Gigi Chrappa
Mr. Ippolito
February 6, 2018
Current Event #15
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
This article, “Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing” quickly peaked my interest due to the intriguing title. I never really considered the possibility that woodpeckers could get brain damage from their “claim to fame”, woodpecking. Curious, I continued reading, and eventually came to the conclusion that woodpeckers have an increased amount of tau proteins. While in both humans and birds tau proteins are necessary for proper brain function, for humans too much of the protein can be debilitating and cause emotional/physical/mental strain. However, the study, which is still in progress, has yet to conclude whether this increase in tau protein causes brain damage in woodpeckers. Although this study is inconclusive at the moment, the researchers already have ideas as to what to do with this current information. For example, as woodpeckers can withstand 1,200g to 1,400g of force (whereas a force of 60g could actually give a human a concussion), bike developers will continue to model their helmets after the woodpecker’s skull structure. In addition to this, the information may be put towards research on neurodegenerative diseases.
Although this study did not necessarily achieve its goal of determining whether woodpecker’s receive brain damage from their constant pecking, this research will help many fields of science in the near future. We see this impact in today’s society already; companies modeling their bike helmets after the bird’s strong skull. Another probable use would be for football equipment: making more structurally sound equipment would reduce the amount of head injuries greatly. In addition to this, the studying of tau proteins provided extra information and knowledge which will be useful in several fields of research such as that of neurodegenerative diseases. It’s amazing that such a minor phenomenon that we see in our everyday lives may actually lead to injury and disease prevention in the near future.
This article was incredibly well written, allowing for ease while reading. In particular, the article succeeds in providing an immensely interesting introduction that encourages the audience to continue reading. Then, the article continues with a well phrased and composed explanation of the tau protein while providing all of the necessary information on woodpeckers and their habits. This was vital to the reader’s understanding as these are uncommon topics that definitely need further explaining for the average reader to fully comprehend the overarching topic/theme. In addition to this, I enjoyed how the author actually included how the research will impact society. It was interesting to see a scientist’s view on how the research could apply to our daily lives in the future. While the author wrote a neat and effective article, there were areas in which he/she could improve upon. For instance, it was a tad frustrating to read that there was absolutely no idea whether the woodpeckers had brain damage or not when reading the article for that sole purpose. Instead of the way (s)he phrased this, (s)he possibly could have continued his/her article with more benefits found from the experiment as to not let down the readers as much. In addition to this, it would have been interesting, if possible, for the author to have included several graphics. Whether it be photographs, graphs, microscope slides, or tables, it would have made the article less dry, ‘black and white’, and overall, more engaging. Overall, the article was very captivating and I enjoyed learning about the woodpeckers and their large impact on society.
AP Bio
ReplyDeleteOlivia Scotti
2/6/18
Current Event # 15
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a
bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
There were many aspects of Gigi’s review written well. One part of her review that I felt she did particularly well was her description of how a woodpecker could experience brain damage from woodpecker.. For instance she states how “While in both humans and birds tau proteins are necessary for proper brain function, for humans too much of the protein can be debilitating and cause emotional/physical/mental strain. ” Through this summary the reader is able to understand the main point of the article that is being reviewed. Another part of the review which was done well was the addition of quotes from research on this topic. For example, “For example, as woodpeckers can withstand 1,200g to 1,400g of force (whereas a force of 60g could actually give a human a concussion), bike developers will continue to model their helmets after the woodpecker’s skull structure.” Through this the reader understands what research was conducted. This is also allows the reader to understand the tone of the article through direct quotes from the passage. Another part of the review that was done well was her ability to describe how this discovery is beneficial to the rest of the world. For instance she states, “We see this impact in today’s society already; companies modeling their bike helmets after the bird’s strong skull. Another probable use would be for football equipment: making more structurally sound equipment would reduce the amount of head injuries greatly.” This strengthened her review because the reader was able to see how research is useful for a lot of the population.
