The Body Revision

 a break down of The Body Revision 

Unit VII Assignment

Instructions

The Body Revision

Follow the directions below for the completion of the body paragraphs revision assignment for Unit VII. If you have questions, please email your professor for assistance.

Purpose: The purpose of this assignment is to revise the body of your academic argumentative research paper, which you created a draft of in Unit VI.

Description: In this assignment, you will revise the three to four body paragraphs you wrote in Unit VI. The following requirements must be included in the assignment:

· Body Paragraphs: You will revise the body section of your paper based on feedback received from your professor in Unit VI. Please review here the guidelines for the body section of your research paper: This section will include three to four paragraphs comprised of five to seven sentences each. Each paragraph should be between 150-200 words. At a minimum, this portion of the paper should be 450-600 words (for three to four paragraphs); a body section of this length will meet the minimum requirements of the assignment. Revisions must be substantive and should be made in accordance with the direction given by the professor’s feedback. The following components must be included in each body paragraph (in the following order).

· Sentence 1: Point/reason sentence: This topic sentence will contain one of your reasons.

· Sentence 2: Explanation: In this sentence, you will provide information that further develops or explains Sentence 1.

· Sentence 3: Illustration: This sentence introduces evidence that supports the reason that is presented in Sentence 1.

· Sentence 4: Explanation of the illustration: Because the evidence does not necessarily stand on its own, you need to provide explanation so that the reader will understand how you interpreted the evidence to come to your reason.

· Sentences 5-6: Second illustration and explanation (optional): You may choose to include a second piece of evidence that is then followed by an explanation.

· Last Sentence: Transition: In this sentence, you will signal to the reader that you will be moving on to another point in the next paragraph. You do this to ease the movement from one point to another.

·
Be sure to include the introduction and literature review you have already created and revised.

· Use APA conventions to cite and reference all sources used to support your argument.

2

Serial Killer: Nature vs. Nurture

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Date

Introduction

The Nature vs. Nurture debate is a long-standing controversy over whether human behavior is primarily determined by genetics (Nature) or by environmental factors (Nurture). The pro side of the debate between nature and nurture aspects of serial killers would argue that serial killers are born with certain predispositions or traits that lead them to commit their heinous acts. These predispositions could include a lack of empathy, impulsivity, and an inclination to violent behavior. The Con side of the debate argues that serial killers are born with innate qualities and characteristics predisposing them to crime. This includes a lack of empathy, lack of remorse, and lack of fear of consequences. This debate is especially relevant when considering the behavior of serial killers, as some experts argue that they are born with a predisposition towards violence. In contrast, others argue that environmental factors, such as a traumatic upbringing, can cause someone to develop violent tendencies. Supporters of the Nature side of the debate point to the genetic similarities among serial killers and the fact that some serial killers have a history of mental illness in the family. Additionally, they would point to the fact that some serial killers have a history of mental illness, which could result from genetic factors. Furthermore, proponents of the “nature” side of the debate would argue that even if serial killers are exposed to certain environmental factors, such as a lack of parental guidance or violent media, these factors alone do not explain the behavior of serial killers. The Con side also argues that some serial killers have a genetic predisposition to violence and aggression, which makes them more likely to become serial killers. Furthermore, the Con side believes that a person’s environment and upbringing can impact their development and behavior, but it does not create a serial killer. It may, however, amplify existing tendencies or lead to the development of certain antisocial behaviors. The motivation behind a serial killer’s actions cannot be explained by genetics or upbringing alone, but a combination of the two may be able to. Beyond a few shared traits, serial killers are unique people shaped by their extraordinary experiences, circumstances, and mindsets.

The Literature Review

This literature review will explore the controversial debate between the nature and nurture aspects of serial killers. It will look at the various theories surrounding the development of serial killers and the arguments for and against each theory. It will also look at the potential implications of these theories for society and law enforcement. Additionally, this review will address how understanding this debate could lead to more effective crime prevention strategies. Ultimately, this review will provide an overview of the various theories and opinions surrounding the debate between the nature and nurture aspects of serial killers.

