Michael Grieco
AP Biology
Current Event 8 - Review
January 9th, 2019
Temming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
This article by Maria Temming summarizes a recent study that genetically modified plants to
perform photosynthesis more efficiently. She first introduced one of the barriers to higher production
― photorespiration ― which is a very inefficient path that wastes energy in the plant. She explains
why photorespiration occurs and how much it can reduce crop yields. Temming stated that
photorespiration can reduce crop yields by 20 to 50 percent just through wasting energy. Next, she
briefly explained the new methods and then compared the results. She said that tobacco with the
modified gene produced 41% more than non modified tobacco. Finally, she explains that this is only
the beginning of a very complicated study, showing that we must test the modification on different
plants and that approval for commercial use will also take some while.
This article allowed me to recognize how our knowledge of cells and how to modify genes can
help us survive. Having just learned about photosynthesis, we can see the importance of this because
we know how photorespiration damages the photosynthetic efficiency of plants. Potentially, this will
help feed a growing population, which could increase the living quality of many people.
Temming constructed this article using a logical structure ― first introducing the topic and then
explaining the study. However, I do believe that some sections, such as those about photorespiration
could be too complex for an ordinary person to understand. Additionally, she should have included
further details regarding the procedure of the study, allowing us to understand the study in a more
comprehensive manner.
Grace Sperber
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology - Current Event #13
1/9/2019
Temming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-way-genetically-tweak-photosynthesis-boosts-
plant-growth.
For this week’s current events, I read Michael Grieco’s review of “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth” by Maria Temming which explores the effect of a gene modification on a strain of tobacco plant which has been reported to decrease the frequency of photorespiration. Firstly, enjoyed the way Grieco chose a current scientific development that was related to what were have recently learned in class. It was interesting to see curriculum material concepts like photosynthesis and the ineffectiveness of photorespiration applied to gene altering technology. Secondly, I found Grieco’s selection of key statistics from the article including the quantitative effect of photorespiration on plant growth and the percentage of improvement gained from the gene modification to be really helpful in understanding the impetus and impact for the study. Lastly, I was impressed with the way Grieco connected this development to the larger world by pointing out the humanitarian capacity of such a gene development.
Although this review was exceptional, I felt as though Grieco could have done a better job explaining the specific techniques used during gene modification and the precise ways that this mutation decreases photorespiration. I think that a more technical explanation, using the concepts we have recently learned in class, would have brought his review to another level. Additionally, I wish that Grieco would have elucidated on how reading the article impacted him personally and changed his understanding of biology.
Reading the article and Michel’s review helped me to understand the capacity of biological technology to alter the availability of organic resources in our environment. I thought it was really cool that changing something as small as a genetic code had such a profound impact on something that affects us so drastically like food supply, especially if it was applied to a large scale.
Jordan Hoang
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
1/9/19
Temming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
.
Michael’s review of the article “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth” gave an brief overview as to how a study is focusing on increasing the efficiency of photorespiration in plants. One part of Michael’s work that I thought was done well was his ability to summarize much of the review into a very concise and understandable manner. In addition, I thought his opinion on the purpose of this study was very thoughtful. Pointing out that improving photorespiration can “help feed a growing population and “increase the living quality of many people” showed his strong awareness on the main motivation of the study. Finally, I thought he gave a great analysis as to how the author could have improved the article herself. Michael mentioning that it “should have included further details regarding the procedure of the study” was definitely important to point out and was a very insightful critique on his part.
One aspect of Michael’s review that I believe could be improved is the amount of detail he gave in his first paragraph. Although we learned much about photorespiration in class, it would have been more beneficial for him to give some background as to why photorespiration is such a “inefficient path that wastes energy in the plant”. This would have made it more clear as to what the study was specifically focusing on to make photosynthesis run more efficiently. In addition, some of his statistics were sort of unclear. Although implied, I believe he could have been more specific as to what the numbers referred to so that that the statistic would be more comprehensible. For instance, he said that “tobacco with the modified gene produced 41% more than non modified tobacco”. The words “41% more” was a bit confusing until I read earlier and inferred that it corresponded to crop yields. Just adding a few more clarifying terms would have strengthened his review overall.
Since we had just learned about photosynthesis and the inefficient quality of photorespiration, it is quite surprising for me to see such recent studies and experiments in the science field being done to modify it. It gives insight as to how much of our own biology studies still applies in such intricate and comprehensive studies. In addition, to hear that these improvements could drastically improve the amount of food that is available to us intrigues me as to how much these advancements could improve world hunger and other related issues.
