For Evelyn
Evelyn Kluemper
September 29, 2016
AP Biology C Odd
Kolata, Gina. "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.
The first baby to use genetic material from a donor in addition to that of its parents was born. This controversial method was used to avoid mitochondrial disease that is genetic on the mother’s side. The couple had two naturally produced children in the past who had both died of Leigh’s syndrome, a mitochondrial disease where babies lose their ability to move and breathe. The DNA of the mother was placed in the egg of a healthy egg donor and then fertilized. The donor’s DNA was removed from her egg cell so her genetic material would not be passed on to the child.
This new process, although advantageous, is controversial and to some, unethical. Some parents may feel ashamed that they must depend on a donor for a child. Others are concerned that the child will receive genes from the donor. However, mitochondria does not carry genes, which is in the nuclear DNA. Donors may be of a different race than that of the parents of the child, but the baby will not have traces of the donor’s features.
This article, although short, was very interesting. Readers sympathize and follow the story of a Jordanian couple who fought to have a child without a fatal mitochondrial disease, following the death of two previous unhealthy children. More quotes from experts may have been helpful to understand the article better and include in my review.
Sophia Dibbini
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/health/birth-of-3-parent-baby-a-success-for-controversial-procedure.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
Kolata, Gina. "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.
I read the review of and the article “Birth of Baby With Three Parents’ DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique,” and I learned many new interesting things. I liked how the author of the review, admitted to how this process was controversial and even unethical, and that made the reader understand the importance of this finding even more. Also, I liked how Evelyn explained the process of this new finding, giving specific details as to how it works. She said that the DNA of the mother was placed in the egg of a healthy egg donor and then fertilized, and then the donor’s DNA was removed from her egg cell so her genetic material would not be passed on to the child. Lastly, I liked how the author related to the audience, stating the concerns of the people who used this new process and understanding them. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article.
Although this article had many positive features, it also had its negatives. First, I did not like how the author of the review did not explain how this revelation was found, when it was found, and the approximate number of people it proved successful for. Also, I did not like how the author did not tell us what the scientists are going to do with this discovery, like who they are going to test it on and at what capacity. But even though there are negatives, I really liked this article.
I learned a lot when reading this article. First, I learned about a new system that could forever change the world, and if it proves successful on a widescale, it could change humanity. Also, I learned about the process that is used to achieve this, and learned about its specifics. This new information has changed my perception and understanding because it shows how much technology and science is improving and how important this can be and how it can impact so many people. Overall, I really enjoyed this article and I look forward to learning more about this subject in the future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/health/birth-of-3-parent-baby-a-success-for-controversial-procedure.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
ReplyDeleteKolata, Gina. "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.
I greatly enjoyed Evelyn's review of the article "Birth of Baby with Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique" and found it very informative and interesting. I thought that Evelyn did a great job of explaining the way that the mitochondrial disease had an adverse effect on people's lives and how the DNA transplant works. I also liked that Evelyn stated many qualms that parents might have about using this method and then refuted them using scientific evidence. This gave me a better idea of how the procedure worked and the effects of the procedure. Finally, I agreed with Evelyn's statement about what could be improved in the article. I, too, think that an increased amount of quotes would help me to better understand the issue and make the article seem more reputable. Although I thought that Evelyn's review was excellent, I would like to have learned more about the implications that this procedure's success has for the future of science. It appears that this is a world-changing event, and I would like to know more about this. Further, I thought that it would have been nice to learn about why the procedure was banned in the first place. I am not sure if that was included in the article, but either way it would have enhanced my knowledge of the topic. One thing that I found interesting was that a woman could donate an egg without donating any DNA. This is very helpful for parents who want to pass their DNA onto their children!
Charlotte Prior
ReplyDeleteSeptember 29, 2016
AP Biology D Even
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/health/birth-of-3-parent-baby-a-success-for-controversial-procedure.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
Kolata, Gina. "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.
I read Evelyn's review of the article "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." and I think she did a good job. Evelyn did a good job of summarizing the article and clearly letting us know the topic and study. She also did a great job analysing the ethics of the study and showing that this study is controversial and imperfect. She also provided a good description of the purpose of this procedure and the reasons that people take the risk for this procedure.
Although Evelyn did a good job with her original analysis I think there are some things she could have worked on. I think Evelyn could have gone deeper into the research performed by the scientists and how reliable this procedure is. She also could have improved her analysis of the article and explained if she agreed with the author's perspective or not.
I enjoyed reading this article and I think overall Evelyn wrote a good review. This was the first time I had heard of this type of procedure before and I liked learning something new.
Sophia Dibbini October 12, 2016
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/health/birth-of-3-parent-baby-a-success-for-controversial-procedure.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
Kolata, Gina. "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.
I read the article and the review of “Birth of Baby With Three Parents’ DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique,” and I learned a lot. I liked how the author of the review of the article gave a full background of the family who this process was successful for, stating their problematic history of having babies. I also liked how the author explained how this process worked: first, the DNA of the mother was placed in the egg of a healthy egg donor and then fertilized, then the donor’s DNA was removed from her egg so her genetic material would not be passed on to the child. Lastly, I liked how the author clearly stated that this process was very controversial and in some ways, unethical. This shows that this is still a work in progress and not everyone will agree with it. I really enjoyed this article and learned a lot.
Even though this article had a lot of positives, it also had negatives. First, I did not like how the article did not include any quotes. I think even though this is not extremely important, quotes would help the reader better understand this finding. Also, I did not like how the author of the review did not include how this process is going to be treated, and how we do not know how scientists are going to keep testing this and if it will be used in other real-life situations. Even though there are some negatives, I really enjoyed reading this article.
I learned a lot when reading this article. First, I learned about a new technique and I learned about exactly how this process functions. Also, I learned how controversial and unethical this process was, teaching us that it might not be as successful and popular among the populations. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article and look forward to learning more about this topic in the future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/health/birth-of-3-parent-baby-a-success-for-controversial-procedure.html?action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0
ReplyDeleteKolata, Gina. "Birth of Baby With Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique." The New York Times. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.
Evelyn, I read your review of the article "Birth of Baby with Three Parents' DNA Marks Success for Banned Technique" and I felt that you did a very good job. I felt that you did a good job of being concise. All of your sentences throughout the review are very focused and you never drift off topic. All of your information is relevant to the article. Another thing I felt you did well was the explanation of the mitochondrial disease and how exactly it was avoided. The topic seems confusing but you are able to avoid confusion by stating precisely how the DNA of the mother is placed in another egg and then fertilized. Finally, I really enjoyed that you stated a possible concern for parents with this method and then refute some of the claims with science. You say that some parents “are concerned that the child will receive genes from the donor” but you promptly reply saying that the “mitochondria does not carry genes, which is in the nuclear DNA”. Little pieces like this show you put time and thought into analyzing the article.
Although you did a good job overall, there are some things that you could work on. Firstly, I felt that your article overall was too short in the sense that you could elaborate more on some sentences and ideas. This also hurts the flow of your review as the ideas within the review seem disjointed. For example, you could elaborate on why you personally felt the article was interesting. More elaboration within the review would make the review easier to follow. Secondly, there are some places where you could work on grammar and flow of the sentence. For example, you say, “mitochondria does not carry genes, which is in the nuclear DNA”. Instead you could write mitochondria do not carry genes, which are located in the nuclear DNA. A look at examples like these could improve the flow of the review and overall take less focus away from the content.
I never knew about Leigh’s syndrome but I think I will remember the name since it contributed to such an important scientific breakthrough. I will definitely look more into the disease.