Hannah Beldotti
AP Biology
EF Even
Mr. Ippolito
Fessenden, Marissa. “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 27 Mar. 2015, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-stinging-swarm-bees-can-save-life-180954767/.
“How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Could Save a Life”
I read the article How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Could Save a Life by Marissa Fessenden. The author provided substantial evidence for her claims throughout the article. First of all, the author states background information regarding the study by reiterating how a women was the victim of a swarm of bees. The bees which attacked her were Africanized. She suffered significant amounts of swelling and pain after the proceeding days, however, after, she felt renewed. She claimed, "My brain just came right out of that fog. I thought: I can actually think clearly for the first time in years.” The author uses this women’s experience as an introduction into a larger discussion. Further into the the author's research, she states how other scientists have proven that venom from other animals has been able to be used at a curing agent. The components in the compounds have been considered somewhat harmful when not all used together. Ken Winkle, Director of the Australian Venom Research Unit at the University of Melbourne, says, “Over millions of years, these little chemical engineers have developed a diversity of molecules that target different parts of our nervous system. This idea of applying these potent nerve toxins to somehow interrupt a nervous disease has been there for a long time. But we haven’t known enough to safely and effectively do that.” By stating this, the scientists are expressing their curiosity into a possible revelation: bees venom could cure diseases.
The scientists mentioned in the article also have previous knowledge as to what the venom produced by bees is called and the dangers that are associated with it. The compound in the venom is known as melittin. The use is explained as, “a small peptide that causes the sensation of burning pain. It triggers heat sensors in nerve cells to think they are literally on fire. But as with all poison, the dose is important. Wilcox writes that at higher doses melittin creates holes in the membrane surrounding cells and cause them to "swell up and pop like a balloon." Fesseden then includes an excerpt from Wilcox reports that states an example of how scientists would like to use the compound, “For example, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, have found that melittin can tear open HIV’s protective cell membrane without harming human cells. This envelope-busting method also stops the virus from having a chance to evolve resistance. “We are attacking an inherent physical property of HIV,” Joshua L Hood, the lead author of the study, said in a press statement. “Theoretically, there isn’t any way for the virus to adapt to that. The virus has to have a protective coat.” Initially envisioned as a prophylactic vaginal gel, the hope is that melittin-loaded nanoparticles could someday be injected into the bloodstream, clearing the infection.”
This article was overall well written and organized. First, the author gave background information about the topic she would be covering in the article and also about the victim's personal experience. Second, the author provides limited research that had been done about the topic. Third and finally, the author concludes the article by explaining how Lobel has taken her personal experience and applied it into her life and how she had now created a business using the knowledge she now has. By the author giving background information about the topic in the article, I was able to understand the information present. This article was an explanation of an event that occurred and how it will play out in the future. There was less of a discussion about how they have experimented on this product so far. The author could have included outside information or interviewed other scientists on experiments they have conducted to explore this compound and it benefits. The article's conclusion was not persuasive and did not summarize the main point of the article. In the end, she speaks of how Lobel now sells beauty products. Although she says how Lobel is now fully recovered and using the venom that saved her life to her advantage, no grand purpose or epiphany in research was suggested. Instead, the author could have dabbled in some of the uses that scientists are learning towards attempting.
To conclude, I found this article very informative and interesting and also I gained some knowledge from it. The most prominent statement in the article is how in the future, the compound melittin, could be significantly beneficial. In today's society, diseases such as Lyme are common, and to find something that could diminish the disease in someone is eye-opening.
Gigi Chrappa
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
October 16, 2017
Current Events
Fessenden, Marissa. “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 27 Mar. 2015, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-stinging-swarm-bees-can-save-life-180954767/.
