Nate Kim
AP Bio, Mr. Ippolito
9/28/20
Current Events
"COVID-19 vaccine development threatens shark populations. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2020, from Discovery.com website: https://www.discovery.com/nature/covid-19-vaccine-threatens-shark-population"
The article I read talked about why the COVID-19 vaccine would need to use sharks. A compound known as squalene is found in abundance in the livers of sharks. This compound is available from other sources, but it's more expensive and takes longer to extract. A group known as "Shark Allies" estimates that for one vaccine for every person on Earth 250,000 sharks would need to be killed. They also add that it's a definite possibility that two doses will be needed for an effective treatment, doubling the number of sharks needed. Excluding COVID-19 vaccines, squalene is already extracted from three million sharks a year for cosmetics and medicines. One example is the flu shot, which contains squalene in order to enhance immune system response. Shark Allies believes that the increased harvesting of endangered sharks could lead to the extinction of some species of sharks. They also believe that the alternatives for squalene, although less efficient and more costly, will be more beneficial for society in the long run.
One thing is for sure: in order to return to "normal life," we need a COVID-19 vaccine. From my prior research/ knowledge of this topic, I know that a lot of corners are being cut. The human test trials in China did not take into account long-term effects and have already been pushed out to thousands of citizens. In addition, the trials in America are being rushed to meet a November deadline. The reason for all these corners being cut is to get this vaccine out as fast as possible, and hopefully get some herd immunity before winter. If the government is disregarding requirements for a vaccine in order to push it out faster, I highly doubt that another half a million sharks will be able to stop the vaccine. It is interesting that this issue is being brought up now. As a relatively informed citizen, I'm well aware that some species of sharks are endangered. Until today, however, I had no idea that three million sharks a year were harvested for their livers. If sharks are endangered, why has this issue not been brought up sooner? Why am I just hearing about it now? The problem Shark Allies' argument is that the number of sharks harvested annually is too high. Adding a half-a-million onto three million doesn't seem like a huge issue. I mean, there's already three million being killed, right? Where's the harm in adding a couple more... If the number of sharks being harvested annually was lower (like 1 million or less), this case would be much easier to fight. As I see it, society's need for a vaccine as quickly as possible will lead to sharks being used.
This article has very few flaws. It is concise while being very informative. After reading the article, I felt that I had a rounded understanding of the situation and I felt that I had learned something new. The flow of the article was natural and the progression of ideas did not feel forced. If I had to critique anything, it would be that the specific costs/times of alternatives for squalene were not given. As an uninformed reader, I do not know how much more expensive and how much more time alternatives for sharks are. As a result, my final opinion is very biased because the article only includes thoughts from Shark Allies and leaves out any rebuttals. I am unable to make an informed decision on whether alternatives should be used because I do not know exactly how much more expensive the alternatives are. If the article included some arguments from organizations that disagree with Shark Allies and the specific costs of squalene from sharks and alternatives, this article would have been much more informative. It would also allow the reader to draw more independent conclusions.
Comment on Nate Kim's Current Event (#2)
ReplyDeleteCitations:
"COVID-19 vaccine development threatens shark populations. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2020, from Discovery.com website: https://www.discovery.com/nature/covid-19-vaccine-threatens-shark-population"
Nate Kim's summary and follow-up analysis of his current event article of choice, "COVID-19 vaccine development threatens shark populations," was articulated well and presented the reader with detailed information in a concise manner. In his first paragraph, Nate summarizes the main points of the article very well. He reveals that a compound known as squalene is found abundantly in sharks. He goes on to explain how this compound's benefits already results in the death of many sharks every year. He then explains that even more sharks, 250,000 per vaccine, would be harvested for a potential Cover-19 vaccine. Nate's first paragraph has a logical flow to it and presents the reader with all the information he/she needs to know. Later in his review, Nate includes a rhetorical question which is very effective. By using a rhetorical question, an emphasis is placed not only on the question but the information following it. This serves as a clear signal to the reader that the information following is important and should be noted. Lastly, I enjoyed Nate's final paragraph where he talks about the potential flaws of the article. He credits the article for being very informative and concise, but mentions that there was only one perspective being represented, therefore he couldn't make a valid conclusion based on the information presented because his opinion would be biased. At first, I hadn't thought about this but after Nate pointing it out, the flaw in the article is very clear.
It was very difficult to find anything to critique about Nate's review. I thought that he presented the information and his opinion based on that information very well. However, there is one sentence that I had trouble comprehending. It may just be me, but I found this sentence particularly confusing: "If the government is disregarding requirements for a vaccine in order to push it out faster, I highly doubt that another half a million sharks will be able to stop the vaccine." If Nate can better explain or articulate this sentence, I feel as if his review would be pretty much flawless.
Nate mentioned that he was very surprised by the fact that 3 million sharks were being harvested every year for their livers which contain the sought after compound, squalene. I was also very shocked by this fact. I am aware that many marine animals and life are being threatened by extinction such as tuna, coral reefs, and sea turtles. However, I was not aware that sharks are being harvested at such a fast rate. This fact that Nate presented made me realize how important it is to not over harvest. Over harvesting can lead to extinction and if an animal becomes extinct we will never be able to have access to its beneficial properties again.
I'm making this reply because I accidentally published my comment before I was finished writing it; I meant to write about one more area of improvement (suggestion) which I will write about below instead.
DeleteArea of Improvement Suggestion #2:
Towards the beginning of Nate's review, I found the paragraph to contain a lot of short sentences/truncated sentences. I felt that the flow of the beginning of Nate's first paragraph could have been improved a lot if he connected some of his ideas with commas or transition words instead of ending them with a period.
Citations:
ReplyDelete"COVID-19 vaccine development threatens shark populations. (n.d.). Retrieved September 28, 2020, from Discovery.com website: https://www.discovery.com/nature/covid-19-vaccine-threatens-shark-population"
Nate's summary and analysis of this article written on the usage of sharks for their livers is very well constructed. His first paragraph includes an explanation of why sharks are essential to solving the COVID crisis. He does a great job of explaining that sharks contain squalene, a compound essential in not only curing coronavirus, but also flu shots and other viruses. The problem with this is that nearly 250,000 sharks are being harvested solely for their livers to obtain this compound. Nate also does a great job discussing the problems with obtaining squalene from other sources – its cost and rarity. I like the way he discusses the endangerment of the sharks. In his second paragraph, to pair with his endangerment portion, he includes outside information and logic which he had prior to reading the article.
One area which Nate can improve upon is the discussion of how the government can regulate the number of sharks killed, by trying to improve the search for natural squalene. I think it would be interesting for him to discuss how the government can at least make an effort to reduce the number of sharks killed. Another aspect I think Nate can approve upon is elaborating how the government should go about pushing out vaccines if Nate says they shouldn't get it out as quick as possible. I personally think pushing it out is a good idea because even if it is not 100% effective, it may save some lives.
I thought that this was a really well written article by Nate and I learned a lot. I had no idea that sharks were being abused and killed solely for the purpose of extracting a compound from their liver. I thought it was interesting how Nate brought his personal information into explaining why the government needs to stop abusing sharks, while remaining unbiased. Overall, I found a lot of new information in this review.