Welcome to the site analysis part of this assignment. Just a brief few sentences before I get into the nitty gritty of all of it. I will be analysing 5 sites, I was initially planning in doing 6 site analyses however due to time constraints and excessive amounts of stress I have narrowed it down.
I will judging each of my sites based on four criterion
a). The quality of the scientific content (detail, accuracy etc...)
b). How easy it is to understand, is the language convoluted
c). How reliable and trusted the site is
d). How biased is the site, does it sway to one view over another for any reason.
Each of these factors will be given a rating out of 10.
____________________________________________________
actionbioscience.org – THE ETHICS OF BIOWARFARE
actionbioscience.org – THE ETHICS OF BIOWARFARE
This webpage discusses the ethics of using biological weapons, it explains that biological weapons are unethical yet they were created with such ease due to the dual-use factor of biotechnology, it can be used both usefully and harmfully. It goes on to explain the importance of having a code of ethics and how little they are used, it also tells us how it is important for students to be educated of such codes at universities. The site then discusses the difficulty in applying a code of ethics when scientists can't always know that their work could result in the creation of dangerous weapons or products. The author says that a code of ethics will assist in curbing the expansion of biological weapons.
a). Quality and detail of scientific content:
Overall I believe this webpage specifically to be a tad lacking in detail. What shouldn't be expected from this site is a detailed explanation of all the science behind the use and production of biological weapons since this article wasn't intended in doing such a thing. However its still insufficient in its detail and explanation of ethical use of biological weapons and biotechnology.
For example, in one paragraph the author states that one proposal put forth by some nations to address the problem of 'dual-use' in biotechnology is for scientists to be required to foresee potential dangerous applications of their work and either discontinue research or redirect their work. Yet this doesn't quite address the problem and continues to provoke more questions that aren't answered in the article. The author doesn't state specifically what is meant by 'redirecting' the work and discontinuing research seems more regressive than it would be progressive.
Additionally I was shocked by one rather idiotic sentence: 'When the conventions to ban such weapons were formulated, the world did not think these weapons had major military uses'. Generally 'weapons' have the prime intention of maiming victims thus it would be stupid to think that they would not have major military uses. This sentence only confuses the reader and doesn't contribute to anything in the article apart from the word count.
Despite this, although I have picked on a few sections of the article, overall the web-page's content was more or less decent, most sections of the article had sufficient, though not strong detail and explained things well.
7/10
b). How easy is it to understand:
As a result of the article's lacking in really deep detail, the article was phenomenally easy to understand and read, and quite a pleasure. The language was not convoluted at all and was direct and straightforward. It was good also because it achieved this without sounding like an article written by a year 7, it struck a good balance between good vocabulary and accessibility. However, nothing is perfect as they say and that is the case for this article as well. Like I mentioned in my paragraph on quality and detail, there were some sections and sentences that lent to reader confusion.
8/10
c). How reliable and trusted is the site:
This site is very reliable and trusted. ACTIONBIOSCIENCE.ORG is a dedicated science website that has many authors that write about all sort of things covering all areas of science. According to the 'about me' section the articles on the site are provided by scientists, science educators and science students. It has also received awards for being a high-quality educational web site and was awarded as one of the 5 best biology web sites in 2003.
10/10
d). How biased/impartial is the site:
This site is not very biased, of course the opinion is against the development and use of biological weapons, however all the arguments are valid and do not have any opposing points of equivalent calibre that can sufficiently counter them. The site also has sufficient backing for all of its arguments.
9/10
Overall rating: 34/40 – Decent!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Emedicinehealth.com – BIOLOGICAL WARFARE
This site is a really in-depth explanation of many areas of biological weapons and warfare. It consists of 9 different parts which are respectively: History of Biological Warfare, How Biological Agents are Delivered and Detected, Bacteria, Viruses, Toxins, Multimedia, Synonyms and Keywords, References, and Authors and Editors. The last 4 pages don't matter as such in terms of their usefulness. However, the first 5 pages touch on almost all the subjects regarding biological weapons, making it a great one stop research source.
a). Quality and detail of scientific content:
There is nothing else I can possibly say about this particular article on emedicinehealth except that it is big on content. It offers 5 pages of detailed information on all aspects of biological warfare. Each of these pages is organised by a handy table of contents on the first page. The first page explores the history of biological warfare, the second page explains how biological agents are delivered and detected and the next three contain a list of bacteria, viruses and toxins respectively that are used as biological weapons. For each bacteria, virus or toxin listed, there is a detailed explanation of the signs and symptoms, diagnosis, treatment and prevention. Obviously this article is very large and has an enormous amount of content, however in some areas it skimps on details. Good evidence of this is in the section where the article explains the detection of biological agents, the author says that 'early detection of a biological agent in the environment allows for early and specific treatment....', yet doesn't touch on how it can be detected. However this is just one little bother. It was a very informative and detailed article.
