A historical analysis of a scientist would probably be the most boring idea to pick.  A good idea tailored to the way I like to work might be a close reading might be more fun.  I like to find the little needles in a hay-stack that prove to be very revealing.  The issue would be that I would wind up doing that any way when I cite any material.  The more I think about it, the more I want to take on a controversial issue and combine it with cloning technology.  My first year here at Laguardia I did a research paper on the ethical dilemas that organ harvesting in relation with the unmet demand create.  In the U.S if you go by the book and simply wait for that heart or kidney, you would most likely die on the waiting list.  Doing some research I found out that the situation is extremely desperate.  People in India are so poor that theys sell their oragns for a few thousand dollars.  A person on a U.S 5 year waiting list for an organ can hop on a plane to China and have a new heart in a matter of weeks.  The speed that these organs are available is indicative of the illegal practices employed for the sake of the wealthy.  Paying up to 100,000 dollars for a new organ is the oil that keeps the Organ blackmarket gears.  If we could clone ourselves in order to make a duplicate heart, maybe we can spare people around the world such misery.  This idea seems to lean towards the question : Does science give us promise or peril?  Even though these atrocities occur around the world, is it right for us to play God and create life just to serve as a supermarket of organs to keep us alive.