Charlotte Cagliostro
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology / Current Event #12
1/10/19
Temming, Maria. “A New Way to Genetically Tweak Photosynthesis Boosts Plant Growth.” Science News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
.
Michael Grieco wrote an interesting review of Maria Temming’s Science News article: “A New Way to Genetically Tweak Photosynthesis Boosts Plant Growth.” There were three parts of his review that I enjoyed specifically. First, I liked Michael’s sophisticated language and use of vocabulary. He was able to educate the reader in a simple yet impactful manner. Second, I liked how Michael included projections and statistics in his review. He was able to inform the reader and stress the importance of his topic. Lastly, I enjoyed reading his opening paragraph, in which he summarized Temming’s original piece. He was able to provide a comprehensive and engaging synopsis that served to spark the reader’s interest and inform them.
Although I really liked Michael's work, I think he could improve it in two ways. First, I think he could add more information to his second paragraph. His discussion of the topic’s effects and influences on today’s world seemed quite brief. I feel like he could have gone deeper from that surface-level analysis. Second, I think Michael could have gone farther in his critique of Temming’s article. I just felt like there was more for him to analyze in his final paragraph. If Michael developed his final paragraphs a bit more and added a few sentences, his review would be far stronger.
One thing I learned from reading Michael’s review is how helpful, or rather useful, genetically modified crops are. I was shocked to read that genetically modified tobacco crops produce over 40% more crops than organic ones. It definitely seems like the use of genetically modified crops will become widespread in future decades.
Caitlin Mooney
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current Event 13
1/9/19
Temming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
.
For this week’s current event comment, I read my classmate Michael’s review on the article, “'A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” by Maria Temming. This article described a recent study that genetically modified plants to
perform photosynthesis more efficiently. I think that Michael did a great job with his review, one thing that he did especially well on was his use of statistics. I think that this gave credibility to his review. Another thing I thought Michael did well was that he pointed out the parts of the articles he liked and how he was able to constructively criticize the article. I think that Michael also did a good job structuring his article because he always kept the reader's attention and was able to keep his points relevant.
Although I think Michael did a good job overall, I feel like there is room for improvement in his review. One thing I think Michael could have done better is that he could have included quotes from the article to increase the credibility of his review. Another thing I think he could have done better is that his review was short, even though readers were easily able to find the point, I think he could have reviewed the topic in more depth.
Overall, I think that Michael did a really good job with his review, and I learned a lot after reading it. I thought it was very interesting to read this article especially after learning about similar topics in class. I am also interested to hear more about how biological advancements can affect our lives.
James Apostolatos 1/8/19
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 13 AP Biology
Citation: Temming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
.
This week I read Michael Grieco's review about a new study relating to photosynthesis. Michael did a good job describing his article by giving an easy to understand summary of the recent study that studied genetically modified plants that perform photosynthesis more efficiently. Michael chose a great topic to research in his review because it relates to the study in class and background of photosynthesis. Michael explained the study and more importantly the background information about photorespiration. I liked how Micheal used data and evidence to support the study. Thirdly, I liked how Michael connected it to the world and described the importance. He described how photorespiration can reduce crop yields, and there are alternate methods to increase crop growth by tweaking photosynthesis.
Although this article contained a lot of background information, it lacked a detailed explanation about the actual experiments and an in depth explanation about what phosphorylation and its role. Michael discussed information regarding the new crop yield findings and how this new method is positive. I would have liked to learn more about how this method works and if the crop yield experiment has been used on real farms. Michael can fix this by researching its success outside the labs. A second area of improvement is to support his claims with more evidence. Michael stated how tobacco with the modified gene produced 41% more than non modified tobacco. I would have liked to see more evidence that this is and the other examples are true.
I learned valuable information about the process and the importance of new cultivation techniques connected to photosynthesis. Also, the inefficient path that wastes energy in the plant. He explains why photorespiration occurs and how much it can reduce crop yields. Michael stated that photorespiration can reduce crop yields by 20 to 50 percent just through wasting energy.This is important for the world because it has to do with crop production.
Clara DeMagalhaes Current Event #12
ReplyDeleteTemming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
.
