Holden D’Avico
Mr. Ippolito
AP Bio
3/8/21
Simon, Matt. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” Wired, Conde Nast, 13 Jan. 2020, 3pm, www.wired.com/story/xenobot/.
“Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism” by Matt Simon is a very interesting article that contains groundbreaking information. Matt Simon begins by explaining what Xenobots are: they are engineered organisms that consist of skin cells and heart cells from Xenopus Laevis frogs. Tufts University developmental biophysicist Michael Levin has designed many different Xenobots in order to try to understand their complex behavior. The researchers are trying to understand how the shape of Xenobots affect their behavior and inclination to undergo certain changes or complete certain tasks. Matt Simon describes the unique behavior of Xenobots: “Slice a xenobot open and it’ll pull itself together again, à la T-1000 from Terminator 2. Two xenobots might join together and scoot around as a happy couple. A xenobot with a hole in it can pick up and carry things” (Simon 2). The scientists behind this project are using these programmable cells as models of human cells in order to better understand how cells communicate with one another to produce very complex behaviors. Lastly, Matt Simon explains that Xenobots are very significant and promising because they are living robots. Xenobots are real, living cells that can be programmed which is totally new.
Xenobots are very significant and relevant for two main reasons. First, they are programmable which means that scientists can manipulate their composition in order to test many variables. This will help us understand how normal cells communicate and exhibit complex behavior. Second, they are the first step in creating “living robots.” A living robot would be on a whole new level compared to the robots such as AI that we have today. A cell or robot that can be programmed by scientists and can react to its environment in a natural and unique way sounds crazy but if made possible, could be applied in so many different ways.
Overall, the article was easy to read and presented the relevant information. A strength of the article is that the author described Xenobots in a simple way. At first, I had trouble understanding Xenobots, however, the author described them well such as when he compares their behavior to something more familiar: “flick any blob onto its back and it’ll lie there like a flipped-over turtle” (Simon 1). One weakness of the article is that the author didn’t go on to explain the future of Xenobots. The author should’ve included a paragraph about how Xenbots impact the future of living and programmable robots such as how they can become more powerful than the current AI robots.
Julia Reich
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology C Even
3/8/21
Simon, Matt. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” Wired,
Conde Nast, 13 Jan. 2020, 3pm, www.wired.com/story/xenobot/.
Link to blog -- https://bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/
Holden’s review of the article “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism” was very interesting to read and learn about. One aspect he did well was explain certain topics that may be unfamiliar to the average reader. For example, he described exactly what xenobots are -- “they are engineered organisms that consist of skin cells and heart cells from Xenopus Laevis frogs.” I instantly knew what the Xenobots were and was able to understand the topic better. A second aspect done well is including thoughts and ideas from several well respected experts on the subject. For example, he writes about “Tufts University
developmental biophysicist Michael Levin.” Holden’s audience gains a better understanding of the accuracy of the article. A third aspect done well is describing the Xenbots’ use in the future and how they will affect our lives. A theoretical AI science is interesting to know, but understanding how AI will alter our future is life changing. Overall, Holden’s review was very well written and informative.
Though Holden’s article had many aspects well done, there were a couple he could fix. One of these is the further explanation of his topic. His review is relatively short, and he doesn’t really take the topic into his own thoughts. He could easily fix this by simply adding a few sentences with his opinions on AI, the Xenobots, and future inventions. A second aspect he could work on is potentially going deeper into the Xenobots; either his article was not as detailed, or he just summarized the information in a simple way for an average reader. This could easily be fixed by adding a few sentences on the technology behind the invention of the Xenobots (and AI as well). Overall, Holden’s review was superb.
I chose to read Holden’s article as AI and technology are our future. Every day, people are laid off from jobs as computers can easily replace them. Xenobots are real living cells which can be programmed, which may lead the robot to understand the complexities of our world and more. Knowing that the Xenobots have already been created and that more advanced technology will also be invented is life changing. My future will look drastically different than anything anyone has ever experienced. Technology is a growing industry, and every day, ingenuous scientists create new inventions that will inevitably change the world for the better (or worse).
Erin Foley
ReplyDeleteAP Biology C Block Odd
March 7th, 2021
Current Event 15
Simon, Matt. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” Wired, Conde
Nast, 13 Jan. 2020, 3pm, www.wired.com/xenobot/.
D’avico, Holden. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” AP Biology
Blog, 8 Mar. 2021,
https://bronxvilleapbiology/2021/03/meet-xenobot-eerie-new-kind-of.html.
