In October, Dr. Andrea Manica and
his colleagues reconstructed the genome from a skeleton of an Ethiopian man who
lived 4,500 years ago, which was the first ancient human genome ever found in
Africa. The results from the reconstruction of this genome are key to finding
more clues about African history that artifacts cannot provide. However, two scientists
uninvolved in this original study requested the use of the original data for
their own studies, and their findings did not reach the same conclusions as
Manica’s. The original study’s data suggested that the skeleton was linked to a
group of Ethiopians, known as the Ari, who live near the cave today. The more
recent study found that the skeleton was only distantly related to people
elsewhere in Africa, and not related to the Ari. These new findings provoked
Dr. Manica and his researchers to review their study. They found that they had
forgotten to adjust the standard reference genome that is used as a basis for
reconstructing the skeleton’s genome, and thus their data was incorrect. The
Ari still appear to be linked to the skeleton, but not as close as previously
thought.
The
fact that DNA can survive thousands of years and still be used in research is
amazing, but we must also consider the difficulty in piecing together and
making sense of these ancient DNA genomes. This study, and several others that
have encountered errors similar to those of Manica’s, proves that
reconstructing these ancient genomes is not an easy task. There is a growing
list of retracted scientific studies, and our society must be aware that not
every released scientific study is going to be completely accurate. It is also
important to note that both groups of scientists encourage DNA experts to be
willing to share their data analyses to catch similar errors in the future.
After looking at this study, and several others that have been retracted, it is
our responsibility to understand the hardships of this tough profession, and
that mistakes are often bound to occur.
I
thought this article was well written with a clear and concise summary of each researcher’s
report. Specifically, the author did a great job of explaining the complex mistake
that Dr. Manica and his team had made by using a simple puzzle analogy. Zimmer
could have included other examples of previous retracted studies that encountered
problems in order to compare Manica’s mistake to those of other studies.
Overall, this article expanded my knowledge on the frequent mistakes made in ancient
genome reconstructions.
Citation:
Zimmer, Carl. "DNA Study of First Ancient African
Genome Flawed, Researchers Report." The New
York Times. The New York Times, 04 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/science/dna-study-of-first-ancient-african- genome-flawed-researchers-
report.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2 Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&versi n=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront>.
Zimmer, Carl. "DNA Study of First Ancient African Genome Flawed, Researchers Report." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2016. .
ReplyDeleteThis article review was very effective in many ways. Firstly, the summary provided a very detailed, yet concise overview of the topic at hand. Beth includes all the necessary information needed to understand this article fully, such as the scientists’ names and the mentioned studies. I also think that Beth’s analysis of this information that society cannot completely trust every scientific study that is released was very insightful and helped me see this topic in a different light. Lastly, her criticism about the article that more examples of retracted studies was constructive and specific. I completely agree that such improvements would have made the article vastly more informative.
Although this review was really well written, there were some small adjustments that could have been made. It would have been interesting to hear about the specific parts of the skeleton that did not match with the Ari’s genome. More details about this in the summary would have strengthened it. I also would have liked an explanation about the puzzle analogy that she praises in the last paragraph because it would have painted a more whole picture about how te information was presented.
Reading this review was a great learning experience because it related to the study of genetics, which we just went over. Learning about the real life applications of genomic research was fascinating, including the possibility of error in the field, which I had not considered before. I chose to read this review because the topic is very interesting and relevant to our current understanding about our ancestral origins. It also changed my perspective about scientific research significantly because I am now aware that errors are more common than I originally thought.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEllie Briskin AP Bio C Even
ReplyDeleteNovember 29, 2015 Current Event 10 Comment
Zimmer, Carl. "DNA Study of First Ancient African Genome Flawed, Researchers Report." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2016. .
Awesome job with this review, Beth! First off, you summarized everything clearly and seemingly with ease, covering all of the main points of the article without including any extraneous details. Not only that, but you were able to establish a connection to how this topic affects human beings today, something that many people struggle with in these current events; you helped the reader see how difficult it is for these scientists to correctly map genomes from so long ago, and correctly appealed to the reader’s emotions by saying we must understand that mistakes like this are bound to occur. You also accurately noted that not all scientific publications are always totally correct, for mistakes can be made in any walk of life. Thirdly, your writing style was very easy to read and follow, yet remained extremely informative. This is an extremely hard quality to find in nonfiction writings, which are usually either much oversimplified or much overcomplicated; this hints at a real knack you have for writing intellectual reviews!
Beth, it's so hard to think of any area which could benefit from improvement! But if anything, you may benefit from some more outside information in general. I’m still not clear on how scientists are able to map genomes in the first place, and am also am not sure what it meant to “adjust the standard reference genome” as you said in your piece. Also, I would have liked to hear more about the archaeological process necessary to locate and extract this skeleton. Secondly, although your writing on its own, Beth, was great, the professionalism of the article could have been enhanced with the inclusion of one or more quotes. Although this is overall not too significant, the use of quotes would have legitimized your argument and made it stronger.
