Fountain, Henry, and John Schwartz. "Scientists Bristle
at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.
While
scientists expected the Trump administration to cut funding to scientific
funding and research, they were appalled by the extent of the cuts. The first proposed budget includes a $5.8
billion (18%) reduction from the National Institutes of Health and a $900
million (20%) reduction from the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The
National Institutes of Health fund thousands of research working toward a cure
for cancer and other diseases, while the Department of Energy’s Office of
Science funds national laboratories – both are clearly at the forefront of
scientific discovery. Additionally, the White House is proposing to eliminate
climate science programs throughout the government, including the EPA. While
only a blueprint, and thus subject to extensive change, the budget has received
significant scrutiny from the scientific community. NASA is likewise subject to
cuts, although these cuts are far less significant, as they comprise less than
one percent of NASA’s budget.
Significant
reductions to public funding of scientific research will be very impactful on
our country and the world. America is at the forefront of scientific discovery,
and making these cuts will drastically slow down global advancement. Likewise,
the proposed cuts will inhibit our efforts in combatting global warming.
Clearly, it is necessary for citizens to take political action and stand
against this budget.
The article
is particularly well written. Though the article does not flow particularly
well, it is concise and coherent.
Fountain, Henry, and John Schwartz. "Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/climate/trump-budget-science-research
I read Brian’s review and thought that he did a very good job understand the article. There were a few aspect of his article that I thought benefitted it. I thought he did a good job when using statistics. I thought it helped the reader understand his summary better. I thought that the way he explained what the National Institute of Health was allowing the reader to better understand a part of his review making the review easy to follow and to understand. And lastly I thought that his use of transition words from thought to thought in the paragraphs were very helpful considering the amount of detail in the summary.
Although I thought he did a pretty nice job, there are a few areas in which he could polish. First, I think that he could quote the article or included quotes from experts in his summary giving it a more professional feel and secondly I think that his review of the article he wrote about could have contained a bit more detail and thought.
I learned something new from this article, something that I did not know about. I knew that Trump was cutting funding for the arts but not for science as well. Overall I think that Brian did a very good job on his review.
This week I choose to comment on Brian’s review of the article “Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research.” Overall, his review and the article were very well-written. One thing I really liked about his review was how he included specific numbers to back up his points. He writes that the first proposal cut $5.8 billion from the National Institute of Health and $900 million from the Department of Energy. Another thing I liked was how he expanded upon what each of these institutes or departments does. For example, he wrote that they fund research that studies cure for cancer and other diseases. Finally, I liked how Brian explained the impact of these cuts. He writes that reductions would slow down global advancements in science.
ReplyDeleteEven though the review was well-written overall, there were areas that could have been improved. For example, I wish Brian had gone more into specifics on how these cuts would hurt certain areas of research. He could have mentioned specific diseases or projects that would have been hurt by these cuts. Also, I wish that Brian had gone more into depth on how citizens should stand up to these cuts. He could have written certain actions that could have been taken which would have added legitimacy to his review.
I found this article interesting because I heard that Trump was going to cut federal funding but it was interesting to see to what extent. I found it interesting to learn what areas he was cutting and what the impact would be. To expand upon this, I would like to learn about what specific projects will be losing money and what the results will be.
I read the review of and the article “Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research” by The New York Times and I found it very interesting and informative. First, I liked how the author of the review mentioned the thoughts of the scientists about Trump’s cuts but then states how major the amount of cuts are, showing Trump’s power over scientific research. Also, I liked how the author brought in information from The National Institutes of Health, mentioning that they are working towards finding a cure to cancer and other diseases. Lastly, I liked how well written the article was and how much information it provided. I really enjoyed reading this article because it had many good aspects and really informed me about how important this topic is.