Although there were many parts of Gigi’s review written well there were areas for improvement. One part of her review which could have been improved was her critique paragraph. Although she did mention the negatives and positives of the article I wish she had been less general when stating her positives and gone into more detail. Through adding more specific details about the positives of the article the reader would have had a better understanding of the article. Another part of the article that could have been improved was if she added more details about the new discoveries that could occur from this study. Also this would help strengthen her description of the research as a whole.
Overall, I felt Gigi wrote a strong review of this article which the reader could easily understand. Her review was written clearly and smoothly which allowed the reader to learn about the topic more easily and understand the research conducted. I enjoyed reading this review because I learned more about how one disease could hurt an animal. Overall, I liked how she described the research that was done and the effects on the present world. Through her discussion of this article the reader got a better grasp on the topic and the importance of this new research.
Kunzang Namgyal
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Biology- EF even
6 February 2018
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
This week I read Gigi’s review on an article about possible brain damage in woodpeckers due to an increased amount of the tau protein being released in their brains. Gigi does a good job of summarizing the article. Gigi also does a good job of including quantitative data into her report, "woodpeckers can withstand 1,200g to 1,400g of force (whereas a force of 60g could actually give a human a concussion)”. Lastly, Gigi tied in the article’s importance to our society very well, explaining that bike helmets are being modeled after this research on woodpeckers’ skulls and their brains.
There were two areas which Gigi could improve. I wish she had added more quotes from the article and I believe that she should have referenced the credentials of the researchers conducting the study so that her report has credibility. I thought her report was very interesting and I learned that the heads of woodpeckers can withstand over 10 times as much force as a human head can.
David Weild
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Biology- EF even
6 February 2018
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
This week I chose to comment on Gigi’s review on possible brain damage in woodpeckers due to an increased amount of the tau protein being released in their brains. Gigi summarizes the article very well. Also, she includes, "woodpeckers can withstand 1,200g to 1,400g of force (whereas a force of 60g could actually give a human a concussion)’” which is one example which she uses describe the article. There are many of these examples. She described why the article was important to our society citing that bike helmets are being modeled differently following research on woodpeckers’ skulls.
Even though most of the review was good, it could have improved. For example, could have put more quotes from the article in her review and I think she should have talked more about the people involved in the study and what they specifically did. In total, the review was spectacular.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
14 February 2018
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
This week I read Gigi’s review on “Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." This was an extremely informative review that did alot of good things. First off, Gigi does an excellent job of adding quotations from the original article By doing this, the author establishes credibility and the reader is more likely to believe what she is saying. Secondly, Gigi does a great job of summarizing the original article in a way that is easy to follow and understand. For example, she states, ““While in both humans and birds tau proteins are necessary for proper brain function, for humans too much of the protein can be debilitating and cause emotional/physical/mental strain. ” Lastly, Gigi does a great job of tying in the importance of the article. She relates that this data allows for scientists to get a better understanding of how humans get brain damage. With this information, scientists are creating safer helmets for people.
Although Gigi does many good things in her report, there are a couple areas that could use improvement. She could of had a better critique paragraph that had gone more into depth on what was to be improved. Overall it seemed a bit weak and could have used some work. Furthermore, there were some spelling and grammar mistakes that were in her writing. This distracts the reader from the main purpose of the article. It is careless mistake that should be fixed.
All in all, Gigi writes a very informative review that is well-written. It was very interesting to learn how studies on woodpecker's brain can connect to humans. The most interesting thing to me is that this data will be used to create new helmets for humans, making them more safe and protective.
