Wright, Robert. “Darwinian struggle: is there a place in evolutionary theory for the hand of God? Maybe in Ohio [Intelligent design theory].” Time. 11 Mar. 2002: 48-52. Print.

Bailey, H. David. “Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. Fall 2010: 62-87. Print.

Interview with Forest, Barbra. “Intelligent Design: Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” Church and State. Feb 2005: 9-11. Print.

Shipman, Pat. “Being Stalked by Intelligent Design.” American Scientist. Nov 2005: 500-502. Print.

Bauman, Emily. “Outfacing Darwin: Intelligent Design and the case of Mount Rushmore.” Critical Quarterly. April. 2009: 61-81. Print.

I believe my most promising source is “Creationism and Intelligent Design: Scientific and Theological Difficulties.” This will provide me with a solid understanding of the new Intelligent Design movement; its differences with creationism and its fundamental principals. I will be able to gather a wide view of the two ideas differences from a science view to  religious standpoint. I will look to this source first.

Fitch, B.. “Understanding the Psychology of First Impressions. ” The Police Chief 1 Apr. 2010:  Research Library Core, ProQuest. Web.  12 Oct. 2010.

Koji, S., and M. Fernandes. “Does It Matter Where We Meet? The Role of Emotional Context in Evaluative First Impressions. ” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology 64.2 (2010): 107-116. Psychology Module, ProQuest. Web.  12 Oct. 2010.

Willis, Janine, and Alexander Todorov. “First Impressions: Making Up Your Mind After a 100-Ms Exposure to a Face.” Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell) 17.7 (2006): 592-598. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.

Miller, Jeremy K., Deanne L. Westerman, and Marianne E. Lloyd. “Are first impressions lasting impressions? An exploration of the generality of the primacy effect in memory for repetitions.” Memory & Cognition 32.8 (2004): 1305-1315. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 12 Oct. 2010.

Ames, D., L. Kammrath, A. Suppes, and N. Bolger. “Not So Fast: The (Not-Quite-Complete) Dissociation Between Accuracy and Confidence in Thin-Slice Impressions. ” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36.2 (2010): 264.  Research Library Core, ProQuest. Web.  12 Oct. 2010.

Out of these 5 sources, the first one, Understanding the Psychology of First Impressions, seems the most promising to me.  By reading the title and the abstract, I believe it will be the one source that hits most of my questions, that I have about my research question, all at once.  Most of the other articles talks about the accuracy of first impressions, but this article talks about the perception process and what we are thinking while we make judgments.

1.An Ad Hoc Committee Of The Canon Law Society Of America., . The Canonical Implications Of Ordaining Women To The Permanent Diaconate: Report Of An Ad Hoc Committee Of The Canon Law Society Of America. Washington DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1995. Print.

2.Ferder, Fran. Called To Break Bread?: A Psychological Investigation Of 100 Women Who Feel Called To Priesthood In The Catholic Church . Mt. Rainier, MD: Quixote Center, 1978. Print.

3. Padgett, Tim. “Robes for Women.” Time . 27 Sep 2010: 53-55. Print.

4.Sentilles, Sarah. A Church of Her Own: What Happens When a Woman Takes the Pulpit. 1st ed. United States of America: Harcourt Books, 2008. Print.

5.The Committee On Doctrine Of The National Conference Of Catholic Bishops.,.10 Frequently Asked Questions About The Reservation Of Priestly Ordination To Men : A Pastoral Response. Washington DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1998. Print.

Although all of these sources prove invaluable to my research, I think it is very important to show both sides of the story. I will obtain many sources dedicated to showing the female’s perspective on their inability to be acknowledged priests of the Vatican, but 10 Frequently Asked Questions About The Reservation Of Priestly Ordination To Men : A Pastoral Response will be very useful since it is written by Bishops within the Catholic Church. After all, this is not a persuasive exercise but one of research (even though I would love to make many arguments about this topic). That book in particular will assist me in keeping my paper unbiased and a reliable research source.

Barsoum, R.. “Trends in unrelated-donor kidney transplantation in the developing world. ” Pediatric Nephrology 23.11 (2008): 1925-1929. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, ProQuest. Web.  11 Oct. 2010.