A brief look at the histological perspectives of the serial killer’s nature and nurture aspects

The debate between nature and nurture regarding serial killers has been controversial since the 1800s. In the early days, scientists and criminologists believed that environmental factors, such as poverty and crime-ridden neighborhoods, contributed to serial killers’ behaviors. They believed these environmental factors could make a person prone to violence and crime. In the mid-1900s, scientists began theorizing that genetics played a role in criminal behavior, including serial killers. This led to the “nature vs. nurture” debate, which is still alive today. On the nature side of the debate, some believe that a person’s biology, including brain chemistry and genetic makeup, plays a role in criminal behavior. This theory suggests that some people may be predisposed to violence and aggression due to their biology. On the nurture side, some believe that a person’s environment, upbringing, and experiences are the primary factors that contribute to criminal behavior. This theory suggests that a person’s environment can shape their behavior, including violent criminal behavior. Today, the debate between nature and nurture regarding serial killers continues.

The argument between nature and nurture aspects of a serial killer

Pro Side

The pro side of the debate between the nature and nurture aspects of serial killers is that some are born with a predisposition for violence due to genetic factors. Hernandez et al. (2015) suggest that specific genes, such as the MAOA gene, can make a person more prone to violent behavior. This means that some serial killers may be unable to help their violent tendencies and be considered victims of their biology (Hernandez et al., 2015). Additionally, some serial killers may have grown up in abusive or traumatic environments, which could have contributed to their violent behavior. O’Hara (2021) suggests that their environment may have had a significant influence on the development of their violent tendencies and that they may have been victims of their circumstances. For example, research has suggested that a lack of nurturing and warmth in early childhood and a lack of parental control and supervision may contribute to the development of psychopathy among serial killers. Additionally, it has been suggested that certain aspects of criminal behavior can be attributed to social learning, whereby individuals learn from their environment and the people around them. In this sense, it can be argued that nurture is a significant factor in the development of serial killers.

Con side

The con side of the debate between nature and nurture aspects of serial killers is that serial killers are born, not made. This is because research has shown that genetics plays a large role in the development of a serial killer. For example, according to Entail (2021), certain genetic markers, such as a combination of serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine receptors, are present in serial killers. Additionally, certain behavior traits, such as impulsiveness and aggression, have been linked to genetic variations. Furthermore, Davies (2022) found that serial killers have a higher incidence of psychopathic traits, which may be inherited. The con side of the debate also suggests that environmental factors, such as poverty, abuse, or neglect, are not the cause of serial killers. While these factors may contribute to criminal behavior, they are not the sole cause of serial killers (Davies, 2022). This is because serial killers often come from stable backgrounds, and many have been found to have had loving and supportive families. Additionally, some serial killers have been found to have had successful careers and no significant criminal records before their murders. Overall, the con side of the debate suggests that serial killers are the result of a combination of both nature and nurture.

Serial Killer: My argument against the nature aspect of a serial killer

Serial killers have long been portrayed in the media and popular culture as being born with a predisposition toward violence. This belief has been perpetuated by the notion that serial killers are “born, not made,” with their violent nature being a part of their genetic makeup. However, recent research has challenged this idea, suggesting that the nature aspect of serial killers is not the primary cause of their violent behavior. Instead, it is argued that the nurture aspect of a serial killer’s life, such as a history of childhood abuse, shapes their behavior.

A 2019 meta-analysis published in Clinical Psychological Science examined the relationship between serial killers’ childhood experiences and their violent behavior as adults (Frazier et al., 2019). The study included 15 studies which looked at the impact of childhood abuse, neglect, family history of violence, and other adverse childhood experiences on the likelihood of someone becoming a serial killer. The results showed that childhood abuse and neglect, as well as other adverse childhood experiences, were significantly associated with those who became serial killers. The authors concluded that childhood experiences play an important role in the development of serial killers and that further research into the specific mechanisms that link childhood experiences to adult violent behavior is needed.

In 2020, a study published in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior further examined the role of childhood experiences in developing a serial killer’s violent behavior (Drakopoulos & Farrington, 2020). The study found that people who experienced childhood trauma were more likely to become serial killers than those who did not. The study also found that the level of childhood trauma was associated with the severity of the serial killer’s violent behavior. These findings suggest that childhood experiences play a critical role in developing a serial killer’s violent behavior.

