Anabel Maldonado
Ippolito C Even
Current Event #3
September 23rd, 2018
“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/.
Diabetes is an illness that about 9.6% of our country faces. It is possible that these millions of people’s lives can change with upcoming research. Several decades ago, two scientists: Yalow and Berson, discovered techniques to measure the insulin levels in people's blood which ultimately told them that “type 1 diabetes is characterized by insulin deficiency while type 2 diabetes results from insulin resistance.”(Scientific American states). After 60 years have passed, two unique and technologically advanced experiments have come out. Two researchers: Levy and Stewarts have created two possible cures that will impact the lives who suffer from diabetes. Levy created an artificial pancreas to fix diabetic problems. He explains that his creation would pair with sensors in our body which would send instructions to the insulin pump - which has the ability to alter our blood sugar levels. These instructions would be able to instruct the insulin pumps to release more or less insulin which ultimately results in the blood sugars increasing or decreasing. On the other hand, Stewart is experimenting with new drugs which are trying to create new beta insulin-producing cells for the pancreas of diabetic patients (because the cells in diabetic pancreas’ are not present). Stewart was able to make adjustments to his pills by researching inactive pancreatic cells in tumors as a “roadmap” to uncover the needs to make new beta cells which make insulin and grow.
Both of these research experiments are very relevant to our everyday lives. Diabetes is a problem for about 420 million people in our world. These 420 million people's lives are altered towards their disease, as some face death, constantly change their diets or take many shots in one day. The purpose of these new experiments is to reduce these burdens that are faced by the 420 million people face. In fact, many individuals are already intrigued by these upcoming inventions. The artificial pancreas trials have been taking place for the past year. While, Stewarts’ experiment is testing their new pills, which may be able to be used in the next 5-10 years.
One thing I think the author could have approved upon was introducing the different scientists: Levy and Stewarts because I did not know who they were until I researched them in depth. I, also, did not like how the author transitioned from the two different experiments. I was very confused at first because I originally thought that this article was speaking about one experiment, yet I later realized it spoke about two. However, I really admired the way the author explained how the artificial pancreas works within, and why these pills are needed only for diabetic people. Also, the authors’ title drew my attention because it was unique and made me question how “Growing a New Pancreas” can treat diabetes. One thing I think the author could improve upon is talking more about the future plans of these medications and how they are impacting our society in a new way. Overall, though, I really enjoyed this article because it is a possible solution for something that our world struggles severely with.
“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/.
ReplyDeleteAnabel’s analysis of “Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas” was extremely informative and well-written. One of the aspects of Anabel’s current event that really stood out to me was the way in which she connected the research of the article to the real people who are suffering from the diseases plaguing America today . She used statistical evidence to draw out the severity of diabetes and the lives that could be improved based off this new research. Anabel also did an excellent job of defining diabetes and provide background that helped make the research and experiments easier to conceptualize. By leading off her opening paragraph with such context, she created a strong setup for the rest of her article. Finally, I think Anabel did a great job of differentiating between the two different scientist that were mentioned in the article. Anabel stated that this was confusing in the original article but she was able to make this very clear in her current event.
While Anabel’s analysis was both clear and enjoyable to read, there are two areas in which I believe she could improve. For one, Anabel could have gone into a little more depth when comparing the two different scientist’s experiments. In her article, there is not any correlation between the two experiments. Another aspect of Anabel writing that could have been altered to improve her current event is her was to reread her work and fix some sentencing issues, especially in the second paragraph. There were a few grammatical mistakes that made the her work harder to read.
One thing that I found really intriguing about the article that Anabel choose was that in five to ten years, the research in this article could help alleviate the pain and suffering that about 420 million people on this planet are currently suffering from. It was incredible for me to think about how far medical science has come recently and how quickly this research could change the lives of millions. It is exciting to think that in our lifetime such universally impactful medical discoveries are being made.
ReplyDeleteLayla Brinster
AP Biology
Mr. Ippolito
Current Event #3
“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/.
