Talk:2010 Group Project 4

From Embryology

Group Assessment Criteria

The key points relating to the topic that your group allocated are clearly described

(18 printed A4 pages)

This project has a range of resources in a variety of interesting formats (text, images and tables).

  • (Timeline of Key Events In the Development of Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling) This should have been inserted in a better format.
  • (Key Scientist and Doctors in Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling) No references to data sources and each scientist listed does not have any of their own citations listed.
  • (DISORDERS AND ABNORMALITIES FOUND BY PUBS) These 2 abnormalities require a legend that describes what is being shown rather than a general statement "Examples of Disorders that PUBS can not detect" and "Examples of Disorders that PUBS can not detect" the reader does not know what these conditions are.

The choice of content, headings and sub-headings, diagrams, tables, graphs show a good understanding of the topic area

A good number of images included in this project.


Figure 1 - File:Stage23 bf2.jpg

  • from Embryology website OK

Figure 2 - File:Placental_circulation.gif

  • from Gray, re-upload of existing file on website.
  • You should have used the existing file. This duplicate will be deleted from the final project.

Figure 3 - File:Timeline PUBS.png

  • Student drawn figure (Z3252635)
  • satisfies timeline requirement
  • the full size image is easy to read, but all other small versions are not legible.
  • colour should have been used to make the image more interesting

Figure 4 - File:Professor Stuart Campbell.jpg (Z3252635)

  • copyright info states re-use allowed, but no original source is given. Therefore image not meeting the Wiki requirement.
  • There is a typo "application to the Publis)"

Figure 5 - File:Kypros Nicolaides.jpg

Figure 6 - File:Placenta Anterior.jpg

  • Student drawn figure (Z3241780)
  • Drawing of PUBS performed on Placenta Anterior (implantation)
  • Image file name should have included better description of image.
  • When image open there is no copyright information available or further description of what the figure is showing.
  • no indication if based upon another drawing or figure.

Figure 7 - File:Placenta Posterior.jpg

  • Student drawn figure (Z3241780)
  • Drawing of PUBS performed on Placenta Posterior (implantation)
  • Image file name should have included better description of image.
  • When image open there is no copyright information available or further description of what the figure is showing.
  • no indication if based upon another drawing or figure.

Figure 8 - File:Doppler image of needle-guided technique.jpg (Z3241780)

  • the original source site statement that this image can be reused following application, but no indication that you applied to the publisher for reuse.
  • on opening the image a more detailed explanation of what the image is showing should be given.

Figure 9 - File:Spina_Bifida_1.jpg (Z3252635)

  • no image information/explanation shown when image is opened.
  • no link to original image source (author, Ed Uthman, MD)

Figure 10 - File:Spina bifida front.JPG (Z3252635)

  • no image information/explanation shown when image is opened.
  • no link to original image source (author, Ed Uthman, MD)

Figure 11 - File:Edwards Disease.jpg (Z3252635)

  • no image information/explanation shown when image is opened.
  • no link to original image source to check copyright status.

Figure 12 - File:Congenital_Heart_Disease.jpg (Z3252635)

  • no image information/explanation shown when image is opened.
  • no link to original image source to check copyright status.

Figure 13 - File:Rubella.jpg (Z3252635)

  • no image information/explanation shown when image is opened.
  • no link to original image source to check copyright status.

Figure 13 - File:RBC.jpg

  • no image information/explanation shown when image is opened.
  • no link to original image source to check copyright status.


  • (Advantages and Disadvantages of Percutaneous Umbilical Blood Cord Sampling) This table is a very good summary. Table structure could have been slightly improved by aligning both content to the top.
  • (Table of Diseases and Disorders Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling Can Detect) This table formatting starts out well with the first couple of entries, but "Congenital Rubella Syndrome" is so badly formatted that it disrupts the table (and it prints poorly as well.

Headings and sub-headings

  • As blood grouping is such an issue related to this technique, it would have been good to include a section expelling blood groups and their compatibility. Including the rhesus groups.