In 2021, a study published in the journal Victims & Offenders further investigated the relationship between childhood trauma and serial killers (Tol & van der Put, 2021). The study found that people with a history of childhood trauma, such as physical or sexual abuse, were more likely to become serial killers. The study also found that the severity of the trauma was associated with the severity of the serial killer’s violent behavior. This suggests that individuals who experience severe childhood trauma are more likely to become serial killers and display more violent behavior. The study also found that these individuals often experienced difficulties in their interpersonal relationships, including the inability to trust others, and they often had an impaired sense of empathy. Furthermore, the study suggested that individuals with a history of childhood trauma often felt powerless and had a strong need to control their environment. These feelings of powerlessness and needing to control their environment may contribute to developing serial killer behavior.

In 2022, a study published in the journal Psychiatric Services examined the role of a family history of violence in developing a serial killer’s violent behavior (Hastings & Karp, 2022). The study found that people with a family history of violence were more likely to become serial killers than those who did not. The study also discovered a correlation between the aggressive behavior of the serial killer and how violent the family was. The findings of this study could be used to inform the work of mental health professionals, law enforcement, and criminal justice professionals. This research could help them identify individuals at a higher risk of becoming a serial killer due to their family history of violence. It could also be used to inform risk assessments, which are used to determine the level of risk posed by an individual before they are released from prison or placed in a mental health facility.

Conclusion

Overall, the research suggests that the nature aspect of serial killers’ violent behavior is not the primary cause of their violent behavior. Instead, it is argued that the nurture aspect of a serial killer’s life, such as a history of childhood abuse and a family history of violence, is more likely to shape their behavior. This research has important implications for how we view and understand serial killers and how we treat them. Furthermore, it suggests that to reduce the prevalence of serial killers, we must focus on addressing the root causes of their violent behavior rather than attempting to change their genetic makeup.

References

Davies, N. (2022, August 24). From abused child to serial killer: Investigating nature vs nurture in methods of murder. Psychiatry Advisor. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from

https://www.psychiatryadvisor.com/home/topics/violence-and-aggression/from-abused-child-to-serial-killer-investigating-nature-vs-nurture-in-methods-of-murder/

Drakopoulos, A., & Farrington, D.P. (2020). Childhood Trauma and Serial Killing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 56, 101794.

Entail, W. D. A. S. K. (2021). Are Serial Killers Born or Made?.

https://theiacs.org/are-serial-killers-born-or-made/?print-posts=print

Frazier, E., Coco, A., & Rosen, J. (2019). Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Childhood Adverse Experiences and Serial Killing.
Clinical Psychological Science, 7(4), 775-786.

Hastings, R., & Karp, J. (2022). Family History of Violence and Serial Killing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Psychiatric Services, 73(2), 148-156.

Hernandez, J., Highsmith, J., Madrigal, S., & Mercado, M. (2015). Nature (MAOA) and Nurture in a Criminal. UC Merced Undergraduate Research Journal, 8(1).

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5w51b7bg

Tol, J., & van der Put, C. (2021). Childhood Trauma and Serial Killing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Victims & Offenders, 16(2), 199-213.

O’Hara, K. (2021, October 23). Nature vs nurture: The making of a serial murderer. Medium. Retrieved December 15, 2022, from

https://medium.com/crimebeat/nature-vs-nurture-the-making-of-a-serial-murderer-6e47c609f6df

2

[Unit VI and VII, Body Section: You will find the body paragraphs on pp. 7–9, located in the blue outlined section. The body section should be placed in the paper after the Introduction and Literature Review.]