Cory Ramundo
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
14 February 2018
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
This week I read Gigi’s review on “Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." This was an extremely informative review that did alot of good things. First off, Gigi does an excellent job of adding quotations from the original article By doing this, the author establishes credibility and the reader is more likely to believe what she is saying. Secondly, Gigi does a great job of summarizing the original article in a way that is easy to follow and understand. For example, she states, ““While in both humans and birds tau proteins are necessary for proper brain function, for humans too much of the protein can be debilitating and cause emotional/physical/mental strain. ” Lastly, Gigi does a great job of tying in the importance of the article. She relates that this data allows for scientists to get a better understanding of how humans get brain damage. With this information, scientists are creating safer helmets for people.
Although Gigi does many good things in her report, there are a couple areas that could use improvement. She could of had a better critique paragraph that had gone more into depth on what was to be improved. Overall it seemed a bit weak and could have used some work. Furthermore, there were some spelling and grammar mistakes that were in her writing. This distracts the reader from the main purpose of the article. It is careless mistake that should be fixed.
All in all, Gigi writes a very informative review that is well-written. It was very interesting to learn how studies on woodpecker's brain can connect to humans. The most interesting thing to me is that this data will be used to create new helmets for humans, making them more safe and protective.
Julia Pabafikos
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
February 13, 2018
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
Gigi Chrappa did a great job on reviewing her article "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing."introduced by ScienceDaily I particularly enjoyed how Gigi took the time to explain how a woodpecker obtains brain damage by stating that too much of the protein can be debilitating and cause emotional, physical, and mental strain. Additionally I enjoyed that Gigi mentions what the study can be used to further other scientific discoveries by stating that the researchers already have ideas to put this research on neurodegenerative diseases. . Lastly, I really enjoyed Gigi’s critique paragraph where she stated key points that could have bettered the original article. When initially reading Gigi’s review I also would have mentioned that she was missing more specific information such as the data collection process, specifics of the research, including when it began, where it was conducted and if the woodpeckers actually did have brain damage or not. However, Gigi mentioned all these faults in her critique paragraph, ultimately strengthening her own review.
However, I believe that Gigi did have two areas in her review in which she could improve upon. Primarily, I would recommend that Gigi add more quotes to her review in order to have her reader really understand the point of view and writing style of the people conducting this research. Additionally, I would encourage Gigi to give even more examples of how this research could further other discoveries in the future in order to emphasize the relevance and importance of this research.
Overall, Gigi did a great job of creating a well written review that illustrates how research and new discoveries are made. I personally chose to read this article simply because I was surprised by the title of how woodpeckers can ultimately develop depression or brain damage due to something that is known to be their nature. Through reading about this research I believe it provided me with a clear understanding of how humans compare to other animals and specifically how woodpeckers can withstand over 10 times as much force to the head as a human can.
Charlie Gay
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr. Ippollito
2/29/18
Current Events 17
"Woodpeckers Show Signs of Possible Brain Damage, but That Might Not Be a Bad Thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 02 Feb. 2018. Web. 28 Feb. 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
I really enjoyed Gigi’s review on the article "Woodpeckers Show Signs of Possible Brain Damage, but That Might Not Be a Bad Thing." One thing that she did very well was that she included quantitative data from the article. For example, she wrote “as woodpeckers can withstand 1,200g to 1,400g of force (whereas a force of 60g could actually give a human a concussion).” This allows the reader to see a comparison between the woodpecker and the human and look at real numbers. I also liked her analysis of how this information can help society. I really liked her point about how this information on woodpeckers could help to create football helmets. Lastly, I really liked how Gigi summarized the article in her own words. She used easy to understand language that made her review easy to read and understand.
One thing that Gigi could have improved on is that she could have included a quote from the article. This would have added to the credibility of the review and allowed us to hear directly from an expert. Another thing that Gigi could have done better is she could have went further into depth about what the study this article was regarding. She did not include a lot of information on the study at all.
Overall I really enjoyed reading this review. I chose this review because I really like animals and was interested to learn about a not so common animal in the woodpecker. I was really fascinated to learn that the woodpeckers head constantly withstands forces that are way more than human heads can withstand. This research should definitley used to create helmets that are safer for humans in contact sports because right now there are too many head injuries.
