The Gerald interview presents the approach of writing a research paper about an unfamiliar topic; write about something you want to know and not what you already know. I agree to a certain extent that writing about an unfamiliar research topic can be beneficial in terms of creating an opinion or bias about an important issue. On the other hand, I want to take the approach of writing about a topic I am well-informed about. I want to be able to strongly defend by views and opinions in a well-written and informative essay. The approach mentioned in the Gerald interview doesn’t seem most helpful when writing a research paper; a research paper is meant to be written about a topic that the reader is already well-informed about in order to illustrate a successful argument. For my research paper I will be writing about the ethics and politics of abortion; I am well-informed about abortion and I can strongly defend my stance on the issue (as well as properly inform the reader). I already know that abortion is a very controversial topic, and stances on the issue depend on a variety of views and opinions. My opinion is rooted in that I am totally against abortion, and my opinion will definitely affect my writing; I am attempting to convince the reader why abortion should be illegal and why others have no problem with it. By presenting the facts at the beginning of the paper, I can simply inform the reader and allow them to formulate their own opinions. Although the topics blog post presented a wide variety of potential ideas, I wasn’t as informed about the topics (especially the politics and current world news). Using  scholarly articles to my advantage will help me write an informative, yet biased research paper while letting the reader observe both sides of the issue.