Michael’s current event review about more efficient ways for plants to photosynthesize talked about an intriguing topic and was an engaging read. The most notable positive is how the summary of the article is done in a neat, concise manner. Only the crucial bits of information are present and there isn’t a single sentence that isn’t needed, making it easy to understand. I also think that the inclusion of specific statistics from the article further establishes the credibility of both the original article and the review, and overall enhances the summary. Lastly, I thought that the critique was very fair and insightful. I especially liked how he said that some sections of the article would be a bit difficult for a person not well versed in the subject to understand, since people reading the article aren’t necessarily scientists.
One aspect that I think could be improved upon is that even though the concise structure of the review was well done, it may have been a bit too condensed. For example, I believe that Michael could have elaborated a bit more on photorespiration, like what causes it and a few more specific details. I also think that it’d be interesting to see how this personally connected to Michael, and how it affects his understanding of biology. Getting an idea of how the ideas expressed in the article affect someone is one way for others to evaluate it.
Like it was said in the review, the fact that we recently did a unit on photosynthesis allows us to better understand the process and importance of photorespiration. I also think that the topic is very interesting and that this new scientific discovery can be later used to achieve great things. The addition of statistics made the information especially impactful, and the fact that photorespiration is wasteful to the point that it reduces crop yields anywhere from 20 to 50 percent because it wastes some much energy was particularly shocking. Needless to say, if biologists are able to continue researching the study until all the major problems are addressed, major changes for the better will be underway.
Szilvia Szabó
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
January 9th, 2013
Temming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
.
I think that Michael did a really great job reviewing this article. Despite his topic being pretty complicated, he is able to present the fundamental facts and statistics in a way for his audience to understand. He takes his reader through his topic, step by step. He first outlines why photorespiration is a problem, “photorespiration can reduce crop yields by 20 to 50 percent just through wasting energy,” and he then goes on to describe the success of this study to fix this problem as he states, “tobacco with the modified gene produced 41% more than non modified tobacco.” I also really like how he tied in his topic with a topic we recently learned about in class, as he says, “Having just learned about photosynthesis, we can see the importance of this because we know how photorespiration damages the photosynthetic efficiency of plants.” I felt this connection helped to aid his audience in understanding the importance of this topic. Overall, I think that Michael did a really good job at asserting the significance of this study. When I first read the title of the article, I was not too captivated, but his first sentence really caught my attention. We, as a human race, are almost able to control the efficiency of photosynthesis. I was really shocked to hear this. The kind of progressions we can make in the future with this new genetic modification could be life changing.
Overall, I felt that Michael did a really good job reviewing his article. Although he didn’t have very much detail, he explained that the author presented a lot of the information in a confusing way and a lot of it would be too confusing for an average person to understand. But, I do wish there was a bit more detail. I feel like he could have talked more about the methods and results acquired from the study. He states that, “[the author] briefly explained the new methods and then compared the results,” but he never actually gives details about the “new methods” and results. Additionally, I would have liked it if Michael described what the actual study was, what the experiment constituted of. He mentions that there was a modified gene that was put into tobacco but then gives the audience no other information about the experiment.
In his review, I felt that Michael did a really good job at being concise and informative. I think that he made some great connections and reported on a really impressive feat that has the potential to, as Michael puts it, “help feed a growing population.” This can affect almost every single person on this planet, which is what drew me in. Usually, I am not very interested in plants and environmental issues, but this study caught my eye. I am very surprised that someone found a way to make photosynthesis even more efficient, I never knew tampering with photosynthesis in such a way was even possible.
Paul Magaud
ReplyDelete1/28/19
Current Event #14
Temming, Maria. “A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” Science
News, Society for Science & the Public, 3 Jan. 2019,
This week, I read Michael Grieco's review of Maria Temming's article "A new way to genetically tweak photosynthesis boosts plant growth.” One aspect of the review that I appreciated was how concise it was -- the information he presented was the necessary portion, which helps the reader understand only what is needed. Michael's use of statistics from the article also contributes to a concrete understanding of the subject matter. I like that Michael was also fair in his criticism -- he pointed out that the article may not have been easy to understand for some readers.
Although I liked its concise nature, I think that Michael's review may have lacked certain details and analysis. More specific evidence from the text and from other sources of research would have enhanced his critique. I also believe that a more personal element could have deepened the implications of his review — a few sentences on how the article’s research impacts us directly.
The relevance of the article topic to what we learned in class is what drew me in. I was fascinated by seeing the real-world implications of what we had previously only seen in diagrams and textbooks.