Content is correctly cited and referenced

  • (REFERENCES) The list includes a good number of Pubmed sourced material (21) though there are also several wiki links that should not have been used in preference to a scientific publication.
  • (Cell-Free Fetal DNA in Maternal Plasma and Serum) The first sentence "In 1997, Lo and associates first " should be linked to the appropriate reference.
  • The table (Timeline of Key Events In The Development Of Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling (PUBS) is the same as the figure? The related references [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] appear at the bottom of the table and not within the relevant sections. This is not a good formatting or citation structure.
  • (When is Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling (PUBS) Performed?) The reference should appear linked within the text rather than at the bottom of this section.

The wiki has an element of teaching at a peer level using the student's own innovative diagrams, tables or figures and/or using interesting examples or explanations

  • (USEFUL LINKS) Formatting, each link has a different formatting.
  • (GLOSSARY) section is reasonably comprehensive, though a few of the explanations need more information.

Evidence of significant research relating to basic and applied sciences that goes beyond the formal teaching activities

Relates the topic and content of the Wiki entry to learning aims of embryology

Clearly reflects on editing/feedback from group peers and articulates how the Wiki could be improved (or not) based on peer comments/feedback. Demonstrates an ability to review own work when criticised in an open edited wiki format. Reflects on what was learned from the process of editing a peer's wiki

Evaluates own performance and that of group peers to give a rounded summary of this wiki process in terms of group effort and achievement

The content of the wiki should demonstrate to the reader that your group has researched adequately on this topic and covered the key areas necessary to inform your peers in their learning

Develops and edits the wiki entries in accordance with the above guidelines

  • (PERCUTANEOUS UMBILICAL CORD BLOOD SAMPLING (PUBS) IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES) - Links in this section to other projects do not work. Suggests the reader that you have not tested your project.
    • Further Information on Other Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques - Chorionic Villus Sampling , Amniocentesis
  • Upper case used in all text section headings throughout project. Not complying to Wiki standards.

ahh the reference thing came up as a little number. just put copy the text as it's written below when you're editing the discussion page. it should be in the correct format then

it should work --Felicia Ton 10:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey! don't stress. ok so if you don't have the pubmed number. just insert the reference between this:


you don't put it under the references section but at the end of each section of information that needs to be referenced. it will automatically put the reference at the bottom of the page for you with the corresponding number. hope that make sense? i've just gone through and done some editing. everything you put up is really great! my email address is in case you need to contact me. i never know when someone has posted a question on here as for arriving early i'm happy to come in. just email me to confirm cos it takes a while for me to get to uni that's all --Felicia Ton 10:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


i've got tonnes of references but i don't know how to put them up cause i never copied bit out, instead i read through them and i reworded them to what i understand so i really dont know what to do. I have approximately 30 references. Wat can i do!! Please help me out. Thats the last one of the so called things from the peer review that hasn't been done.



Don't worry I figured out how to put the timeline up so there shouldn't be any problems I hope. I have put up pictures and i don't know if ive written the discription up properly. Can both of you tell let me know before about 9.30 if you are willing to turn up approximately 1 hour before lab tommorrow so we can work on the assignment tomorrow and add the finishing touches.

Thanks Sayanthan

Hey Guys The assignment is due tommorrow so ive been working on it all day. I made a timeline in Word but i cant it up as a picture. felica i don't know your gonna read this but if you do can u give me ur email address so i can send it 2 you. I've sent it to shereen can some body please help me out. Thanks. It would also be nice if we could meet up before the lab tomorrow. Let me know. Thanks. Sayanthan

Thankyou!! :) -Jill --z3265772 12:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, feel free to use either one. --Felicia Ton 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys! I was just wondering if i could please get your permission to use your student drawn diagram, if you see our page im making a table with all our diagrams in it, and, of course, i need your permission to use it :) Thanks! Jill - group 2 --z3265772 02:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

I really liked the use of the two images at the top of the page, it draws people into the page making them interested in the topic becuase it is very eyecatching. I am very impressed with the student drawn figures, I thought that it showed a lot of effort was put into the drawing, as well as it being informative and labelled really well. Your headings were neat, and I found that you covered procedure nicely, I liked how you compared it with other prenatal techniques which showed that you guys researched outside your topic as well. Things that could be improved is the abnormalities section, could be more longer with some pictures to supplement the text.I think more in text citations are needed to back up your research and a longer glossary would be nice. But I'm still very impressed with your page! --z3224500 13:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys!