Holden’s review of the article “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism” concisely yet effectively demonstrates knowledge of his topic as well as its significance beyond biology. Holden summarizes the article briefly but gets the main points across, explaining that Xenobots are “engineered organisms that consist of skin cells and heart cells from Xenopus Laevis frogs” that act as “models of human cells” in scientific experiments. This description provides the reader with some background information on xenobots, but does not give too much information to the point of confusion. Moreover, Holden uses analogies to make complex topics more understandable for the reader, illustrating his in-depth understanding of abstract concepts. He connects the xenobot’s ability to regenerate cells as being “a la T-1000 from Terminator 2” and describes the xenobot’s movements by saying “flick any blob onto its back and it’ll lie there like a flipped-over turtle”. Borrowing these comparisons from the author not only help the reader to visualize xenobots, but show how Holden understood the important aspects of the article. Finally, Holden explained the significance of Xenobot’s very well. He claims that their programmability allows scientists to “manipulate their composition in order to test many variables” and explains that this will “help us understand how normal cells communicate and exhibit complex behavior”. Explaining the significance of their composition to the scientific community helps the reader to stay interested in the biological concepts Holden describes, improving the effectiveness of his review.
Holden’s review could really only be improved with a few adjustments. Firstly, if he added a tad more context as to what xenobots are, I would’ve been better able to understand the information in his first and second paragraphs. Although he describes them as “engineered organisms that consist of skin cells and heart cells”, this visual is not very clear - how did scientists create organisms out of other cells? For the average reader, this description may leave them with a few unanswered questions, but by giving a bit more information on the way Xenobots were produced, Holden could fix it easily. Additionally, Holden suggests that the possibility of creating a “living robot” would be “applied in so many different ways”, but is quite vague in describing how living robots could be used in our current scientific community. Could they be used to cure diseases or improve society in some other way, or could they be detrimental? Many readers might have a negative initial reaction to the idea of living robots, their minds immediately flashing to an apocalyptic “humans vs. robots” scene. By adding some additional information, Holden could clear up some unanswered questions about Xenobots as well as their significance.
I chose to read this review because the idea of a “Programmable Organism” mentioned in the title piqued my interest, but I was even more surprised as I read forwards into its body. Holden’s review left me even more astonished at the current state of our scientific progress, a state of innovation so unfathomable and impressive that we are engineering new organisms. This new human ability challenges societal debates about the role of technology, the role of the government’s regulation of technology and even the role of religion as humans become increasingly seemingly-divine in our ability to engineer life. Holden’s review left me in awe but also determined to learn more about how we can use the topics learned in AP Biology and more advanced science classes to reach the level of innovation that our scientists have reached.
Nate Kim
ReplyDeleteAP Bio, Mr. Ippolito
3/6/21
Current Event 15
Holden’s analysis of “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism” is a perfect example of analysis that gives the reader a full understanding of the article being analyzed. Holden does a great job of integrating his own commentary with the facts from the article. The analysis has great flow where Holden basically seamlessly integrates facts and information with the summary of the article. I also liked that he gave a possible use for the information from the article. His explanation of Xenobots and the way they work was very clear and informative. Understanding how Xenobots can be used in the future to benefit society will be very important, I’m sure.
Although I think Holden’s review was top-notch, I believe there are some areas for improvement. Holden uses sophisticated vocabulary that could make his writing a little hard to understand for readers that are not well-versed in the field of biology or science in general. This is easily remedied by just defining more terms or using simpler language. Another small critique is that Holden did not do extra research which could have elevated his review to the next level. Holden points out that the author of the original article does not mention the use of Xenobots in the future and their difference in ability compared to the AI we have today. If Holden had done some extra research and commented on this hole in the original article, readers would have had a much better understanding of Xenobots and their implications for the future, something that the main article and Holden’s response both lack.
Overall, Holden’s review was informative and intriguing. His review sheds light on a topic that is relatively unknown and could be very important in the future. From Holden’s review I learned about what a Xenobot is, what they can do, and why they are important to the development and betterment of society. In the future, I look forward to seeing how Xenobots are used to gain a better understanding of the human body and cells, more specifically.
Kelly Baclija
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Bio
March 8, 2021
D'Avico, Holden. "Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism", 1 Jan. 1970, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/03/meet-xenobot-eerie-new-kind-of.html#comment-form
Simon, Matt. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” Wired, Conde Nast, 13 Jan. 2020, 3pm, www.wired.com/story/xenobot/.
Holden’s article on “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism” by Matt Simon is very well written. He starts off his review by immediately providing a definition of Xenobots that leaves the reader with virtually no question as to what the article will discuss-- “they are engineered organisms that consist of skin cells and heart cells from Xenopus Laevis frogs”. Next, he includes the fact that “Tufts University developmental biophysicist Michael Levin has designed many different Xenobots in order to try to understand their complex behavior”. This helps establish the credibility of the author as he includes the position of experts on the topic, such as Michael Levin. Finally, Holden discusses the idea that “A cell or robot that can be programmed by scientists and can react to its environment in a natural and unique way sounds crazy but if made possible, could be applied in so many different ways”. This allows the audience to think deeper about the possibilities Xenobots can provide for science, and thus strengthen their understanding of the topic.
