Wade, Nicholas. "Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/scientists-say-they-can-reset-clock-of-aging-for-mice-at-least.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront>.
This article explains that scientists at the Salk Institute in California are trying to actually reverse aging by reprogramming a genome, and have actually had success in increasing the age spans of mice by 30%. Although this technique cannot be applied to people because of the genetic engineering technology it uses, this achievement can help scientists better understand why and how aging occurs in humans and how we may be able to reverse or slow this process. Before this discovery, most studies looked at how cells are automatically set back to age 0 at conception (despite the age of the sperm and egg cells), and the genes that are able to reprogram the cell to set it back to age 0. They tried to apply these genes to somite cells in animals, but this was wildly unsuccessful. This new study used these genes to “rejuvenate” the cells rather than reprogram them. The results show that mice who have undergone this procedure, which includes adding extra copies of the “clock resetting” gene to the mice’s cells, which were then only activated if the mice received a certain activating drug in their water, had fewer signs of aging, are generally healthier, and lived 30% longer than mice without the treatment. According to the scientists, this worked because of epigenome, “the system of proteins that clads the cell’s DNA and controls which genes are active and which are suppressed.” Epigenome plays a large role in cell division and is also involved throughout life in maintaining each cell and letting it switch genes on and off as required. According to one of the scientists, he “sees the epigenome as being like a manuscript that is continually edited. ‘At the end of life there are many marks and it is difficult for the cell to read them,’ he said.” According to the researchers, adding the clock-resetting genes was like erasing the marks on the epigenome.
This article is extremely relevant to society because it provides insight about how to slow down or potentially stop aging in humans. People are constantly looking for a “sorcerer's stone” or “fountain of youth,” and the fact that scientists may be on the path to discovering that is exciting and also a bit scary. This issue raises ethical dilemmas about the use of technology to extend one’s life and who these resources should be made available to if they are fully developed. It is probable that this technology would be expensive, and therefore only available to the rich and powerful, which may be an overall drain on society.
Although this article was well written, it was a bit hard to understand and didn’t explain the study very fully. It also did not give any indication about if or when this technology may be able to be used on humans. Finally, it did not identify the factors that would prevent the process currently being used on mice from being used on humans.
Wade, Nicholas. "Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible." The New York Times.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 17 Dec. 2016.
Maggie did a great job on her review of “Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible” by Nicolas Wade. I particularly enjoyed Maggie’s clear and concise analysis of the article. A complex topic Maggie excellently broke down the article stating, “scientists at the Salk Institute in California are trying to actually reverse aging by reprogramming a genome, and have actually had success in increasing the age spans of mice by 30%.” This specific and clear breakdown demonstrates full comprehension of the article as well as letting any reader, no matter their knowledge level in the given field, to better understand what happened/is being done in the aforementioned study. A second thing upon which Maggie succeeded was in her discussion of the article’s significance. Maggie expressed both eagerness as well as apprehension about the study and its objectives adding that “People are constantly looking for a ‘sorcerer's stone’ or ‘fountain of youth,’ and the fact that scientists may be on the path to discovering that is exciting and also a bit scary.” An excellent analysis of the article’s importance Maggie provided a logical view weighing both the pros and cons of the study. This is so important to do as many studies are viewed as always bettering the world, but Maggie’s comment spurs the discussion if all science is for the better. A final thing in which Maggie is proficient is in her critique of the article. Again demonstrating an analytical view Maggie stated “Although this article was well written, it was a bit hard to understand and didn’t explain the study very fully.” Although hard to believe as Maggie explained the article well, I would agree upon glancing at the original article that it was definitely difficult to understand. By acknowledging the article’s flaws Maggie helps us as readers to understand how to write better as well as perhaps viewing her review in a different light given the limited amount of information.
However, Maggie did have two areas of her review in which she could improve. Primarily, I would recommend that Maggie use more quotations. Although she used a few such as one about the epigenome according to scientists, more quotes would have made for an even more authoritative review. Using quotations from the scientists always can add more detail and make for a more effective message to be gotten across. In order to correct this ailment Maggie could have simply used more quotes from the article and inserted them into her review where relevant. An excellent review the only other thing upon which Maggie could improve is by adding a mention of how this research could impact aging diseases such as progeria. By adding an element of pathos to her review as well as logos by discussing the debilitating disease her article review would be more impactful and memorable. In order to correct her error in not mentioning relevant diseases, Maggie should do just that, mention those diseases and give background. By doing this her review would be even more effective and relevant.
