Chaos on the Sidewalks

            Everyone has experienced the rage that stems from trying to travel on the sidewalks. Wherever you go, there always seems to be people all over the walkways doing their own thing. Where is the order? Which way are they walking? Why aren’t they moving? These personal questions are usually followed by anger or frustration. I propose a solution to the sidewalk chaos problem that will create peace, increase efficiency, and just make peoples’ lives better overall. Cities and universities need to create basic rules, direction arrows and specific speed lanes on the sidewalks.

            When it comes to the topic of sidewalks, most of us will readily agree that there is a problem with the organization. Where exactly does this problem begin? A majority of the sidewalk drama is caused by those who are walking in the “wrong” direction of the sidewalk. The misdirection of these walkers tends to create frustration in those who are trying to travel around them. In America, we drive on the right side of the road, so most would think that our walking patterns should follow those rules. However, that is not the case. While observing people walking college campus or city sidewalks, there always seems to be a fair amount of walkers, both natural citizens and tourists, walking on the left side versus the right. Every day on my way to class at Saginaw Valley State University, I am constantly weaving my bike between students on both sides of me, large groups traveling in packs, and the every so often campus car. Most people would agree that sidewalks are a confusing concrete abyss overcrowded with people. In fact, the total amount of sidewalks in America is unknown, but New York City alone has almost 13 miles of sidewalk (“Infrastructure” 1). Taking that amount into consideration, imagine how many US citizens and college students’ days are ruined by overpopulated walkways, or slow moving people that cause them to be late to their classes or appointments. In fact, one scientist from the University of Hawaii created a scale to help people better understand their level of sidewalk rage (Wang 1). Dr. Leo James created the “Pedestrian Aggressiveness Syndrome Scale”, which varies from non-aggressive pedestrian rating to the chance of having Active-Aggressive Sidewalk Rage (James 15-16). In order for a pedestrian to find their aggressiveness level, they have to answer 20 questions about their sidewalk experiences. James found that the average person scored a 12, and this diagnoses them with slightly above “moderate pedestrian rage” (James 15). This is not an issue that should be pushed to the side, it needs to be solved. Picture how much better peoples’ lives could be if their walk to work or class was orderly and paced the way they want it.

http://giphy.com/gifs/disney-angry-annoyed-VwZ9csqW18neM

            Once that picture of perfection is in your mind, imagine what it would be like if that vision came true. There are three basic points in my proposal to better the sidewalker’s experience.  The creation of lanes is my first idea of to solve this problem. No two people are alike, and the same goes for the speed that people walk. Some always feel in a rush to get somewhere, which results in them powerwalking constantly, while others tend to take casual strolls around town, just daydreaming about life. Throw bicycle riders into the mix and the walkways are just a mess. Thus the importance of the walk/ride lanes. There would be a total of six lanes on the sidewalk. The outside lanes on each side would be assigned to the bike riders. This way it is easy for bike riders to turn corners on the sidewalk. It also provides them a quick escape if something happens and they need to avoid a person, baby stroller, or pet. The next two inside lanes would be appointed to tourists, slow walkers, people on cell phones, or those who enojy casual strolls. Last but not least, the two middle lanes. These lanes are designated to those who always seem to be running late or have somewhere to be. To put it another way, the middle lanes are for those who are on the same level as Speedy Gonzales when it comes to speed. Two lanes for each category are required because each lane is for a different direction. Feet and bike traffic would travel along the same rules of automobiles, which is to keep to the right when moving.  Along the same lines as the lane designation, my next solution for sidewalks is to keep bikes off the sidewalks when available. If there is enough room on roads to have a bike lane, there should be one. The less variety of traffic on sidewalks the better. One less sidewalk lane would also allow more room for walkers to walk, or allow the city to lessen the width of the walkways. My third and final solution to the sidewalk problem would be to make a list of sidewalk etiquette. Marc Santora, writer for the New York Times, saw this problem over a decade ago and already created a simple list of seven rules that walkers should follow religiously in his article “Think You Own the Sidewalk”. Santora’s rules go as follows: keep to the right, do not stop suddenly, do not walk in large groups, do not move slow, remember to keep space between others and don’t step on heels, keep pets on a short leash, and last but not least stay off of your cellular device (1-2). Each rule creates a different level of sidewalk order that will increase the walking efficiency. Higher efficiency will produce a continuous flow of people which will increase travel time and lessen pedestrian related stress.

