Rachael Peacock
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
9/3/17
Pam Belluck And Donald G. Mcneil Jr. “The Zika Virus Grew Deadlier With a Small Mutation, Study Suggests.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/health/zika-mutation-microcephaly.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/science&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
“The Zika Virus Grew Deadlier With a Small Mutation, Study Suggests.”
By Pam Belluck and Donald G. Mcneil Jr
For this current event, I decided to review the article, “The Zika Virus Grew Deadlier With a Small Mutation, Study Suggests”by Pam Belluck and Donald Mcneil Jr. This piece discusses recent research on the Zika virus and the mutation that might have made it so deadly. The Zika virus with the mutation, called S139N, first appeared in Asia in 2013. This led to a small outbreak in French Polynesia and was the case first linked to an increase and babies with microcephaly. Zika first appeared in Latin America in 2013, with every strain of the virus containing the mutation. Scientists in China found that the strains with the mutation caused an increase in death and microcephaly in mice compared to other tested strains. When placed in a laboratory dish containing human cells, the strained S139N killed more cells important to brain development than the other mutations. Some scientists have doubts about the apparent conclusions of the tests. David H. O’Connor, head of global infectious diseases at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s primate center, declared the research to be “potentially important… But it will require a lot of additional work to show that it can be reproduced in multiple settings, to show that it isn’t simply a coincidence”. However, Hongjun Song, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania, found the findings to be persuasive. The study has limitations, as pointed out by Kristian G. Anderson, director of infectious disease genomics at the Scripps Research Institute. This includes the fact that the study could not explain why microcephaly rates varied across the Americas. Dr. Qin, a virologist at the Beijing Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology and one of two scientists who led the research, believes that there is still more studies to do in order to prove the previous results directly translate to humans.
The research done by the Chinese scientists is relevant to today because while it leaves many variables unanswered, it has the potential to become important and useful information. The Zika virus was a recent epidemic in the Americas, particularly Brazil. The epidemic was all over the news and people were warned against visiting places where it was most common. The virus caused thousands of babies to be born with microcephaly which is a condition where one has an “unusually small and damaged brain”. There are many mysteries that surround the epidemic and this research only begins to answer them. The development in findings regarding the S139N mutation in a strain of the Zika virus will lead to further research. It is extremely important that the research continues because it may help us find solutions to prevent such epidemics. Before doing so, the scientists must discover why the virus suddenly had an increased ability to cause microcephaly.
I felt that the article was well written and made the recent discoveries of the mutated virus clear the to reader. Authors Pam Belluck and Donald G. Mcneil Jr did a great job bringing differing views of the subject into the article. This made the overall information in the article more reliable, as the reader was given all the facts instead of those from just one biased side. The article also contained numerous sources and quotes from professionals in the specific field. However, the authors could have included more in how these discoveries will impact the world as a whole. Without this information, the article becomes less meaningful to the reader as it’s effect on their either directly or indirectly is unclear. They could have put this information in place of some of the multiple experiments and and tests that were explained in detail. I believe that including proof and a basis for their research is important but the information could have been cut down. The authors could have made the article more concise and straightforward by doing this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGigi Chrappa
DeleteOctober 3, 2017
AP Biology
Current Event Comment
Pam Belluck And Donald G. Mcneil Jr. “The Zika Virus Grew Deadlier With a Small Mutation, Study Suggests.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/health/zika-mutation-microcephaly.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/science&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
This week, I decided to read Rachael’s review of the article, “The Zika Virus Grew Deadlier With a Small Mutation, Study Suggests” as the title peaked my interest. Rachael’s review was very well thought out and extremely thorough. She successfully explains the first sightings of the virus and continues to explain the evolution of Zika. I found this particularly interesting as Zika has been a worldwide problem for several years, yet lately we don’t seem to hear about the virus as much as we had in the past. So, it was interesting to read a review which detailed the evolution of this virus and helped remind me of its history. Rachael also does a wonderful job of explaining the speculation that surrounds the current issue. She mentions a scientist, David H. O’Connor, who doubts the ‘apparent conclusions’ of the tests. It was interesting to read that a successful scientist had partially rejected the results of a large study. This was very intriguing because it proves that there will always be speculation and doubt when dealing with science; there is always another way to look at a situation and it is difficult to eliminate certain explanations for a phenomenon. Lastly, in addition to writing a stellar review, Rachael succeeded in professionally critiquing the article. She skillfully approached the article and determined the ‘weak’ areas that could be improved upon. This is a great ability to have, especially when dealing with and giving constructive criticism to peers in the work force.
