“Dolly is alive and well,” said Keith Campbell, a cell biologist and embryologist who was one of Dolly’s creators. Dolly was a sheep who in 1996 was the first cloned animal by a process called nuclear transfer. Dolly’s existence laid the groundwork for the future of cloning for it was possible that the process could help cure diseases. However, skeptics doubted the effectiveness of cloning because they thought it is what led to Dolly’s untimely death. Dolly was euthanized in 2003 after suffering from lung disease and arthritis. She lived to the same age as her “parent”. Some suggested that this data implied that all clones were doomed for a short and unhealthy life. However, it was discovered that the end of Dolly’s chromosomes (telomeres) were 20% shorter than normal indicating that her death had other causes.
In order to show that not all clones are doomed, Keith Campbell produced four sheep derived from the same genetic material that Dolly came from. This made the four “offspring” genetically identical to Dolly and the original somatic cell benefactor. At the age of four, none of the clones showed any signs of arthritis and Dolly’s naturally bred offspring did not have shortened telomeres. Although this data is somewhat inconclusive for the clones are not the same age as Dolly when she died it still shows that clones can lead a healthy life regardless of the life of their “parent”.
This article was very interesting because it revealed some new information to me about Dolly. I knew that Dolly was the first clone, but I had no idea the controversy that surrounded her. I didn’t know that people thought her death was a result of the genetic material she was produced from, although the contents of this article showed that idea to be false. However, this article did not provide some very important detail. It did mention that Dolly’s lung disease came from a virus that was in contaminated water, but it never mention where the arthritis came from. If her progenitor did not suffer from such a disease then how did Dolly acquire it? I also would have liked to know how her shortened telomeres affected the length of her life. Overall, it was a very intriguing article that explained a great deal about the process of cloning.
The first thing that Catherine does well in her current event is that she explains the back-story of Dolly the sheep very well. She explains how and when Dolly became a clone and it acts as a great introduction into the rest of her review. I actually learned about Dolly and her cloning because I did not know much about it before reading this article. The second thing that Catherine did well is that she explained the experiment that described how not all clones will have the same fate as Dolly. She told us how a scientist created clones that did not have the same problems that Dolly did. I really understood the experiment after reading her explanation of it. The third thing that Catherine did well is that she gave great insight into her opinions about the article. She explained why she liked and disliked it at the same time and gave good reasons for it.
ReplyDeleteCatherine could have improved her review by adding explanations of the other topics that were discussed in the article. If she had explained other aspects of the article, then the review would have been better and more comprehensive. The second thing that she could have improved upon is that she could have used better vocabulary to make her review clearer. With better vocabulary, I would be able to get a better understanding of her current event article review.
One fact that I was impressed with in this article review is the fact that Dolly, the first clone, lived until 2003, which was just as long her “parent” lived. I did not know much about Dolly and did not know what happened to her after she was created. So, this information was new to me and was very interesting.
I really liked the way Catherine wrote the article because she had a complicated subject to cover, and yet she was able to summarize the article she chose in a very efficient manner. She explained the scientific facts in a clear way which was easy to understand. Secondly, she was able to describe the story of Dolly in an interesting way and her summary was both short and sufficient. I liked how she explained who Dolly was before continuing. It’s easy to assume that most people know the story of Dolly, but it was a very good idea to refresh the reader’s memory. I also liked the way she only used one scientist as an example and kept on referring to him. It was much better than just writing down random names and not fully developing the ideas presented.
ReplyDeleteIf I could suggest two things, I would firstly recommend explaining the process of cloning a little bit more. I think that cloning is a very interesting phenomenon, and it would have been nice to have a little bit more information on this subject. Secondly, she possibly could have talked about the controversies that surround cloning. I know this probably wasn’t in the original article, but it would have been interesting to hear a few different opinions on this topic.
I am now curious to find out if cloning will be used more now that this discovery has been made. Perhaps it will cause a revolution in the scientific and medical fields.
Catherine reviewed this article very well. One aspect of the review that was very good was her description of Dolly. She provided just enough information about Dolly and her significance without going overboard. Catherine also did a good job of explaining how the 'parent's' lives don't effect those of the offspring. This was the main point of the study, and it was well presented. Catherine finally did a good job of mentioning the things she looked for more in the article, such as information on the telomeres.
ReplyDeleteThere were however some aspects of the article that could have been improved. I aspect could be an enhanced explanation of cloning. The process mentioned was not really explained or simplified at all. One possible thing she also could have added were more details on the study itself, such as where it was performed and when.
Overall I thought this was a very good review of an interesting article. One thing I was fascinated by was that Dolly lived to be the exact same age as her parent. Although the article seemed to prove that Dolly's death and her parent's age were not related, it still seems very ironic.
Paige Gordon
ReplyDeleteComment on Catherine Bianco’s “Dolly The Sheep Lives On, Sort of”
Catherine summarized the article very well. Cloning is a very confusing and controversial topic and I believe that Catherine covered it quite well. She did a great job at explaining who dolly was and mentioning controversy behind her. I got a good idea of dolly’s background and initial purpose. Catherine made it clear that dolly’s death also helped scientists uncover the so-called pressing issue behind cloning. She also fully explained why people thought cloning was ineffective. Catherine did a good job primarily because she was able to present the information in an organized and easy to comprehend manner.
The only adjustments I would make to Catherine’s review would be to add a bit more information about the actually cloning process by further explanation. Also, although she did mention how controversial cloning is, she could have better explained why it was controversial.
I found it interesting that Dolly lived just as long as her parent. The entire cloning process is very confusing but very interesting. I am curious to see that maybe this process of cloning will be used more often. Due to these advances made I would not be surprised to hear that clones will be an important step in the future of science.
This current event is very explanatory. It supplied plenty of background information on “Dolly the sheep.” I enjoyed learning the history of Dolly because it helped in understanding the review. The information about Dolly was informative due to my little knowledge about the subject. I also enjoyed reading Catherine’s article because she explained a difficult subject matter very well. It was well written, and I especially liked that she referred back to the same scientist.
ReplyDeleteTwo suggestions that would improve the review would be to explain the cloning process a bit more. She provided the basic information, but more details would have been interesting. The review also could have gone into greater detail on the actual study. More information on the process and background information on the study would have been beneficial. It was interesting that Dolly died at the same age as her parent. Although it was proven to be a coincidence, I still find it strange. The entire cloning process is quite interesting and I enjoyed learning more about the topic.