            At this point in my paper multiple people would argue against my proposed solution to the sidewalk issue. The objectors would include those people who drive cars, come from small towns, and those who don’t worry about the crowded sidewalks. They would argue that the need for sidewalk organization is pointless, and that there is no problem that needs to be fixed. However, I would like to point out a major flaw in the car driver’s argument. How would they feel if there were no lines on the road? Would you feel safe? If roadways did not have set rules about direction, speed, and lanes there would always be accidents occurring. This same exact scenario applies to the walkways. There needs to be rules to create order and make people’s daily lives more peaceful. In response to those who come from small towns that don’t understand the frustration that occurs on college or city sidewalks, let me put this into a scenario that would be relatable. Coming from a small town myself, and I would compare sidewalks to small dirt roads. Think about driving home after a long day of work and you get stuck behind a combine; all you want to do is be home in your bed but you have to wait until there is an opportunity to pass this slow moving vehicle.

Traffic Jam Behind Tractor

Then add about three or four more combines to the mix and you can understand the stress people feel about traveling on crowded sidewalks.  As for those slow walkers, they should try to pay attention to what is occurring around them while they are walking at their leisurely pace down the sidewalk. Those people who seem to walk around in their own world seem to cause the most stress for people who feel the need to get to places. This goes back to Dr. James’s scale about pedestrian aggressiveness. James nicknamed those people who score high on his scale as “ragers”. These people always see fault in those walking around them. It is no shocker that another doctor claimed that ragers are most infuriated by slow walkers, because to them, “slow walkers are breaking the rules of civility” (Wang 2). More organized sidewalks would help those ragers get control of their emotions and protect those on leisure strolls from being yelled at.

            Therefore, the next discussion is about how my solution to the sidewalk is feasible. Let’s first discuss the creation of lanes. The width of each of the lanes would vary depending on the size of the sidewalk. Almost all major sidewalks on the Saginaw Valley State University Campus are a minimum of 12 feet wide (“SVSU” 91). When the lanes are created, each of the six lanes would be 24 inches wide. According to a study done at Harvard, the average adult human’s width is 18 inches wide (“Human Figure” 1). That proves that the creation of lanes would give people plenty of space to walk without feeling claustrophobic.  For the city of New York, the minimum requirement for sidewalks an “unobstructed clear path of 8 feet” (“Geometry” 20). If we were to keep all six lanes, this would only give people 15 inches to move around, however in the city, bikers are not allowed to ride on the sidewalk. When bike lanes are not available, the biker is allowed to act as a car on the road (“Bicyclists” 1-2). The lack of bikers on the sidewalk increases the walkers’ space from 15 inches to 24 inches.  I was unable to find a total number of miles of sidewalks on the SVSU campus. However, I did find a website that was able to give me reliable information about paint costs that would give any estimate of the total cost for New York City. An estimated cost for painting lines for lanes on New York City sidewalks would come to a grand total of around $2,856,148 (“Traffic” 1). This number seems small when compared to the cities estimated budget for 2016, which totals up to $77.7 billion (De Blasio 1). Once lanes are created, the rules must be instated. A specific list of sidewalk etiquette could be made up by the city or university. After a set of rules is decided on, they must be made available to the public. The set of rules could be posted on signs along the street, printed in brochures for future college students, or printed in the daily paper. These rules could be enforced by parking enforcement officers (PEOs), or the campus police. PEOs are already walking the streets of the city, so they are the prime candidate to monitor the sidewalks as well. The same goes for the campus police, these officers are constantly roaming the campuses, and that gives them the ability to enforce the sidewalk etiquette rules. 

            Ultimately what is at stake is here is peoples’ peace of mind. With the organization of sidewalks comes reduced frustration and quicker pathways to work and classes. Less stress and quicker travel will better peoples’ days and decrease their chances of stress related medical issues. My solution is capable of becoming a reality because the people want to see it happen. I recently conducted a survey on my Facebook account about whether or not people would like to see lanes become a common occurrence on sidewalks. Over 65% of the people voted in favor of adding lanes to our sidewalks (Bishop 1). When the people strongly support an issue, it is worth looking into. The world is a stressful place, but our sidewalks don’t need to be.

