Margaux Frohlich
Current Events
Sept. 19th 2016
@KnowridgeSci. "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells |
Knowridge Science Report." Knowridge Science Report. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 19
Sept. 2016.
Researchers from the University of Colorado Boulder created a new technique to see the difference between lung cancer cells and healthy cells by nanoparticles. A nanoparticle is a small object that behaves as a whole unit in terms of its transport and properties (news-medical.net). This new synthetic polymer can deliver a drug into the lung cancer cells while leaving the healthy lung cells without any damage. This drug is RNA based and can stop the growth of cancer cells by getting rid of the proteins in those cells. In this new technique, cancer cells are selected based on their physical and chemical features. In order to start this process, researchers had a difficult time. They tested many materials before finding the cells that could respond to a synthetic polymer differently. They tested this originally on mice which showed that the cancer selective nanoparticles could stay in the cancer cells for more than 1 week while the nonselective nanoparticles could only exist for a few hours. It was stated that future research will apply to this new technique to clinical fields to improve its effectiveness and lessen the side effect of cancer therapies.
This new technique could change the world of lung cancer. It could even help change the world of cancer overall and reduce the rate at which cancer grows. If this works the way that it is supposed to, inhibiting the growth of cancer in the lungs, it could help save some lives. The only worrisome side of this, are the possible side effects. This research and experiment could possibly lead to other successful experiments on cancer. Since this could stop the growth of a lung cancer cell, what if it could lead to diminishing the growth of different types of cancer not only lung cancer? Breast cancer, being one of the most popular forms of cancer in humans along side lung cancer could possibly be benefitted by this. Another known cancer is that is popular is prostate cancer. This new development could decrease the growth of those cancer cells. If this research were to be elaborated a little more, maybe this could be the cure to cancer…Not to only slow down the growth of the cells but to make them smaller until they are less risky and/or go away . This could be the cure to cancer that we have been waiting for. Of course there is always the risk of the cancer coming back but that could be another step towards the research. Once the research is complete, there is the possibility of it leading to further improve this new technique into helping cure cancer once adn for all.
Overall, this article was very interesting and easy to read. Although this article was easy to read and quite short, I wish that there had been more detail on the research that had been done. In the article it said that the experiment was mostly based on mice but gave no further explanation. It would have been interesting if the author had had explained the process. Another improvement that the author of this article could have made was including quotes from the researchers and their names. Since this is from a university I would understand if they wouldn't want to give their names out but possible quotes from those researchers could have been really interesting to the reader. Due to this articles shortness, the quotes could have made it a bit longer as well as a further explanation on the mice testing. The article could have also gone a bit more in depth on the topic of the side effects of this new technique. The author mentions it once but never continues. A positive side of this article is that the vocabulary used is very clear to understand especially for a high school student making the article less overwhelming to read. It allows the reader to easily grasp the concept and main idea of the article.
Charlotte Prior
ReplyDelete"Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells |
Knowridge Science Report." Knowridge Science Report. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 19
Sept. 2016.
I chose to critique Margaux’s review of the article, “Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells” published by the Knowridge Science Report. She did a good job of choosing an article that is from a credible source, a science report is somewhere that would have correct, reliable data. In addition to a good source Margaux was able to review the article very well, she summarized it and analyzed its length and difficulty of vocabulary. She also highlights the dangers and possible side effects that come from this new treatment, which provided me with a better understanding of the topic.
Margaux did a great job but there are some things I think could use some work. In the beginning of her summary I think she could have been more specific, I felt she was being vague at times. I would have also liked to hear how this discovery of new treatment came to be and who developed it. Aside from these couple things, she did a great job with her review and analysis.
I enjoyed reading this review because the topic was so interesting. This is the first time I have heard of this treatment, and it sounds like progress is being made in the fight against cancer. I would like to continue to learn about this study and I’m glad I read this review.
