Johnson, George. "A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 18 Mar. 2014.
I read George Johnson’s article “A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin”. It is based off of Susan Sontag’s book “Illness as Metaphor” which discusses many comparisons between an embryo and a tumor. Before this book, similarities were suggested but no one thought the research would be this extreme. Through many years of mutations, many gene behaviors of an embryo can be excited and create a tumor instead of a newborn child. The genes that guide the fetal cells in an embryo are also the ones that drives a cancer. Another gene, sonic hedgehog (SHH) creates bilateral symmetry in a body’s organs, brain, and skeleton, but if it gets uncontrollable it can interact with a gene like SMO to cause a form of brain cancer. Similarities even occur early on in the primitive embryo. By using the enzyme protease, the group of cells creates a spot in the uterine lining where it can plant itself for the rest of the pregnancy. The molecules used in that process are the same ones a cancer uses to settle on spot. As immune systems attack the embryo and the cancer, they both send chemical signals to stop the attack.
Although there are many similarities between an embryo and a tumor the key difference is normal cells know when it is necessary to die, while cancer cells avoid the signals and keep multiplying, resulting in a tumor formation. At the end of this article the reader learns Sontag’s purpose of writing her book was to “explore how the language we invent for illness reflects society’s own diseases — its fairy-tale attitudes toward death, its addiction to unrestrained growth, consumption and violence”. Although Sontag did not talk about her treatment for breast cancer in the book, she hoped that these similarities would somehow lead to a better treatment.
This topic is extremely important because these similarities can lead to some advancement in finding a better cure. Sontag was dealing with many forms of cancer, and when she died in 2004 there was no, “softening of the militaristic imagery as gentler therapies were developed, ones that stimulate the body’s own natural defenses” as she hoped for. Scientists are now starting to find the promising results Sontag hoped for in immune system therapy. Hopefully by continuing to study the way cancer reacts on cellular levels new, gentler therapies will be created and there will be more successful treatments of cancer.
I thought this article was very well written and informative. It shared many similarities of tumors and embryos, which I had never heard of. The only thing that I thought Johnson could’ve improved on was referring to more sources, not just Sontag’s “Illness is a Metaphor”. I think it would’ve been interesting to find what scientists have to say on the comparison of tumors and embryos, what they are using this information for, and what people could expect sometime in the future.
The title of the article, “A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin,” that Nicole reviewed really caught my eye. I learned about a possibility that I didn’t know existed after reading the article and Nicole’s review. In her review, Nicole did three things very well. Firstly, Nicole included direct quotes from the article to enhance the points she made in her review. Secondly, she did a good job describing exactly how tumors and embryos are related. This seems like a strange concept, which is why it was very helpful that Nicole explained specifically what genes are related between the two. Thirdly, since the article was based on Susan Sontag’s book, “Illness as Metaphor,” Nicole included points that Sontag made in her book along with other points related to the article that were not included to the book which shows that Nicole did some extra research.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I really enjoyed Nicole’s review and think that she did an excellent job, there are two minor things that she could improve upon. There were a few grammar mistakes throughout the review, which can easily be fixed by quickly proofreading the review. A second thing she could have done is include her own view on the significance of the topic. She did include her view on how the article was written, but she did not include her personal views on the topic, and I think the inclusion of her opinion would make her review stronger.
One interesting thing that I learned from the article is that the similarities between an embryo and cancer tumors could lead to a treatment for breast cancer and other cancers. I am very curious to learn about further research done on this topic, and would be eager to find out if this could lead to a possible cure for cancer, or if it has been used in any treatments thus far.