Works Cited

"Bicyclists." NYC DOT. The City of New York, 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

Bishop, Olivia. "Would You like Designated Lanes on Sidewalks?" Facebook. Polls for Pages, 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2015. <https://apps.facebook.com/my-polls/view/h7xdxrprkf2deyx1gcxa>.

De Blasio, Mayor Bill. "To the Citizens of the City of New York." (2015): n. pag. Council.nyc.gov. The Council The City of New York, 14 Apr. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

"Geometry." Street Design Manual 2.0 (2013): n. pag. NYC.gov. 13 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

"Human Figure Average Measurements." Human Figure Average Measurements. Faculty of Arts & Sciences-Harvard University, 2001. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

"Infrastructure." NYC DOT. The City of New York, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

James, Dr. Leo, and Dr. Diane Nahl. "The Psychology of Sidewalk Rage: A Community Crisis in the Making." Drdriving.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

Santora, Marc. "Think You Own the Sidewalk?; Etiquette by New York Pedestrians Is Showing a Strain." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 July 2002. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

"SVSU Master Plan." (2012): n. pag. Svsu.edu. Saginaw Valley State University. Web. 18 Nov. 2015. <https://www.svsu.edu/media/campusfacilities/docs/Campus%20Master%20Plan%20-%20Final%20Aug.%202012.pdf>.

"Traffic & Marking Zone Paints and Striping Paint Accessories." Pavecoat. Paving Maintenance Supply Inc., 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

Wang, Shirley S. "Get Out of My Way, You Jerk!" WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 15 Feb. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2015.

Buzzfeed.com: What's All the Buzz?

          Almost every kid who has ever been on a computer has heard their parents complain about them wasting time. I know I have heard plenty, especially from my mom complaining about me wasting my life away on Buzzfeed.com. She could not understand how one entertainment website could be helpful for anyone. What are these kids looking at? Is it informative? Relaxing? Or “dumbing” them down? Most parents feel that the use of “entertainment” websites does more harm than good for their children. What they do not see is that Buzzfeed is not only an entertainment website, but a great place to obtain information about events all over the world.

Buzzfeed Logo 

            To begin, let me explain what exactly Buzzfeed is. The website describes itself as a “social news and entertainment company” (“About” 1). When a person enters the site, the homepage is filled with articles that vary from DIY bracelets to the most recent presidential debate to a “which ice cream are you” quiz. Across the top of the homepage there are tabs that bring you to different sections of the website. The most common tab I click on is the “trending” circle. This little circle transports people to a page that includes the twenty top trending articles at that moment in time. Along the same lines as the homepage, this list includes articles that cover a large variety of topics that range from the “Try Guys” trying out the latest Halloween costumes to a list of the best ways to get your money’s worth at movie theaters. Despite the amount of entertainment options to click on, Buzzfeed also has a news section dedicated to informing its readers about events occurring around the world. This section is not about pop stars shaving heads or the next celebrity divorce; these stories cover terrorist attacks, people in poverty, and the presidential campaign. Whether one is trying to find an entertaining article or get their daily news, Buzzfeed is available for almost anyone who has access to the World Wide Web.

            As a result of internet access being so common in today’s world, there are multiple opinions about the impact it has on children and teens. Some people argue the negative effects of the internet on the human race, whereas others discuss the positive outcomes from websites.  There is also a mixed viewpoint that claims the internet has its own pros and cons. In one corner of the ring we have those against which include parents whose offspring use the internet and in the opposing corner, in support of the internet, are the children, teens and young adults that require internet access for their survival. Then there is me, the ref in the middle who sees the strong points of each “fighter” and secretly cheers for both opponents.