I read Hannah’s review of “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save A Life”. I actually decided to read her article due to the interesting title; how could something everyone is afraid of actually be helpful to society? Her review was extremely informative and well thought out; the layout of her review is phenomenal. She clearly organizes the topics addressed in chronological order. This allows the audience to read with ease and this also creates a more organized tone overall. In addition to this, Hannah actually relates this article to other scientific discoveries and how this may further the development of science. Although this is a new advancement, Hannah, interestingly enough, hinted at how this could help us in the future. I find this extremely interesting as it allows for the audience to see the current importance of the topic. Sometimes when reading current events, one may ask, “well why does this matter” or “well how does this affect me”? But Hannah successfully relates a broad topic and demonstrates the importance in our lives today. This was done exceptionally well. Finally, in addition to writing a stellar review, Hannah successfully critiques the article. She does this in a professional way; not attacking the author nor stating what is ‘wrong’ with the article. Simply, she explains what may be improved upon or items that could be altered in the future.
Although Hannah wrote an incredible review, there were a few areas in which she could improve upon. For example, in the future, Hannah may want to proofread her work and double check for grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. This was by no means, a serious offense, however, it may help to further the credibility of her work. On the other hand, however, I found that Hannah chose wonderful quotations from her articles; ranging from metaphors to scientific explanations which helped to enhance the review overall. In addition to this, it might be interesting to see Hannah include several more quotations. I found that she did a wonderful job choosing the quotations that she did and would love to have read more of them. Lastly, if Mia wanted to take her review to the next level, she could perform some outside research and look into what these studies may lead to in the future. It might be interesting to see what else could be found out about the benefits of venom and how it may influence our lives as we get older.
In conclusion, Hannah wrote a wonderful review and addressed topics important to society. Her layout was wonderful and the review was easy to follow. She did many things wonderfully and there were a few things she could improve on in the future. Overall, her review was a great read and I plan to read the article her review was based on soon!
ReplyDeleteMy fellow colleague, Hannah Beldotti, wrote an insightful review on the article, “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Could Save a Life,” by Marissa Fessenden. To begin, I feel that Hannah uses a good amount of quotes from the article. For example, she includes, “Ken Winkle, Director of the Australian Venom Research Unit at the University of Melbourne, says, “Over millions of years, these little chemical engineers have developed a diversity of molecules that target different parts of our nervous system. This idea of applying these potent nerve toxins to somehow interrupt a nervous disease has been there for a long time. But we haven’t known enough to safely and effectively do that.”” I feel that this use a of direct quote builds the legitimacy of the review as specific facts from the article are used. This makes the reader feel as if Hannah has a very good understanding of the topic. Furthermore, Hannah uses a variety of sentence structure. For example, some sentences are short and simple, and others are longer, more complex, and include more scientific information. I feel that this variation is very needed as it allows the review to be very engaging. Due to my increased attention, I understood the topic on a deeper level and found all of the information to be very clear. Lastly, I enjoyed how Hannah writes about a specific story regarding the bee stings and a woman. As Hannah claims, “The bees which attacked her were Africanized. She suffered significant amounts of swelling and pain after the proceeding days, however, after, she felt renewed,” this increases my fascination with the topic. By mentioning this story, Hannah is setting up her review, in which this person's story is then explained through science. I think this setup was extremely effective in the review and allows for a logical progression of information.
Although I enjoyed the review, I feel a couple of areas could be changed. To start, I felt that the summary to the article was weak. This is because Hannah uses many quotes, about scientific discoveries, but fails to outline the basic background information that lead to these discoveries. I feel that this can be easily improved in the future through the use of more context surrounding the topic. In general, this would allow the reader to understand the review more easily. Even though direct article quotes are good to include in reviews, Hannah includes too many of these quotes throughout the piece. This can be seen most clearly in the middle section of her second paragraph when she writes, “Wilcox writes that at higher doses melittin creates holes in the membrane surrounding cells and cause them to "swell up and pop like a balloon." Fessenden then includes an excerpt from Wilcox reports that states an example of how scientists would like to use the compound, “For example, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, have found that melittin can tear open HIV’s protective cell membrane without harming human cells. This envelope-busting method also stops the virus from having a chance to evolve resistance.”” This overuse of quotes makes the review feel cluttered and somewhat confusing. This can be improved in the future by paraphrasing instead of taking too many direct quotes.