Firstly - are the drawings of the PUBS procedure in the table student-drawn? If so, they’re amazing! Just… wow. But you might want to label them and add the appropriate copyright statement to the picture information page. You’ve got a lot of really informative text, but you might want to think about finding some pictures to add to break up all the writing, like images of defects that PUBS can detect. If I could give another suggestion it would be that perhaps the history section could be moved forward, to after the introduction – it seems a little out of place to me where it is. And maybe the advantages and disadvantages could be put in a table rather than listed, again to break up the text. But I really liked the way all the information has been written; it’s concise, not too dense, and quite easy to read. Great job!--z3252833 12:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

--Group 4 Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling

Very detailed page with loads of information on the topic from many sources making it give the reader a good understanding. The diagrams were particularly impressive on this page and helped gain an understanding of Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Blood Sampling. The only advice I can give is to break up the final half of the page. In this section there was a lack of pictures and diagrams, this is understandable as the content here has no need for these tools. However maybe use a table here to make the information easier to view without thinking they are reading an essay or simple point forms. Well done group 4 you did heaps good.

--3290040 10:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Group 4, the overall layout of your page is great, it makes it easy to understand rather than having lots of big paragraphs. The table comparing the 3 techniques is a great idea as it puts the procedure in terms of all the others, I reckon we could all put a comparison like that on our pages. The history section is really good as well, the time line gives a good overview and the detail of the scientists underneath gives a scientific depth to the section. The procedure is also really well set out and easy to understand, if those are hand drawn diagrams they're amazing! Overall i think you've done a great job with the project!

What could be improved: More detail in the current research aspect, the glossary could be added to a bit, and maybe a couple more pictures to add more interest to the page.

--z3292208 08:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Great work guys, this is a well done project. I feel like I am able to learn about this subject effortlessly as I read it through.

The diagrams in the table are great. The project page has been set out really well too, there is a great balance of text and pictures. Perhaps some more figures would fit in well with what is already there. Some sections seem to be a lot bigger than others, perhaps more technical info can be given for "Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS" and "The Future of Percutaneous Umbilical Cord Sampling". An awesome project, well done.

--z3254753 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Group 4 = I loved your project especially the introduction it was so straight forward. the whole project is very ceasy to follow and both the hand drawn and chosen pictures were very appropriate . I also like the way you break everything into points so i dont get lost with words.

What could be improved is by Adding a little more reference and more glossary but other than that everything is perfect --Navneet Ahuja 12:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Group 4: PUBS This project was very well written and informative yet a little bit simplistic, the images and tables were excellent, and it was good to see that the images had come from a variety of sources. Great assignment I defiantly learnt something.

What could be improved? A few things to improve on could be a some more pictures, possibly a larger referencing list, and giving the assignment more of a “scientific feel”.

--z3254433 07:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Group 4! Firstly, i wanted to say, Felicia, your drawings are amazing! they go into so much detail and you have clearly put in so much effort in doing them! That was the first thing i noticed when looking at the page. I actually really like the overall feel of the page, and the bigger pictures help. The first two pictures really caught my attention and made me want to read all about PUBS. I did like all the dot points, because they made it a little easier to follow, but maybe a little simplistic.

Improvements: Under the sample analysis heading, you have put 'the' twice. just need to delete one. Under the disorders section, you have put that unlike PUBS, CVS and amniocentesis do test for neural tube defects. CVS doesnt test for neural tube defects, only amniocentesis. Alot of the page in not referenced. Other than that, awesome job!

--z3265772 00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your project is very informative and well understood. I love the drawn pictures, they are labelled very clearly and you've gone into a lot of detail which is good. The structure of your project is also very good, so i was able to follow it pretty well.

