Cassidy Mullen
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
11/3/18
Mcneil, Donald G. “Tiny Nanoparticles to Treat a Huge Problem: Snakebites.” The New York Times, The
New York Times, 12 Oct. 2018,
“An Epi-Pen to treat a snakebite?” New York Times Health columnist Donald G. McNeil writes, capturing the attention of his readers and making them question the possibility of this new idea. In his article Tiny Nanoparticles to Treat a Huge Problem: Snakebites, McNeil discusses the idea that a recent study by Dr. Shea in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases could change the way that snakebites are treated for not only a few unlucky people in America but for people in the tropics of Africa, Asia and Europe where over 2 million people are bitten each year. Antivenins have been used to treat these snake bites in the past but they are expensive and potentially dangerous, therefore they are rarely used in poor countries where snake bites are a prominent issue. Few drug companies make Antivenins because they are expensive, must be kept refrigerated and they are difficult to make. They contain sheep and horse proteins which can also trigger life-threatening symptoms in the body. Victims often die before they can reach hospitals once they are bitten by venomous snakes. Dr. Shea’s lab is creating hydrogel nanoparticles coated with polymers (the building blocks of plastics) small enough to attach to proteins. He isolated some nanoparticles which bind with and neutralize two poisons produced by snakes like cobras, kraits, sea snakes and mambas. These solutions did not seem to interfere with normal proteins or cause dangerous allergic reactions, so the goal is to put these particles into a handheld injector, like an Epi-Pen, which does not have to be refrigerated, is relatively inexpensive, and can be carried into the field. The particles can be injected into the site of the snake bite to stop the poison from spreading and would buy time to reach better treatment.
This discovery is important for society because snakebites are a large but overlooked problem in the community of Global Health. About 10,000 people year die from snake bites while another 400,000 are left with serious disabilities which include amputations or nerve damage so extensive that a leg or hand is permanently useless. Right now there is no accepted explanation of how anecdotes to treat snake bites are working or if they are working, therefore it is important that this problem, which is killing so many, is researched. There are many Global Issues in the world that are prevalent, but the groups that are in need of treatment are often poor, therefore there is limited funding for global projects. Author McNeil acknowledges that there is a lack of funding for this project even though the military and veterinary industry have shown interest.
Donald G. McNeil Jr. does a very good job writing this article. He explains the basis of this advanced contemporary idea and the research that shows mice have been protected against tissue damage from spitting-cobra venom without allergic reactions due to the treatment using nanoparticles. McNeil also explains the technical issues of the project, explaining that the project has no further funding at the moment while also addressing the possible future of the project and the groups that are interesting in funding the project. McNeil does a thorough job of expressing why this project is critical to society and writes this article to raise awareness about the project. The one topic I think that could have been addressed to a further extent is the fact that the Nanoparticles are not a full solution because they only stop the poison from spreading and buy time, but this makes the reader question what the next course of treatment is after the nanoparticles reduce tissue damage but do not eradicate the poison.
There are several well-written aspects to Cassidy Mullen’s review of, “Tiny Nanoparticles to Treat a Huge Problem: Snakebites” by Donald G. McNeil. For example, Mullen’s summary is well ordered and hits all of the major points of the article: first that antivenins are not widely made and used in the poorer areas in which people are most affected by snake bites, secondly that antivenins have many treatment-related flaws and are very expensive, and thirdly that while the nanoparticle treatment used lacks many of these flaws and can buy the person time are not full replacements of traditional antivenins. The reason that summarizing all of the basic ideas of the article in the article’s format matters is that it gives the reader a good idea of what the article is about and how it is written. A second well-written aspect of Mullen’s review is that she gave an insight beyond the article’s stated societal impact: many poor countries are left behind when it comes to important medical treatments because they cannot raise the money to fund experiments for their unique diseases and don’t have enough money to purchase expensive Western treatments for the diseases both parts of the world share. It is important when reviewing an article to give the reader an idea of why an issue that is often not related to his/or life is indicative of a broader point that would make him or her want to read the article. Thirdly, Mullen gave a specific, valid criticism of the article that was backed up by evidence: McNeil only briefly mentions that the nanoparticle treatment is not a full replacement for the flawed antivenins and does not even explain why, while dedicating significantly more time to summarizing every flaw of traditional antivenins. Mullen’s criticism made me realize that the article would have been more interesting if those points received more equal attention in the article.
ReplyDeleteMullen’s review has room for improvement in two areas: her summary is somewhat long and repetitive. Rather than state in multiple sentences the flaws of traditional antivenins, she could state simply that the antivenins, “have many practical flaws, including that they are too expensive for the poorer demographic they are serving, have some life threatening side effects, and must be administered in hospitals when it may already be too late.” While she hooks readers very well with that first sentence, Mullen can only sustain readers’ interests by remaining concise and quickly addressing each point before they get bored of that one issue. A second flaw is that while she offers a quick insight of her own in the second paragraph, Mullen mostly dedicates her societal impact paragraph to a restatement of the article’s explanation of its significance. This matters because readers will lose interest if the second paragraph is simply another summary; at that point, it would be more efficient to read the article. Mullen could improve her paragraph by making the entire paragraph about her one-sentence insight.
One revelation I had while reading this article is that while today’s scientific body of knowledge and technology appears to be very cutting edge and sophisticated, including what is known about vaccination, antibiotics, etc., many areas- especially those that affect people in poorer countries- are almost completely ignored by the scientific communities. I would have thought that because snakes are dangerous pests all over the world that sophisticated treatments would be sought all over the world as well, but maybe this hasn’t happened because funding bodies aren’t convinced that in a world of seven billion people, an issue that affects only 2 million people is important enough to dedicate the time and labor resources necessary to fix it. This will be important for me to remember if I decide to go into research because I may need to become good at marketing as well as researching in order to get the necessary funding.
Mcneil, Donald G. “Tiny Nanoparticles to Treat a Huge Problem: Snakebites.” The New York Times, The
ReplyDeleteNew York Times, 12 Oct. 2018,
www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/health/snakebites-treatments-nanoparticles.html.
In Cassidy's article review, she did a very good job of summarizing the main points of the article. The article clearly focused on a very complex topic, yet I was very easily able to understand her description of how these snake bite-curing epi-pens show huge potential for treating snake bites. Secondly, I was impressed by Cassidy's criticism of the writing. It is clear she was able to analyze his writing style very well. Finally, I feel that overall the review was very well written. Cassidy did an excellent job of hitting all of his points without providing too much extra information. She also organized her writing very well and had minimal technical mistakes.
While Cassidy did a very good job of summarizing, it may have helped her cause to include slightly more background information about the topic. Additionally, it would have been interesting to hear more about Cassidy's personal take on the topic. Does she feel these snake bite treatment are worth much further investigation? Does she think they are going to become a success?
I was very interested by Cassidy's review as it discusses a topic that has so much promise to save lives. Venomous snakes are often so lethal because they kill people before they can receive medical attention. The idea the article describes is brilliant as it will provide cure that is not only successful but portable! If a snake venom antidote can truly be carried in an Epi-Pen, we can only imagine how many lives will be saved.