Although Rachael wrote a superb review, there are areas in which she could improve upon (as there always are). It might be interesting for Rachael to continue this research and actually find additional outside information to include in her next review. It would be interesting to see if she could find other scientists’ opinions on whether the test results are accurate and actually may lead to a viable conclusion. She does mention scientist O’Connor however, she may want to include opinions from other scientists, both agreeing and disagreeing with the assumptions made in the article. This would allow for the audience to make informed opinions as they would be given both points of view. Lastly, in the future, Rachael may want to connect the ideas she expresses in her review better. Her first paragraph gives a wonderful and detailed summary of the article. However, the shift into the second paragraph is a tad rough; she may want to include one or two transitional sentences to smooth the transition from a summary to relevance today.
Overall, I read a well-written and engaging review on an important article. I soon plan to go back and read the article her review was based on because I believe the topic of Zika is important to understand fully as this may affect our daily lives in the near future. Interestingly enough, I actually decided to read Rachael’s article because the title of her review peaked my interest. However, after reading her review, I feel more inclined to read the article as Rachael was able to provide a wonderful review.
Ava Austi
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event #4
10/10/17
Pam Belluck And Donald G. Mcneil Jr. “The Zika Virus Grew Deadlier With a Small Mutation, Study Suggests.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2017,
www.nytimes.com/2017/09/28/health/zika-mutation-microcephaly.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/science&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
Rachael wrote a great review based off the article “The Zika Virus Grew Deadlier With a Small Mutation, Study Suggests. ” by Pam Belluck and Donald G.Mcneil Jr. from The New York Times. This article discusses recent research on the Zika virus and the mutation that might have made it so deadly. Throughout the review of the article, there were many aspects that Rachael did well in order to write a great review. Firstly, Rachael did a great job of providing the reader with a detailed summary of her article. Doing this allowed me as the audience to fully understand what Rachael’s article was about without any confusion. Another thing that I thought Rachael did well was including the different views of scientists. For example, she compares the views of David H. O’Connor and Hongjun Song. O’Connor declared the research to be “potentially important… But it will require a lot of additional work to show that it can be reproduced in multiple settings, to show that it isn’t simply a coincidence”. Meanwhile, Hongjun Song, a neurologist at the University of Pennsylvania, found the findings to be persuasive. It was beneficial for Rachael to include this because it proves that there will always be speculation and doubt when dealing with science. Lastly, Rachael did a excellent job in critiquing the article she read. She successfully identifies the strong and weak areas of the article, while also including ideas for improvement. Rachael successfully wrote a clear and interesting review of the article she read.
Although Rachael presented a great review of the article, there were some aspects where she could have improved. In the review, I thought Rachael could have included more quotes and opinions about her topic. Incorporating quotes and outside information would back up her review and would make it much stronger. Also, I think Rachael could have transitioned better from paragraph to paragraph. Doing this would make the review more pleasing for the audience to read. These issues are both easy to fix in order to make Rachael’s review even better. Even though there were some parts of the review that Rachael could have improved, I think she wrote a great review of the article.
I thought Rachael did a great job in writing her review and I really enjoyed reading it. I chose to read this review because Zika has been a popular topic in the news and I never knew much about it so I wanted to learn more. I think it is important to understand the topic of Zika since it has had such an impact on societies and may continue to have an increasing impact in the future. After reading Rachael's review, I want to learn more about the Zika virus. Overall, I think Rachael successfully wrote a clear and detailed review of her article.