasive BCIs involve implanting electrodes into the skull, most of these studies are done on animals. However, noninvasive BCI systems are still used to try and advance technology. One example of biomedical engineers using a BCI system to create more effective technology was a study(from a scholarly article) used to analyze ankle movement. This research dealt with five-able bodied subjects that performed ten alternations of idling and repetitive for dorsiflexion. The results of this research showed that it is possible to create BCI systems that apply to lower extremities of a humans’ lower body. With this, BCI systems can be used to restore lost motor functions that were due to neurological injury.

BCI systems are creating a major impact on the disabled. These devices are allowing patients to assist, augment, or repair human cognitive or sensory-motor functions. BCIs are also allowing the able-bodied to connect to external devices for usage such as computer typing, controlling a computer cursor, or even making a balloon shark swim in the air. BCI systems are used in different fields and are approached in different ways. Neurologists use noninvasive BCIs to study neurological or brain activity while biomedical engineers test invasive BCI systems to further advance the technology that is used in these types of systems. Overall, even though these systems are still in its infancy, BCI systems hold great promise to be particularly helpful to people who are severely disabled such as amputees and those with neurological diseases.











References

Mattout, Jérémie. “Brain-Computer Interfaces: A Neuroscience Paradigm of Social Interaction? A Matter of Perspective.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6 (2012): 114. PMC. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.

Marcel van Gerven et al 2009 J. Neural Eng. 6 041001

Ulrich Hoffmann, Jean-Marc Vesin, Touradj Ebrahimi, Karin Diserens, An efficient P300-based brain–computer interface for disabled subjects, Journal of Neuroscience Methods, Volume 167, Issue 1, 15 January 2008, Pages 115-125, ISSN 0165-0270, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2007.03.005.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165027007001094)

Do, An, Po Wang, Christine King, Ahmad Abiri, and Zoran Nenadic. "Brain-Computer Interface Controlled Functional Electrical Stimulation System for Ankle Movement." Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation (2011). Biomedcentral. BioMed Central. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

"Neurology at Highland Hospital." What Is a Neurologist? UR Medicine. Web. 5 Dec. 2015.

Interdisciplinary Analysis: Research: Two Sides of the Same Coin

Research requires a tremendous amount of time and support. We students can especially relate as we spend countless hours searching for data, receiving advice from colleagues, and, in certain situations, use aid from another party to conduct our research to formulate our papers. Professionals in the workforce are no exceptions because they depend on primary information that may be acquired through surveys and studies managed by themselves or representatives. However, in order to support these endeavors, professional researchers often request the support and resources from government groups and programs. Although, in the absence of governmental funds, researchers can look towards secondary sponsors that will support the study. In fact, the American Heart Association recently partnered with Google in November of this year in the pursuit of a new project. This collaboration was made to advance the efforts in researching the causes of heart disease and potential cures. Whatever the case may be, intensive research in professional fields may call for the enterprising contributions from sponsors supporting the venture. With the restrictions of research established, one must consider that every career carry their own strengths and weaknesses in their methods of research under limitations posed during their investigation. In order to comprehend the distinctions in perspective of separate trades, it is necessary to explore disciplines with no relation to each other and how they tackle a problem. The article, “NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease”, from the journal, PLOS ONE, presents a neurologist’s scientific approach on researching data through the utilization of hypothesis to underline an issue, records and data from the previous years, and analysis from that data to create a solid conclusion. From the International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, an article called “The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries” brings an architect’s calculated approach on the conduct in their studies with the use of strategy on how information is to be explored, experimentation with available resources, and ingenuity to reach a verdict on an issue. Although both disciplines have fundamental backgrounds in science, they both differ greatly from one another in their fields and methods which enables each to provide their own viewpoints on the freedoms and constraints of research.