Cherry, Mark. Kidney for sale by owner. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005. Print.

Clemmons, A.. “Organ Transplantation: Is the Best Approach a Legalized Market or Altruism? ” Journal of Healthcare Management 54.4 (2009): 231-240. ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web.  11 Oct. 2010

Demme, R.. “Ethical Concerns About an Organ Market. ” Journal of the National Medical Association 102.1 (2010): 46-50. ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source, ProQuest. Web.  11 Oct. 2010.

Harris, Curtis E., and Stephen P. Alcorn. “To Solve a Deadly Shortage: Economic Incentives for Human Organ Donation.” Issues in Law & Medicine 16.3 (2001): 213. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 11 Oct. 2010.

Of these five sources, the last source excites me the most.  Just by skimming it, I was able to determine that it held quality economic analysis, as well as relevant statistics.  Because of this, I am very confident that it will be a significant part of my paper.  In addition, even though the author seems to support my original bias, the source examines the issue from multiple viewpoints.  This will be valuable when considering it as a source for writing my paper.

1.      Campion, Owen F. “The Catholic Vote.” Priest 64.11 (2008): 16-23. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

2.     McDermott, Monika L. “Voting for Catholic Candidates: The Evolution of a Stereotype.” Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) 88.4 (2007): 953-969. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

3. Peter Steinfels.  “Catholics and Choice (in the Voting Booth) :[National Desk]. ” New York Times 8  Nov. 2008, Late Edition (East Coast): Banking Information Source, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2010.

4. Gizzi, J.. “‘Faithful Catholics’ Rallies Votes for McCain-Palin. ” Human Events 3 Nov. 2008: Social Science Module, ProQuest. Web.  8 Oct. 2010.

5.   “Religion and politics in America: The 1988 campaign.” America 158.21 (1988): 551-558. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 8 Oct. 2010.

My most promising source is the 2nd source on this list, “Voting for Catholic Candidates: The Evolution of a Stereotype.” The reason I believe this source to be the most promising of the five is because from the description in the abstract it says that this source looks specifically into how Catholicism effects an individual voter in both forms, either the voter being catholic or if the candidate is catholic. This type of information would give great incite into how Catholicism has effected certain elections using data collected on Catholics and Voters.

Brian, Allan F. “Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Lyme Disease Risk.” Conservation Biology 17.1 (2003). Wiley Online Library. Wiley, 11 Feb. 2003. Web. 09 Oct. 2010.

Fisher, James. “Investigating the Role of White-footed Mice in the Transmission of Lyme Disease on Fire Island, New York.” Thesis. State University of New York, 2010. SUNY-ESF, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. SUNY-ESF. Web. 09 Oct. 2010.

Glass, Gregory E. “Environmental Risk Factors for Lyme Disease Identified with Geographic Information Systems.” American Journal of Public Health 85.7 (1995): 944-50. Digital Programs and Systems [Gateway]. Proquest. Web. 09 Oct. 2010.

“Mid-Atlantic RESAC Forest Change in Northern Virginia 1937-1998.” Department of Geography, University of Maryland Home Page. University of Maryland. Web. 09 Oct. 2010.

“Mid-Atlantic RESAC Forest Change in Northern Virginia 1937-1998.” Department of Geography, University of Maryland Home Page. University of Maryland. Web. 09 Oct. 2010.

 Olson, Sarah H. “Understanding Regional Patterns of Vector-borne Infectious Disease in a Changing Environment.” Diss. University of Wisconsin, 2010. Digital Programs and Systems [Gateway]. Proquest. Web. 09 Oct. 2010.

I think that the most useful citation will be the first one, “Effect of Forest Fragmentation on Lyme Disease Risk,” This citation will be helpful because it quantitatively explains the relationship between the changes in the environment that we are seeing in the DC area, and how that affects the rate of Lyme disease infection. Although this study took place in Connecticut, the fragmentation pattern described in the article are similar to those found in DC. Also, the other articles explain development or the spread of bacteria, but this one ties the two together, which is what I am trying to do.

Richardson, Heather Cox. “Explaining the American Civil War.” Historian. 61.2 (1999): 396. Print

Bestor, Arthur. “The American Civil War as a Constitutional Crisis.” American Historical Review. 69.2 327-352. Print.