Overall, Maggie did a brilliant job of creating a well-written piece that exemplifies a new study being done about the process of aging. An ubiquitously relevant topic as everyone observes and experiences the process of aging I found this article incredibly enlightening and chose it based upon this principle . This review/article demonstrates how science fiction is slowly becoming the reality. Perhaps someday the impossible will become the possible. This article and study reminds me that our world is complicated and with the power of science we may be able to better understand at least a small part of it.
Wade, Nicholas. "Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible." The New York Times.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. .
Maggie did a very nice job on her current event review. The first aspect of Maggie’s review that I thought was very helpful was her use of statistics from the article. She states that this engineering technology may help mice live about 30% longer than mice without treatment. This helped understand the type of research that the scientists are dealing with here and what type of goal in which they want to obtain. Another part of Maggie’s review in which I thought was very intriguing. She explained what a scientist said which helped further understand the researcher’s point of view in this article. Her quote allowed the reader to understand the article better and have a better connection with it. And lastly, I think that it was very helpful that she defined some words or explained the process in which it took place in. For example, she explained the word epigenome and its importance. Of course not everyone would know what that is so it was helpful that she explained it.
Although her review was very well written, there a few parts that could have been improved to make the review even better. I think that there are some sentences that were a bit choppy and could have been connected to help with the flow of the review. And second, Maggie could have stated what the average lifespan of a mouse was. If she did that we would be able to figure out how much long they would be able to live if it was 30%, whether it was months or years.
Overall Maggie did a great job. I was not aware that this research and experiments were going on and I think that it will make a great advancement in today’s society.
Allison Barker
ReplyDeleteJanuary 3, 2017
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/scientists-say-they-can-reset-clock-of-aging-for-mice-at-least.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
I greatly enjoyed Maggie’s review of the article “Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible” and found it very informative on a topic which I knew little about. I appreciated that Maggie included in her review a description of the procedures that the scientists tested on the genome that resets cell’s ages in order to determine how to help mice live longer. This description allowed me to have a deeper understanding of how the scientists were working. Further, I enjoyed that Maggie included a discussion of tests that the scientists had previously tried in order to study the aging process, which had proved unsuccessful. This helped me to understand the path that led to these current and future discoveries and why, exactly, the scientists are now using the procedures that they are. Finally, I liked that Maggie discussed the possible ethical implications of the technology that seems to be in the process of development. I had never considered that this life-extending technology could turn into an issue of class, with only the rich and powerful gaining access to it, and the inclusion of this possibility in Maggie’s article opened my eyes to a serious issue.
Although I thought that Maggie’s description of the article was very informative, I would change a couple of things about it to make the review even more effective. First, it may have aided my understanding if Maggie had included statistics that showed how unsuccessful previous attempts at life extension were. Maggie merely stated that these tests were “wildly unsuccessful,” but it would be interesting to investigate where the problem lay and exactly how unsuccessful these experiments proved to be. Second, I would include a brief discussion of conflicting opinions about end-of-life technology, as this controversy was brought up in the review but not described. A short description of this issue might aid in the reader’s understanding of this topic as a whole.
Overall, I greatly enjoyed this review. I had no idea that this type of technology was even becoming available, and I had not considered that ethical questions such as the ones raised in this review would become important issues in our lives so soon.
Isabel Caton
ReplyDeleteJanuary 3, 2017
Wade, Nicholas. "Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 17 Dec. 2016.
.
I read Maggie’s review on the article “Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible. I thought that the article was very interesting and Maggie did a good job reviewing it. She used statistics from the article which was very helpful. She says that this technology might help mice live 30% longer than mice without the treatment. By including these in her review it helped me understand what the researchers are doing and what their goal is. She also included quotes that helped me to understand more of the scientists point of view. Maggie explained what one of the researches said and also defined words and explained the process, which was helpful for me to get a deeper understanding of the article. Lastly, Maggie included the possible ethical questions of the technology of life extending.
Although her review was well written, there were some things that I think she could have improved. I think she could have included what the average lifespan of a mouse really is. I also think that including some more information about other attempts at extending life, it would be interesting to see why those were unsuccessful.
Overall, I really enjoyed this article, I thought that it was extremely interesting how this type of technology is available today. I did not think about the ethical questions that could be raised with this technology but after reading the article I am eager to hear what happens in the future.
