Evaluation of Social Media Sources

In this post, I will analyze the credibility of two social media sources that relate to the ongoing debate about the use of stem cells in bioengineering. This relates to the controversy about Chinese scientists editing human embryos in an experiment, which I mentioned in previous posts.

1. Andy Snyder and the "fear of designer babies" 

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot of Andy Snyder's tweet." 09/05/2015 via Twitter.

• Credibility: Although he is a self-proclaimed musician (which hardly makes him seem relevant to bioethics or bioengineering), Andy Snyder is also a philosophy professor. His standing as a professor in a field that often explores ethical concerns does increase his credibility in this case.
• Location: Andy Snyder's Twitter shows that he currently resides in New York City, which is obviously not near the place of the event in China that initially caused so much public outrage. However, I do not think this entirely discredits him, as the article he cites in his tweet refers to the original event, but then makes a claim about bioethics as a whole. Andy Snyder's location does not really affect his credibility drastically in this case.
• Network: Scientific writers such as Anil Ananthaswamy follow Andy Snyder, suggesting that he does have some link to the scientific community. In addition, the blue checkmark next to his name shows that his account is verified, and not just an impersonator of some sort.
• Content: In the tweet, Andy Snyder refers to an article from The Guardian, which seems like a fairly reliable source. The author of the article is a bioethicist from the University of Oxford, and he even refers to the original event that sparked the controversy (the experiment in China).
• Contextual Updates: Andy Snyder's other tweets seem to allude to many philosophical references, which makes sense since he is a philosophy professor. Since this controversy can be looked at from a philosophical standpoint, he does seem like a relevant source in this case. However, it is definitely important to note that he does not have a more scientific viewpoint on the issue.
• Age: Andy Snyder's Twitter account was started in October of 2009, showing that his account is now almost 6 years old. This increases the account's credibility since it was not recently created.
• Reliability: Overall, I think this source is reliable. Andy Snyder is someone who can be researched, and he is a professor at a university with a verified Twitter account. His tweet links to an article on The Guardian, which is again credible because of its author, references, and subject matter. 

2. Bioethics.com and "'Designer Babies' are an Unregulated Reality"

Chandra, Swati, "Screenshot of bioethics.com's tweet." 09/05/2015 via Twitter.

• Credibility: This Twitter account belongs to bioethics.com, which is a public service that is provided by The Center for Bioethics and the Center for Human Dignity. This organization, in turn, is a research center at Trinity International University. This account's link to a reputable university shows that it is a credible source.
• Location: While it is unclear where this account is managed, I think it is safe to assume that it is located in Illinois, the place where Trinity International University is headquartered. The article that it is responding to is in the New York Post, located in New York. Thus, the location doesn't really add to the source's credibility, but I do not think it entirely discredits the course either. The tweet addresses an issue that is prevalent all over the country, not only in New York, where the article was written.
• Network: The account is followed by several people in the field of bioethics, showing that the subject matter on this account is consistent. This shows that this might be a reliable source within the field of bioengineering and bioethics.
• Content: This post refers to an article in the New York Post, which gives the information some reliability. However, this news website does not specialize in news about the biomedical field, which is something to be wary of when this source is used.
• Contextual Updates: This Twitter account, as the name suggests, posts primarily about bioethics. This means that, even if it is not a particularly scientific account, it is well informed about bioethical issues.
• Age: This account was started in September 2009, so it is about 6 years old. This shows that the account does have some experience, as it is not new.
• Reliability: Overall, this source of information seems reliable from a bioethical standpoint. I wouldn't necessarily go to it for scientific information about biomedical issues, but its affiliation with a university and its focus on bioethics indicates that it could be a good source for issues related to bioethics.