Grimsley, Mark. “In not so dubious battle: The Motivations of American Civil Wat Soldiers.” Journal of Military History. 62.1 (1998): 175-188. Print.

Merrell, William Thomas. Champions of Contending Armies: The Ancient Rivalry Between Massachusetts and South Carolina, 1829-1856. Clemson, SC: 2010. Print.

I think the source which will be most helpful to me will be the first one. It goes over the many causes of not only the Civil War, but war itself. I think it will provide an array of opinions which I can look for elsewhere or look for rebuttals to elsewhere. In short, it provides a good jumping off point from which I can create a pathway of research into more refined sources.

Casey, J.P.  “High Fructose Corn Syrup.  A Case History of Innovation.”  Starch Volume 29, Issue 6   (1977): 196-204

Forshee, Richard A., Storey, Maureen L., Allison, David B., Glinsmann, Walter H., Hein, Gayle L., Lineback, David R., Miller, Sanford A., Nicklas, Theresa A., Weaver, Gary A. White, John S. “A Critical Examination of the Evidence Relating High Fructose Corn Syrup and Weight Gain.” Critical Reviews in Food Science & Nutrition Volume 47, Issue 6 (2007): 561-582

White, John S. “Misconceptions about High-Fructose Corn Syrup: Is It Uniquely Responsible for Obesity, Reactive Dicarbonyl Compounds, and Advanced Glycation Endproducts?”  Journal of Nutrition Volume 139, Issue 6 (2009): 1219-1227

Skoog, S.M., Bharucha, A. E., Zinsmeister, A. R.  “Comparison of breath testing with fructose and high fructose corn syrups in health and IBS.”  Neurogastroenterology & Motility Volume 20 Issue 5 (2008): 505-511

White, John S.  “Supplement: High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS): Everything You Wanted to Know, but Were Afraid to Ask.” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Volume 88, Number 6 (2008): 1716-1721

I think the last article by John S. White will be one of the most useful as this addresses several different issues relating to high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  He clarifies what HFCS is, then goes on to explain how it came into use, and address some common misconceptions about HFCS.  He also includes statistics and graphs, which are helpful visually.  Overall, I think it will be a useful source as it provides possible answers to many of my questions.

Evans, Arthur B. “The Origins of Science Fiction Criticism: From Kepler to Wells.” Science Fiction Studies (Jul1999, Vol. 26, No. 2): 163-186.

Gomel, Elana. “Shapes of the Past and the Future: Darwin and the Narratology of Time Travel.” Narrative (Oct2009, Vol. 17, No 3): 334-352.

Kincaid, Paul. “On the Origins of Genre.” Extrapolation (Winter2003, Vol. 44 Issue 4): 409-419.

Slusser, George. “The Origins of SF.” Science Fiction Studies (Jul2009, Vol. 36 Issue 2): 200-201.

Westfahl, Gary. “Evolution of Modern Science Fiction: The Textual History of Hugo Gernsback’s “Ralph 124C 41+”.” Science Fiction Studies (Mar1996, Vol. 23, No. 1): 37-82.

I think of these five very promising sources the last one, by Gary Westfahl, is going to be THE MOST promising because of the title. The “Evolution of Modern Science Fiction” is almost word for word my thesis, which is pretty awesome. Hopefully this article by Mr. Westfahl will be abounding with just the information I need (I have a good feeling that it is).

I think Stallybrass means it is ridiculous to assume that great works come out of nowhere, with nothing preceding them. He believes thoughts originate from outside sources. What he hints at is the idea that creativity and good work is a synthesis of things you have experienced – thus things that have not originated in you yourself. The plagarism scare that is currently consuming a lot of the college/academic world, in his opinion, is inherently baseless because good ideas, and ideas in general, build on each other. They don’t just exist in free space. This is important to our research project because we are going to be investigating a lot of different sources on one topic, and we will be incorporating all those sources into a hopefully new idea. This process makes us conform to Stallybrass’ approach to writing.

You are not, nor should you be, the origin of your own thoughts (any more than you are the origin of your own voice).

I think Stallybrass is saying two things with this statement:
1) No work is “original,” i.e., it exists by itself;
2) Work produced in a field is affected by the work that came before it.

