Website Evaluations
I.
a. Authority/Credibility
NewScientist.com website claims to be the foremost science and technology news service and website. This website offers a wide variety of articles about science and technology that also appear in the print version of the magazine. Reed Business Information, Ltd. publishes New Scientist Magazine in the United Kingdom. Reed provides business information to many industries including science research and development. Through publications such as New Scientist Magazine and its website (NewScientist.com), Reed Business Information attempts to further science and technology by disseminating information through industry, government and academia. The apparent size and scope of Reed Business Information lends credibility to New Scientist Magazine and this website. Moreover, the articles often contain citations to scholars from leading institutions such as UCLA, MIT and Yale.
b. Objectivity/Bias/Purpose
Although this magazine admittedly promotes science and technology, it does offer contrary opinions, at least in the cloning controversy. Then again, controversy sells magazines and New Scientist is in the magazine business. The articles draw upon academicians and other experts. I did not notice any obvious bias in the articles that I read. The magazine offers readers a service through which they may communicate with the authors. This furthers dialogue. If the magazine were just interested in propaganda, I doubt that it would bother with such a service.
c. Content/Coverage
NewScientist.com contains an impressive number and variety of the articles about cloning. The opening page itself had links to 46 articles from March 1997 to the present. Additional articles are also available. Many articles cover recent news about cloning. Several articles discuss the ethical issues -- both for and against cloning. These are indicated by the following titles: "Not now, Dr Miracle -- Cloned babies are a bad idea when the science is still in its infancy," "The way ahead -- Is it time to stop arguing and start cloning?" "Brave new medicine -- Creating human clones for no good reason is wrong," and "Cloning discovery may kill ethical objection -- Therapeutic cloning could exploit only doomed embryos if results from cloned frog embryos are repeated in humans."
Although this site offers variety and learned opinion, the coverage focuses more on reporting the news rather than explaining and teaching. This site not the easiest place to learn the basics about cloning.
d. Accuracy/Usability/Design
The site is quite easy to navigate. Most of the articles are written at a fairly high level and would be difficult for less skilled readers. The magazine cites academic and other expert sources in its articles, and presents a wide variety of viewpoints. Although Reed Business Information acknowledges its promotion of science and technology, articles against cloning appear at NewScientist.com. These factors lend a certain degree of trust in the accuracy and objectivity of the information provided.
e. Currency
This site offers many recent articles.
II.
a. Authority/Credibility
Eureka! Science Corporation, a biochemistry research company that manufactures and distributes educational science products, created and maintains this website. Eureka! distributes DNA: I Can Do That!, which is a biochemical science kit. With it, students learn to extract DNA from foods like onions, hamburger, and oranges. While Eureka!'s business interest rightly arouses skepticism, this website offers much educational value.
The information on the site is not attributed to any particular scholar or institutions of higher learning. Because of the anonymous nature of the authorship, there is not an easy way to ascertain the authority of the site. However, the National Science Teacher's Association recommended this website, and that lends credibility. Moreover, the fact that this company has the expertise to create products that allow young people to extract DNA, gives it some authority. (How science has grown from the little rock collections and chemistry kits of my youth!)
b. Objectivity/Bias/Purpose
This site is pro-genetic engineering, and therefore is not the best place to get opposing viewpoints on the moral aspects of the cloning debate. Yet, it was not oppressive in this bias, and its clear explanations offer a good starting point to understand the basic terms and concepts. The visitor to this website will see advertisements for products, and the company would like to sell them to us. Yet, the marketing, too, is not oppressive.
c. Content/Coverage
This site offers concise explanations of DNA, cells, synthesis, RNA, as well as, methods for cloning and genetic engineering. Additionally, the site has many links to museums and other educational sites for further study. Students can gain a solid introduction to basic terms and concepts here.
d. Accuracy/Usability/Design
The layout is colorful, attractive and well organized. The illustrations are informative and humorous. The language is simple and straightforward. Most middle and high school children would find the explanations clear. In short, this is a very inviting site that would appeal to many people across a wide range of ages and literacy. Accuracy is always difficult to assess in an area where the reviewer's knowledge is limited. The endorsement of the National Science Teacher's Association bodes well. Moreover, the opinions expressed were muted.
e. Currency
The copyright date is listed as 1998 - 2002, and therefore, current.