Luke Redman
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
Current Event #5
October 18th 2017
Fessenden, Marissa. “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 27 Mar. 2015, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-stinging-swarm-bees-can-save-life-180954767/.
This week I read Hannah’s review of Marissa Fessenden’s article for Smithsonian.com, “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees can Save a Life.” She did an excellent job on the review, presenting her points in a well organized manner by listing them in chronological order. It allows the reader for a more smooth and flowing read of the Review. She also backed her claims of the article with quotes from notable sources, giving the review validity in the process. For example, she put in a quote by the Director of the Australian Venom Research Unit at the University of Melbourne, which helped explain how the venom of bees could target nervous diseases. She also did a great job of criticizing the article as well, listing its faults and giving reasons why they should be fixed. All of these traits came together to make an excellent review.
Although Hannah’s review was great, there were a few errors that I noticed while reading the review. First, there were multiple grammatical and spelling errors in her writing, which disrupted the flow of the review. This is not a horrible infraction, but it should have been fixed in the editing process. Although the quotations that she included were extremely informative, I would have liked to see more quotes in the article to expand the reader’s knowledge of the subject.
Other than these flaws, Hannah’s review was very well written. She presented her information extremely well and informed the reader in a simple manner. I never knew that venom from bees could even be considered to help anyone or anything. I will look forward to reading her next review.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteClio Dakolias
ReplyDeleteAP Bio- Codd
Current Event 5
October 18, 2017
Fessenden, Marissa. “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 27 Mar. 2015, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-stinging-swarm-bees-can-save-life-180954767/.
This week, for Current Event 5, I decided to read Hannah’s review of the article “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life,” by Marissa Fessenden. Hannah did a great job of explaining the topic her article centered on in a simple way that made it very easy to follow. This makes it clear that her knowledge of her chosen article is very large and she did her research. By explaining the complex compound melittin (bee venom) in such a way-complete with comparisons to make certain terms clear- she manages to make a review of a not well known topic interesting to read. While she did not incorporate many quotes, the quotes that were used were clearly credible, as she stated who they were stated by, and the person’s credentials. Finally, Hannah’s critique paragraph was excellent, clearly dictating what the author did well and what could be improved. Her opinions on the article are interesting to read, as she argues them in a way that is clear to follow and that makes perfect sense.
While Hannah’s response was overall an excellent one, there were a few points on which she could improve on. First, while the quotations used were helpful to the reader, they could have been incorporated in different places, as Hannah put them in somewhat distracting places. Also, she could have used a few more quotations to further her argument and depiction of her knowledge. Hannah also could have given some background on preexisting knowledge of bee venom cells and how they can stop viruses, so readers could understand if this is a completely new discovery or if it is based on prior ones.
I knew very little about bee venom and its positive impact prior to reading Hannah’s review of this article, and I was amazed that the something many of us are scared of could make a huge impact on the lives of so many, with proper research.