Sarah Billings September 20, 2016
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 2 comment AB Biology D even
@KnowridgeSci. "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells |
Knowridge Science Report." Knowridge Science Report. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 19
Sept. 2016.
https://knowridge.com/2016/09/nanotech-can-help-distinguish-lung-cancer-cells-from-healthy-cells
After reading Margaux’s review of the article, "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells” by Knowledge Science Report, I thought there were a lot of positive aspects she presented well, along with some improvements she could make. One positive aspect was the way she explained everything in her summary of the article. For example, she defined all the relative scientific terms, as well as efficiently explained the experiment on a chemical level, while still keeping it easy to follow. So, even if the reader had very limited knowledge of cancer research, they could understand the concept. Additionally, she did a good job of elaborating on the importance of this article to modern day cancer research. It was very evident that she either knew about this topic or researched it well when she talked about “Breast cancer, being one of the most popular forms of cancer in humans along side lung cancer could possibly be benefitted by this.” Lastly, she gave a lot of good advice in her critique paragraph. She covered all the questions I had wondered about while reading her summary of the article, like the part about using testing on mice previously, and even introduced some new improvements I hadn’t thought of, like adding more lengthy quotes.
While her review was really well done, there are a few adjustments I think she could make to make it an even better report. For example, there were some spelling and grammar mistakes that, if fixed, would make her review a little stronger and more professional. Also, it would have been interesting to know if this topic related to her personally at all. It would have made her second paragraph stronger and added something unique to her review, which is very effective.
Reading this review enhanced my knowledge of the current status of cancer research, as well as showed me a good online science site to use. I chose this article because I am also interested in cancer research, and I think it’s an issue we should all be updated about, as it affects millions of people every day. Overall, reading this review helped me learn more about a topic I like and was a well written report, so I was able to enjoy it completely.
Connor Barrett
ReplyDeleteAP Bio
9/20/16
Current Event 2
@KnowridgeSci. "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells |
Knowridge Science Report." Knowridge Science Report. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 19
Sept. 2016.
https://knowridge.com/2016/09/nanotech-can-help-distinguish-lung-cancer-cells-from-healthy-cells/
There are several things that I like about Margaux’s summary of the article, but most importantly is the way that she explained complex topics in an easy to understand way. A specific example of this is the way she explained what a nanoparticle is. Another part that I liked is the way that Margaux summarized the article in the general order that it was written so it maintains the same order of events and displays the process that the scientists took. A third part that I liked was Margaux’s summary of the results of this new invention.
While I found Margaux’s summary very informative and interesting there were two areas that she could improve in slightly. One would be small spelling or grammar changes. The second would be to elaborate more on the processes of the scientists.
I picked to read this article review because the title caught my eye. I learned about a topic I had no previous knowledge of and now I find it very interesting. Nanotechnology may even be a future cure for cancer.
Evelyn Kluemper
ReplyDelete9/21/16
AP Biology
@KnowridgeSci. "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells |
Knowridge Science Report." Knowridge Science Report. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 19
Sept. 2016.
https://knowridge.com/2016/09/nanotech-can-help-distinguish-lung-cancer-cells-from-healthy-cells/
Margaux’s review of the article, “Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells” by the Knowridge Science Report is informative. She describes the risks of this new treatment, as well as the benefits, allowing the reader to be able to know both sides of the situation. Margaux explained the experiment that was easy to understand, defining any difficult terms. It was evident that Margaux understood the topic and did background research. She also provided an honest critique.
Margaux could have used quotes by experts on the subject to support her summary of the article. Also, another thing she could have done is to add a connection to the topic in her review, personal or to another scientific accomplishment.
I chose this article review because it is interesting to learn about progression in cancer research. I learned that nanotechnology may be the cure for cancer.
KnowridgeSci. "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells |
ReplyDeleteKnowridge Science Report." Knowridge Science Report. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.
Margaux did a great job on her review of "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells” by Knowridge. I particularly enjoyed how she defined key terms and procedures such as “nanoparticles.” This action made her review overall more comprehensible and interesting to read. Additionally, I liked all the details Margaux included ranging from the selection process for the cancer cells used and the technique specifics. These details emphasized that Margaux had read the article and done outside research in depth. A third item that Margaux did well on was weighing both the pros and cons of such instrumental research. She emphasized that although the research seems groundbreaking, which it certainly will be, one should not jump the gun and assume there will be no side effects. Side effects are important, especially in clinical medicine, so even if it works in the lab, the solution may not work well within the human body.