III.
a. Authority/Credibility
This website features a debate between two people who have studied and thought deeply about the cloning and genetic engineering controversy. They are Gregory Stock, director of the UCLA School of Medicine's Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society, and Glenn McGee, Ph.D., Associate Director for Education, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine's Center for Bioethics. McGee is also Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Bioethics.
Synapse is part of Wired News a feature of Lycos, a well-known Internet portal that makes money through advertisements and as an Internet service provider to more than six million customers worldwide.
b. Objectivity/Bias/Purpose
This site openly promotes debate between an expert who advocates cloning and genetic engineering (Stock), and one who wants to suspend these activities until our society reaches consensus about their moral implications (McGee). This site illuminates arguments about cloning, and it models civil discourse at its best. Mr. Stock and Dr. McGee argue their ideas with passion, but without vitriol. This discussion is truly refreshing. In the age of Jerry Springer, Crossfire and other mass media shouting matches, this kind of discourse is seldom modeled. The site is fair to each side. It serves as a vehicle for allowing them to express their opinions, rather than coloring, ridiculing or repressing them.
c. Content/Coverage
This site focuses on the moral debate, rather than, the technical questions. Whereas the Eureka! site emphasized the what and how aspects of cloning and genetic engineering, this site emphasizes the why and why not. Is cloning good or bad?
d. Accuracy/Usability/Design
Both viewpoints are presented in the words of their proponents in a point-for-point debate format. At the bottom of each person's opinion is a link to the response of the other debater. The design features a split screen with a drawing of Mr. Stock to the left and Dr. McGee to the right. The words of each appear next to their speaker's face. The design is easy and intuitive.
e. Currency
This debate was originally published July 9,1997. While the technologies of cloning and genetic engineering have progressed considerably during that time, the ethical debate remains pertinent.
IV.
a. Authority/Credibility
The authority and credibility of World Book is as well established as any source. Its encyclopedias are found in most school libraries in the U.S., and many other nations, as well. World Book, Inc. has been creating encyclopedias and other reference products since 1917. World Book's website claims that its printed encyclopedias are the largest selling in the world.
More than 3,700 scholars and experts contribute to World Book. World Book's website lists a sampling of contributing scholars and experts. They represent prestigious institutions, such as, Harvard, Columbia, the International Monetary Fund, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
World Book has won numerous awards. Its website lists 80 awards and favorable reviews since 1998. These praises include Reference & Research Book News, Booklist, The London Times, Family Life, Children's Software Revue, Library Talk, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, PC Magazine, School Library Journal, American Reference Book Annuals, and The Book Report.
b. Objectivity/Bias/Purpose
As indicated previously, World Book goes to great lengths to seek input from scholars and experts. This website in particular offered differing viewpoints. The discussion of the ethical issues presents both sides fairly and clearly. Moreover, it provides a good example of well-organized and objective writing. The following headings indicate fairness: "Ethical Concerns," "Other ethical questions," "In favor of human cloning," and "Would human clones be less human? "
At the end of the section on ethics, this heading appears: "Arguments used against and in defense of human cloning." A two-column chart appears beneath the heading. In the left column, the reader can see a bullet chart summary of the arguments against cloning. Arguments in favor of cloning appear in the opposite column. This kind of writing exemplifies unbiased scholarship -- and good writing, too.
c. Content/Coverage
The main article addresses the question, "Are humans next?" However, this site provides much more. Using the sidebar, readers gain a comprehensive introduction to cloning. Topics such as, "What is a clone?" "Early scientific attempts at cloning," "Dolly and other cloning breakthroughs since 1996," "Uses of cloning," "Ethical concerns," and "Other websites" are located here. The reader can easily expand and deepen his/her knowledge using the links to other websites.
d. Accuracy/Usability/Design
This website is well organized and logical. Headings are used effectively. Explanations are clear. Outstanding illustrations aid the reader's understanding of a complex topic. Explanations enhance understanding by interweaving words with their corresponding illustrations. Additionally, the illustrations effectively use numbering to show sequences and causal relationships. Color, too, creates attractive and informative articles.