I know that one of the problems I have when doing research is making sure that I have a “new idea.” You don’t want to repeat an already known/common idea; you want to “add something new.” Sometimes this is hard to do because there are only so many things you can say about one piece of work. E.g., in Hamlet, you can argue in so many ways whether or not Hamlet is crazy or sane. The arguments for either side can become “boring” because they’ve been said so many times (in the same ways).

Combining this with point 2 – I think what Stallybrass is saying is that you can’t just come up with a new argument. Your argument is based upon reading what others have said and maybe improving it or building upon it or maybe saying it a new way. I think what makes an argument innovative is how it’s put together (i.e., how it “restates” what others say). E.g., a love story can be “boring”/”unoriginal” because it’s about two people who meet and then fall in love. The end. But why are we interested in revisiting love stories? Why are there so many of them? It’s because of the details of the how and the why and the when and the where get to us. The stories can be generally the same, but the people are different and the details are different and so the experience is different.

I think Stallybrass uses Shakespeare as an example of point 2. Shakespeare is considered to be one of the best writers in literature, but a lot of his works are adapted (or just straight out copied) from other sources – others’ stories, history, etc. So when people do research, they don’t just do it in a vacuum. I think this applies to our research because we have to balance “saying something new” with the fact that the “new” is rooted from the old.

Stallybrass is saying that you should allow the thoughts of others to influence you as they naturally will, and attempting to create your own thoughts is useless.  He implies that you can only take the thoughts of others and put your own spin on them.

Stallybrass’s claim is somewhat valid when it comes to reseach.  Most of what I will do with my research project is take the information (thoughts) of others and refine them into my own conclusions.  However, Stallybrass significantly downplays the importance of the refining that I will do with other’s conclusions.  In fact, I argue that the way I interpret others thoughts has more weight than the thoughts of others.

“you are not, nor should be, the origin of your own thoughts”
In this quote, Stallybrass is saying that you will always have thoughts and ideas, but you must also realize that there is a world that thinks as well. This world influences the way you think. This means that you should share the knowledge or your way of thinking to others and see if other people feel the same way. Your thoughts and ideas will be challenged, but this will let you explore the different viewpoints and possibilities. This has to do with the research project because I will be writing a research paper. When I am writing this paper, I must be open to new ideas to see what has already been said and what people are saying now. I must have evidence or the support of other people to claims I will make in my paper. This refers back to the quote. In terms of the research project, the quote is about how I will have my opinion in the research topic I present, but I must be able to look into other ideas and see what information is available to understand my topic better.

When Stallybrass says, “You are not, nor should you be, the origin of your own thoughts (any more than you are the origin of your own voice)”, he doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t think. Instead he means that thoughts should be inspired by the thoughts of others and articulated in a manner that doesn’t claim to be our own, but instead introduces an “original” idea that is our own.

I believe that Stallybrass is trying to make a point about being well researched.  One must know a topic extensively before they form their own opinions.  If someone forms an opinion without looking at the research already existing in an argument, then they could be forming a biased or uneducated ascertion.  This is not to say that people can’t have their own opinions, but to have something completely original would be highly unlikely.  It’s important to keep this in mind when researching because the contributions that any one researcher may have to the ongoing discussion of the topic may be small, and they should anticipate this.  If a researcher completely disregarded someone else’s past findings on the topic, then there would be no point to that research in the first place.

This quote is saying that we should not put any prejudgement into our opinions or thoughts. By doing so one is closing their mind off to other thoughts and facts about a certain topic. This pertains to the reseach project in that we as should be going into this reseach assignment without any sort of bias or prior opinions towards the matter. If we do not do so it may effect the outcome of our research by turning it into a biased paper. We should go into this process with an open mind and a willingness to accept our findings even though it may counter our prior beliefs.

What Stallybrass means in his declaration, “you are not, nor should you be, the origin of your own thoughts (anymore than the origin of your own voice),” is that thought itself is inherently dependent upon the observation and study of pre-existing ideas and concepts introduced by others. That is to say, no individual idea can be spontaneously generated; there must be a preceding impression.

With respect to a research project, this tidbit holds true in that no thorough research can exist without a strong foundation of precursive evidence or ideas with which to formulate a new thought or perspective.