Outside Source: Cancer Research video

Assigned Source: “Waiting for Light” Jake Abrahamson

The two sources that are chosen for this project both share the value of hope that is in science. Both of the sources give a brighter outlook on a typically dim situation. It is obvious each has a call to action as well which helps to argue the need. The topics and the mediums both differ, but the genre is the same. In the project, it is intended to produce a talk show type video in which a small group reads a comment about science/advancement that represents a “bad” outlook and then use these two texts to develop a rebuttal that on that comment, focusing on how it gives people a greater outlook on life, i.e. hope. Our argument will be formulated as a counter argument, addressing a possible con to science and rebutting it with the value it holds.

Our group set up is as follows:

Bree: looking up and analysing evidence, speaking in the video, speaking during the presentation

Sam: recording the video talk, posting the video on an accessible platform, possibly also speaking in the video, speaking during the presentation

Jordan:  composition of our thesis and actual argument, speaking in the video, speaking during the presentation

Madi: composition of thesis and argument, speaking in the video, speaking in the presentation

Our schedule will be  as follows:

11-2: Have a good amount of coherent applicable evidence and an outline for the video. Also have video roles fleshed out.

11-4: Have a full draft of our argument including a guide for the commentary that will occur in the video and the blurb that will be posted under it for a more defined argument

Week of 11-6: Take time to record and edit the video

11-13: script the video and prepare for presentation


Support in form of a rough outline of the script:


     So, recently, there has been an article picking up a lot of momentum. The article basically denounces science, saying that advancement has only made the world worse. It argues that if we didn’t initially start inventing then we wouldn’t have need for it now, but since we are involved in science, we are engulfed by it. We are turning the natural unnatural and raising more cause for war. Going as far as to say “Science is an invasive species. We didn’t stop it before it came in and now we can’t live without it.” And, people are actually getting behind this.

     We invited a few guests: Madison Crymes, the creator of Kick It to Cancer based in Cincinnati, Ohio, Dr. Jordan Sanders, scientific developer of CleanLight, and Sam Costa, author the article. Crymes and Sanders both see the value of science while Costa does not. So, we have all sides of this argument here today, and we’re going to try to come to a consensus.

     Since we all already know your opinion, Sam, why don’t we let the ladies go first? Dr. Sanders?


         The most important reason that CleanLight was developed was to improve lives. Here in the United States, we take for granted how simple it is to turn on the lights as we walk in the room. In some parts of the world, all productivity ends as soon as the sun sets. This places major inhibitions on quality of life for all involved. CleanLight is designed to give those who are without electricity a chance to extend their potential past sunset. Just by giving these people a few extra hours in their day, incredible things can happen; untapped potential is released. The next Einstein could be from one of places, but without the resources to be able to research and communicate properly, some incredible genius would be taken away from the world. For example in the village of Jangaon, these people have never been exposed to the most basic forms electricity. When we introduced CleanLight, not only did we give them light, we gave them hope. Now the future is within their sight. The dreams of having computers and more advanced technology come alive. That’s the entire point of CleanLight; it’s not about just giving them light, it’s about giving them hope for the future advancements they deserve.

(show picture of the article and have a few short quotes up)


      I work closely with the Cincinnati research department and we We work day in and day out to make lives easier for children with cancer and their families. I have a personal connection to this because, three years ago, my son Dwight passed away from leukemia at just 8 years old. Thanks to the efforts of the staff and the many people we worked with, I think Dwight’s final days were as good as they could’ve been. They helped to ease physical his pain as well as the emotional pain of our family through their kindness and tireless efforts. Due to this personal connection, I fully support and the Cincinnati Research Department. Their research has made incredible advancements that save many lives daily. If it weren’t for this institutions, many children and their families would be without hope. This Research Center gives kids and their families a fighting chance against cancer.

(show video)

Costa:   People say we need science in order to stay alive.  Granted, it does provide for better medicine and technologies, but I believe we do not need these things for survival.  Like I stated in my article, I believe we should go back to living off the earth and focus on being one with nature.  People were living like this for thousands of years, and even today, there are people who do not rely on the means of scientific innovation.  I base most of my articles and works off of Henry David Thoreau’s naturalistic ideas.  He says that “Our life is frittered away by detail… simplify, simplify,” and the best way to do that is to avoid science.  Now I have some questions for you.  Is science really that necessary?  What even is the value of science if we used to survive without it?


     Yes, people used to survive without technology. But now people can thrive! Life isn’t about simply making it through day by day. From the beginning of time, advancements in technology have been consistently made because it’s in human nature to try and make life better. The potential that humans have is fully reached with the help of technological advancements. Just imagine what Da Vinci or Newton could’ve done with the resources that we have today because of our technology. Specifically with CleanLight…

In the article you can see he puts emphasis on his work: having “promising avenue[s] for powering up indian’s rural poor” and “a single rooftop” showing even though it’s not much, it’s something. (even these small things can be exciting)

      He juxtaposes this exciting topic with sadder things like investors being “hesitant to fund companies whose customers include the poorest people on earth” so you are aware of the real need for this (He lets you know the possibility so you’ll feel bad when you realize the full potential isn’t being reached)

      He includes conversations he has to show us what good it’s doing for these people. “It looks like the sun rises there.  Slowly, slowly, the villagers

are attracted toward the light.  We give them our lantern in their

hand so they can enjoy this light” (Light brings a new light to these people’s lives and opens new doors)

      He shows you how these people use this advancement: “We love to study. We love to do embroidery.” Even further than that he includes the fact the embroidery is made from waste making this project even more valuable. (It’s helping educate and its improving waste pollution in the environment)

      “It is the hope of a human being . . . Something new is there, and sometime, someday, it will work.” (These people want it)

      “Bhawana was using Verma’s computer to look up market prices . . .so her father, a farmer could use these as negotiation points.” (even if we only need technology because of the rise of technology in the first place, it’s still here, it’s already invaded and others need it to have any chance at a good life.)


      You wouldn’t need to get educated if everything was just natural because there’d be nothing to learn

      Who’s to say their life isn’t good without it already?



      Juxapositon of research and happiness ( 00:42) even though it’s seen as boring, it is very rewarding, look at all of those appreciative children that don’t even understand the concept of research.

      You don’t know if these precious kids are going to make it (00:36) and thanks to these research efforts at least some of them (00:52) will. Of course you don’t have to live, death is a part of life but isn’t it also natural to try to preserve your genes and make sure your offspring survives? And outside of the scientific outlook, would you not give anything to give your kid a good life?

      Research give anyone with a poor medical prognosis a chance.



      So what are you guys saying the value of science is?


     -It seems that both of them, in their own fields, are saying this research is bringing people hope. Would you ladies agree?

Crymes and Sanders:

      (adlib yeah I definitely agree etc.)


     -I can see that and honestly I can’t refute it


      Well, there you have it everyone! Everything has its cons, but everything also has its pros. Science has caused a bit of trouble, yet it always seems to bring good first.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s