Before analyzing how both disciplines deal with an issue, we must grasp the purpose of each career and how their perspectives proceed with the management of and search for relevant information. Neurologists are medical doctors trained in diagnosing, treating, and managing disorders of the brain and nervous system. Although this specialist does not perform treatment such as surgery, they primarily consult with other physicians and recommend proper medical care as well as monitor surgically treated patients and supervise the continuation of their treatment. Under normal circumstance, neurologists studies the health history of the patient and their relatives to note special consideration on the patient. Then the doctor will conduct sensory tests to determine problems in the nervous system to confirm a diagnosis. On the other hand, architects deal with designing new buildings, extensions, or alterations and advise on the restoration and maintenance of older structures. Professionals in this field produce the specifications of a construct to ensure the functional, safe, and economic standards from the flexibility of freelance operatives to the employment of organizations. In addition to these skills, architects can create models for a building, communicate their visual ideas to their clients, and financially manage the project. Both careers demand rigorous education however as opposed to neurologists who clinically solve their objectives, architects tend to have freedom and creativity in the workforce. The article regarding the point of view from a neurologist’s standpoint, presents information on disease burden and data of how much funding supports those disease burdens. The latter’s article brings data on urban policy, the relevancy of keywords with the growth of developing countries, and research and documents with the results of the investigation.

While these two disciplines require educational backgrounds in science, the difference between the articles is the backgrounds and professions of the authors. Before indicating the strengths and weaknesses of the two careers, one must examine the disciplinary differences between them and how the nature of their profession is connected to how they gather intelligence. Neurology is a field that focuses on medical and social sciences. The scientific approach utilized by neurologists involves deducting a hypothesis concerning an issue, discovering research that can prove that theory, and cross-reference that data with that of recent years in order to affirm whether the initial hypothesis is correct or that it lead to another trend. This mirrors how a doctor will perform a series of tests to diagnose a patient of an illness or not. On the contrary, Architecture relies on physical sciences and mathematics. Proficiency in these skills allow architects to formulate a calculated approach and strategize on exploring information, conduct experiments from those results while applying creativity and cleverness to the matter. Much like the former, this procedure reflects how architects design structures with consideration in what order the construct must be built without sacrificing innovation. Due to the distinction in the manner of how both fields approach research, they also reflect their knowledge in their respective disciplines and viewpoints of their trades. By analyzing the prospects and purposes of these two vocations and how they can apply the unique qualities of their trade to a task, we can delve further into the strengths and weaknesses that arise in correlation of these behaviors with their own methods in research .

Concerning the author and researchers in the field of neurology, these specialists gravitate toward a scientific approach to ensure efficient and logical research. The leading author of “NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease”, Leslie A. Gillum, wrote the article based on the issue of the allocation of funds for specific diseases and the NIH’s (National Institute of Health) funding alignment with disease burden. In the mid-1990s Congress requested the IOM (Institute of Medicine) to evaluate the NIH’s processes for funding apportionment. Upon the discovery of this record, the authors’ of this piece decide to further investigate this issue in order to cultivate the impact of the future disease burden. The researchers in this article hypothesize that the NIH has developed their process to align funds with burden in correlation of the funds, disease burden, and records reported from ten years ago. They also put into consideration of potential predictors of funding and estimates for future and global disease burden. By devising a theory based on previous studies, the authors of the article can explore the potential or the repercussions of the issue in recent years. From this diagnosis of the matter, these researchers proceed to recover information on the subject. Paying attention to the records from the mid-1990s, they establish the method used from that time to model and substantiate their own research and analysis. The study from the 1990s utilized burden data from 1994 and NIH funding data from 1996 to mirror the data on disease burden. Similarly, the neurologists drew the same points from 2004 and 2006 respectively. From the information from 2004 and 2006, the researchers condense the statistics on a table and display the name of a disease with the figures such as the amount of funding it received, incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability adjusted life-years. Once all of the evidence for the case is gathered and studied by the multiple authors of this article, the researchers can then compare the data they have collected with that from the 1990s and determine whether their hypothesis is correct or not. When the comparison between the two studies was finalized, the neurologists concluded that funding levels of recent years were less aligned than that ten years ago from 2004 and 2006. In light of this realization, the researchers have noted that their hypothesis was false and offer potential solutions that can improve the current statute of fund alignment. The scientific approach brought by neurologists provides an effective method for researching information and consolidating the results from their studies; however, through this conclusion, researchers wielding this approach face the possibility that their theory is incorrect in the presence of compelling or misleading information.