Timothy Cushman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Ap Biology - Current Events Comment
28 February 2018
Current Events #17
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
Gigi wrote a great review of the Science Daily article “Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing.” One aspect of her review that was done well was her summary. She was able to give the reader information in a clear and easy to follow way. Secondly, Gigi included data from the article which not only gave her review credibility it aided in the reader’s understanding. By stating, “as woodpeckers can withstand 1,200g to 1,400g of force (whereas a force of 60g could actually give a human a concussion)” the reader was better able to understand how much force woodpeckers actually face pecking wood. Finally, Gigi wrote a great section about how this article was relevant to humans. Gigi states, “companies modeling their bike helmets after the bird’s strong skull” and the possibility of creating other sports helmets after the structure of the bird’s skull. Overall, she wrote a great review that was both interesting and informative.
Despite an overall wonderful review, there were two areas that could be improved upon. Firstly, Gigi mentions a study but never goes into detail about what the study was trying to accomplish. This left the reader wondering what was being done and why the study was important. By adding information about the study, she would not only give the reader more information, she would also add credibility to her article by backing it up with information from a specific study. Secondly, Gigi never mentions what else is being done to further study woodpeckers or how the research is important. She says, “this research will help many fields of science in the near future” but never says how it will help. By adding how this study can help further ongoing or future studies, the reader would gain a better idea of how important this initial study and topic are. These two changes would not only make his article more informative, they would give answers to questions that were left unanswered.
I chose to read Gigi’s review because of the title. I was intrigued by the possibility of woodpeckers possibly getting brain damage from pecking wood. Through reading her review, I was better able to understand how connected all animals are. It is amazing how a small bird can impact our research of neurodegenerative diseases and our creation of safety gear.
Isabella Dibbini
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio
March 9, 2018
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
Gigi wrote an excellent review of the article “Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing.” Gigi developed an accurate summary of this article. In addition, she incorporated lots of details and statistical evidence to support her claims. For instance, she states “For example, as woodpeckers can withstand 1,200g to 1,400g of force (whereas a force of 60g could actually give a human a concussion), bike developers will continue to model their helmets after the woodpecker’s skull structure.” Lastly, she included evidence from the article to support her arguments.
Gigi wrote a very good review on this article, however, they are a few things in which should could improve. To start with, I think she could include some quotes from the article to make her argument more compelling. Also, if Gigi wanted to take her review to the next level, she could include outside research, which would also make her review more interesting.
By reading her review on the article “Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing,” I expanded my knowledge on biology. Prior to reading this review, I was unaware of this topic. Overall, Gigi’s review is very good and shows a great understanding of this article.
Paul Magaud
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event #1
Field Museum. "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 2 February 2018.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180202140910.htm
I enjoyed Gigi's review of the ScienceDaily article "Woodpeckers show signs of possible brain damage, but that might not be a bad thing." In the first paragraph of her review, I felt that she did a great job explaining some of the biological logic presented in the article, specifically regarding the tau protein, and how a large amount of it present in woodpeckers could potentially cause brain damage. Gigi also mentioned how the article could be used for humans, not limiting it to woodpeckers -- she discusses how the research could be beneficial for studying and preventing brain damage for people, from activities like football. Lastly, although Gigi said she enjoyed the article thoroughly, she kept the review fair, acknowledging the main flaw: that the reader is left frustrated at not knowing the outcome of the question in the title.
I think one thing that would've made Gigi's review even better is the use of direct quotations from the article. While she made some great points, a reader who hasn't yet read the actual article may not understand which parts to which she is specifically referring. Gigi also could've gone into further detail on the scientific study presented in the article. It would have helped the reader's understanding of the concrete research being performed, and better eased the connection into its human applications.
For me, the title of the article was an instant hook. We all know woodpeckers for their signature action, but I had never even begun to consider how that constant impact could be affecting their brains.