Aiden Hiller
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
26 October, 2018
Zimmer, Carl. “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2018, Link
Our understanding and perceptions of cancer are constantly changing, it's seemingly impossible to form a general definition of the disease with our current knowledge. For instance, cancer is commonly associated with mutation, but new research shows that this definition is somewhat misleading. Research that set out to identify the principal cancer-causing mutations ended up uncovering a surprising number of mutations in healthy cells. Additionally, many of the mutations that were believed to be a source of cancer were present in normal cells. The discovery, made by Dr. Martincorena and his research team, utilized new gene sequencing techniques to pinpoint mutations in epithelial (the top layer of skin) cells. In 234 samples from four patients, they discovered that a fourth of all the cells contained a mutation on a gene that had been connected to cancer. The researches expected these cells to be somewhat mutated as skin cells are commonly irradiated by ultraviolet rays, but not mutated to this extent. Furthermore, when the experiment was repeated in esophageal cells, there was an unanticipated prevalence of the same mutations; these cells are untouched by ultraviolet rays, and the researchers were able to eliminate other common causes for cancerous mutations like alcohol and cigarette smoke. The mutations cause cancer-like growth, but they were not cancer cells. Yet, it seems that these mutated cells naturally arise through aging, with Dr. Martincorena noting that they "colonize more than half of your esophagus by middle age."
The research raises many more questions that it answers, and it may come to change our definition of cancer altogether. However, first we must ask why these mutations are present in healthy cells. Dr. Martincorena offered one possible explanation: that cells in the body operate like an ecosystem, they compete for resources, and the cells with advantageous mutations outcompete others. If this theory holds true, we will have to examine the potential health cost of heavily mutated cells. It probably varies based on cell type, but in esophageal cells for example, even if they aren't cancerous, they could cause health problems by reproducing at an increased rate. This could mean it's much harder to slow aging than we currently believe. The modern approach to cancer is preventing it from taking hold in the first place, but it might prove to be more difficult to apply the same philosophy to aging. It's certainly the most efficient method for treating any disease, but this research suggests mutations could be inevitable with age. However, this is all just speculation, and the mechanisms that gives rise to specifically cancerous mutations are still unknown.
Overall, the article is well written, I liked Zimmer's incorporation of quotes from other researchers in the field. They served to contextualize the research being done, and helped the reader understand the magnitude of the results. My issue with the article is the conclusion, it's quite weak, and has the same problem as the other Zimmer article I reviewed. In both cases, he concludes with an interesting point that makes a connection and summarizes the content, but then tacks on an unrelated quote. The article would be much stronger if he just deleted the quote and ended with the piece that connected back to the main idea.
Szilvia Szabó
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
October 24th, 2018
Zimmer, Carl. “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2018, Link
I think that Aidan did a really good job at describing this article. He incorporated a lot of relevant facts that really help the reader to understand the topic thoroughly, such as “many of the mutations that were believed to be a source of cancer were present in normal cells.” He also takes the reader through the research that was conducted, step by step, in a way that flows really nicely. He starts with our general understanding of what cancer is, then goes on to explain how this perception is actually not entirely accurate in relation to the findings of the researchers. Lastly, I think that Aidan critiqued the author really well at the end. It is very clear that the author did a good job from reading through Aidan’s reiteration of it, but Aidan also gave Zimmer constructive feedback, not just positive remarks. Additionally, I found the topic of this article to be really fascinating and the title, “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox” is part of what initially drew me in. Medicine is making new advances all the time, but there still are no clear causes of cancer, so it was really interesting to read about what new things they’re finding out about it.
There were little to no aspects that I think Aidan can improve on in his writing. I did notice that there was one typo, “The research raises many more questions that it answers”. However, this was probably just a overlooked mistake that can easily be corrected. One other thing I would change is the last paragraph in which he criticizes the author. I think that this last paragraph is a little disproportionate to the rest of his writing and he could have added a little bit more there. However, other than those two small things, I think that Aidan did a really great job.
I think that this is an incredibly interesting study that really changed the way I think about cancerous cells. Right when we think we are getting a step closer to curing cancer, something comes up to tell us otherwise. I never knew that cells can have cancer-like mutations but still be fine or that these cancer-like mutations are linked to aging. I learned a lot of new, interesting information about cancer after reading this and it only makes me want to learn more. I hope to go into medicine someday, so I think it’s really fascinating learned about the human body, especially cancer, seeing as how we have not been able to find a cure for it.
Zimmer, Carl. “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2018,https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/science/cancer-genetic-mutations.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science%C2%AEion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
ReplyDeleteRaphael Munchenbach
26/10/2018
Aiden Hiller’s review of Carl Zimmer’s article on cancer adequately manages to provide detailed summary of each point of the article, and not only manages to go through every point the article makes on a new, perplexing issue regarding cancer research. This is an important element to perform well in, as it allows the reader to get a full grasp of the article which is being reviewed, and makes it much easier to follow the rest of review when the reader has a sufficient understanding of the subject matter. Hiller is also able to provide clear criticism of the article when needed, and clearly outlines that the conclusion is weak, and should be more explicitly stated for the reader to get a full grasp. Since this is a review of an article, the reader of the review must be able to understand the reader’s opinion on the article, and by clearly outlining criticism, Hiller makes this very easy. Hiller also manages to draw his own conclusions from the article’s information, as seen in his second paragraph, where he is able to provide his own opinions on the issue. By doing this, the reviewer is able to outline the most interesting points of the article, giving the reader a clearer view of both the article’s merits and the reviewer’s opinion.