Following the revelations from the analysis of a neurologist’s practice in research, we will now probe into the perspective of an architect. These individuals invoke a calculated approach to capture credible information from their research. The prime author of “The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries”, Richard Tomlinson, composed his article to enlighten several positions on urban policy, the availability of information on the issue, policy hegemony, and public-private partnerships (PPPs). In order to support those claims, the writers of this piece formulate a strategy to tackling what those positions are and how they influence urban policy and knowledge of the matter. The first claim was to research how the World Bank, UN Habitat, and Cities Alliance dominate urban agenda in regards to urban issues and appropriate policies. The second was to investigate the contribution to the hegemony on these issues and policies with policy perspectives through the use of the search engine, Google. And lastly, the authors research how institutes, such as the ones mentioned in the first claim, “own” certain keywords on search engines to draw users to their own resources and documents. By outlining these three components of their claim, Tomlinson and his team have pinpointed the areas where they need to apply focused research increase the efficiency of their investigation. Following the search of relevant information on those claims, the writers of the article can conduct their own experiments to sustain insufficient data or previously found data. The article googled keywords and labels to generate results on policy alternatives to PPPs and other institutes. Much like the former discipline, the architects of this piece compiled the information from this pursuit onto a table that presented an institute’s relation to webpage. In doing so, the article’s displays provide an explanation of how institutions have a presence in policy issues and “own” general terms that can link results to their own resource. Compared to how neurologists gathered their statistics, the architects of this article employed the creativity of their trade to fabricate data in the absence of information on their issue. With the knowledge from their study illuminated, the authors can then conclude and confirm that the information provided by an institute holds relevancy through certain keywords and is delivered by Google to their users. To validate this conclusion, the authors forwarded their proposal to Google’s Search Quality team. However, the proposition was passed along to several other teams and the writers of the article had yet to receive any response. The calculated approach provided by an architect’s point of view allowed for effective research in collaboration with ingenuity granted from their profession; But with possibility of holes in that information, inconsistency is created in the presence of minor errors in the research or questioning of sources.

Due to the fact that Research is necessary for the improvement of any given field, it is important to consider the backgrounds of said field. While neurology and architecture have some similarities in the science and the pathways of how they solve an issue, they apply the unique characteristics of their trade in their studies. Although by doing so grants a distinctive perspective and reinforcement to their research and conclusion, they can both suffer from the same anomaly in the investigation. While preferring different methods to begin and continue their research, both disciplines reach the possibility of doubt in their claims. Aside from the major difference in career, the primary difference between these two profession in how they approach an issue and research is the different mannerisms they exhibit while conducting their research. Both Neurologists and Architects apply their customs into research to reflect how they would perform a diagnosis or strategize the construction of a building.









Citation

Tomlinson, Richard et al. “The Influence of Google on Urban Policy in Developing Countries.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 34.1 (2010): 174–189. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Gillum LA, Gouveia C, Dorsey ER, Pletcher M, Mathers CD, et al. (2011) “NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease.” PLoS ONE Web. 19 Nov. 2015

http://www.wired.com/2015/11/google-aims-a-50-million-moonshot-at-curing-heart-disease/

http://www.bmj.com/content/319/7221/S2-7221

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-todays-young-architects-are-building-the-future-1439935910

https://www.lifenph.com/article-neuros.asp

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-engineering-careers/engineering/architect#education

Interdisciplinary Analysis: Gun Control

Gun control is a growing controversial issue in the United States. This controversy is fueled by mass shootings and mixed opinions across the country about stricter gun regulations. Some members of the criminology field believe that stricter gun regulations would not solve our crime problems, and the purchase of a firearm makes a household feel safer. However, political science experts believe that there is gap between the United States’ firearm regulations , as well as other countries gun regulations, and the norms and standards people have for firearms around the world. Gun control regulations in US have become more strict in recent years, an example of this being the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System on customers before they complete the purchase of a firearm.




Supporters of the Second Amendment and gun rights activists would most likely support the article written by 2 experts in the criminology field. The article, titled Guns and Fear: A One Way Street written by Will Hauser and Gary Kleck, discusses the correlation of gun ownership and fear of criminal acts. The author’s hypothesis is that there is a correlation between gun ownership and a reduction in fear of unlawful activity. The article discusses and analyzes data from the survey of Community, Crime, and Health, which polled citizens of the United States across the country. This survey was a phone based survey that called citizens across the country at random. Topics on the survey included questions on household firearms, gun ownership, and level of fear when a person owns a firearm. The authors began predicting changes in gun ownership using the respondent's’ self-reported level of fear in the survey. Then the considered gun acquirers in separate questions from those who relinquished their household gun. They then used changes in gun ownership to predict changes in fear. After conducting their study, results showed that victimization motivates gun acquisition, presumably for self-defense, fear of crimes did in fact cause individuals and families to obtain household guns, and fearful gun owners were less likely to discard their household firearms than non fearful gun owners.