But on the whole, Beth, this review was astounding. Your writing and analysis blew me away. It really taught me a lot about what it takes to map genomes and how easy it is to make a mistake, a topic I was aware of before but not very knowledgeable about. After reading this, I'll be sure to pay closer attention to human genome reconstruction, especially pertaining to those done on ancient skeletons, and those carried out by Dr. Andrea Manica’s studies. Of course, this mistake in reconstructing the genome also forces me to remember that there is always room for improvement, and that no scientific scientific is ever totally for certain, although hopefully with time the number of mistakes will continue to reduce. Overall, I chose this article because of my lack of knowledge of the topic (and because I think you’re incredible, Beth), and am extremely glad that this is the one I read. Thanks, Beth, for giving me such a great read!
I loved your review for a number of reasons. First of all, you had an intriguing hook to start off your review. By saying, “In October, Dr. Andrea Manica and his colleagues reconstructed the genome from a skeleton of an Ethiopian man who lived 4,500 years ago, which was the first ancient human genome ever found in Africa,” you really reeled the reader in, making him or her want to find out more about this ancient man and his mysterious genome. Another area I thought you did really well in was keeping your review clear and concise. You kept this consistent clarity throughout your entire review, but one particular part that I thought you presented exceptionally clearly was the part in which you discussed the original study of this unknown genome. Here, you said, “The original study’s data suggested that the skeleton was linked to a group of Ethiopians, known as the Ari, who live near the cave today.” This is quite clear, and it also provides a nice, concise segway into your description of the various studies done on this topic. This brings me to the third thing I liked about your article: I loved the way you incorporated so many different studies and viewpoints in your review, making sure to show the reader all sides to the story. For instance, in the first paragraph of your review alone, you stated, “However, two scientists uninvolved in this original study requested the use of the original data for their own studies, and their findings did not reach the same conclusions as Manica’s…. The more recent study found that the skeleton was only distantly related to people elsewhere in Africa, and not related to the Ari. These new findings provoked Dr. Manica and his researchers to review their study.” The reason I liked this so much is because you showed how fluid the entire process of studying this genome was. One person would discover something, and then other researchers on the topic would revise their previous conclusions. Overall, it was a great review.
ReplyDeleteWhile there were countless things I liked about your review, like those that I mentioned earlier, you also had some room for improvement. One thing I didn’t like about your review was the fact that you didn’t go into the actual process of analyzing the DNA, and this is something I would have been interested in reading about. The only thing you mentioned on this topic was, “The fact that DNA can survive thousands of years and still be used in research is amazing, but we must also consider the difficulty in piecing together and making sense of these ancient DNA genomes.” I think you should have added some comment on the process of analyzing the DNA other than that there is “difficulty in piecing together and making sense of these ancient DNA genomes.” Another reason I didn’t like your review was because you made it seem as if only two groups of scientists were working on this discovery, when, in reality, there were probably many more. You said, “It is also important to note that both groups of scientists encourage DNA experts to be willing to share their data analyses to catch similar errors in the future.” By saying “both groups,” you give the reader the false impression that there are no other groups of people working on the discovery. Instead you could have said “all groups” to not sound exclusive at all. These were the only two reasons I didn’t like your review; other than these, it was fantastic!
This review was truly amazing. I learned more by reading this than I have in a while. I thought this review was very informative, for it captured a complex topic like the analysis of ancient genomes and presented it in a clear way. Because of this, I am now able to understand how ancient humans and their genomes can be used, the process that goes into their analysis, and how this newfound information can be used in the scientific world today.
could not fit rest of comment but handed it in on classroom
ReplyDeleteBeth did a very good job in this review of summarizing a study and explaining its flaws. I thought that Beth did a good job of comparing the two studies, and showing how there was a mistake in the first one. She described these events clearly, in a good order, which gave it an easy flow to read and understand. I also thought that Beth accurately described the importance of this study and the mistake found; that “not every released scientific study is going to be completely accurate.” This is very important to add, because it encourages us to be wary of what we read, and to question these studies and findings, because they could be flawed. Finally, I thought that Beth did a good job of critiquing the article saying that a comparison between the mistake made by Dr. Andrea Manica and someone else could have helped give a better understanding of the severity of the mistake made. I think it would be interesting to know about the types of mistakes others have made and how they compare to this one.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Beth’s report was very well done, I thought that the summary was too short and didn’t give enough of the necessary information. Beth stated how the two studies didn’t match up, and linked the skeleton to different groups, but I think more specific information on what the mistake was would have helped; it lacked the parts of the genome that didn't match. Additionally, I felt that the review was lacking in background information which made it difficult to understand. I think that it would have been helpful to talk briefly about how a genome is reconstructed. A better understanding of how genomes are reconstructed could have furthered the understanding of how the mistake was made.
