Lawrence Prelli supports the statement of the scientist performing the experiment to understand something new that at some point they publish to share their results to the community. He supports the scientific rhetoric that has become second on the list where if there is no traditional background all the results are impractical and the author of the paper must demonstrate their validity in the research they made. I agree with Matthew Allen’s point of view because not everyone will support the point of view of someone else, even with evidence. The way the scientist interprets the data from its knowledge will be different to others depending on the field they are studying or based on their experience. The article also states that every paper that is published must have a problem that is solved during the experiment. The issue related to objectivity can be solved by the accuracy and precision of the scientist proving the hypothesis they state is correct. This can be done by a certain amount of measurements (data).

• Impact of CT screening in lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in the U.S. tobacco is
between 80-90% the cause of this specific cancer. This consumption increased after
World War ll but at similar time the study to detect the early stages of this cancer have
also improved during the years.
The difference between a literature review and author opinion is that literature
review is more open to give the facts of both sides positive and negative. On the other
hand, Author’s opinion is just the opinion on one of the sides or perspectives that the
author decides is more convenient according to their beliefs. Both can have evidence
that support its statement however, it also depends on the message it wants to be giving
to the readers. The author’s personal priorities are reflected in the studying of new
techniques or even improvement of LCDT that will help detect lung cancer in the early
stages giving opportunity to the population to be treated and reduce the rate of mortality.
NLST and Nelson studies have shown an inequality of resources given to
different groups of people such as women and black Americans that did affect the
treatment process, reflecting an increase in the death rate. Women as the author said
are more likely to have family history of lung cancer and black Americans have a higher
percent of mortality rate and according to the data present in the paper they received
from second smokers but even though they are more exposed they receive less
frequent detection. In my opinion in the research experiment to have equity they must
first investigate the background data to give a similar amount of treatments to different
races and genders. However, because of the magnitude of the topic that is lung cancer,
knowing there are many factors playing around (age, resources and level of education)
the equity for this topic will be more difficult to study than others.

Human Genetic Engineering states that this technology have pros and cons; they highlight the consequences in medicine and also in social environment. The inequality as they said will be provident and even introducing the religion also have an impact in the limitation of these resources. In my opinion this technology is beneficial when it comes to helping prevent diseases. However, if this is approved even starting from the goal of avoiding reproduction of diseases there will be a time when scientists or the government will like to go further and investigate what else they can gain from this new technique. That is where the mutation can come and as the article said in 1999 there was created (WADA) that prohibits the use of these drugs in the fitness world. the guidelines should be just for emergency cases and have to follow a process that can determine its qualification and can just be for small genetic modification.