Some improvements - in the introduction, you've spelt abnormalities wrong "anomalities". and also perhaps a few more references would be good, especially in the history part of your project. but otherwise it was great to read.

--z3291079 10:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Overall it is a good page. It's order muddled me up though. I think keep the History first then the procedure and so on an so forth. There are too few references which do not adequately support the claims that you make (not that I'm doubting you). You pictures are fantastic; as well as your table. The glossary is slightly short as there are some words that I had to google to find the meaning of. Other than that Good job guys!! --z3252083 12:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

First off, all the key features of the test seems to be present and the information regarding them are quite good too. Through it is a bit confusing to follow, discussing when the test should be done then the history and then explain what the test is about makes it difficult to follow.

What could be improve is probably have the history first, then explain what PUBS is (the procedure) then talk about when it shouldl be perform would make more sense to me. Also there seem to be an overlap between the advantages and disadvantages of the test with the reasons for and aganist the test, you might want to consider merging them together.

--3216889 13:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Co-ordinator Comments
--This is an area for members of the group to communicate online and to place links and information relevant to the project. Do not forget to sign your additions and always add the newer material to the top of this page.

Projects: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Students Page | Help:Editing Basics

So turns out the file has already been uploaded by Dr Hill so I don't need to upload it again. I'll put it up now. --Felicia Ton 15:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sayanthan,

That section on reasons for and against pursuing PUBS works well there. I'll have a quick run through the whole thing and smooth any little mistakes out in case we've missed them. Also, can you please put reference links to the sections that you typed up? we need to make sure we reference everything properly. As for the pic, I think it should be okay to use because it was posted by a member and is in the public domain. This is the copyright statement:

Multiply owns and retains all proprietary rights in the Website and our Service. The Website contains the copyrighted material, trademarks, and other proprietary information of Multiply, and its licensors (including Member Content). Except for that information which is in the public domain or for which you have been given written permission, you may not copy, modify, publish, transmit, distribute, perform, display, or sell any such proprietary information or content.

I'm happy to upload the image but I'll show you how to do it yourself tomorrow in class.--Felicia Ton 15:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys i just put up bit on Reasons to pursue PUBS or not but i really didnt know where to put this yeah so do u guys know where i can put it. Do you guys have any ideas

Thanks Sayanthan

hey guys was just looking for some pictures that we could use for the project on the net and i found this one. Its a really good picture but i cant find any of the copyright info on it and to tell you guys the truth i really dont understand how to upload pictures. Tried some many times and failed miserably every time. So if you guys could take a look at this picture and if you guys like it then we could use it as the 1st picture like where the contents thing is. Like the colourful picture and i would have to ask you guys to actually put it up. I found it off google images cause i was getting desperate for pictures but yeah this is the website.,_10_weeks_estimated_gestational_age_from_LMP.jpg&imgrefurl=

Thanks Sayanthan

hey guys, i just moved the first section of info under procedure to the Intro because it's more general information on PUBS than the procedure itself. i think it makes more sense there than under procedure..hope that's ok! if not, feel free to move it --Felicia Ton 14:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

hey guys do you know how to format references within the text? i cant seem to figure it out...--Shereen Sidhu 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The thing about this image is that it lacks labels...


We can use it because a lot of other sites don't have clear copyright statements...what do you guys think? I'll keep looking for another one.

This website has some really great images but unfortunately I don't think we're allowed to use any of the says at the bottom "Copyright 110 A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited." I'm assuming that's including their images? I've also just gone through the Procedure. Let me know if it's ok or if you want to make further changes --Felicia Ton 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh and another thing, should we include a pros and cons for using PUBS? or will that be covered when we compare the procedure with other prenatal diagnostic procedures...? seeing as it is a relatively new procedure, a timeline should be sufficient for the history section

Under the Risks and Complications section, I think it would be easier to understand if we highlight some of the most common complications and expand on those as opposed to just having a general discussion. I've focused on: haematoma of the cord, haemorrhage, bradycardia, premature birth, and fetal death. Is that okay or have I missed something important? --Felicia Ton 18:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sayanthan and Shereen,

I've just gone through the Introduction and changed a few things and paraphrased. I've written a section for the risk factors that is still being reviewed but will have it up by Sat. I have the journal articles which I'm using and will put up all the references when I've finalised the couple of paragraphs I have. Feel free to change anything again if needed.