Hannah Beldotti wrote an interesting review on “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Could Save a Life” by Marissa Fessenden, in which she had some aspects she did well in. In her review, Beldotti included a large number of quotes all providing relevant information to the article she reviewed. Her explanations in tandem with evidence found in the quotes allows readers to better understand what the main focus of the article was. The quotes also include words spoken by notable scientists involved in the medical research of venom with scientific information about what exactly the venom does. Without these quotes, her review would have been confusing, and it would have lacked critical information. Another aspect well done can be found in the second paragraph, where Hannah supports the claims she made in her first paragraph about the article suggesting venom can be used in medical practices. She explains in detail how the chemical melittin can poke holes in a cell membrane, and how that could eventually be used to target HIV cells. This explanation allows readers to understand in what ways bee venom specifically is able to cure diseases using scientific imagery. Lastly, an aspect in which Beldotti succeeded can be found in her critique. Here, she precisely stated what she believed the article lacked and clearly explained her reasons behind her opinions. Beldotti realized that as scientific information was presented in the article, the noticed that there was no inclusion of an experiment or an explanation of one. Without experimental data, a hypothesis cannot be supported or deemed incorrect. Therefore, the data is an important part of articles, and Beldotti was completely correct in her judgement that more data should have been added. Her solution, to interview more scientists, would not improve the article, but it would introduce more information to expand on.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Beldotti’s review had some strong achievements, it also contained a few faults. One correctable aspect of her review can be found throughout the review in the lack of defined terms. Words such as “Africanized” and “prophylactic” were not elaborated on, and therefore could confuse readers as to what Beldotti is talking about. Her lack of definition can also be found in her first paragraph, where she describes a woman being attacked by bees, but doesn’t tell the readers her name. In the third paragraph, references to“Lobel” are made, someone who had not been clarified before referenced. After the third paragraph that readers may be able to figure out that Lobel is the name of the lady that was attacked by bees. If they did not figure it out, they remain confused. A solution would be to add a few sentences after the terms were given to specify their meaning in the context of the article, and to include the woman’s name was Lobel in the first sentence she is referenced. Another aspect that could be improved is the connection to society Beldotti includes in her last paragraph. She only included two sentences explaining why this article and it’s topic are important to society, and provides only one example of a disease that the melittin could possibly cure. A solution for this would be to elaborate on the mentioning of HIV patients benefitting from these studies. HIV is one of the most common diseases in America, so the study of bee stings curing HIV is groundbreaking.
From this review, I learned the irony that although bees can be scary, they would also be the source of cures for many diseases. Once the ability of melittin to poke holes in cell membranes was explained, I realised that the venom had much more potential that I originally believed. I chose this article because my grandmother used bee stings to help with the treatment of her MS. I knew beforehand that bee stings had healing properties, so I my interest was peaked when I saw the title of the review. However, I didn’t know that bee venom could be used towards many more treatments that for MS. This review opened my eyes to the possibilities of animal and insect venom in the medical world.
Julia Pabafikos
ReplyDeleteOctober 20, 2017
AP Biology
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event #5
Hannah Beldotti did a great job on reviewing her article “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees could Save a Life” by Marissa Fessenden. I particularly enjoyed how Hannah explained the compound of a bee’s venom called “melittin” and goes into detail about how it can cause a sensation of burning pain and the way it triggers heat sensors in the nerve cells. I believe that with the addition of this definition the reader is able to fully understand the dangers associated with the bee’s venom but also is able to understand how it can be helpful if the correct dosage is given. Additionally, I enjoyed that Hannah provided specific researchers at different labs that have found how milletinin can be helpful to different diseases such as HIV. By stating such a difficult disease to treat which has an overwhelming number of cases each year, Hannah was able to portray to the reader what an astonishing discovery this can be. Lastly, I really enjoyed Hannah’s critique paragraph which stated what the author could improve upon in order to make their article stronger in the future. Hannah does this in a way that shows that she is understanding of the limited research that the author had to work with but also is able to strengthen her own review.
However, I believe that Hannah did have two areas in her review in which she could improve upon. Primarily, I would recommend that Hannah give some background information in her first paragraph about bees and the increased population that is allergic to them instead of immediately talking about the article without stating any background. I believe that in order for her reader to fully understand the study, Hannah would have to provide some of the pros and cons of using a bee’s sting as a cure. Additionally, I would encourage Hannah to cut down on some of her quotes. Although many of them are helpful to understanding the article I believe that they are too long and therefore make the article feel less as a review and more of a copy.
Overall, Hannah did a great job of providing a well written review that illustrates how research and discoveries are made. I personally chose to read this article because I was shocked by the title, because of my prior knowledge of how detrimental a bee sting can be to many people. However through reading this review I believe that it was able to provide me with the understanding of how venom from different animals can actually be used to our advantage and is not always harmful.