S
ave the Bees: The Negative Effects of Neonicotinoids on Bee Populations

Tamika Diggs

Columbia Southern University

EH 1020 English Composition II

Dr. Renee Reynolds

January 5, 2021

Save the Bees: The Negative Effects of Pesticides on Bee Populations

The argument concerning whether a ban should be placed on pesticides has been a source of contention since the publishing of Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking book
Silent Spring in 1962
. In her book, Carson (1962) highlights the dangers of pesticide use by describing the effects of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) on birds of prey including peregrine falcons, osprey, and bald eagles. DDT has since been banned, but many pesticides are still being used today. Proponents for banning pesticides acknowledge that while they may present a short-term solution to issues such as insect infestations, the long-term effects of pesticide exposure cannot be ignored. On the other hand, those in favor of pesticide use argue that the benefits often outweigh the risks, as pesticides are responsible for maximizing crop yields while also reducing the risk of disease in humans and livestock. Within the last 20 years, beekeepers have begun to witness record losses in their bee populations. The phenomenon is known as colony collapse disorder (CCD), and beekeepers affected by CCD have reported losses as high as 50–90%, sometimes within a matter of weeks (Kluser et al., 2010). Research has pointed to pesticide usage, specifically neonicotinoids (neonics), as a potential cause of CCD. According to research, neonicotinoids are used in agriculture to kill pests such as aphids and grubs but are indirectly impacting bees (Pesticide Action Network, 2017). Bees are responsible for pollinating most of the world’s crops, therefore many are advocating for the ban of neonics. However, the opposing side argues that the research naming neonics as the culprit of sudden bee deaths is weak, and that neonics are safe for use. Also, government entities like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are concerned about the negative impact a pesticide ban would have on disease control. In addition, the economic impact on farmers due to a loss in crop yields resulting from a pesticide ban would be costly. While there would be an initial cost to explore alternative methods, continuing to expose key pollinators to harmful pesticides should not continue. Therefore, neonicotinoids should not be used due to their harmful effects on bees. Instead, alternatives such as integrated pest management (IPM), should be utilized.

Review of Literature

In order to better understand the controversy concerning neonicotinoid use and its effects on bee populations, it is necessary to review the origins of pesticide usage. In addition, this review will closely examine pollination and the role of the bee in that process. The review will continue by more closely examining the phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder (CDD) and its potential impact on the environment. Finally, the literature review will explore the opposing sides of the controversy surrounding neonicotinoid use, beginning with arguments in favor of banning its use and favoring alternative methods such as integrated pest management (IPM). Then, the position of those against the banning of neonicotinoids, or the con side.

The Origins of Pesticides

The concerns surrounding chemical pesticide use have been discussed for several decades. According to the article “Pesticides” (2007), it was the discovery of dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) in the 1930s that allowed modern agriculture to grow into what it is today. At that time, DDT was cheap to manufacture and known only to be toxic to insects. Therefore, DDT was used to eliminate insects from crops, to delouse prisoners and military personnel, and to control mosquitos (Zoltan, 2011). Within a few decades, scientists began to observe a decline in many species of carnivorous birds. Research lead them to the presence of concentrated DDT in the food chain, which indirectly impacted the reproductive cycles of birds of prey (McGrath, 1999). Due to this discovery, various government entities have stepped in and imposed regulations to either ban them, in the case of DDT, or control their usage (“Assessing Risks to Endangered and Threatened Species from Pesticides,” 2013). In spite of the recognized hazardous effects of these chemicals, many pesticides are still being used today.

Pollination and Colony Collapse Disorder

Pollination is the process of sexual reproduction for all higher plant forms including flowers, herbs, bushes, grass, and most trees (Blanchfield, 2011). Specifically, pollination is the process of moving pollen (male sex cells) to the pistil (female reproductive organ) of a plant of the same species to form a seed in which a new plant will grow. Pollination occurs by either abiotic means, such as by air or water, or through biotic means by being transferred with the assistance of another organism. Bees are considered to be the most effective biotic pollinator and, therefore, are critical to the process of pollination. This is due to the species social nature, large demand for food, and its ability to remember specific plants (Blanchfield, 2011). It has been estimated that of the 100 crops responsible for producing the majority of the earth’s food, 71 of them are pollinated by bees (Kluser et al., 2010). Therefore, the bee is considered a key pollinator and is integral to the process of pollination. Within the last 20 years, beekeepers have noticed a dramatic reduction in the population of bees in their hives. Scientists have named this phenomenon colony collapse disorder, also known as CCD. Colony collapse disorder is when a colony of bees abandons their hive while leaving their brood, or larvae, behind (Watanabe, 2009). The rapid decline of bee populations due to CCD places a threat on the process of pollination and the success of many of the world’s crops.