However, even though the reviewer is able to go into great detail in this piece, he must work on being more concise when writing. The text can sometimes get very wordy, especially when describing certain details of the article which are not necessary for the reader’s understanding of the article’s main point, making it more difficult for the reader to follow. This is an easy fix, however, Hiller just needs to filter out unnecessary words and details to be more efficient with space when writing. The review’s final paragraph also needs work, as the reasons as to why the reviewer liked the article were somewhat abstract, and difficult to understand from the reader’s point of view. By elaborating more on his opinion on the article, Hiller can greatly improve his review.
Previously, I was under the notion that although we are still researching cancer, we know almost everything there is to know about it, and that our current information is accurate and reliable. However, now I can see that there are exceptions, and that I cannot be certain of any information in science, no matter how certain it may seem.
Anna Normand
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Mr. Ippolito
26 October 2018
I thought Aiden’s analysis of the article “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox” was very thorough and easy to follow. First, he articulated the subject of the article very clearly and made it easy for the reader to follow the information given. He also gave the reader a lot of information for the article but presented it in a very clear and concise way which allows for easy comprehension. Finally, his writing style was well-written and was a very articulate review of the article he read.
One thing I thought Aiden could have done better was his introduction of the article. He opened his review immediately talking about cancer, but without any introduction or background on the article or its authors. I thought that if he had given a short synopsis of the subject of the article and a little bit of information on the researchers, the article might appear more valid and would be easier to follow for the reader. I also thought that he could include more information on how the findings will change modern cancer care and how it could affect everyday medical care.
Overall I was very interested in this article. I did not know that cancer mutations are found in regular cells, and it makes for a big difference in suggested cancer treatments. Personally, I want to learn more about this subject and how it will affect modern cancer research and care.
Aiden Hiller’s review of Carl Zimmer’s article on cancer adequately manages to provide detailed summary of each point of the article, and not only manages to go through every point the article makes on a new, perplexing issue regarding cancer research. This is an important element to perform well in, as it allows the reader to get a full grasp of the article which is being reviewed, and makes it much easier to follow the rest of review when the reader has a sufficient understanding of the subject matter. Hiller is also able to provide clear criticism of the article when needed, and clearly outlines that the conclusion is weak, and should be more explicitly stated for the reader to get a full grasp. Since this is a review of an article, the reader of the review must be able to understand the reader’s opinion on the article, and by clearly outlining criticism, Hiller makes this very easy. Hiller also manages to draw his own conclusions from the article’s information, as seen in his second paragraph, where he is able to provide his own opinions on the issue. By doing this, the reviewer is able to outline the most interesting points of the article, giving the reader a clearer view of both the article’s merits and the reviewer’s opinion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, even though the reviewer is able to go into great detail in this piece, he must work on being more concise when writing. The text can sometimes get very wordy, especially when describing certain details of the article which are not necessary for the reader’s understanding of the article’s main point, making it more difficult for the reader to follow. This is an easy fix, however, Hiller just needs to filter out unnecessary words and details to be more efficient with space when writing. The review’s final paragraph also needs work, as the reasons as to why the reviewer liked the article were somewhat abstract, and difficult to understand from the reader’s point of view. By elaborating more on his opinion on the article, Hiller can greatly improve his review.
Previously, I was under the notion that although we are still researching cancer, we know almost everything there is to know about it, and that our current information is accurate and reliable. However, now I can see that there are exceptions, and that I cannot be certain of any information in science, no matter how certain it may seem.
Michael Grieco
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event 7 - Comment
November 2, 2018
Zimmer, Carl. “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox.” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 18 Oct. 2018, Link
https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2018/10/researchers-explore-cancer-paradox.html
Aiden wrote a comprehensive review of the article that gives a very detailed summary. Because of this, I can understand the topic in more general terms before diving into the details of the study. He incorporated many facts from the article, such as, “Research that set out to identify the principal cancer-causing mutations ended up uncovering a surprising number of mutations in healthy cells. Additionally, many of the mutations that were believed to be a source of cancer were present in normal cells.” This allows his audience to understand the topic thoroughly. Additionally, the structure of the review also helps in reader comprehension. He starts general and then puts in specific facts to back up his statements. Additionally, Aiden’s second paragraph that describes the possibilities of this research emphasize its importance in our everyday lives. Because he highlighted the several prominent aspects of this study, I became much more interested in it.
