This is a Peer Review on the first draft of my Informative Review, done by one of my classmates.

1. APA Cover Page: Explain how the cover page image and title engage readers. Does the cover page include appropriate citations: Student Name, College, Course, Instructor, and date?

• The cover page includes all the required elements including an image by Marina Schernthanner that I like because it is engaging because it visually connects readers to the human side of the scientific story. 

2. Opening Paragraph: Explain how the opening paragraph connects with the cover page. What rhetorical measures does the writer use to engage readers? (narrative, hyperbole, question/answer, quote, scenario) How does the opening paragraph make you want to continue reading?

• The opening paragraph connects well to the cover page because it centers on the personal experience Henrietta lacks and uses hypothetical scenarios (“imagine going to the doctor…”) making it effective, making the issue feel immediate and personal to the reader. The move from emotional to factual content is smooth and successful making the opening paragraph strong and compelling. 

3. Background: What medical issues does this research or technology potentially resolve? Has the writer provided a clear definition of terms and background information? Explain. What other background information might readers want to know more about?

• This essay gives good background information on HeLa cells, gene mapping, CRISPR technology, and cardiovascular research. The writer explains key medical issues such as cervical cancer, sickle cell disease, and transthyretin amyloidosis, which demonstrates how genetic research can potentially resolve life threatening conditions. Important medical terms are defined in accessible language which can help readers who don’t have a strong scientific background. While the background is thorough a stronger connection made from the issue and HeLa cells may link the two topics better and allow for more clarity.

4. Discussion/Adaptive Measures: What visual adaptive measure(s) does the writer use to help readers understand complex science topics/technology? How does the writer help the readers resonate with the topic issue? In other words, does the reader feel the science issue could impact them or someone they know? 

• The writer uses many adaptive strategies to make complex scientific concepts easier to understand, she uses clear definitions to describe medical terminology, uses real world examples, such as clinical trials and specific diseases, overall the information provided is clear and well backed up with evidence. The writer includes statistics about heart disease helping readers better understand the scale of the issue and put into perspective how the issue might affect them or someone they know. By connecting genetic research to common and serious health conditions, the writer helps readers connect to the topic on a more personal level. The essay does not feel distant due to the informational/factual purpose, instead it seems relevant and impactful.

5. Structural/Institutionalized Racism and Bias: Considering what we’ve learned about institutionalized racism/bias in science, could this science topic be an issue for some ethnic groups with histories of racism, language, religion, culture, or gender bias? Explain your answer. How does the writer neutralize controversial issues and concerns? Is it effective (how)? Describe how the writer connects HeLa cells/Henrietta Lacks’s story with their science topic. Is there a more effective way to connect the topic with HeLa cells/Henrietta Lacks?

• The topic directly relates to institutionalized racism in science with the acknowledgment of Henrietta Lacks’s story, the writer talks about historical injustices and broader ethical concerns surrounding medical research. Issues in this essay are presented in a balanced way that recognize both scientific wrongdoing as well as advancements that resulted due to them. The connection of Henrietta Lacks and modern genetic research is clear, but could be strengthened by explicitly talking about how her case influenced modern consent policies and public trust in medicine. A better analysis of how history affects marginalized communities today could help make the connection more powerful. 

6. Conclusion: Once you reach the essay’s conclusion, do you feel the writer presented the science topic objectively without appearing to take a position? Describe how the writer concludes the article discussion. How does the writer convey the implications of the science topic while also conveying the benefits?

• In the conclusion the writer is objective and reflective of ethics involved in the issue at hand. The writer says that what happened to Henrietta Lacks was wrong, the tone is more academic than emotional. The conclusion is effective in summarizing scientific achievements made possible through the help of HeLa cells and ethical implications about using them. She talks about the high cost using CRISPR therapies and about the issue of accessibility and equity in medicine. The conclusion reinforces that there are both consequences and benefits to progress. 

7. Sources: Does the writer have at least three sources? Are the sources appropriately cited using in-text citations or footnotes?

• The author includes more than the three required sources, in text citations are present throughout. However, APA formatting in both the in-text citations and reference list should be reviewed carefully to ensure consistency. 

8. Audience: Describe the secondary audience most likely to read this article. 

• The audience is most likely college students and general readers interested in science and medical ethics.

9. Editing/Proofreading: Is the essay double-spaced (no extra spaces between paragraphs), Times New Roman, or an equivalent font? Has the writer proofed/edited their work? Is the language clear? Are there any typos?

• The essay appears properly formatted and double-spaced. There are a few minor wording errors and informal phrases that should be revised