In this study on correlation between fear of crimes and ownership of firearms, I identified a few rhetorical conventions. These conventions included similarity, contrast, repetition, and emphasis. Similarities include using the same form of surveying for all questions and polling people of the same country. Differences include some contrasting results in the data, where some of the people polled did not particularly agree with majority’s opinion. This article uses repetition to get it’s point across. These criminology experts repeatedly discuss their opinion on how gun ownership in a household correlates with a reduction of fear from criminal activity. Using emphasis, the 2 criminologists reiterate the importance of how adding fear of crimes to their survey caused an increase of people stating they would own a household firearm.




Americans have good reason to be fearful of criminal activity and to want to protect themselves. According to a recent CNN news article, between 1966 and 2012, there have been 90 mass shootings (mass shootings are defined for the study as having four or more victims and do not include gang killings or slayings that involve the death of multiple family members) in the United States. While the United States is stereotypically known around the world as a safe place for citizens and immigrants seeking refuge and a place to flourish, this data denies these assumptions. The 90 U.S. mass shootings are nearly one third of the 292 such attacks globally for that period. While the U.S. has 5% of the world's population, it had 31% of all public mass shootings. These mass shootings average 6.87 victims per incident, which is slightly lower than the global average of 8.8 victims per incident.




Supporters of government regulation and people opposed to gun rights would more than likely support the second article written by a political science expert. The article, titled Global Gun Control: Examining the Consequences of Competing International Norms written by Suzette R. Grilliot. Grillot is an expert in the political science field. The author’s main claim is that global gun control is needed, however existing norms in society such as sovereignty, self defense, and self determination put up a major challenge to the creation of stronger gun control. The article states that the global spread and misuse of firearms is one of the most controversial and growing security issues in the past few decades. However, controlling the spread of gun is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, given the serious nature of the gun control issue, numerous states, organizations, and activists have tried to come up with solutions different gun control problems. One of the earliest suggestions that these organizations and advocates offered was to try to develop international norms and standards of behavior that creates a blueprint of acceptable firearm activities. Despite the numerous attempts that states and governments have taken over the past ten years to solve these problems, comparable norms are mostly weak or nonexistent. This article examines why global small arms control norms are largely weak or nonexistent and explains why the prospects for stronger norms are few. The dominant reason for weak firearm norms is a competitive setting for norms that is facilitated and expedited by competing coalitions and organizations that promote opposing norm’s ideas and a greater consent that works against strong firearm control norms.




In this article about gun control norms, I found some of the same rhetorical conventions as I found in the previous article. These rhetorical conventions included contrast, repetition, and emphasis. As for contrast, the article shows differences in opinions of norms around the world. The article contrasts the pro gun control norms versus norms that are against gun control. The article uses repetition to show the importance of the norms in the world, and how we as people react to them. The article uses emphasis to show the seriousness of the effects of norms in society such as sovereignty, self defense, and self determination on public safety around the world.




The way that the two disciplines intertwine and oppose each other is that they both show the causes and effects of gun control, however the criminologists seem to be fine with the way gun control is managed right now, while the political science expert suggests the best way to regulate gun control at this time is to change society’s norms. Organizations against harsh gun regulations, such as the National Rifle Association would most likely use the case study completed the criminologists to back up their beliefs on gun regulation. On the other hand, organizations that are pro gun control, such as The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, would likely have the same point of view that is stated in the political science expert’s article. While these 2 disciplines display their viewpoints in different ways and have different opinions, they both agree that gun violence is causing a problem, whether it be through fear or through change in norms.




This controversial issue is important to both political science and criminology fields. As the misuse of firearms continues, the 2 field’s views will most likely grow farther apart. These differences in opinions stretch much farther outside of just these 2 disciplines. Gun control arguments, debates, and conversations take place between average people everyday. These differences in opinion will most likely only be solved by compromise in the national government’s policies. Both the criminology and political science fields will have a say in this debate, as they both have strong evidence to prove their points.







Sources

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/59/2/271.full.pdf+html

http://search.proquest.com/docview/913286141/fulltextPDF?accountid=12725

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/health/u-s-most-mass-shootings/

http://csgv.org/about-us/

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2013-operations-report

http://gun-control.procon.org/

http://gun.laws.com/gun-control/