Although Holden’s article is well-written, there are a few areas of improvement. Firstly, as he stated in his review, it would have been beneficial for the audience to include some sort of content describing what Xenobots could mean for the future of our scientific community, such as their role compared to the AI robots we know today. Furthermore, possibly including a direct quote from another expert involved in the development of Xenobots to help the audience gain a better understanding of the concept as well.
I chose to read this article because prior, I did not know about Xenobots or what they could mean for our understanding of biology and physics. I ultimately learned that these organisms are real, living cells that can be programmed which has never been heard of before and can lead to even more futuristic developments. This article has changed my perspective because I now understand just how significant discoveries like these can change our already technologically advanced society.
Annabelle Krause
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event 15
AP Bio
3/8/2021
Simon, Matt. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” Wired, Conde
Nast, 13 Jan. 2020, 3pm, www.wired.com/xenobot/.
D’Avico, Holden. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” AP Biology
Blog, 8 Mar. 2021,
https://bronxvilleapbiology/2021/03/meet-xenobot-eerie-new-kind-of.html.
Overall, Holden wrote a very strong review of the article, “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” Primarily, Holden did a good job of supplying context and explaining why this article was relevant to our lives, giving the reader enough information to understand why they should care without overdoing it. He discussed what they were: “engineered organisms that consist of skin cells and heart cells from Xenopus Laevis frog.” This is especially important since this is an unknown term to anyone unfamiliar with the topic. He also did a really good job of being succinct; his review was not overly verbose. He gave the reader enough information to decide whether they wished to further investigate the topic. He gave the reader a general overview of the topic and the science behind it, but he did not overcomplicate the matter with intense scientific diagrams and explanations. Lastly, he used easily relatable metaphors to allow the reader to better visualize what he was talking about. He quoted the author of the article describing the unique behavior of zenobots, with the quote “‘Slice a xenobot open and it’ll pull itself together again, à la T-1000 from Terminator 2. Two xenobots might join together and scoot around as a happy couple. A xenobot with a hole in it can pick up and carry things’ (Simon 2).” I really appreciated this because it evoked a strong mental image that not only made me laugh, but also strengthened my understanding.
Although his review was strong overall, there are a few things that Holden could have done to make it better. Primarily, it would have been nice if Holden’s review had been a little bit longer and more in depth. This is a really interesting field of study, and it is one that not many people have much knowledge about. If Holden had given a little bit more background, while still maintaining his succinctness, I think it would have elevated his review. Also, it would have been helpful if Holden had used more quotes to further boost his credibility. He used only one quote throughout his article, and it was not from the scientist he was discussing. I believe the use of quotes would depthen my understanding, and it is always helpful to hear the science in the words of an expert. More quotes would have greatly benefited his review in this regard and would have taken some of the pressure off of Holden in explaining the complicated scientific topics surrounding xenobots.
I chose this article because I had no previous knowledge of the topics or what a xenobot was. As such, the entire review was a learning experience for me. I really enjoyed learning both about what a xenobot was and their significance to our lives and developing our understanding of cells. Since we are studying cell processes right now, I think this article was a good choice to supplement our curriculum. Holden’s review was enlightening to me on this topic, and he did a really good job of explaining everything.
Willy Swenson
ReplyDeleteAP Biology
Current Event 15
March 7th, 2021
Simon, Matt. “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.” Wired, Conde Nast, 13 Jan. 2020, 3pm, www.wired.com/story/xenobot/.
Holden D'Avico. “‘Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism.’” Blogspot.com, 8 Mar. 2021, bronxvilleapbiology.blogspot.com/2021/03/meet-xenobot-eerie-new-kind-of.html. Accessed 8 Mar. 2021.
Holdens review of “Meet Xenobot, an Eerie New Kind of Programmable Organism” was very exciting to read and was very well written. He had many strengths in her review. One of the strengths of the review was the full summarization of the article. Holden’s complete summary kept the reader informed on the topic he was writing about and was essential to understanding the review as a whole. Without his strong summary of the article, the reader would have trouble understanding Holden’s perspective on the topic at hand and making their own conclusions about it. As well as this, Holden did a great job intertwining his own opinions of the topic into the article. Using background information about Holden’s expertise in the subject, he is very well informed about the field of gene programming, and as a result has great insight into the topic. Finally, another strength of the review was that Holden had a great tone during the review. It was professional, yet creative and well received.
One area that Holden could have improved on is the application of his knowledge. It felt like this breakthrough was just a bubble within academia but I know there could be some very important real world applications for the Xenobot. One way to improve upon this is to cite a few examples of how this breakthrough affects the real world. Another area that Holden could improve upon is his diction. For a review, he writing was too formal and could’ve read more casually to better understand the topic. I would suggest writing in a more relaxing tone next paper.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading Holden’s review and it was interesting to read about the Xenobots. Maybe I will one day see one of these little critters in my everyday life or studying them in a science classroom. Well done, Holden!