Szilvia Szabó
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
October 8th, 2018
“New DNA Tool Predicts Height, Shows Promise for Serious Illness Assessment.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 4 Oct. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181004143856.htm.
For centuries, humans have been observing and learning about their surroundings. We have come so far and grown so much in fields of science and medicine. Nowadays, it is becoming more and more of a reality to be able to predict whether someone will contract a disease and how to prevent that. Michigan State University has created a DNA tool that can predict “height, bone density and even the level of education a person might achieve, purely based on one's genome”. This tool can predict whether someone has the potential to contract a serious disease, such as cancer and heart disease. Michigan State University has been working on this tool for a while and continues to work on its algorithms to strive for perfection.
Advancements in medicine like these are very significant and important for human society as a whole. If we can predict accurately whether or not someone will get cancer or any other sort of disease, we can save so many lives by seeing this disease early and making sure it does not progress into anything life threatening. Cancer is a disease that affects millions of people and all of the advancements we make in order to prevent this disease can help to save and drastically improve the quality of life for millions.
I liked how the author stayed pretty objective throughout the entire piece, but I feel like the author could have presented more background information on the topic, perhaps about what other sorts of inventions are out there that are similar to the one the author describes. Also, I really liked how the author used language that was really simple and to the point, making it easy for the reader to follow without getting caught up in complicated medical and science terms. However, I think it would have been better if the author threw in some more specifics about this new creation and give some more statistics and facts about it.
Sunday Ladas
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology C-EVEN
9 October 2018
“New DNA Tool Predicts Height, Shows Promise for Serious Illness Assessment.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 4 Oct. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181004143856.htm.
I like how Szilvia began the article with a captive hook, she used the history of her topic to intrigue her reader. I felt that tactic was very effective and got me to want read the article. I also found it interesting how she explained the effect on today’s world and what advances this DNA tool could make in the world if it were to be tested more often and become a lot safer tool. I also liked how she incorporated one of the main diseases that people get affected with every year, cancer. I felt like by incorporating cancer it intrigues the reader a lot more and made the reader have a more sympathetic and more positive attitude toward the article and the tool that is being tested.
In the beginning of the article Szilvia does a nice job intriguing the reader however, she does not explain the product that is being tested enough. I felt that she could have incorporated more detail about the product being tested. Although she did a good job tying the article into current day events and problems, I felt she could have added more to tie in the new DNA disease tool to more current diseases. Even though the talking about cancer appealed to many people's emotions, I felt that on top of cancer, there are other diseases that she could have listed that this new tool could have helped people.
When reading this article I learned new information about a a key DNA tool that could possibly be the cure to or predict lots of genetic and other diseases. I felt that there would be more information about this new DNA tool in the near future and I would want to read more about this DNA tool remembering the benefits that this tool could possibly have bad what good it could do. Also to read the advancement the scientist (who created the tool) would have made since the last article was published.
Raphael Munchenbach
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
“New DNA Tool Predicts Height, Shows Promise for Serious Illness Assessment.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 4 Oct. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181004143856.htm.
Szilvia Szabo’s review of a Science Daily article is able to very concisely summarize the main points of the article, allowing the reader to understand what the article discusses very easily and very quickly. This is important as it is very common in writing for someone to sacrifice brevity in exchange for wordiness and embellishment, but Szabo’s review manages to retain an elegant writing style while also being brief about the article’s topic: genetics, and how they can be used to determine a plethora of future traits in a human being. Szabo also explicitly states the positives and negatives of her article, firmly stating that she praised the author’s objectivity, but lamented that the author did not bring much about the background of this ground-breaking discovery. Being able to identify these aspects quickly and with ease is crucial to helping the reader understand the text, and makes it much easier for the reader to digest her review. Szabo also touches on the importance that her topic has in human society--and on some of the possible applications for it, such as identifying cancer early and taking preventive measures to stop its development from an early stage.
However, what Szabo gains in concision, she loses in detail. Although there is a summary of the article, it is extremely brief and gives the reader little understanding of the various points of the article, instead only focusing on the main idea. This can be easily corrected, simply with a more in-depth summary and a holistic discussion of the article the review could be greatly improved. Szabo’ s article also suffers from a lack of substance, she does not have a central point which is supported by her article, it seems to be a loose collection of statements that aren’t tied by a central claim. This can be fixed by simply, again, discussing the topic of the article as a whole, and allowing the reader to see how each point that she discusses ties down to a larger objective with her writing.
One thing that I learned which I didn’t know before from the article was the extent of how one can predict another’s future conditions based simply on genetics. I thought previously that a large majority of diseases were unidentifiable from that early in life, and I thought that disease sprang mostly from condition and not genetics. However, I was proven wrong and baffled by the sheer power that this technology can potentially hold for our future as humans.