The site is very friendly and well designed. At the right side of each screen, a side bar provides links to several subtopics. Thus, the reader can easy navigate through the article. Within each subtopic's article, the reader can easily find subsections using links on the left-hand side of the screen.
World Book conducts on-going tests with students at various grade levels to create a list of "living words." Thus, the editors strive to increase the readability of its articles.
e. Currency
This website is dated2002. World Book revises more than one-fourth of its content annually. These adjustments include topics, vocabulary, writing style, maps, photographs, charts and graphs.
Rankings.
Preliminary Remarks.
All four of these websites are good. They contain useful, and as far as I can tell, accurate information. No glaring biases appear in any of them. Each is well designed, well written and easy to navigate. For most research projects, I would recommend all of these sites. By its nature, research should reflect the use of multiple sources. The alert researcher notices if sources corroborate or contradict each other. Ranking presents particular difficulty because by saying one is better than another, the user may think that he/she need not use others. Rather each of these sites has particular strengths.
Depending on the use and audience, the following rankings could be quite different.
Scenario
This research would be for a tenth grade honors student's biology science project. I would recommend that the student use all four sites, but use them in this order.
1. World Book. ( This may or may not be the best site, but it's the best place to start because of its solid introduction and understandable language and illustrations. Moreover, this is probably the most reliable site. World Book's vast resources are hard to beat.
Strengths / WeaknessesAccuracy and credibility established over almost a century of publishing. / Not the best source for breaking news.
Extensive expert and editing resources devoted to every article. / Not the best source for an in-depth discussion of ethics.
Provides a solid introduction to the topic.
Uses language that most readers will understand.
Great illustrations allow reader to see difficult concepts.
Easy to navigate.
Provides the best starting point for someone new to the topic.
2. Eureka! Science Corp. ( The good use of humor, illustration and language will appeal to teenagers. Also, students who want to do hands-on activities can order products to conduct experiments. Because the student will need products to do the project, this site may answer that need, too. Therefore, a person could rank this as the "best" or "most important" site. However, I ranked it second because I believe that the student needs the reliability and background knowledge provided by World Book first.
Strengths / WeaknessesProvides a good introduction to basic terms and concepts. / Commercial interest of the company conflicts with offering a full discussion of ethical issues.
Illustrations are colorful and informative. / Not the best site for revealing the latest news.
Uses simple straightforward language understood by a wide-range of students.
Students can order products from the company in order to conduct their own experiments. Thus, it furthers hands-on education.
Use of humor in illustrations will gain the attention of many young readers.
3. Synapse Wired News debate. ( The project can be understood and completed without the discussion of the ethical debate. Also, the World Book site offers information regarding the ethical issues. Hence, the project could be done without visiting this site. However as a librarian and teacher, we should challenge our students to think about these things. Just because we can do it doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Also, I love the respect and deep thought with which these gentlemen discuss the issue.
Strengths / WeaknessesOffers a great demonstration of courteous, passionate and thoughtful discourse about a controversial issue. / Not the best place for a solid introduction of basic terms and concepts.
Easy to follow debate format. / Uses sophisticated language that many young readers won't understand.
Offers an in-depth discussion of ethics. / The ethical arguments won't be fully understood without gaining basic knowledge elsewhere.
Asks the really hard question, "Is it good?"
4. NewScientist.com ( The project could be done without visiting this site. However, it would not be as comprehensive. Because of its emphasis on news, this site provides a valuable source for the most recent developments.
Strengths / WeaknessesPresents a wide range of recent articles about cloning. / Does not provide a systematic, logical introduction to basic terms and concepts.
To find out the latest news about cloning. / Use language geared toward adult readers. May not be appropriate for middle schoolers, or for high schoolers with low literacy skills.
To participate in an on-going dialogue with authors about the articles and subjects they've written about. / Good background knowledge is helpful to make best use of the information at this site.