Catherine Cain Chemistry
2/9/13 Current Event
The NY Times article, A Catalog of Cancer Genes, or Just a Start
by Carl Zimmer, describes how over the past 40 years, scientists have been able
to identify a large catalog of cancer genes. In 2005, the National Institutes
of Health created a program called the Cancer Genome Atlas to try to speed up
the process of discovering new cancer genes. Just recently, a gene-targeting
drug was found for lung cancer based on this database. However, now that this
project is coming to a close, many scientists have been asking the question:
where does cancer research go next? This is because it is now evident that it
would take 10 times the research that has already been completed to find most
cancer genes. Scientists usually compare healthy cells to cancerous cells in
order to identify genes. However, this method usually misses most of the genes,
according to scientists like Dr. Eric Lander, Director of the Broad Institute.
He and his colleagues found 33 more genes that could play different roles in cancer
in a part of the genome previously studied. This research led Dr. Lander to the
conclusion that scientists are only a small fraction of the way to finding all
genes that are responsible for cancer. Some scientists think that instead of
wasting research funds on more identifying genes, society should spend money on
discovering new therapies. Still others think that this form of genetic research
should be used only on the most common cancers.
The research
in this article could have a very big impact on the health of humanity. This is
because the route that scientists take in their research of cancer will
determine when and whether a cure is ever found. For many people, curing cancer
is the difference between life and death.
I mostly
enjoyed reading this article. However, it did get a bit confusing at certain
points, because the author was talking about very complex genetic science. At
the end of the article, there was even a side bar stating that in the original version,
the author himself got the facts mixed up! Overall, I thought it was a very
interesting article and really gave me more incite into cancer research.
Catherine did a great job of catching the reader's attention with the article she chose. The title and my curiosity for wanting to know more about this "Catalog of Cancer Genes" caused me to read on. She summarized the article in an organized way as well as making sure to mention all of the key points. I also read the actual article, and I noticed that she made the article simpler through this summary.
ReplyDeleteThe only things that I thought that she could have down better on is using the opening sentence as an extra attention getter and making certain sentences a little more clear. Otherwise, everything else was down very nicely.
I have never heard of this "Catalog of Cancer Genes" and I was glad that this summary caught my attention, so that I have more knowledge than I did 10 minutes ago.
I liked in Catherine’s review when she explains that there was a program dedicated to identifying cancer genes and that the amount of research that would have to be done to find all the cancer genes is ten times the amount this program has already done. Also I thought it was interesting that a lot of people aren’t focused on finding a cure, but finding new therapies and ways to cope with cancer. I like how Catherine explains that she had trouble reading the article, but that it was understandable because apparently the author himself mixed up his own ideas. I would suggest that Catherine goes into a little more depth. For example, saying who these scientists were and why is he a reliable source. Also, say what the names of the common cancers are and maybe what the lung cancer is called when you talked about it. I think it would also be beneficial if you elaborated more in your third paragraph. There is not too much information there. The one thing that interested me was that there was a program dedicated to finding cancer genes. It makes me curious about how much progress they made and when they think they’ll be able to identify all the genes.
ReplyDeleteCatherine did a great job of reviewing the article, "A Catalog of Cancer Genes, or Just a Start". The organization of the review was well structured; each of the facts that were stated immediately led to another that was related to the one before. This was evident when she indicated that scientists usually compared healthy cells to the diseased ones to be able to classify them. This then led to Catherine stating that Dr. Eric Lander and his colleagues identified 33 more genes involved with caner than the previously studied genome, but this discovery yielded to the debate over what the money used for the catalog should be used for. After having read the actual article, I noticed that Catherine did not leave out any of the major points, and made most of the article’s points seem clear. I think that the opening sentence could have been used as more of an attention getter, since the sparks curiosity. Also, Catherine could have expanded on her second paragraph in terms of going a little more detail of her statement, ” The research in this article could have a very big impact on the health of humanity.” Overall, the review was interesting and well developed. I enjoyed reading about the gene catalog, since I had never known that one had existed. Now I have more knowledge than I did 10 minutes ago.
ReplyDelete