9/10
b). How easy it to read and understand:
Much like the article on actionbioscience this article is really easy to understand. Nothing requires being read twice for clarification and the writing is direct and straight to the point. It's not just the language that is great, however it is set out and organised in a really easy to access manner. There is a table of contents on the first page with direct links to all the separate pages so readers don't have to go through the whole article to get what they want. The author uses dot points which allows for easy separation of different points and ideas in the article and also allows for easy access to content with just a quick glance. I cannot find a fault with this articles accessibility.
10/10
c). How reliable and trusted is the site:
This site does petty well in this department as well. Emedicinehealth is run and operated by and is a part of the WebMD network which is a large American corporation which provides information on health. The site has won many awards and has been recognised for its in-depth medical news and material. However WebMD has been criticised in the past for having a bias towards drugs sold by their pharmaceutical sponsors.
9/10
d). How biased/impartial is the site:
This site is very middle of the road and not biased at all. There is not much room for prejudice and bias in what is basically just an informative article. The author does not try to sway us against or for biological weapons, but simply states the facts.
9/10
Overall rating: 37/40 – Mind=Blown
________________________________________________________________________
Oracle ThinkQuest – DESTRUCTIVE WARFARE
Oracle ThinkQuest – DESTRUCTIVE WARFARE
This site offers a very brief and simple look into biological weapons. The author introduces us to the basics of biological weapons and then explains some of the possible effects of using biological weapons. After, the author describes certain methods of delivery and potential targets. Additionally, the site identifies certain limitations of biological weapons and lists some examples of things that can be used as bio-weapons. It does all of this in relative brevity.
a). Quality and detail of scientific content:
This site was very disappointing in its detail and scientific content. It didn't quite get into any details and just skimmed the surface of the topics it discussed. Hence its length is very short. I got the feeling when reading this that it was telling me information as opposed to explaining them. In the method of delivery section of the article, the author is only successful in explaining one way to NOT deliver biological weapons, and doesn't even start explaining possible ideal methods of delivery. Additionally, the article discusses issues arising from the use of biological weapons like 'widespread panic' and overwhelming medical facilities and psychological effects from panic and terror but doesn't touch on more important issues at hand, like the ability to spread rapidly and cause epidemics. Despite this, a lot of the content in the article is still useful and it still covers certain topics with sufficient detail.
5/10
b). How easy it is to read and understand
Unfortunately this webpage lets us down with its accessibility too. Firstly, it's not just the style of writing and language used, however the sparkling night sky background and the animated title are extremely distracting. Since the background is black and the text is white and red, the contrast is actually quite painful and detracts from the reading experience. In addition to this, it simply isn't as easy or pleasurable to read as the previous two articles that I have analysed. I haven't quite picked out why, though the writing style in general isn't quite up to the standard as the previous two. There are many sentences that are simply too long and should be separated. Also it is not as organised as the previous two sites, despite the fact that it is organised into sections, the ideas in each section still feel quite jumbled. Then again the whole distracting aesthetic of the site has lent to this displeasure.
6/10
c). How reliable and trusted is the site:
It would be wrong to say that this site is very reliable. Oracle Thinkquest is a learning platform that allows teachers to organise projects for students. Thus this article is actually a students assignment. I find it hard to trust a student as opposed to a medical professional. Nonetheless, the content on the site is still correct.
7/10
d). How biased/impartial is the site:
I haven't come across any biased sites yet, and this one doesn't change it. This site informs us of the issues and explains to us the facts. From what I can see it doesn't contain prejudiced opinions or undertones of any description.
