Blachander, N., N. Babu, Sudha Jimson, C. Priyadharsini, and K. M. K. Masthan. "Evolution of Forensic Odontology: An Overview." Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences (n.d.): 1-13. 31 Oct. 2014. Web. 10 Sept. 2016. N. Balachander, N. Aravindha Babu, Sudha Jimson, C. Priyadharsini, and K. M. K. Masthan wrote their article “Evolution of forensic odontology: An overview” about real life examples of how deceased are identified by their DNA. They really emphasized on identifying people by their teeth because they last the longest. First it starts out talking about how genetic identification started out in the 1100s. Then they write about all of the historical people that have been identified by their teeth. The overall summary of their paper
…show more content…
The cons in this article talk about how getting genetically tested could determine that you do not get a job. On the other hand, he explains that genetic testing could lead to a safer workforce. This article had a lot of good information about both the benefits and the non benefits of genetic testing. Levin uses a lot of good examples for both sides of the argument. He talks about how the tests could have helped save a person from being killed from a garbage truck driver that had a disease. He also explains that two brothers from Hong Kong were denied a job because their mom had a genetic disease and the two were discriminated against. This article 's examples itself make this article trustworthy to use in my papers. I used levins examples in both my “Finding Common Ground” paper and in my “Researched Opinion” paper. This article by far was the most important article that I found and used. I had good opinions for the tests but also gave a reason why the tests was not beneficial. One thing in this paper that was not useful to me was the parts where it talked about the percentages that each person could get a disease. He also talked about research groups that tested diseases and that was not useful for my paper. Other than the parts that were not useful, this article was the most beneficial for my
The cons in this article talk about how getting genetically tested could determine that you do not get a job. On the other hand, he explains that genetic testing could lead to a safer workforce. This article had a lot of good information about both the benefits and the non benefits of genetic testing. Levin uses a lot of good examples for both sides of the argument. He talks about how the tests could have helped save a person from being killed from a garbage truck driver that had a disease. He also explains that two brothers from Hong Kong were denied a job because their mom had a genetic disease and the two were discriminated against. This article 's examples itself make this article trustworthy to use in my papers. I used levins examples in both my “Finding Common Ground” paper and in my “Researched Opinion” paper. This article by far was the most important article that I found and used. I had good opinions for the tests but also gave a reason why the tests was not beneficial. One thing in this paper that was not useful to me was the parts where it talked about the percentages that each person could get a disease. He also talked about research groups that tested diseases and that was not useful for my paper. Other than the parts that were not useful, this article was the most beneficial for my