Alexander New
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
October 20th, 2017
Fessenden, Marissa. “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life.” Smithsonian.com,
Smithsonian Institution, 27 Mar. 2015,
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-stinging-swarm-bees-can-save-life-1809547
67/.
I read Hannah’s review of, “How A Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save A Life” by Marissa Fessenden of the Smithsonian Institution. Hannah did an excellent job on the review and presented her points in a clear order by listing them in chronological order. This let the reader read it smoothly and clearly understand it. Another thing I liked is that she did not incorporate many quotes, but the quotes that were used were clearly credible, as she stated who they were stated by, and the person’s credentials. She did not overuse them, but rather used them to support her points throughout the review. Lastly, I really enjoyed Hannah’s critique paragraph which stated what the author could improve upon in order to make their article stronger in the future. Hannah took the limited research that the article gave her and showed that she had a clear understanding of the article and material it talked about it, reinforcing the credibility of the review to the reader of the review.
Although Hannah did a great job on this review, there are some areas that could be improved. For example, I believe she could have delved further into background information in her first paragraph about bees and the increased population that is allergic to them rather than simply referencing the article without stating any background. I believe that in order for her reader to fully understand the study, Hannah would have to provide some of the pros and cons of using a bee’s sting as a cure. I also thought that Hannah may want to proofread her work and double check for grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. This was not a large mistake, but it may help to further the credibility of her work.
Overall, I enjoyed reading Hannah’s article and I thought it was very well done. She addressed all her points very clearly and precisely, and had quotes to further her credibility in her statements. I thought it was fascinating that it was very interesting that a swarm of bees could save a life, because prior to reading the review, I always thought that a swarm of bees always meant trouble.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippilito
AP Bio
18 October 2017
Fessenden, Marissa. “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life.” Smithsonian.com, Smithsonian Institution, 27 Mar. 2015, www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-stinging-swarm-bees-can-save-life-180954767/.
I decided to read Hannah Beldotti's review on Marissa Fessenden article. “How a Stinging Swarm of Bees Can Save a Life.” This well-written review did many things well, and for example, the use of quotation throughout the review to enforce key points. This can be seen when she references this quote, “For example, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, have found that melittin can tear open HIV’s protective cell membrane without harming human cells. This envelope-busting method also stops the virus from having a chance to evolve resistance.” By including this quote, she is reinforcing the positives of getting stung by a bee, making her a credible source in the process by using a quote from the article. Secondly, Hannah does great job of presenting her information in an organized way that allows for the reader to follow her thoughts and grasp a stronger understanding of the review. This is due to the logical order of stating a problem, solutions, and the research to support this. Lastly, she puts the article into perspective by showing the potential that melittin could have in curing diseases that are responsible for many deaths. She even states, “Theoretically, there isn’t any way for the virus to adapt to that. The virus has to have a protective coat.” Initially envisioned as a prophylactic vaginal gel, the hope is that melittin-loaded nanoparticles could someday be injected into the bloodstream, clearing the infection.”
Although these are the things that Hannah did well, there were a couple of areas that could have been improved on. One major area was context on the bee and its venom called melittin. Most people presume are not educated in this field, and the context given was minimal. An extension of this context would have eliminated most questions I had and allow me to focus on new information being presented then dreading on these questions. This was a small error that had a large impact on the final outcome of the review. Next, although she goes into some detail at the end of this scientific advancement effect on the world, a advancement as big as this that could possibly treat diseases with no cure such as cancer should be elaborated on. This was a large part of the discovery, and I feel like she felt short in this field.
This review was an extremely informative, but more specifically, it was very amazing to learn about how something as simple as a bee sting could potentially hold the secret to curing diseases that have already taken so many lives. This could possibly lead to a cure for cancer, which alone is amazing, which shows the value of this scientific discovery. This goes to show that things in life that are often overlooked and taken for granted should not be, and could hold more value than what was previously thought.