            To begin, let’s discuss those people who always seem to be against their children’s internet usage: the parents. Every household has their own rules about the usage of the internet for each member of the family. It is a common occurrence for the parents to always be in support of the “less internet is better” stance. A recent study completed in 2006 supports that parents are beginning to feel that less time spent online is better for their kids. According to that survey, “over half of all parents of online teens (59%) say that the internet has been a good thing for their children, that number has decreased…from 67% in 2004” (Macgill 5). As technology becomes easier to access and new social websites are created, the more negative impact it has on parents’ views on certain websites. Around “two-thirds of parents” have restrictions on websites that kids can visit (Macgill 5). Adults are more likely to ban a website with celebrity gossip and “stupid” quizzes, which is what they would see Buzzfeed as. A recent study, entitled Driven to Distraction led by Larry Rosen, brings to light a pattern that is being found in teens and children that spend an increasing amount of time on electronics. Rosen discovered in his research that more and more teens are beginning to have a shorter attention span than previous generations. The study reported that “Three-fourths of teens…check their devices every 15 minutes or less and if not allowed to do so get highly anxious” (Rosen 2). These worrying results give parents an understandable explanation for why they give their children a restricted time frame on the internet. Most people don’t realize how much time they “waste” on the computer mindlessly clicking on different links. Teens spend around “27 hours and 36 minutes” (“Time Spent” 1) online each week. That is over a full day’s worth of talking to people face to face or spending time outdoors that these teens and children are missing. Maybe adults do have reasonable points as to why they restrict internet usage and always groan when they see the bright red, blocky font of the Buzzfeed logo show up on the computer screen. They are programmed to look after their kids’ wellbeing, right? In other words, any parent would have to just not care to stand by and let their kid become internet obsessed, anxiety-ridden robots.

            Despite the overwhelming studies about the negative impacts of entertainments websites—and the internet in general— have on young adults and children, there are still people who support the usage of the internet in everyday life. The education expectations bar for modern day teens is beginning to grow as fast as Jack’s beanstalk. Most students are trying their best to climb to the top and make their families proud, however that goal requires longer study periods. More time dedicated to school, homework, and extracurricular activities results in a decrease of the valuable leisure time kids in past generations had. A main cause of the decrease in spare time is the high standards set by college admissions. Modern day admission workers for colleges are looking for a “well-rounded” student who is involved in many activities, but they also have to have at least some type of an “A” grade in their high school classes. In short, most people in today’s world do not have time to sit down and watch an hour news segment to be caught up on their news for the day. With the development of technology, they are able to read the news in twenty minutes versus an hour. Young adults and teens are still reading the same news as their parents, they are just receiving it from a source that benefits themselves, such as their phone or the internet. Just like TV, there are multiple “channels” for your news online. One of the most common internet “channels” among teens and young adults is Buzzfeed.  Not all websites contain only the serious, stressful news, and Buzzfeed has a great way of relaxing people. In the way a newspaper has comics, Buzzfeed has fun and relaxing articles and quizzes to brighten anyone’s day. These stress-reducing activities could include an article about “10 reasons dogs are cool” to a “What phone fits your personality?” quiz. The opportunity to connect with others, share articles that are a personal favorite, or have a small debate in the comments section is changing the way people connect with each other. Writing in the book I found it on the Internet: Coming of Age Online, Frances Harris claims that “Online communication has great potential for increasing intimacy and closeness in human relationships” (72). Internet allows people to build or strengthen relationships quicker, and can even help create new ones with people from around the world. For teens and young adults the pros of the internet outweigh the cons. A youth’s ability to access news quickly, create new friendships, and the opportunity to unwind is the perfect package for anyone—and it is available at the tip of their fingers daily.

            As I stated earlier, my feelings on the subject are intermingled. I do support parents’ positions that too much internet is bad, but I find the young adults’ argument about the positive effects internet has on people to be equally persuasive.  Regarding the parents’ viewpoint on things, I completely agree with the negative impact technology is having on the length of our attention—Look a butterfly!—span. Even as I am writing this paper, every ten minutes I am stopping to check my phone or check up on my social accounts. I actually just started playing Pandora in order to listen to Christmas music as I work.

