The article that I read, Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People, talks about a new experiment in which scientists all over the country are working on. They are taking Crispr, a new method for editing genes and testing it on pig organs to potentially modify their genes so they can be transplanted into humans. An experiment similar to this was done in the 1990s, but the recurring risk of gene viruses in the pig organs kept getting in the way of the study. When observed closely, these viruses infected both pig and human cells. At the time, the idea of surpassing steps in evolution seemed impossible. However, scientists such as George Church of Harvard Medical School believe that there is a chance that the PERVs (porcine endogenous retroviruses) can be disabled by Crispr, unlike their previous attempts which mangled the DNA to the point of killing the cells. More recently, researchers have found that the DNA was pretty much identical from virus to virus, meaning that it invaded the pig genome years ago in one ancestor. To solve this problem, Dr. Church and his team inserted new, engineered genes into a pig, which caused the cells to grow normally without chromosomal abnormalities. They did this by taking one Crispr, molecule and altering 62 genes. David Dunn, an expert on transplantation at the State University of New York at Oswego said, “It’s a cruel situation currently, that someone who needs a heart transplant has to pin their chance for a healthy life on the untimely death of another person…This work brings us closer to a realization of a limitless supply of safe, dependable pig organs for transplant.”
This article is very important to the scientific world and the American public. Because thousands of people every year, die from not being able to have a transplant done and that there is a limit to the organs that can be transplanted, we are put in difficult situations. It seems so terrible that we have to wish death upon someone else for their organs to be transplanted for our benefit. This study would allow humans, who need transplants, to be able to have them on demand. The struggle of waiting and wishing would no longer be an issue in the medical world and lives could be saved everyday. Other discoveries relating to evolution can also be found by completing the pig experiment and more knowledge on DNA and the makeup of humans would benefit anyone who studies science.
In my opinion, I feel that this article was written very well. The author gave a great summary of the current experiment and the one, which was faced with problems, in the 1990s. Hearing the insight on both of these studies allowed me to understand the difficulties in experiments relating to DNA and how if something is done incorrectly, it could potentially cost the life of an innocent person. I found that the author, Carl Zimmer was very concise in his writing. He did not drag on the article, nor was he vague and left important details out. I had no difficulty understanding the main idea or any of the facts that were given. Because he included many quotes from experts on the subject, it insured me that this information is reliable. I also noticed that the author seemed to know a lot about what he was talking about, definitely a sign of good research, and knew how to correctly portray the information in an understandable way to the reader.
Zimmer, Carl. "Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/science/editing-of-pig-dna-may-lead-to-more-organs-for-people.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.
Zimmer, Carl. "Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/20/science/editing-of-pig-dna-may-lead-to-more-organs-for-people.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.
I read Hadley's review on "Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People". I thought she did a good job of summarizing the article and explaining what the scientists at the Medical School were doing with Crispr and Pig DNA in relation to human organs. I also think she did a good job of stating why this leap forward in altering the DNA of pigs proved to be so important in the lives of humans today. Lastly, Hadley did a good job of mentioning what the author did well, like saying "He did not drag on the article...".
ReplyDeleteOne aspect that I think Hadley could have improved on was to mention more on the experiment they did in the 1990s. I think she also could have clarified why being able to alter the genes in pigs made it ok for pig organs to be used in human organ transplants. She touched briefly on it, but I had to go back into the story twice to clarify what she said on the topic. Lastly, I'm still confused on what "Crispr" is.
From this review I learned that by using Crispr to alter the genes of pig so they don't have certain diseases harmful to humans, their organs can maybe be used in place of human organs for transplants. This is important to society because many people die or have to wait for extended periods of time to receive a donor. With this discovery, the lives of many people can improve and be filled with less stress and anxiety.
For my current event comment, I read Hadley Barr’s review of the article “Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People” by Carl Zimmer. She excelled in several aspects of her review, including (but not limited to) the details of the experiment she included in her summary, the connections she made in her analysis paragraph, and her use of quotes to wrap up the first section. First off, the details of the method for editing genes and testing them on pig organs through Crispr was well explained. I was able to fully grasp the idea of Crispr itself, and I also learned about the purpose that Crispr serves in the scientific process (i.e. why the process didn’t work in the 1990s). Next, relating to the analysis paragraph of the review, Hadley did an excellent job of elaborating on the direct connection between pig organs and perhaps using that research to save human lives. While the connection itself is direct and relatively easy to see, she did a great job of explaining it with details and showing exact, specific ways in which this research could medically benefit human beings in a significant way. Finally, her use of an extensive quote at the end of the summary paragraph added direct support and credibility to her summary points. Coming from a reputable source (the NY Times), this added a final touch that complemented the paragraph well.