I read Nicole’s review on the article, “A Tumor, the Embryos Evil Twin” which was based off of the book “Illness as Metaphor”. Immediately Nicole starting laying out the details that were presented in the article by comparing the research before and after this book was created. By having that comparison, the article proved how important the book was to scientific research involving tumors and the developing fetus. Also, whenever Nicole mentioned something that might not be known by the audience reading her review, she made sure to explain it in a simple way. For example, she explained certain genes and their responsibly along with their abbreviated term. Lastly, I liked how she cited both the author of the article and of the book that the article was based off of. After discussing the article, Nicole went into more detail of the book by Susan Sontag by mentioning her ideas and research. Sontag’s research shows the evolution of scientific research involving tumors and how it affects our society now with the prevalent information. I really enjoyed Nicole’s review, however, I felt that there were a few things that could’ve been corrected to make it even better. First, I did not notice Nicole’s own personal opinion on the topic itself. She did mention that she enjoyed the article, but she could’ve said how she felt about Sontag’s studies because those were also mentioned in the article. Secondly, although the topic was very interesting, I felt like the article didn’t give enough information to fill Nicole in on the topic. This leads me to think that the article was a poor choice/badly written and another one could’ve been chosen. Overall, I enjoyed readings Nicole review because I did not know anything previously about this topic. It’s fascinating to learn that a gene that is responsible for the symmetry in the human body can lead to mutations causing diseases such as brain cancer.
ReplyDeleteNicole did a great job of summarizing and explaining the New York Times article “A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin” by George Johnson. She started off with a clear summary of the article that was easy to read and understand because it was concise and to the point. This summary was interesting and gave an excellent description of the article’s main ideas. I also thought that Nicole organized her review well, especially in the first paragraph. She drew great parallels between embryos and tumors, explaining why one is the “evil twin” of the other. A third thing Nicole did well was including quotes from the article. She chose well-worded quotations that supported the overall effectiveness of her article review. Although Nicole’s review was really great, she could have made it even better in a couple of ways. For example, she could have included more specific details about the article. I understood the concept from the review and appreciated that the summary portion was concisely written, but after reading the actual article as well, I think that more detail could have been added to the summary. I also thought she could have discussed the significance of this research more in her review and expanded on its important applications in the field of science. Before reading the article and Nicole’s review, I had no idea that embryos and tumors were so similar. It was interesting for me to see how they compare and contrast.
ReplyDeleteThe review of “A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin” by Nicole is very well written. The article is about the connections between tumors and other structures, such as embryos. Nicole did a good job with utilizing quotes to further back up her arguments. Nicole also did a good job with going into detail about the article, but not so much that the reader would become confused. In no way did the summary seem overly-complex that you would need to research what something is to understand the processes discussed. Nicole also did a good job with referencing points from the book that the article was based on. This shows that Nicole spent some time to write the review by researching.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the review was well written, there are some things that Nicole could have improved on. For example, Nicole could have included some more information on some things she describes, such as the sonic hedgehog gene. This seems like an interesting gene that I’m sure many would like to know a little more about. Nicole could have also described more about Susan Sontag. She seems to have an interesting story that I would like to learn more about. Despite these small takeaways, the review is still interesting.
Nicole’s review was interesting to read because it provided an insight on something I had never even considered before: that tumors and embryos are so similar. It’s something that no one would have ever thought of. This review is definitely a good read.
I read Nicole’s review of the article “A Tumor, the Embryo's Evil Twin”. The article’s topic was intriguing, comparing cancer and the embryo. One thing that Nicole did very well was that she made the review very easy to read in terms of format. She first told us that the embryo and cancer formation can be very similar as explained in the article and in the book “illness as metaphor”, and then gave multiple examples of how it is so. She made a statement and supported it with examples, which was good format. Another thing that was done well was the usage of quotes. Instead of paraphrasing the reason why the author wrote the book she used the author’s own words. Who could explain better what the author wanted to say than the other. The third thing that Nicole did well was that she explained the importance of this topic. Instead of simply saying that it will contribute to science she took the time to think about it and stated that it could lead to gentler therapy and more successful cancer treatments.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Nicole’s review was good there were some less strong points. For example her explanation as to why the discovery is important could be improved and was fairly short. It was explained in one or two sentences but Nicole could have elaborated more. A second thing that could have been done better is that she could have explained some things in further detail such as the sonic hedgehog gene. She says it can be found both in embryos and cancer but aside from this we know nothing about this.