Here's the link to one of the articles I used:

I'm working on some pictures for methodology also and will put them on here so that we can decide whether or not to use them. I can write a section on therapeutic PUBS, it'll be short but definitely worth mentioning. How are your drawings and timeline going? I can have everything up by Saturday afternoon. I'll be focusing on this for the next few days so that we can have it ready to be peer reviewed by Monday?

Meeting up on Monday sounds good. I have a break straight after our Embryology lecture? Does that work for both of you? --Felicia Ton 18:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just put up the the sub heading we should have done by the 16th of September and anything else we can add on to the website will be to our advantage cause we went through some of the other assignments and they're extremely good. Also can both off you please read through the things i put up under procedure, introduction and now Disorders and Abnormalities Found by PUBS and compare them with other groups to see if were actually on the right track. Also the I'm going to draw the pictures and put them up and i'll also have a timeline done. Also if you are OK can we all meet up on the Monday before the assignment is first due so we can finalize everything. Look forward to hearing from both of you..

Thanks --Sayanthan Kumaran 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, ive found this website with a movie on it and this will be an external link for the procedure and this is the website.

Also i'll put up the website i used to do both the introduction and procedure the only problem now is that we need to put pictures in but apparently they have to be able to be reproduced. Can't be copyrighted.

Also i've put in the headings and i was wondering if anyone wanted to add into the assignment PUBS as a treatment method. Let us know.


--Sayanthan Kumaran 00:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sayanthan,

With the Introduction, where did you get the information from? we're going to need to reference this properly because when I was having a look at the brief overview of the process on this website, it's pretty much exactly the same. I'm sure it is fine but we just need to keep track of exactly where we sourced all of our information

--Felicia Ton 23:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

--Mark Hill 00:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC) OK I cannot see any progress on this project since August 24, 2010. Also I can only see contributions from Z3252635. There will need to be substantial work on this project and need to have this updated before this weeks lab when I will be reviewing all projects.

Hi there,

I too think the second draft is easier to follow. I have a few articles on the diagnostic information that this method can obtain and the risks involved in the process. Sorry I haven't posted anything earlier I've had quite a lot on my plate but will definitely put everything that I have up here in the next week. On top of the circumstances for which PUBS would be appropriate, maybe if we also add to that section or the risk factors section, reasons for which it should not be used? I'll just keep researching --Felicia Ton 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

hey sayanthan i've read your drafts and i like the second one better because it is more thorough i reckon and the way you've set it out in steps makes it easier to follow and understand. i also like your idea about making a timeline diagram of the history.

maybe other subheadings you could use under the method section are:

- circumstances which call for using PUBS

- what diagnostic information it can obtain

- the consequences and indications of results

these are just a few i can think of right now. if i come up with anymore i'll let u know. so you want to do the intro, history, procedure and risks...but isnt that like almost everything? I'll start the comparison to other methods table this week and i'll post the draft as soon as i can. --Shereen Sidhu 02:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

--Mark Hill 04:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC) OK so you now have an idea about some of the content and subheadings. I would like to see some more scientific literature sourced and referenced for your project. There are also no related images here yet. tick..tock...

I've added two different types of procedure or methodology of PUBS on the main page. If both of you could tell me which one is better I will leave that on the page and take the other one off. I was also hoping if again both of you could check it for me and please give me a bit of feedback thanks. I also wanted to ask for another favour. I've started the the methodology section and was wondering what sub heading could come under this section. I have a couple of idea but i would like some more and even some much better ones. The subheading I've come up with are:

  • Who is eligible for the test
  • When can the test be taken
  • Steps of the procedure

I've also started working on the history section and hope to have my first draft done by the end of the week. I will try to have it done by Thursdays lab but I won't make any promises.

