Two Parts:
1. A critical comparison of two research papers (2,500 words not including references)

This must be a professional scientific discussion of two peer-reviewed journal articles, on the same subject, which report primary research (i.e. not review articles) published between 2014 – 2020. This date range allows you to investigate whether, and in what context, the papers have recently been cited. Your audience is a panel of experts in your field. You must write in the third person and use the Harvard referencing style. Your comparison should include an introduction and a discussion. This part must address ethical Assessment Information/Brief considerations and implications.

Some ideas to consider (but not a guide for the structure or content):

For each paper:
Can you summarise the work in 3 sentences? Is the research a valuable addition to the field? What is the likely impact of the research (academic, public, policy)? Who has cited the work, and in what context? Have the authors published follow-up data since? How
have they presented their data? Would you have done it any differently? Why? Did they use correct references to support their
statements? Have they considered and discussed all the relevant information? Does their discussion bring their data into context? Do they over/under-extrapolate the importance of their work?

For your critical comparison:
What are the relative strengths and weaknesses of each paper? Are they answering different questions? Did they use a different approach? Which is more effective/useful and why? Do the approaches complement each other? Do they contradict each other
in any way? Has the literature addressed this since?

2. A blog on the future of your field of science (1000 words).

Your audience is a group of non-expert MPs. You must write in the first person. This component MUST address ethical considerations and implications, as discussed in your ethics lecture and during tutorials. You do not have to publish this online – a word document will suffice – but do use images to illustrate your points. You can choose the most appropriate referencing style. Some ideas to consider: What are the neglected areas? Are they being looked into? By whom? If not, why not? What are the big questions according to public opinion/government/research councils/academics? What is YOUR opinion? What research would you do? What would help/hinder this?
This component MUST include a profile of a well-known researcher in this field (approx. 300 words). Who is a prominent researcher in
this field? Where are they based? What do they do? What is their career background? Who do they work with? What has been the
impact of their work?

Reference style: Harvard referencing style.