Gaby Laval
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current Events 5
10/13/18
“New DNA Tool Predicts Height, Shows Promise for Serious Illness Assessment.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 4 Oct. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181004143856.htm.
This is a very interesting article about advancements in genetic research. I like the way you reviewed this article for multiple reasons. Firstly, I like how you addressed the progress made in science and medicine in the recent centuries and how this discovery is new and revolutionary. Additionally, I think you gave very good detail on how this tool is so progressive and what we as humans can gain from this technology. For example, the sentence “If we can predict accurately whether or not someone will get cancer or any other sort of disease, we can save so many lives by seeing this disease early and making sure it does not progress into anything life threatening” gives the reader a lot of insight on the benefits of this technology. Finally, I agree with you that the author should have included more background information so that the reader could follow along and understand how this discovery was made.
Though your review was well-written, there are some areas in which improvements could be made. For example, it could be interesting to list previous advancements in this field. You could have discussed CRISPR and how this new technology shares similarities with it. Additionally, you could have covered some of the mistakes made by the author. When you say that the author should have given more background information, you could then research the history of the tool yourself and inform the reader. This way, you could answer a question in which you proposed to the reader. Otherwise, you have very good arguments in your piece.
This new discovery is very groundbreaking. By reading about the possible future of DNA technology, it makes me think about future possibilities in the field of genetic engineering. If we can detect and eliminate genes for cancer, what other diseases can we edit out? Is there a point where it will be unethical or even unsafe to genetically engineer perfect superhumans? Nevertheless, it is almost inarguable that if we have a way to detect and eliminate cancer-causing genes, we should. This article was overall very informative and thought-provoking.
Jordan Hoang
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
10/15/18
“New DNA Tool Predicts Height, Shows Promise for Serious Illness Assessment.” ScienceDaily, ScienceDaily, 4 Oct. 2018, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181004143856.htm.
Szilvia’s review on the article “New DNA Tool Predicts Height, Shows Promise for Serious Illness Assessment” was both informative and captivating. The sentences “for centuries, humans have been observing and learning about their surroundings” and “we have come so far and grown so much in fields of science and medicine” was a great start to her piece and made me intrigued to read more. She also stayed clear and straightforward throughout the entire review. There was no one part that was difficult to understand. Finally, I thought her critique of the article was very helpful to the author as well. Mentioning how the author could have utilized “more specifics” or statistical analysis was a great evaluation of the article itself.
While Szilvia’s piece was well written and had a lot of great elements, there were some things I believe she could have elaborated on. For instance, she mentioned how this DNA tool uses a person’s genome to help them cure their diseases. While I understand that the tool is a work-in-progress, I believe she could have talked more about how it exactly uses an individual’s genome to aid their disease. She also could have went more into depth on what issues the tool has been having and why it is taking so long to be perfected. Additionally, although she gave some great facts to showcase how debilitating cancer is, it made it seem as though curing cancer was the only tool’s job. It overshadowed the fact that it could be lifesaving for many other serious diseases as well.
Like Szilvia stated, predicting diseases are becoming more obtainable and accessible. Considering how many people struggle with chronic diseases, having this tool could do wonders for medicine. It could help people find ways to prevent illness and fight them off as well. It could definitely be used to prolong longevity and improve people’s quality of life. It it a great invention that will pioneer a lot of research moving forward.
ReplyDeleteSzilvia’s review of “New DNA Tool Predicts Height, Shows Promise for Serious Illness Assessment” in Science Daily was an insightful look at a new algorithm that could potentially save lives through its diseases-discovering technology. One aspect of Szilvia’s current event that really stood out to me was the way she analyzed the authors writing style and its effect on the piece. I would agree with Szilvia’s in the sense that the article could have used more specific details to enhance the reader’s understanding. I also enjoyed Szilvia’s use of direct quotes in explanation of the article. Not only was Szilvia explanation of the article informative and concise but including the authors quote really summarize the goals of the article. Lastly I think Szilvia inclusion of cancer as an example of a diseases that this new technology could potentially help discover is very relevant and a great choice. She explains how widespread the effects of cancer are on today's society, which was very effective.
Although Szviliva’s piece very well written and described, I feel that she could have improved her current event by adding to the reasons why the scientific discoveries found in her article are changing the science world today. She did not identify what is unique about these discoveries and how they differ from the technology that was already in use. Also, she could have used a more in depth description of the technology. Although I know how it is used, after reading her review, I am still unclear what exactly the DNA technology is.
The most interesting take away from this article and current event was learning about the diseases that this technology could potentially help discover. Heart disease and cancer are both common diseases in America and the severity of them makes this article even more relevant than ever before. Overall. Sziliva’s current event helped me to better understand the length scientist tofda are going in order to improve the detection process for diseases plaguing the country.