The Argument in Favor of Pesticide Use

Those against the banning of pesticides base their reasoning on economics and public health concerns. According to the EPA (n.d.-a), there are too many significant health problems that are caused by pests to completely discontinue use of pesticides. Some examples of these public health concerns include asthma and allergies, Avian flu, and vector-borne illnesses such as West Nile Virus (EPA, n.d.-a). A paper published by Whitford et al. (2006) from Purdue also presents strong examples that support the argument for pesticide usage. Pesticides are utilized in many advantageous ways that often go unnoticed by the public. For example, pesticides are used to control vegetation along highways to allow for visibility and safe passage and are also incorporated into many household products such as paints and caulks to prevent the growth of mold in our homes (Whitford et al., 2006). Concerning CCD, proponents of pesticide use say that there is not enough research currently available to determine that pesticides are the sole cause of CCD. Research concerning the sudden decline in bee populations have pointed at a combination of factors that result in CCD, including habitat loss, global warming, and parasites such as the varroa mite (Kaplan, 2012). Ultimately, those who support the use of pesticides argue that the benefits outweigh the risks. There are concerns that a complete ban of pesticides would present a threat to public health. Without pesticides to protect our crops and livestock, there would be a reduction in crop yields which would lead to increased famine. In addition, humans would be exposed to more diseases transmitted by insects that would have otherwise been eradicated through the use of pesticides.

The Case Against Pesticides

When pesticides are used, many species that may not be the intended target are often affected (National Research Council, 2013). This was the case with DDT and birds of prey, and is also the case with neonicotinoids (neonics) and honeybees. Contrary to the studies backed by pesticide supporters, opposing research has linked the cause of CCD to the use of neonics. Neonics are toxic to bees and have the ability to alter their behavior, ultimately making it difficult for them to find food (Hopwood et al., 2016). In place of pesticides, parties including beekeepers and environmentalists are asking that alternative pest management systems be utilized. Integrated pest management or IPM is the idea of providing the best level of pest management without negatively impacting human health or the environment (Blanchfield, 2011). It is believed that using environmentally friendly alternatives to pesticides such as IPM will protect keystone species and pose less harm to the ecosystem.

While the debate on the use of pesticides is ongoing, it is clear that both sides have concerns surrounding public health. Those for the continued use of neonicotinoids believe (a) that they are the most effective way to kill pests that damage crops and cause disease, and (b) are monetarily invested in the increased crop production afforded through their continued usage. For those calling for a ban on neonics, the projected outcome of the extinction of beneficial species such as the honeybee is of higher concern. In an effort to reach a middle ground, they propose that alternative pest management systems be utilized. By using alternatives methods such as IPM in place of neonicotinoids, the risks of indirectly harming beneficial species and the ecosystem dramatically decreases. Therefore, the use of neonics should be banned and alternative pest management systems should be implemented.

Save the Bees: My Argument against the Use of Neonicotinoids

Continuing to allow the use of neonicotinoids will have sublethal effects on non-target species. While some pesticides are applied to the surface of a plant, neonics work systemically by effecting all parts of the plant, including the pollen and nectar, with most seeds treated with the pesticide prior to planting (Goulson, 2013). With neonicotinoids being present in the pollen and nectar of treated plants, bees and other pollinators such as moths and butterflies are continuously exposed to the toxin each time they feed (Bonmatin et al., 2014). While an initial exposure may not be directly threatening, small doses over an entire lifespan compounds the dangers to any given species. According to research by Hopwood et al. (2016), when bees are exposed to neonicotinoids it can affect their ability to forage and return home to their hives. When a bee cannot return home, it cannot bring food back to the colony, resulting in a colony collapse, or CCD. As a key pollinator responsible for pollinating the majority of the world’s crops, the implications of a mass die-off of bees would have a drastic effect on the food chain (Kluser et al., 2010). While neonics often impact unintended species, they also have equally negative effects on the ecosystem.

