1. Monsanto
- The author is a large corporation.
- The author posts this information to satisfy investors.
- The author's inherent bias is its company's personal growth.
- Information is current as the copyright is 2010.
- Intended audience is investors, future employees, journalists, and anybody who wants information on Monsanto.
- You can contact the author(s) by submitting a message for queue.
- The design is clear and suspiciously easy to use.
2. GMOs - Scitable
- I don't know, dude! The Nature Publishing Group? Who are they?
- To better educate anyone and everyone about genetically modified organisms.
- It doesn't really have one bias because its a site that publishes journals which are biased by their specific author, not the owners of the website.
- The information is as current as the journal entry you are reading is dated.
- The intended audience is anyone who wants to learn about GMOs - probably more scientists.
- Yes, they have a customer service system similar to that of Monsanto where you submit a message for queue.
- This design is not as easy to use as Monsanto because there are pictures and picture-links everywhere on the pages that makes it rather confusing - its hard to tell what is a link and what isn't before you hover the mouse over it.
3. SAY NO TO GMOs
- "Different color schemes will help you can find your way around this complex site more easily." The author is obviously a high school sophomore in web design.
- To encourage grassroot movements against GMOs.
- The author inherently dislikes the idea of GMOs.
- The information on the site is aged from 2002 to 2010 - obviously an on-going class assignment.
- The information is intended for ANYONE and EVERYONE. Probably persons 12+years old.
- The site allows you to submit an email message through an on-site page.
- The design is very easy to use but does not look very good.
I feel that the Nature Publishing, Inc. site has the best information because all of its information is submitted by scientists who are producing research on genetics industriously. These people probably exclude as much bias *as possible* for the sake of showing results and data. The only room for bias probably exists in the room for error in the interpretation of data.
SAY NO TO GMOs is obviously the least authoritative of the sites because it has a poor layout, its a ".org" meaning organization, and it is collecting information solely for the purpose of convincing people that genetic modification is a bad thing IN EVERY WAY. It wants us to abandon the technology entirely and it won't stop until GMOs are banned worldwide.
I have no qualms about eating genetically modified foods because I don't feel that modifying the genetics of the food will increase the food's detrimental effects on my health. SAY NO TO GMOs listed pages saying that rats had trouble digesting Monsanto corn and that babies have trouble with GMOs - which is probably poorly interpreted data on a study that provides nothing but faulty statistics or the results are simply due to the organisms being studied not *naturally* being adapted to eating corn yet in the first place.
I believe that information is power and that all details about a food should be published for the consumer to be read before the purchase. I think that genetically modified foods should tell us that they are such because it would allow us to make educated buyer decisions. Do GMOs look tasty? Are they plumper? Are they just as nutritious? These are the things we should be able to compare WHILE WE ARE IN THE DAMNED STORE.
Bill Lambrecht. Dinner at the new Gene Café. New York : St. Martin's Press, c2001.