However, Margaux did have two areas of her review in which she could improve. Primarily, I would recommend that Margaux use more quotations from scientists working on the technology to really understand the how and why of this new technology. To improve the lack of quotes, the solution is simply: find more quotes from the article to analyze and include them in her review. Secondarily I would recommend Margaux work on making her sentences more active voice instead of using the passive voice. By using the phrase “could help save some lives” in regards to the effectiveness of the new technology Margaux implies that she does not think the technology is very effective. Now, this may be the case, but based upon the rest of her write up Margaux actually believes the technology is groundbreaking. Essentially, more “active” terminology will enhance her review even further. Words like “some” and “could” indicate doubt, which tended to make her overall argument about the benefits of the technology weaker. A way to improve this issue of a passive voice is to rewrite the phase as “this treatment is predicted to save lives.” Using the word “is” adds power to the statement that was not present as much before.
Overall, Margaux did a brilliant job of creating a well-written piece on fascinating new technology. Primarily intrigued by the word “nanotechnology” and how it may help in cancer distinguishment between cells I was immediately drawn to this piece. After researching this summer all about the biological/chemical preventions/detections for cancer it was fascinating to learn that technology may actually be the answer to detection. I now realize technology is not isolated to just apps, phones, and media. Technology is omnipresent and can, and will, affect our lives immensely in both the entertainment sphere as well as the medical sphere. Technology is ever advancing and it is truly fascinating at we can already, and may someday, be able to do.
@KnowridgeSci. "Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells |
ReplyDeleteKnowridge Science Report." Knowridge Science Report. N.p., 18 Sept. 2016. Web. 19
Sept. 2016.
I chose to review Margaux’ review on Nanotechnology and cancer cells. Overall, she did a great job with the review. I liked how she summarized the article quite well, but in addition to that explained some of the complicated terms she included, with a citation. Secondly, I liked how she explained the possible side effects quite well too, which is always one of the most important things when testing new drugs. It is also one of the longest parts of making a drug and getting it to the market. Finally, I liked how she explained how the scientists created the drug, in an easy to read manner. Although Margaux had a good review, there were some aspects that need work. The first was that she was repetitive in some areas, this took away from her ideas because they were hard to understand. Secondly, there were multiple spelling and grammatical mistakes which also took away from her paper. I chose to read Margaux review because I have an internship at a cancer research laboratory and enjoy reading about possible cures to cancer. Also, through reading this I learned about a new take to combat cancer which is nanotechnology and that is quite interesting as the field is still quite new. Overall, Margaux did a good job reviewing the article.
Allison Barker
ReplyDelete9/21/16
Margaux’s review of the article “Nanotech Can Help Distinguish Lung Cancer Cells from Healthy Cells” was well-written and very informative. I liked that margaux was able to distill a very complex topic into ideas that I, as the reader, had very little trouble understanding. I also liked that Margaux discussed the implications of such a technique if it ended up working. This gave me an idea of how, if this works, the technique could be used for other cancers. Another aspect of Margaux’s review that I enjoyed was her critique of the article. I thought that she made very valid points about the lack of detail in the article and I agreed with her assertion that the side effects of the technique should have been explored further.
One thing that I thought Margaux could have done to make her review even better would be to look up the potential side effects of the experiments. I know that that is not required, but it would have given the reader a deeper understanding of the topic. Further, I believe that Margaux could have talked about other methods of cancer treatment that are also being studied. Again, this would be going above and beyond her assignment, which I found very informative.
One thing that I was very impressed by was the fact that nanoparticles can be used to treat cancer! I had no idea that this type of research is going on, and I find it very interesting because cancer is a major problem in today’s society, and it is inspiring to see people finding new techniques in the hope of making it a thing of the past.
I wanted to thank you for this excellent read!! I definitely loved every little bit of it. I have you bookmarked your site to check out the new stuff you post. gpwlaw-mi.com/michigan-lung-cancer-lawyer/
ReplyDelete