9/10
Overall rating: 27/40 – Good Try
_______________________________________________________________________________
Pravda – WORLD STANDS ON THE BRINK OF BIOLOGICAL WAR
http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/14-05-2009/107555-biological_war-0/
This site intends to explain whether swine flu might be connected with biological weapons, and moreover the danger of leakage from biological weapon labs. The title of the article is very misleading since there is only one paragraph that actually mentions anything about this prediction.
This site intends to explain whether swine flu might be connected with biological weapons, and moreover the danger of leakage from biological weapon labs. The title of the article is very misleading since there is only one paragraph that actually mentions anything about this prediction.
a). Quality and detail of scientific content:
This article isn't very detailed and doesn't offer much in its scientific content because it doesn't need to. It offers sufficient scientific content and detail for what it is, an article regarding Vanga's predictions on WWIII. It is assumed that the reader should already have some background knowledge on the topic having clicked on such an article. Any detailed information on the principles and science behind biological warfare would be out of context. However the majority of the article is nothing more than a conversation. Aside from the introduction of four short paragraphs the whole article is a collection of quotes. It would have been nice had there been more content, particularly relating to why the world is on the brink of a biological war. Oddly, the author doesn't really elaborate on any of this, however the conversation in the article talks about the possible relationship between swine flu and biological weapons and experiences from visiting secret laboratories. Perhaps the article isn't supposed to be focused on Vanga's prophecy, if this is the case then the title is misleading, thus will bring down the score further.
6/10
b). How easy is it to read and understand:
This article rates very highly with its accessibility. It's what you would expect from a newspaper article - professional, informative and straight to the point. The font is a perfect size, paragraphs are separated well and all quotes are given a new paragraph as they should. There isn't much that can be said about the accessibility of the article since the majority of it is a conversation, in which case any accessibility issues would be blamed on the person speaking the actual words. So in terms of this article's easiness to read and understand:
9/10
c). How reliable and trusted is this site:
Judging the reliability and trustworthiness of this site is interesting. As an online news site, Pravda itself is quite reliable. However I don't think the same can be said about this article in particular. The article states Vanga's prophecy that World War III would begin in November 2010. Obviously that isn't true as we are well into 2011 without any large war to speak of. Despite the fact that this isn't the prediction of the author, but rather that of Baba Vanga, it is still false nonetheless. Thus, this is article is quite unreliable. For the rating, I'm going to balance the reliability of the site and the reliability of this particular article.
Judging the reliability and trustworthiness of this site is interesting. As an online news site, Pravda itself is quite reliable. However I don't think the same can be said about this article in particular. The article states Vanga's prophecy that World War III would begin in November 2010. Obviously that isn't true as we are well into 2011 without any large war to speak of. Despite the fact that this isn't the prediction of the author, but rather that of Baba Vanga, it is still false nonetheless. Thus, this is article is quite unreliable. For the rating, I'm going to balance the reliability of the site and the reliability of this particular article.
6.5/10
d). How biased/impartial is the site:
This article is not biased at all, I don't think it's possible for such an article to be biased. After all, it's predominantly just a recount of a conversation.
9/10
Overall rating: 30.5/40 – Could've been better
_______________________________________________________________________________
Oxford Journals -PREVENTING THE USE OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: IMPROVING RESPONSE SHOULD PREVENTION FAIL
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/926.full
This article explains to us its readers a basic overview of the dangers of biological weapons. It aims to put forward ways in which the use of biological weapons can be prevented. And if that is unsuccessful, it lists possible ways in which people can be prepared and be able to respond if biological weapons are used.