Checking email, looking at Facebook, and among other things has just become a daily routine as I complete my homework. Until reading that article, I didn’t realize how much time I have wasted and currently am wasting just looking at pointless things on the internet. However, when I am not doing homework, the internet is a great source to obtain valuable information or my daily dose of worldly gossip. Inside of the mysterious cyberspace, there are multiple ways to find anything from homework help to a quick guide to baking cookies from scratch, or even to decide which two colors look the best together. People need time to unwind and not think about that paper that is due Monday, the credit load they have to take on next semester, or if they have finally picked the “right” major. Overall the internet is good, but people need to know that too much of something does not always create positive results. One must know when to stop clicking on the link to the next page and close the screen to spend time with actual people.

            Challengers against internet usage—especially Buzzfeed—are right to argue that people do waste time while they are on the internet. But they exaggerate when they claim that nothing good at all comes from the internet besides world news information. The entertainment section of Buzzfeed might be considered a "waste of time", but it is very helpful for those people who just need to relax after a stressful day of work, school, or life. In this section, there are links to "find your Harry Potter house" quizzes, tests that see if you are truly knowledgeable about the Disney movie Mulan, and articles about the next best shampoo. This section might just be an excuse to procrastinate doing homework, but people need time to unwind and not think about the hassles of life. The fun times spent on that page might spark someone's creative mind or give them a laugh that makes their day. The "time-wasting" quizzes in fact could lead to strange facts that may help one win in the future during trivia game night. The entertainment page also does more than just give people fun quizzes; it also connects them to interesting stories about people around the globe. Buzzfeed also uses its connections to spread stories to the world about people in need. When you access the site, there are touching stories about everyday people who survived the world's worst tragedies. Recently there was a writing, entitled “How One of Katrina’s Feel-Good Stories Turned Bad”, about Kathy Phipps's life 10 years after Hurricane Katrina (Moskowitz 1). The article brought to life the horrors experienced during, after, and today as a result of the awful storm. Not all stories are about negative events, however. Some personal articles cover the success stories of people overcoming cancer or feature a family who is trying to raise money for a cause. A result of the Buzzfeed article about their charity or fund helps those people meet their goals. Through their articles, Buzzfeed has informed a lot of a people about different diseases, life difficulties, exciting achievements, and charities that need help.

            Although the use of Buzzfeed seems trivial, it is in fact just the tip of the iceberg in terms of today’s concerns over internet usage. While this may seem far-fetched, parents and teens need to be able to see eye-to-eye in order to understand the others stance on internet usage. Teens must understand that parents are trying to protect them because they care about them and want what is best for their children, while parents must develop an understanding that their child’s youth will be different from theirs. Teens are growing up in a world full of technology and they will most likely not do things that their parents did in their days for fun. Both sides must work together to understand the other. As Joseph Jourbert said “The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress” (Quotes 1). 

            To sum up everything written, there always seems to be a love-hate relationship with the internet. When people think about Buzzfeed and the internet overall, most would automatically point out the bad, time-wasting material. However, I want to emphasize that it is more than just a procrastination tool; Buzzfeed is more than quizzes and articles about the next top hairstyle. This site provides worried young adults with a variety of different information, including “how to survive college tips” to recent coverage of events occurring in the Middle East. All of these wonderful opportunities hidden in just one website remind me of a saying that I heard often as a child: “Don’t judge a book by its cover”. Maybe it is time for people to stop judging the internet before they truly look into it and see what it has to offer. Sometimes the best things on the internet are found when you don’t expect to find them.

                                                                                                                

Works Cited

"About BuzzFeed." BuzzFeed. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.

Harris, Frances J. I Found It on the Internet: Coming of Age Online. Chicago: American Library                      Assoc., 2011. Print.

"Joseph Joubert." Quotes.net. The STANDS4 Newtwork, n.d. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.

Macgill, Alexandra. "Parent and Teen Internet Use." Pew Research Center Internet Science Tech                    RSS. The Pew Charitable Trusts, 23 Oct. 2007. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.

Moskowitz, Peter. "How One of Katrina's Feel-Good Stories Turned Bad." Buzzfeed.com. Buzzfeed,                22 Aug. 2015. Web. 8 Nov. 2015.

Rosen, Larry. "Driven to Distraction: How to Help Wired Students Learn to Focus - ECampus                          News." ECampus News. N.p., 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 02 Nov. 2015.

"Time Spent Online Doubles in a Decade." Time Spent Online Doubles in a Decade. N.p., n.d.                         Web. 02 Nov. 2015.