ReplyDeleteThere are two points I would offer as constructive criticism. First, some of the sentences in the summary paragraph appear to contain superfluous information. They mention details from the article that are somewhat important, but not vital to understanding the purpose of the article or its connection to humans. Second, the experiment they did in the 1990s was not very well explained. While Hadley mentioned the experiment and the problems scientists ran into while conducting it, she did not elaborate on the procedure itself. This is of particular interest to me and my classmates as we spend the coming months in biology class conducting experiments.
Throughout reading the article and this review, I learned about Pig DNA and how Crispr affects that DNA. By using Crispr, scientists can eliminate bioviruses within the Pig DNA and manipulate it to research certain variables. It makes me wonder if there are any practical uses for Crispr in everyday human activities because the method can clearly serve and create positive affects in science. Crispr indirectly saves the lives of humans everyday: can it do even more? Overall, this review was really good. Great job Hadley!
Freddie Reichel AP Biology
ReplyDelete10/21/15 Current Event Comment
I enjoyed reading the review of the New York Times article “Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People.” The research and discovery of Crispr was well-written and easy to comprehend. Crispr is the mechanism of editing and modifying genes to be transplanted into humans. The phenomenon of porcine endogenous retroviruses is debilitated by Crispr. Crispr was also utilized to engineer new genes into the pig, allowing the cells to grow normally without chromosomal abnormalities. Furthermore, the quotes from the scientists involved in the research demonstrated the importance of this discovery. For example, David Dunn, an expert on transplantation at the State University of New York at Oswego states this research, “...brings us closer to a realization of a limitless supply of safe, dependable pig organs for transplant.” The past mistakes and inaccuracies in this field of research were clearly articulated. In the 1990s, the research was hampered by the risk of gene viruses that infected both pig and human cells.
The summary clearly wrote the main ideas of the article, but there were some discrepancies in the research that needed further explanation. For example, I did not understand the connection between porcine endogenous retroviruses, Crispir and the process of evolution. In addition, the actual procedure of Crispr was not addressed, but rather the ideas and history behind it.
This article was informative and illustrated the importance of Crispr. Crispr can revolutionize the process of transplantation by manipulating and modifying genes. This is fascinating research and the discovery of Crispr can lead to incredible advancements in medical research.
Zimmer, Carl. "Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSorry here's the citation:
ReplyDeleteZimmer, Carl. "Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Oct. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. .
Hadley,
DeleteI thought your piece on the article “Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for People,” was interesting. Your piece was well written and that’s why it was so easy to follow. A good review is succinct and to the point, which I think your piece possesses. Another great quality about your piece is how you incorporated a quote from an expert source. I thought using this quote was a nice way to end the piece because it leaves the reader with an impression on the research these scientists were conducting. Another good aspect of your piece was the second paragraph, which was your thoughtful response to as to how this experimentation on pig organs can be beneficial to society. You addressed a topic a key point which the article touched upon; continuous research can lead to an ideal breakthrough such as this.
Although I really liked your article I feel one thing you could have done was clarify what exactly Cispr and PERV were because the definitions were a bit vague. So as a reader although your piece was coherent I did have to pause a moment and reread a line or two just to clarify what these were. Another thing that may have made your article stronger is discuss the previous experiments more in depth, because as a reader we general idea on how that experiment failed in prospect to Cispr.
I chose this article because of it displays one of STEM’s advances in society. It shows how unlimited the human ability is when we put our minds to it. After all editing another animal's DNA for the use of another is no easy feat to accomplish. This research work is life changing because like you said, now more organs are available as they are now created rather than being taken from the dead.
ReplyDeleteHadley,
I enjoyed reading your review of “Editing of Pig DNA May Lead to More Organs for people” by Carl Zimmer. This article is a great choice because this is, as you mentioned an important topic in our country and could be a great solution to a long time problem of organ shortages. I liked how you included many specific details like the number of genes changed and the specific methods they were using to help back up all of your points and give the reader more information about the topic. I also liked how you mentioned specific scientists to make your article more factual and research based which makes it a more accurate and reliable source. I also thought you did a very good job at describing the relevance of this article and the problem of needing to wait for someone to die for someone else to receive a new organ and live. This review was overall very well written and thought out and I thought you did a good job at displaying your thoughts in a descriptive yet concise manner.
I felt that the primary problem with your review was that a couple key details were missing from your summary. For example, I am confused as to what Crispr is exactly and some description of how it edits genes would have been very helpful. Another aspect missing from your review was your last paragraph being undescriptive. I would have liked some more detail in your critique of the article and more specific things you liked and disliked. There were no criticisms of the author which makes this seem like a less viable source because every article has its problems. The conclusion overall just feels a little rushed and that you could have provided a little more insight.
Overall I really enjoyed reading your review and was especially interested by this topic because I have read a lot about scientists working on 3D printing organs from stem cells but have never heard of growing them in live animals. My only worry about this method is that it requires pigs to die to donate the organs where other methods like the 3D printing have no negative side like that.