In response to your peers, describe what interests you about their topic and what further questions you might have after reading about their research.
I think the most interesting thing I learned was how CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) worked. We have such an advantage with technology that we can do amazing things. CRISPR has both positive and negative sides to it. Some may root for the potential side of it curing diseases but then some may root the negative side to alters an unborn child’s DNA.
This hit home with me, because my mother has SDHB (Succinate Dehydrogenase Complex, Subunit B), and my father, has MEN1 (formerly know as Wermer syndrome). They had my brother, sister, and me. My brother has MEN1 and SDHB, my sister has SDBH, and I have zero mutations. My siblings, are at an age where they are married and thinking about having children. With these mutations, they have considered genetic engineering. I am personally against it. If my mom and dad considered it, I may not be here or my siblings. I understand not wanting to pass down any terrible disease or mutation to your offspring. However, I just think it’s life and you should just let it be.
While researching biodiversity conservation, information from my home state has become very prevalent. This connection has made my research very personal and deeply gratifying. The most interesting thing I have discovered has to do with my research during the hypothesis stage. I needed to develop an environment in which I could test my theory. While pondering, I remembered the canoeing trip I took in high school for an AP science class over ten years ago (oh, what a reminder that I’m aging). Alabama has one of the most biodiverse waterways in the world. I can remember discussing the Cahaba lily in class and how it is considered the flagship species for biodiversity unique to Alabama. There was even an optional license plate of them that raised money for conservation efforts. So while I was aware of the many unique species that called our rivers home, I came across a startling fact while researching that Alabama leads the lower 48 states in extinctions. The extinction of 34 species of snails occurred in the Coosa river between 1914 and 1964; many experts consider this to be the largest extinction event in the united states (Nijhuis, 2009).
How had I never learned this? How is this not covered in schools when discussing diversity? This one fact shook the way I viewed my potential test group. It allowed me to refocus on an often overlooked but essential species—a smaller, less flashy creature that deserved and, evidently, needed attention: the snail. My research required a media campaign to raise awareness, and I felt very smug when I settled on “snail mail” as the title for our public service message. In my research, I have expanded on the crucial role snails play in our ecosystems. I have greatly enjoyed how much I have learned and love discussing my research with my partner, who unfortunately disapproves of my pun. Ultimately, I am excited to complete my project! What else I will learn and what else I can share with others are the questions at the forefront of my mind.
RESPOND TO WOODROW AND AMANDA POSTS BE CONSTRUCTIVE AND PROFESSIONAL WITH RESPONSES
In my line of work which is marketing ag products, I use a rhetorical strategy of Hypophora. This rhetorical strategy is used in communication and in print ads. This strategy asks a question and then gives an answer to that question immediately.
When we want a customer to to know about or get more information about a feature or benefit of a new product I might ask a question then give the answer so they know why they would need the new feature or benefit. An example would be: Do you need an extra twelve inches of auger height? The increased auger height insures clearance in varying ground conditions and increased grain cart heights. For a rhetorical strategy like this and that way I am using it I am not sure how I would use reasoning to counteract these as there is a solid reasoning to use the strategy. I do believe others could be looked at and could find ways to counteract them and find a better way to deliver the message or conversation.
I personally have used rhetorical amplification in the workplace. This type of rhetorical strategy amplifies the importance of a person or thing to the audience to convey a sense of importance.
As an example, I recently was asked to write a letter of recommendation for a staff member’s application to a Committee. In the letter, I drew attention to the ideas I thought would exaggerate the staff member’s qualities, so they looked like a very good candidate. Now, I firmly believe the staff member is more than capable of performing on the Committee, however without amplification they could have been overlooked or lost among the other candidates.
I believe this is a common practice when writing a letter of recommendation. We purposely seek individuals who amplify the qualities of an individual for the very purpose of drawing in the audience.
In the scenario provided, had I been the recipient, I would highlight those rhetorical strategies and use them during an interview. This would provide insight into the skill or character trait amplified in the conversation. If this person’s skill level was grossly over-amplified, this would come out during the interview process.
Lastly, I would imagine this is a very common workplace strategy, one most of us have had experience with.