ReplyDeleteEven though there are many good aspects about this article, there were also some negatives. First, I did not like how the article was set up, it was really choppy and did not flow well, which made it confusing at some points. Also, I did not like how the author did not talk about what they were planning to do with this information because it is so crucial, were they planning to take action or accept their decrease in scientific research. Although these are some major negatives, I really enjoyed reading this article because it was very informative and relative.
I learned a lot from reading this article. First, I learned about the significant reductions to public fundings of scientific research, and how this will greatly impact our country. Also, I learned about the points of view of The National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. This article changed my views on society because America is a leader of scientific discoveries, and making these cuts will drastically slow down global advancement. Overall, I really enjoyed reading this article and I look forward to learning more about this topic in the future.
In Brian’s review of “Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research,” he does a great job of summarizing the article. I was able to get a clear understanding of what the article was about. Additionally, he did a great job of adding statistics, such as the budget reduction amounts and percentages. One last thing Brian did a great job on was explaining how this affects society. He states that America is at the forefront of scientific discovery and that making these cuts will drastically slow down global advancement.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Brian could have elaborated on his critique of the article. It was very brief and did not offer a suggestion as to how the author could improve the article. Also, I think Brian could have added his own opinion on the budget cuts to make the article review more personal.
I chose to read this article review because it was a combination of science and politics, which drew me in. After reading this article, I learned how President Trump and the decisions he makes can drastically affect scientific research. I think this could be very detrimental for ongoing and future research because there will be less money for the teams to use. Hopefully, there will be a change in the budget cuts in order to continue the endless amounts of research that is being done in hopes of finding cures to diseases.
Fountain, Henry, and John Schwartz. "Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research."
The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 29 Mar. 2017.
.
Fountain, Henry, and John Schwartz. "Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/climate/trump-budget-science-research
I read Brian Kradjel’s review of “Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research” and thought that he did a very good job. I particularly liked his summary of the article and its main points. He kept his 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. I also liked how he gave details and specific percents, especially when saying, “they were appalled by the extent of the cuts. The first proposed budget includes a $5.8 billion (18%) reduction from the National Institutes of Health and a $900 million (20%) reduction from the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.”. These numbers helped provide the reader with more information on the extent of the cuts. Finally, I enjoyed how Brian connected the article to our lives and the ways in which the topic would impact us when saying that reductions would slow down global advancements in science.
Although Brian did a very good job in his review, he could use some improvement. For example, he could have explained in his critique of the article specifically why it did not flow very well. In addition, Brian never used quotes. By adding direct quotes from the article, he would have been able to emphasize the validity of all that he was saying. This would have thoroughly improved his review.
I thought that the review was written very well and Brian chose a great article to talk about. I think that the topic is very interesting and relevant and Brian has further educated me on the topic. I never knew about this topic before reading Brian’s review and now feel knowledgeable on this topic. Overall, I really enjoyed Brian’s review and learned a lot from it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlexander Plaza
ReplyDeleteFountain, Henry, and John Schwartz. "Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2017. Web. 21 Mar. 2017.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/climate/trump-budget-science-research
Brian, I read your review of “ "Scientists Bristle at Trump Budget’s Cuts to Research” by Henry Fountain and John Schwartz and I thought that you did a good job. I thought that you did a nice job with your summary of the article. I was not confused about your topic. This is good for the readers since it creates a understanding of the subject matter for your review. Also, I like that your summary is brief. It does not bore the reader with useless information and you are able to move to the main point of your review faster. Finally, I like that you incorporate statistics from the article fluidly into your own review. It provides specific examples to support you.
Although your article was good, there are some things that you could improve on. First, I think you could add a direct quote from a contributor or scientist to show exactly how Trump’s budget cuts are causing them annoyance. It would provide credibility to the article as well as different viewpoints and new knowledge. Also, I believe that you could improve some minor grammatical errors. This would stop the reader’s attention from being drawn away from the content of the review towards the grammar.
Overall, I enjoyed your review. I was not completely aware of the budget cuts to research and I do agree that this can become very problematic for the advancement of science.