Genetic Testing

Genetic Testing Can Save Lives…Why Stop It?

            As new discoveries in genetics create more mysteries about our DNA, they also create fresh arguments between writers in the medical field. Authors Charlie Gillis and Ronald Bailey each have their own opinions on the topic of genetic testing. Gillis in his piece “Risky Business”—published on Maclean’s.ca—did not feel comfortable with the idea of genetic testing. While, Bailey supported the testing of human genetics in his article “Leave 23andMe alone”, which was published on Reason.com. Although Gillis provides ample evidence that genetic testing does have its flaws, Bailey’s research on the positive effects of genetic testing convinces me that testing people’s genetics is a worthwhile venture that can help people prevent diseases or better their lives to lessen the impact of the disease.  

Decades ago, it seemed like nothing more than an abstract idea to know what type of DNA you have in your body. Today, science and technology have developed to an extent where that valuable information can be found out within weeks at an affordable cost. In his article “Risky Business”, Gillis writes about the company 23andMe, which provides average people with affordable genetic testing. While this company has had almost “500,000” (Bailey 3) customers, the “U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to 23andMe asking it to stop providing health results to its American members” (Gillis 2) because of the negative effects the results have on the citizens. These negative side effects include depression and anxiety that result from tests that show mutations in genes. Although the FDA stopped the company in America, Gillis reminds us that Canada does not have any regulations on genetic testing which resulted in an increase of 23andMe advertisements in their country. Gillis then emphasizes that genetic test results in Canada “can be used by insurers and employers” (2). When a citizen in Canada takes a genetic test, their future employers have the right to view the results. Abnormal test results could cause people to see an increase in difficulties to obtain a job or insurance because those companies will discriminate against people with a higher number of mutated genes. Gillis expresses that upsetting results can cause more harm than a lack of job or insurance; these irregular results could cause depression or anxiety. Fear of what the results may say, these unusual findings are also a reason people are not getting the testing done. Whether the genes are found to be normal or abnormal, genetic testing only informs people of their chances for different diseases, and the information given never absolutely guarantees that the conditions they are more likely to develop will actually develop.

23andMe Logo

                                       

Ronald Bailey’s view of genetic testing in his article “Leave 23andMe alone” contradicts Gillis’s opinion on the matter. Bailey begins by enlightening his readers about this horrible thing the FDA has done to the company 23andMe. He reports that the FDA shut down 23andMe’s genetic testing center in the United States to stop it from sending genetic reports to U.S. citizens. In a letter to 23andMe, the FDA claimed that they “[worry] that purchasers of 23andMe's personal genome services will do something dangerously stupid in reaction to what they learn” (Bailey 1). They fear that if citizens begin to receive negative results about their DNA, they will become dangerous, cease rational thinking, or develop depression, among other things. However, Bailey brings to light an example of a woman who received a positive result for a breast cancer causing gene. Instead of immediately planning a double mastectomy, she planned a visit with her doctor to plan a more thorough genetic test. The new test ended up supporting 23andMe’s results. Bailey supports his view by explaining a recent study 23andMe completed about effects of results that were positive for BRCA, a gene that causes cancer. One note from the study was that “‘all but one of the 32 mutation-positive participants appreciated learning their BRCA mutation status’” (Bailey 2).  These results contradict the FDA’s reasoning that people are not ready to understand the mutations that are in their genes. Also, almost “500,000 people have purchased 23andMe’s genotype screening tests” (Bailey 3) which shows that many citizens are curious to learn about their DNA. As a result of the FDA’s actions to halt 23andMe’s service to Americans, the once quick and affordable genetic results are no longer available to citizens. Their actions will increase people’s waiting time, which restricts valuable time people could spend taking preventative actions.

In the previous articles about genetic testing, Gillis argues the dangers that genetic testing has on people. On the other hand, Bailey contends that genetic testing is a great advance in science that should be available to the public. Gillis repeatedly brings up the argument that society is not capable of hearing about mutations in their genes. He argues that bad results will cause decline into a pit of despair. Yet, in writing about genetic testing, Bailey has nothing but good things to say about the test. Bailey’s claim that awareness of genetic mutations does more good than harm contradicts Gillis’s viewpoint that the testing only causes harm. Bailey describes multiple events where the early warnings from genetic testing have saved lives by people taking early preventative action towards diseases they could have developed.