a). Quality and detail of scientific content:
This article is quite sophisticated in its quality and detail of content. It is very exact and offers us many examples to help us understand the dangers of the use of biological weapons. It uses certain examples like the Tokyo Sarin attack and also the smallpox incident in 1972 involving a pilgrim returning from Iraq, which consequently resulted in 175 smallox cases and 35 deaths. As well as touching on certain polike the incubation period and contagiousness, it also touches into more complex ideas like case-fatality rates. The author states that influenza has a case-fatality rate of 1.9% - 5% however untreated anthrax can get up to 80%. Overall, for what it is, the article offers more than enough detail:
9/10
b). How easy is it to read and understand
This article was one of the more difficult to understand. I think this was mainly because it was intended for an older audience, not because it was written poorly. The article used many technical words and science-y language that I had to look up like: inoculum, pestilence, dissemination and antimicrobial. There were many other words of such calibre in the article that I have not listed. However, despite the complex language, the article is set out in an easy to read manner. It is split into 5 sections, namely and respectively: Biological weapons cause epidemics, biological weapons are an increasing concern, what the infectious diseases community can do to support prevention efforts, preparation to respond to biological weapon use and of course the conclusion. The order works well since it starts off telling us why biological weapons are dangerous and why they should be stopped and then offers points to assist prevention and preparation. Additionally, the arrangement works well as the reader can skim through to get a brief overview of the article, and it is inherently more inviting then simply a big block of text. Overall, I think this article rates decently in terms of its accessibility. I'm not going to put the rating down due to my inadequacy, as I'm sure it would be readable to all science people and professionals that the article was actually targeted at. Despite this, I still believe that many of the big words could have been replaced by commoner words and have produced the same meaning and effect.
7.5/10
c). How reliable and trusted is the site:
I don't think we can question the reliability of this site. Oxford Journals is a division of Oxford University Press which is a department of Oxford University. According the 'About Us' section of the Oxford Journals site they have more than 500 years of publishing expertise behind them. It would be hard not to trust that. Additionally one of the authors of the article is CEO of UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) and has worked to raise awareness among government leader regarding the threats of biological weapons.
10/10
d). How biased is the site:
This site was in no way biased, every point and argument that was stated had sufficient backing. Nor was the article directly intending to sell us anything in any way.
10/10
Overall rating: 36.5/40 - Awesome!
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Oxford Journals -PREVENTING THE USE OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: IMPROVING RESPONSE SHOULD PREVENTION FAIL
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/926.full
This article explains to us its readers a basic overview of the dangers of biological weapons. It aims to put forward ways in which the use of biological weapons can be prevented. And if that is unsuccessful, it lists possible ways in which people can be prepared and be able to respond if biological weapons are used.
a). Quality and detail of scientific content:
This article is quite sophisticated in its quality and detail of content. It is very exact and offers us many examples to help us understand the dangers of the use of biological weapons. It uses certain examples like the Tokyo Sarin attack and also the smallpox incident in 1972 involving a pilgrim returning from Iraq, which consequently resulted in 175 smallox cases and 35 deaths. As well as touching on certain polike the incubation period and contagiousness, it also touches into more complex ideas like case-fatality rates. The author states that influenza has a case-fatality rate of 1.9% - 5% however untreated anthrax can get up to 80%. Overall, for what it is, the article offers more than enough detail:
9/10
b). How easy is it to read and understand
This article was one of the more difficult to understand. I think this was mainly because it was intended for an older audience, not because it was written poorly. The article used many technical words and science-y language that I had to look up like: inoculum, pestilence, dissemination and antimicrobial. There were many other words of such calibre in the article that I have not listed. However, despite the complex language, the article is set out in an easy to read manner. It is split into 5 sections, namely and respectively: Biological weapons cause epidemics, biological weapons are an increasing concern, what the infectious diseases community can do to support prevention efforts, preparation to respond to biological weapon use and of course the conclusion. The order works well since it starts off telling us why biological weapons are dangerous and why they should be stopped and then offers points to assist prevention and preparation. Additionally, the arrangement works well as the reader can skim through to get a brief overview of the article, and it is inherently more inviting then simply a big block of text. Overall, I think this article rates decently in terms of its accessibility. I'm not going to put the rating down due to my inadequacy, as I'm sure it would be readable to all science people and professionals that the article was actually targeted at. Despite this, I still believe that many of the big words could have been replaced by commoner words and have produced the same meaning and effect.
7.5/10
c). How reliable and trusted is the site:
I don't think we can question the reliability of this site. Oxford Journals is a division of Oxford University Press which is a department of Oxford University. According the 'About Us' section of the Oxford Journals site they have more than 500 years of publishing expertise behind them. It would be hard not to trust that. Additionally one of the authors of the article is CEO of UPMC (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) and has worked to raise awareness among government leader regarding the threats of biological weapons.
10/10
d). How biased is the site:
This site was in no way biased, every point and argument that was stated had sufficient backing. Nor was the article directly intending to sell us anything in any way.
10/10
Overall rating: 36.5/40 - Awesome!
_______________________________________________________________________________