I chose to read this review because I was very interested by this new finding, which could help provide information on the genetics of our ancient ancestors. It was interesting to learn about this flaw in the research, because I feel that very often, we accept these studies as true, without questioning their validity. I think that this review taught us about how plausible mistakes are in these studies and the importance of multiple studies performed by multiple people.
Zimmer, Carl. "DNA Study of First Ancient African Genome Flawed, Researchers Report." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2016. .
ReplyDeleteZimmer, Carl. "DNA Study of First Ancient African Genome Flawed, Researchers Report." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2016.
Beth, I thought it was really cool to know that scientists actually got something wrong. While I know the calculations are generally very hard especially when talking about something like DNA but it almost seems ridiculous that a team would fudge their data. I thought your review of the article was quite effective in a few different ways. To start it was made very concise and you boiled the article down to its roots telling us what we needed to know. I think you also did well criticizing and telling us how well the article was written by analyzing how the author used his analogies and how he should have tied it to other scientific mistakes to make the article more well rounded. I also think that you were able to connect this article to today to make it seem more relevant for the average person who may not be using dna information.
I think there is very little room for improvement in this review. However if I had to say what you had to work on I would say that you could have done something more in depth in maybe the archaeology aspect or go more into the exact science of the DNA reading. I think that the science of genome mapping could have been either better incorporated or incorporated from outside sources to help your article out. Also including more quotes from your source would have given you more credibility and maybe explained some parts you were struggling to come across with. While I have already talked about how humbling it is that scientists mixed things up, I think that this topic of scientific area is incredibly important. Facts are comprised ultimately by humans and even the best of the best need to be checked on their work. I also learned more about a topic, the human genome, that we are currently going over now and think it is not only interesting but very relevant to our studies.
I think Beth did an excellent job reviewing this article, and I enjoyed many aspects of it. Specifically, I think Beth did very well in keeping the review concise and going right to the point. This made the review so much better because it did not include much useless information that could potentially bore the reader. Another thing I enjoyed about this review was how well Beth explained the importance of the study discussed in the article and the mistake found, stating that there is not complete accuracy in every released scientific study. One final thing in this review that I think Beth did exceptionally well in doing was establishing a connection with this article to our lives, making the review and topic even more interesting and captivating. She did this by explaining the difficulty of mapping these ancient genomes, and saying that mistakes like these have to happen at some point.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this was a great review, I feel that there are a couple of things that could be improved upon. One thing that I think would make this review even better would be if maybe Beth included the process used by the scientists for analyzing this DNA, for it would provide insight to the actual steps taken and the reader could get a better sense of the difficulty of this task. Another thing that would’ve been nice is if maybe Beth included a little more background information. I liked that Beth kept it shorter with the background information, but I feel that a little more information would help the reader understand the topic in general and the details of the issue.
Finally, I found it very intriguing that the study of the first African genome was flawed. This was such an inviting review to comment on because we just learned a lot about genetics, and we discussed the applications of these genetics, and I never really thought about possible error in the original studies of this topic. Also, it connects to our origins and our DNA ourselves, thus connecting even more to the reader on a personal level.
To start I would just like to say that you did a great job of presenting this article. You achieved this by taking a topic that could have easily been dragged out into a boring description and condensed it into just the crucial facts so that it became easier to digest. As a result of this the reader is not left bored and actually takes the time to form their own opinions on the topic rather than brushing over it and never considering the idea again. Secondly, You did a good job of placing your own opinions and evident interest in the topic while simultaneously giving unbiased information so the reader would not be influenced and could for their own ideas. to go along with this, you also did a good job of synthesizing insightful ideas that are not necessarily first reactions but rather the result of pondering the article for a decent amount of time. While all of these aspects were positive, there were a couple of areas in which you could have improved. To start I would have liked to see a bit more information on the science that is involved because personally, I am not particularly familiar with how a genome is interpreted by scientists. This would have made it easier to understand where the scientists made their mistake. Secondly, your work could have benefited from direct quotes from the article, this would provide your words with more credibility in general. This topic of study has always interested me. I find the thought that we can learn what was walking around hundreds or thousands of years ago to be fascinating. Along with this wonder comes a good amount of blind faith and it is nice to be reminded every once in a while that even professionals can mess up and that everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteZimmer, Carl. "DNA Study of First Ancient African Genome Flawed, Researchers Report." The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Feb. 2016. Web. 06 Feb. 2016. .