One thing Aiden could have improved on was the specific mention of the article. Despite summarizing the article in a clear way, Aiden does not directly reference the article until the last paragraph. I believe that he could have introduced the article somewhere at the beginning of the first paragraph to make the connection for the reader. Additionally, I think that if Aiden expanded on the ideas in the article and included his opinion concerning the topic in the second paragraph, it would spark my interest further. He talks about the uncertainty surrounding the causes, but if he interjected with several possibilities according to him, it would be more interesting.
Overall, this article and the review sparked my interest in this study. I find it very surprising that because we have a somewhat inaccurate definition of cancer, its revision will have a big impact on current students and the content taught to them.
Grace Sperber
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Events #7-Comment
Zimmer, Carl. “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2018 www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/science/cancer-genetic-mutations.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science%C2%AEion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
For this week’s current events, I read Aiden Hiller’s review of Carl Zimmer’s “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox” from the New York Times. The first element of Aiden’s review that was exceptional was his masterfully crafted language and syntax. I thought that the review was so well written in a clear and concise way that showcased the scientific information presented. Secondly, I enjoyed the way Aiden enumerated the pieces of evidence he was drawing from the article and was able to explain their significance clearly. He even went as far to incorporate useful quotes that conveyed information in a more efficient way than paraphrasing. Lastly, I thought that connections that Aiden made between the possibly cancerous mutations occurring in epithelial cells and the aging process was extremely insightful. He strengthened his convictions by providing ample scientific evidence about the specific genes involved but incorporated nuance by acknowledging the uncertainty surrounding the findings.
Hiller’s piece has very little to improve upon as he addressed all the relevant points in the article and incorporated his own implications and critiques. However, I think it would have been beneficial if he had focused more on the societal impacts of the discoveries involving cancer cells in his relevance paragraph instead of just focusing on its connection to the aging process. Cancer is a disease the directly and indirectly affects virtually all Americans. As such, cancer research is one of the most funded and talked about topics of medical research. Considering this, I think there was a lot of possible societally driven directions Aiden could have taken in exploring the relevance of this topic which were not touched upon.
From reading both the original article and Aiden’s review, I was struck by how little we actually know about one of the most lethal diseases on the planet. Most cancer research and scholarship is based on the premise of cell mutations, but this recent discovery suggests that cancer’s manifestation is much more complicated than the presence of specific mutated genes. I think that this field of study will require more in depth research on the micro rather than macro scale.
ReplyDeleteAiden creates a very comprehensive introduction that does not overstate the implications of his article, while telling the reader the essential questions that were created with the newly found results from the study. Also his second paragraph builds well on the tentative results of his article’s findings, because it offers potential explanations to the issues in an unbiased manner that seeks to inform but never overstates. It is extremely valuable that he mentions that the results bring more questions than solutions because it not only creates interest for the reader to follow up on the topic at hand but also never leaves the reader completely wondering what exactly was the purpose of the study as he quickly follows up with its implications. Having also previously reviewed another one of Aiden’s reviews before, I found it very interesting that he also made a call back to his first review’s criticism of the author, showing a consistency in prose that follows this writer throughout his work.
Despite the interesting continuity between his reviews, his criticism of Zimmer seemed a little too broad and general on this occasion and did not seem to offer much in terms of what exactly he wanted Zimmer to add in his conclusion. He also could have included his own perspectives in his second paragraph, which would have helped sparked great interest and added his own voice to the discussion. Doing so would greatly boost his own credibility by demonstrating a greater analytical understanding of his article.
In the end the biggest surprise for me was how expansive cancer is as a malady. Usually when the media covers the issues regarding cancer it uses this general term to encompass this multifaceted concept, while in fact it is more nuanced, as Aiden shows, than even a simple mutation of the cell. Science sometimes is always thought to be definite but at the edge of discovery, things are never definite.
Christopher Hutchins
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
11/1/18
Zimmer, Carl. “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 18 Oct. 2018 www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/science/cancer-genetic-mutations.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science%C2%AEion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=9&pgtype=sectionfront.
I thought Aiden’s analysis of the article “Researchers Explore a Cancer Paradox” was very thorough and easy to follow. He gave the reader a lot of information for the article but presented it in a very clear and concise way which allows for a clear understanding. Aiden is also able to provide clear criticism of the article when needed, and clearly outlines that the conclusion is weak, and should be more explicitly stated for the reader to get a full grasp. He incorporated useful quotes such as “Research that set out to identify the principal cancer-causing mutations ended up uncovering a surprising number of mutations in healthy cells.” Sentences like this gave a very good idea of what was going in the research process.
Aiden did a very nice job with his summary, but he could have addressed the impact of these discoveries on the public of society. His piece focused on the science aspect of the cancer cells, not the social reaction. Cancer is a disease the is constantly spoken of and affects almost all Americans. Cancer research is one of the most funded medical topic. With this in mind, there was a lot of room for Aiden to expand his argument.
In the end the biggest surprise for me was how expansive cancer is as a malady. Most portrayals of cancer are that it is one title covering the entire subject. Although this may be true, cancer is vast and covers all types of mutations. The common ideas about cancer is that it victimizes people and that it is bad. Using science, it is possible to look into cancer and understand the world in another way.