As well just wanted to remind both of you that Mark Hill will be looking through the page and this disscussion page in extreme detail this week so we really should have a decent amount of work up on the page. At least the backbone of the page by this mean the heading. I also want to add a friendly reminder that the assignments submission for peer assignment is in approximately 3 weeks.

Hope to here from you soon

--Sayanthan Kumaran 12:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I just added a draft introduction on to the page and I would really like it if you could check it for me and give me a bit of feedback please.

Thanks for checking this for me

--Sayanthan Kumaran 14:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that as one of the self drawn picture we could do a small timeline in the history section but let us know what you think. Also I found some good pictures for the method so if we were gonna do the self drawn pictures there as well we could use them as a guideline.

As well like said before im willing to do the introduction, the history, the procedure and also risks involved as risks involved, i think will not consist of much. Let me know if u guys are ok with that.


--Sayanthan Kumaran 12:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't actually added anymore links, I have more it just that I have an assignment due on Friday that I've turned my attention to so, ill have more up on the disscussion page on Friday night.

--Sayanthan Kumaran 06:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey I went over some off the information out there for the assignment including Pubmed and the other one and I have found some simple information that will help us with writting up the assignment. Some of the websites go over the same thing over and over again but I thought that it would be helpful to write the introduction.The links to the websites are below and some of these will only be useful for pictures but we need the pictures anyway.


2. General Information:

3. Similarities and Difference to other procedures:

4. Help with writing the Introduction:

5. Helps with the Introduction:

6.Basic Information:

I also wanted to know who is taking what on board for the assignment cause really we should have by the end of next week have most of the planning finished. I am happy to take on the Introduction, The History Section, Methodology, Risk associated and ill actually try having half of the list done by next week and the post it up here so that everyone go through it and make sure if everything is right.

The next thing i wanted to ask is if either of you were will to take the layout of the website into consideration. It would be nice to have a brief structure of the layout and to tell you the truth im not really good with spacially arranging things so yeah. Just post a message up if you are willing to take this is on board.

Also please feel free to add info you find that might help us on the disscussion cause Mark Hill is gonna be going through this every week. Again feel free to change anything you think may make the assignemnt better.

Cya in Class --Sayanthan Kumaran 06:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to add my uni zmail account cause that might be an easier way to keep in touch with me. My zmail email address is

--Sayanthan Kumaran 08:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys over the last week i have been looking at different websites that may have a similar structure to the website we have to create, and this is just my so called ideas on how we could structure the website. So my structure of the website goes a little like this:

1. Title

2. Introduction - Gives basic information on the topic. A brief overview of the prenatal diagnostic method

3. History - The history of the method. Who was the first doctor to use it, when, where, why and so on. We could add the advance in how the technique is done here or in the next section.

4. Methodology - So this would be a step by step instructions of how the technique is done.

5. Similarities and Differences to other methods - This would include a table with other methods and we would compare. Stating the disadvantages and advantages and so on. We could then go on to compare the 2 closest methods in more detail (paragraph form)

6. Risk Associated - This would simply outline the risks of the procedure.

7. Ethical Issues - If any are found

8. References

So that pretty much what I've come up with over the last week. Feel free to add your comments. I'll also try to find some information on the method itself.

Thanks --Sayanthan Kumaran 10:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

shereen's email address -

the subheadings are good i reckon. pretty much covers everything we need to talk about. just remember we'll need to add a glossary in at the end and some self-drawn diagrams that would probably fit best in the method section. so how do you guys wanna split up the topics? i was thinking someone could do intro and history, someone else method and pros and cons and the third person could do risks and ethical issues. what do you think? sayanthan what do you mean by the layout? shouldn't we just structure in the order above from intro to ethical issues, using them as headings? and then within the headings you can divide into subheadings, use diagrams or tables according to what works best for the info... i guess we'll work it out when we get all our information so we know how best to convey it. do you guys have any section you would prefer to do? --Shereen Sidhu 11:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. insert reference here