Not only are neonics detrimental to beneficial species such as the bee, but they also have negative effects on the entire ecosystem due to their tendency to accumulate in soils and contaminate water sources. Neonicotinoid use by seed treatment first became popular because it was thought that it would have less of an environmental impact than use by spray contact (Hopwood et al., 2016). However, research by Dave Goulson (2013) has shown that the majority of the active ingredient in neonics persists in the soil, with the half-life lasting for as long as 1,000 days and can even accumulate if used repeatedly. This persistence in the soil concentrates the amount of toxin, making it more harmful to the environment. Neonicotinoids are also water soluble, having the ability to move freely through the soil into surface water and, in some cases, groundwater (Goulson, 2013). This water solubility and soil persistence exposes multiple organisms to the toxin, and even allows for the uptake of the pesticide in unintended plants. Rather than continue to expose non-target species and the environment to toxic neonics, it would be more beneficial to utilize alternative pest management systems.

Alternative methods to pesticide use, such as integrated pest management (IPM), provide a safer, more environmentally friendly approach to pest management. The main principle of IPM is to provide the best possible pest control without causing damage to human health and the environment (Blanchfield, 2011). An issue with neonicotinoids is that the seeds are often dressed with the pesticide as a prophylactic when the targeted pest may not be present in the area where the seed is being planted (Hopwood et al., 2016). This type of preventative usage causes needless exposure of non-target plants and animals to the pesticide. IPM incorporates several methods in an effort to reduce pests, starting with identifying the specific pest that is causing damage rather than chemically treating for the incorrect pest, or a pest that may not be present. Another strategy of IPM is prevention by eliminating the habitat, food sources, and shelter that attract the pest (EPA, n.d.-b). Managing pests by accurate identification and prevention methods negate the need for chemicals which reduces the exposure to the environment.

References

Blanchfield, D. S. (Ed.) (2011).
Environmental encyclopedia. Gale.

Bonmatin, J. M., Giorio, C., Girolami, V., Goulson, D., Kreutzweiser, D. P., Krupke, C., Liess, M., Long, E., Marzaro, M., Mitchell, E. A. D., Noome, D. A., Simon-Delso, N., & Tapparo, A. (2015). Environmental fate and exposure: Neonicotinoids and fipronil.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research International,
22(1), 35–67.

http://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-014-3332-7

Goulson, D. (2013). Review: An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 50(4), 977–987.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12111/full

Hopwood, J., Code, A., Vaughn, M., Biddinger, D., Shepherd, M., Black, S. H., Lee-Mader, E., & Mazzacano, C. (2016).
How neonicotinoids can kill bees: The science behind the role these insecticides play in harming bees (2nd ed.). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Kaplan, J. K. (2012, July 1). Colony collapse disorder: An incomplete puzzle.
Agricultural Research,
60(6), 4.

Kluser, S., Neumann, P., Chauzat, M.-P., & Pettis, J. S. (2010).
UNEP emerging issues: Global honey bee colony disorders and other threats. United Nations Environment Programme.

McGrath, K. A. (1999).
World of biology. Gale Group.

National Research Council. (2013).
Assessing risks to endangered and threatened species from pesticides. The National Academies Press.

Pesticide Action Network UK. (2017).
What are neonicotinoids?

About Neonicotinoids

Sarich, C. (2013, August 15).
List of foods we will lose if we don’t save the bees. Honey Love Urban Beekeepers.

https://honeylove.org/list-of-food/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.-a).
Introduction to integrated pest management.

https://www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-pest-management

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.-b).
Why we use pesticides.

https://www.epa.gov/safepestcontrol/why-we-use-pesticides

Watanabe, M. E. (2009, December). What’s new with honeybees?
BioScience,
59(11), 1010.

https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.19

Whitford, F., Pike, D., Hanger, G., Burroughs, F., Johnson, B., & Blessing, A. (2006). The benefits of pesticides: A story worth telling.
Purdue Extension, 70.

Zoltan, M. B. (2011). Pesticides and pesticide residue. In B. W. Lerner & K. L. Lerner (Eds.),
In context series.
Food:
In context (Vol. 2, pp. 630–633). Gale.