Anabel’s review of “Treating Diabetes May be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas” published by Scientific American, was very informative and summarized in a manner that made the information easy to comprehend. After reading Anabel’s review, I was able to get a clearer picture of the information presented in the article. Anabel picked the most important parts of the article and chose to include them in her summary, which I thought was a key factor in the readability of her review. She mentioned the two current treatments as well as Yalow and Berson’s, which demonstrates how science is continuously advancing. In addition to a well crafted summary, Anabel also placed an important emphasis on the 420 million people who are affected by diabetes. Her repetition of “420 million” made the reader aware of the immense number of people battling diabetes. I thought that repeating 420 million people 3 times was important in making sure the reader understood the severity of the situation, and why a new advanced cure is so necessary. Lastly, Anabel did a great job in pointing out ways to improve upon the article. I too, agree that the article would have been better if the author had included ways that the treatment might affect people- possible drawbacks, how long does it take for it to work, etc. Since the article was published in 2018, and the first testings of the artificial pancreas were in 2017, has any new information been released? I thought it was important that Anabel touched on that idea because it is vital to see the results of the clinical trials.
Although Anabel’s review was excellent, I think that to improve upon it, she could have included more quotes by Levy and Stewart. Instead of paraphrasing Levy’s or Stewarts experiment, she could have included the direct quotation, which would have made the information more accurate. Also, including statistics or quotes makes the writing more convincing because typically, people will believe in numbers and scientists. In addition, Anabel began her review by stating that 9.6% of people in our country have diabetes, however, that statistic was not mentioned in the article. Conducting outside research is wonderful, however, I do not know how accurate that 9.6% is, or where the number came from as it was not cited. Anabel could have either chosen to cite the number or say that 30 million people in the United States have diabetes.
After reading the article, I was in awe at how much science has advanced over the past 60 years. 60 years ago, Yalow and Berson had just developed radioimmunoassay, and now, Levy and Stewart are developing an artificial pancreas and expanding beta cells. It is amazing to see how science continues to advance and help our world today. Furthermore, I chose this article because the title was extremely catching. I know a lot of people who are battling diabetes, so immediately I wanted to find out about potential cures. Because I read this article, I am now motivated to find out if the experiments were successful or not and learn about the results.
Emily Perry
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
September 27, 2018
“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/.
Annabel did a great job at summarizing the article and the background that is needed to understand the discovery. For example, she introduced the researchers Yalow and Berson and mentioned their previous discovery about the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, which offered good background before explaining the discovery. I also liked Annabel’s explanation of the significance of the findings and how she includes statistics that show how many people will be affected. Annabel also did outside research, as she mentioned in the third paragraph, which is great for understanding the context of the article. This could allow her to improve her own understanding and also more clearly communicate the main points of the article
One thing that Annabel could have done better is to make sure that there are no grammar mistakes in her writing. There are some typos in the second paragraph, which she could avoid by proof-reading her current event review. Additionally, she could improve her critique by restructuring the third paragraph to separate negative feedback from positive feedback. The second-to-last sentence feels a bit out of place; the paragraph might read better if this sentence is placed above the positive critique.
I was in awe that scientists continue to find better ways to treat common illnesses such as diabetes. The new discovery could impact so many people who are suffering from diabetes. This article will cause me to think more about the possibilities for scientific advancement, not just in areas that are relatively unexplored, but also in more common and well-known areas.
Clara DeMagalhaes Current Event #3
ReplyDelete“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/.
I think Anabel’s article review was very clear and straightforward. The way she wrote the summary of the article flows well from each point and it was easy to understand. She explained the article chronologically and made sure to prioritize key information, but did so in a way that made everything simple and easy to read. Another thing that I think she did good on was on how she said the article could be improved. Both suggestions she made were ones I thought applied very well to this article, especially about the one where the article didn’t clearly show that there were two experiments going on. It was only until I read Anabel’s review did I fully realize that there were actually two experiments that happened and not just one. Finally, I liked how she incorporated lots of statistics in order to back up her points and to illustrate the severity of this new discovery and the dangers of diabetes. This makes her review much more credible and overall creates a bigger impact on the reader, because saying 9.6% of our country deals with diabetes is more meaningful than just saying “a lot of people deal with diabetes”.
