Sunday Ladas
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology C-EVEN
26 October 2018
Citation:
Klein, JoAnna. “The Genes That Make Parrots Into the Humans of
the Bird World.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7
Dec. 2018,
tml.
The Genes That Make Parrots Into the Humans of the Bird World
By: JoAnna Klein
Have you ever wondered how it is possible for a parrot to talk? What part of the brain aligns with the human brain for the parrots to have the ability to repeat the words that humans say? A team of scientists took a trip to Brazil to study what aspects of a Blue-fronted Amazon parrot aligns with humans. After lots of research, the scientists came to the conclusion that the blue-fronted Amazon parrot are like the humans of the avian world. They came to this conclusion from comparing the blue-fronted Amazon parrots genome to other parrots in the same family and their basic knowledge of evolution. There research has also indicated that the birds can live an average of 66 years old. This is a revolutionary finding because it leads to the new question how are parrots able to live this long. To put more context to this question, science has proved that smaller birds are more likely to live five to eight years and larger birds can live a few decades. Scientists have found that in some cases parrots outlive their human companions! Another finding scientists found was that the changes in the parrot genome is surprisingly similar to the human genome. The genes are similar in different parts of the of the genome. They are similar along regions of the genome that regulate the expression of nearby genes that seem to play a role in brain development and intelligence.
Interestingly enough, the new findings about the blue-fronted Amazon parrot is relevant to understand the parrots and humans relation. These new findings provoke other scientists to research the brains of the parrots. Dr. Mello, one of the scientists that went to Brazil to study the blue-fronted Amazon parrot stated that “they’re really, really smart animals, and the brains are particularly big.” Scientists are now researching how the parrots are the parallel to humans of the avian world. This discovery could make advances in science in the evolution and avian area of science.
I thought that this article was constructed in a exceptional manor, I feel that the author made very good points and the authors tone showed her attitude towards the topic. It was evident that the author was interested and really liked the topic he was writing about. However, I felt that JoAnna Klein (the author) could have done a better job emphasizing why this is such a revolutionary idea I felt that she just continued to state amazing the discovery was and there was nothing to refute it the the facts about how amazing this discovery was rather than providing an argument for how it furthered science. Lastly, I thought that she could have included less information about how the new pieces of evidence that has been discovered rather than touching on multiple pieces with no explanation. Overall, I felt this piece was very well written, however, I thought the author could have emphasized the new findings relativity.
Sunday Ladas’s review of JoAnna Klein’s, “The Genes That Make Parrots Into the Humans of the Bird World” has many well-written aspects to it. Firstly, Ladas grabs the attention of the reader by posing a question many people would likely have, prompting him or her to read more of the article to see to what extent the question is answered: Many people would like to understand why parrots are the only birds that can repeat human words and how they are significantly more advanced birds than their relatives in the same way humans are uniquely advanced relatives of primates. Additionally, she stated a valid critique of the article, which was that the author did not describe why it is important to understand the evolution of parrots (“JoAnna Klein could have done a better job emphasizing why this is such a revolutionary idea”) and the relationship between human and parrot genomes. For example, is this research part of a larger attempt to find common genes in animals that can promote intelligence and longevity in order to cure diseases or genetically engineer superior human beings? Lastly, Ladas’s summary paragraph is concise by including only important findings and leaving out the author’s own speculation, such as when Klein stated, “Perhaps there is only one path that leads complex brain structures and advanced cognitive abilities like those of parrots and humans. Or it could be that there is more than one evolutionary route capable of producing such complex creatures in different parts of the animal kingdom.” While it is important to note the parts of the article that are verifiable statements, such as the findings of the source research, speculation on societal or scientific impact can be made by the reviewer in the second paragraph.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is room for improvement in Ladas’s review: for example, in the summary paragraph Ladas forgets to mention an important finding in the article, which is that the blue-fronted Amazon parrot and other long lived birds share 344 changes in genes that are correlated with processes that influence life span, including repairing DNA, controlling cancer, and managing cell growth. Since the article was more about the recent research of Dr. Mello, whereas the fact that the blue-fronted Amazon can live up to 66 years was stated as if it was already known beforehand, when deciding which information to include in a more concise summary, it would make more sense to include the former finding rather than the latter fact. Therefore, Ladas could improve her article by editing the summary so that it includes the major findings of Mello’s research while taking out a commonly known fact. Secondly, Ladas’s second paragraph should attempt to do what she criticized the author for not doing: she should describe the importance of the findings. This is an important error to correct because restating the article- which is already lacking in the explanation of the importance of researching this topic- does not convey to the reader why he or she should want to read the article, investing his or her time in learning something in which he or she does not understand the relevance. This error could be fixed by explaining exactly how, the discovery advances science at large (Can it help genetic engineering or curing diseases in humans to know commonly shared genes in superior animals?).
One revelation I had while reading this article was that superior intelligence can come just as much from the regulation of expressing specific genes related to the brain by other parts of the genome as the genes themselves being different. This is important for me because it enhances my knowledge on two topics I am interested in: molecular medicine and neuroscience. Until now, I thought that gene expression regulation merely changes when and how much existing genes are expressed and not other characteristics of the phenotype; however, I will now have to do more research into how gene regulation affects different phenotypes such as brain sophistication.