Taking both authors’ arguments into account, I wholeheartedly endorse Bailey’s claim that genetic testing is a positive scientific advancement that should be available for society to use at will. People should have the choice to make their own decisions in learning about their genes, and what possible mutations they carry. When a person discovers that they have a higher chance to develop a diseases or disorder, they can take preventative measures, such as living a healthier lifestyle or changing their medications. Bailey wrote about a recent study that reported that genetic test results revealing mutation were not linked to bad results. He posed that people were not “inclined to overestimate the contributions of genetics to common health problems or underestimate behavioral risk factors” (Bailey 3).These tests could also help people learn about mutations that have already started to affect their bodily functions. Genetic testing is a fascinating way for people to learn more about their body and can help them to develop different routine habits that will better their lifestyle. In addition to the mutations the tests can find, genetic testing is a great way for people to learn more about the field of genetics. When I was younger and heard about the company 23andMe, it sparked interest in me about finding out what exactly the field of genetics is all about. Now five years later, I am currently pursuing a biochemistry major to become a genetic researcher. The FDA’s move to shut down 23andMe’s genetic testing service for American citizens may keep younger people from hearing about the field of genetics. When fewer people know about the field, fewer people will pursue degrees to further the scientific discoveries about our human genes, and the lack of geneticists could slow down scientists' efforts to cure common genetic disorders.

At this point many receivers of genetic tests revealing mutated genes would object my opinion that genetic testing should be available to the public. These naysayers claim that the public is not emotionally prepared to know their risks for future diseases. However, anyone over 18 can order these 23andMe genotype testing kits. That is the same age people become a legal adult, are allowed to vote, buy tobacco, and purchase lottery tickets. The company's Terms of Service states that in order to “provide your own Genetic Information, you must be eighteen (18) years of age or older” (23andMe). As an adult, they should understand the risks of finding out about their genetic information, and know that not all results will be good news. These people with mutation positive tests may claim that those terrifying results only caused anxiety or depression. The early signs of a genetic mutation could, however, eventually save the person from a disease or a premature death. A result indicating a genetic probability for a disease like breast cancer may scare a person, but it scares them into seeking a doctor to help take precautionary measures to decrease their chances of developing breast cancer. Gillis quotes Emily Conley, a director at 23andMe, about the true meaning of the company; she explains “‘[genetic testing] is an individual’s right to obtain information about himself so he can make healthy adjustments to his lifestyle’” (5).

DNA Strands

Ultimately, what is at stake here is the right to learn about their genes whenever and however they want. When the FDA shut down 23andMe’s availability to Americans, they took away Americans' rights to discover what type of genes they have at an affordable price. One important opportunity given by 23andMe was the chance for early detection of genetic mutations. These early warning signs have given people the chance to change their lifestyles or have disease preventative surgeries. Numerous people have taken the opportunity given by 23andMe’s services to find out information about their genes and what is troublesome about them. As a result of the FDA’s actions, the once quick and affordable process of requiring genetic results are no longer available to citizens. Their actions will increase people’s waiting time, which leaves less time for preventative actions.

All things considered, both authors make a good argument on either side of the genetic testing debate. Gillis creates a strong argument against the use of genetic testing to discover a person's faults in their genetic makeup, while Bailey writes an opinion-changing piece about the positive effects genetic testing can have on people’s lives. What Gillis fails to point out is that only adults can use companies—such as 23andMe—to order genetic information, and that not all test results cause negative effects on people. Without the continuation of genetic testing, society may be missing out on cures for common genetic disorders that could be discovered from multiple genetic results. In the end, no one truly knows what diseases they will get, but the genetic testing is a good warning sign that has the power to save lives. This type of live-saving opportunity should not be taken away from the public.    

Works Cited

Bailey, Ronald. "Leave 23andMe Alone: The FDA Should Stop Obstructing Consumer-driven Genetic Testing." Reason. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Gillis, Charlie. "Risky Business." Macleans.ca. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

"Terms of Service." 23andme.com. 23andMe, Inc., 2015. Web. 4 Oct. 2015.