One area of improvement could be for Anabel to provide a little bit of background information on who the scientists mentioned in the article were, such as Yalow and Berson. For example, as well as saying that these two discovered a technique to measure insulin, perhaps she could have said what this technique was called and further expand on the impact of this discovery. Another thing I noticed while reading the review was that there were several grammar, spelling, and spacing errors. To fix this, I suggest that there could be more proofreading in the future and maybe to have another person or a computer program check things over if you’re unsure about these things.
I think that both the review and the article provided a lot more insight about the future of this disease that has made the lives of a lot of people harder. I also loved reading about how the pancreas worked in both Anabel’s review and in the original article. It’s fascinating to read about how in the modern day, people are now inventing an artificial organ that could possibly cure a condition that has been seen as permanent for a long time. This discovery makes me wonder how much longer it will take for other life changing diseases to be cured for good, such as cancer. It’ll definitely make me keep a closer eye on news related to this subject too.
Jordan Hoang
ReplyDeleteAP Biology C Even
Current Event #3 Comment
30 September 2018
“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/
Anabel’s review regarding “Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” was very informative on the outstanding effects this disease has to humans. Specifically, I liked how Anabel utilized a statistic to start off her review. It provided a strong hook and was successful in showing the debilitating effects of diabetes to much of the population. Additionally, I thought she provided a detailed and well-written description of the scientists who discovered new treatments for this illness. By highlighting a few accomplishments of each, Anabel was able to summarize the article into a more concise and understandable description. But overall, what I enjoyed most about Anabel’s review was her use of strong and captivating language to convey her points. By integrating rhetoric along with scientific evidence, Anabel made her opinions very persuasive and have a lasting impression on readers.
While I thought Anabel had many strengths throughout the beginning of her review, her last two paragraphs were a bit difficult to understand. Specifically, she had a few grammatical errors in her 2nd and 3rd paragraphs that made her writing hard to comprehend. I believe just proofreading and fixing a few grammatical mistakes would have made her review even stronger. Furthermore, although she mentioned a lot about the effects of diabetes in Levy and Stewart’s descriptions, I believe it would have been more effective to include this in the beginning of her review. This would have provided a more explicit description for readers into how diabetes specifically effects and harms the body.
Hearing how quickly Levy and Stewart are advancing their research is astonishing. The fact that artificial pancreases are already being tested and could be available in the very near future is amazing to me. Personally, I know many individuals that face the consequences of this disease on a daily basis. Having a treatment for those who deal with this illness would be a great scientific accomplishment. Overall, learning that this could help over “420 million people in our world” proves to me how significant and great Levy and Stewart’s research could be to the future of medicine.
“Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas.” Scientific American, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, A DIVISION OF SPRINGER NATURE AMERICA, INC., 12 Sept. 2018, www.scientificamerican.com/custom-media/mount-sinai/treating-diabetes/.
ReplyDeleteAnabel's review of the article "Treating Diabetes May Be as Simple as Growing a New Pancreas" did a great job of summarizing the information. She presented the main points of the article in a way that gives critical details but is still clear and straightforward. I liked how she included some of the article's most important statistics in her review. For instance, she included the number and the percent of people affected by diabetes, which helps convey how significant the topic is. Finally, Anabel did a great job of critiquing the article. She describes in detail what she liked that the author did and how, exactly, it could have been improved.
One aspect of this review that could have been significantly is the presence of many sentences that don't quite make sense. For instance, it would be best to reword the phrase, "people's lives are altered towards their disease". I think many of these mistakes would have been fixed simply by rereading the review once more to make edits. Secondly, she mentioned that she researched the scientists named "in depth". I think slightly more information on these scientists and their work could have been useful to a reader.
I find the titles reference to growing a Pancreas being simple very ironic, yet very representative of the scientific world today. Discoveries are being made at a faster pace than ever before and, before we know it, something as incredible as literally regrowing our body's organs will really be very simple. I never cease to be amazed by the sheer magnitude of medical discoveries being made and the amount of lives they have the potential to improve.