Wade, Nicholas. "Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. .
ReplyDeleteI read Maggie McKelvy’s review of the New York Times article, “Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible,” and thought that she did a very good job. I particularly liked her summary of the article and its main points. She kept her summary short and concise, which summaries are supposed to be, yet still included enough information for the reader to understand what happened in the article. In addition, I enjoyed her use of quotes in her review. She includes this quote when speaking about one scientist, “sees the epigenome as being like a manuscript that is continually edited. ‘At the end of life there are many marks and it is difficult for the cell to read them,’ he said.” I thought that this quote emphasizes the validity of everything being said. I also liked how she gave details and specific numbers, especially when saying, “scientists at the Salk Institute in California are trying to actually reverse aging by reprogramming a genome, and have actually had success in increasing the age spans of mice by 30%. ”. This number helped provide the reader with solid facts about the scientists success.
Although Maggie did a very good job in her review, she could use some improvement. For example, Maggie speaks about the scientists that have had success in increasing the age span of a mouse by 30%, yet never mentions what the average lifespan of a mouse is. If Maggie were to have added this, the reader could have conceptualized how big of a deal this was, as the 30% could have solely been a few months or it could have been a few years. Lastly, Maggie could have mention the failures of the scientists. She could have included some statistics showing when the scientists were unsuccessful, ultimately showing the harsh reality of science.
I thought that the review was written very well and Maggie chose a great article to talk about. I think that the topic is very interesting and different and Maggie has further educated me on the topic. I never knew about this topic before reading Maggie’s review and now feel knowledgeable on this topic. Overall, I really enjoyed Maggie’s review and learned a lot from it.
I chose to read Maggie’s review on the New York Times article “Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible," by Nicholas Wade. I thought that there were many positive aspects to her writing. First, she started her summary right away with the importance of this topic. This not only draws the reader in the continue reading, but is a very effective way of writing because the reader knows immediately why they should be reading about this article in the first place. Another part I liked was how she mentioned he ethical issues these experiments could induce in her second paragraph. These are important to mention whenever an experiment is being done that’s aiming to change something about the physical being of humans or something that some people could potentially be against having. Finally, her last paragraph in which she critiqued the article was really specific and thoughtful, which is very important in a review.
ReplyDeleteWhile I thought her review was really good, there were also some things she could do to improve it. For example, she could add in her second paragraph the reason for which she chose this article. Adding a personal connection can help the reader see what kind of person would enjoy this article, and helps them decide if they should read it or not. Secondly, she talked a lot about the weaknesses of the article, and not so much about what the article could do to improve from these weaknesses. As an effective review, it’s important to provide insight into making the article better so others can learn from those mistakes.
Regardless, I really enjoyed reading her review and I learned about a study I had no idea was being tested. I always knew about the stories that she mentioned of people looking for the “sorcerer's stone” or “fountain of youth,” but I didn’t think scientists were taking legitimate steps to made these stories somewhat reality. I think it would incredible if they could accomplish this. Overall, I thought Maggie did a great job with her review.
Grace Randall
ReplyDeleteCE 13
Wade, Nicholas. "Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible." The New York Times. The New York Times, 15 Dec. 2016. Web. 17 Dec. 2016. .
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/scientists-say-they-can-reset-clock-of-aging-for-mice-at-least.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=sectionfront
Maggie’s review of the article, ““Scientists Say the Clock of Aging May Be Reversible,” was very well done. Her summary was clear and concise, while still providing a depth of information about this topic. She also incorporated relevant quotes from her article that definitely added to the credibility of her review and helped me understand the information better. For example she included a quote from one of the scientists, “sees the epigenome as being like a manuscript that is continually edited. ‘At the end of life there are many marks and it is difficult for the cell to read them,’ he said.” Finally, I thought Maggie did an exemplary job giving constructional criticism to the author of this article. She made a very strong point saying the article “did not identify the factors that would prevent the process currently being used on mice from being used on humans.”
Overall Maggie did a good job, but she still could improve a few areas. For example, she could have provided some statistics or number to display just how “unsuccessful” the first trials were. Also, she could have expanded upon certain areas of discussion, specifically the lifespan of a mouse. She simply states it is increased by 30%, but it is essential to know what that measurement would likely be in. It could be year, months, or even days.
I was very interested in Maggie’s review and the article she cited. I had brief knowledge about this topic before and was unaware that this was a possibility.