This topic is really interesting, and the idea that a process that gives life is so similar to a process that kills, and ironic. I also found it interesting how a research topic that may seem so abstract might also be able to advance cancer research and help to find better treatments.
I think that Nicole did a great job reviewing the article, “A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin”. She discusses a clinical trial has now cured another baby of HIV. Lilia did a good job giving background on the topic by discussing how which discusses many comparisons between an embryo and a tumor. She also said that similarities were suggested but no one thought the research would be this extreme. Through many years of mutations, many gene behaviors of an embryo can be excited and create a tumor instead of a newborn child. I really like how she gave specific examples such as, sonic hedgehog (SHH) creates bilateral symmetry in a body’s organs, brain, and skeleton, but if it gets uncontrollable it can interact with a gene like SMO to cause a form of brain cancer. I also thought that Nicole’s paragraph about the importance of this scientific revelation and how she discusses what the author does well and doesn’t do well. I like how she included quotes from the article. For example, “explore how the language we invent for illness reflects society’s own diseases — its fairy-tale attitudes toward death, its addiction to unrestrained growth, consumption and violence”. I think that he use of quotes is important because she incorporated them seamlessly into the paragraph and they enhanced her background information.
ReplyDeleteWhile I like Nicole’s article, there are a few things I would have changed. I think that she could have included some more information on why the discovery was important as well as including more of her own opinion. Another thing that could have improved the article would be if she explained some of her examples, such as the Sonic Hedgehog gene. And lastly, there were a few minor grammar mistakes that could have been fixed by proofreading.
I thought that this article was very interesting because I did not know that these similarities between tumors and embryos existed. Overall, Nicole’s review was very interesting and I learned a lot about this topic.
I think Nicole did a really good job on her review of “A Tumor, the Embryo’s Evil Twin.” It is a difficult topic to talk about because there are so many details that the reader won’t know and might make it difficult to understand, but Nicole did a great job summarizing and explaining each point she made and clarifying things that were mentioned in the text. She also did a good job using quotes from the article to prove her points, as they were relevant and not too long. They helped the reader to understand what was going on. The final thing that I think she did well was balancing information from the article and information about Susan Sontag. There was a lot of information in the article and she picked out what was most important very nicely. She did not spend too much time on any point, and found a balance between interesting and dull.
ReplyDeleteThere were a couple things Nicole could have done to make her review better. First of all, there were a couple times when it would have been nice if she had made it clearer what characteristics embryos and tumors share. It seems like a fascinating subject because we see the two as very different things, and I would have loved to know more. Second of all, I would have also liked to know more about Susan Sontag’s personal story. Nicole mentioned her work and her opinions on cancer, but it would be nice to know more about the back story and where she’s coming from.
I thought that this topic was fascinating because it compares two things that people view very differently. I never thought about how embryos and tumors are actually kind of similar, and if enough mutations occur, an embryo can actually become a tumor. Hopefully through these discoveries a better treatment for cancer will be found.
I read the article summery "the tumor a embryo's evil twin" by Nicole. I thought tis review was well written and discussed the issue at hand clearly and brought valuable new ideas to the topic. one thing that Nicole did well was how clear she described Sontag's theory and how it works. Nicole also did a good job at referencing the sources she used for information like Sontag's book or the article itself. Another good attribute in this article summery was how nicole expressed how this information could affect the world. Although it did not give a clear message it still showed hope for a future cure for cancer. One thing that Nicole could work on in her article is trying to define a possible answer. By doing this Nicole could possible bring a viable option to Sontag's question. This would show the reader how intuitive the summery is and gives the reader something to think about. Another thing Nicole could work on is analyzing the original article better. Nicole only showed how the article was written. Nicole should have discussed how the article affected her opinion on this issue. Lastly one thing I was impressed with was Nicole's ability to depict the theory of Sontag and keep it interesting by creating a picture in the readers mind. Overall I thought this was a very well written article on a complex but interesting topic.
ReplyDelete