Chemistry Lexi Raviol
Current event October 26
Markoff, John. "Scientists Consider Repurposing Robots for Ebola." The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 Oct. 2014. Web. 26 Oct. 2014.
John Markoff composed an article, “Scientists Consider Repurposing Robots for Ebola”. In this article John reports robots could help perform some of the jobs of health care workers that are hazardous, such as disposable waste and removing the bodies of patients with Ebola. This is helpful because these are two of the functions where Ebola is most contagious for health care workers. Scientists from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, in Massachusetts; Texas A&M; the University of California, Berkeley; and in Washington and government officials from the White House are meeting on November 7, to discuss this activity. While this may be possible there could be possible problems like implementing the robots. Such as, technology is fairly new when it comes to medicine and health care and there are still problems programing the robots. Technology is also very limited and this may have an effect of having robots to help preform jobs of health care workers. In addition, robots struggle to recognize glass objects which could be a problem when handling glass tubes. Relatives of the patients also have a problem accepting robots to bury them because it wouldn't be respectful to the patients.
If they could make robots preform health care jobs, it could help stop the spread of Ebola from the patients to the health care workers. This would also help the health care workers to stay in business and feel more comfortable dealing with patients. This could also increase the number of people willing to help Ebola patients. It could also reassure the public. This is a very relevant topic right now. Ebola is consuming today’s headlines. We need to find a way to cure them, but also need to find a way to keep the sickness from spreading.
This article is very well written. It is a very relevant topic for today and people are very interested in it. He listed not only benefits if scientists implemented robots, but the problems also. In addition, he listed references from various people having their opinions and thoughts on this project. One thing John Markoff didn't do a very good job in was organization of the paper. I thought he skipped around a lot and it didn't seem to flow as well as it should have.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Lexi's review of the article, "Scientists Consider Repurposing Robots for Ebola" very well-written. I thought that she did a good job of stating the pros and cons of this issue, listing many reasons that this would be both helpful and potentially harmful. Lexi also was good at explaining why this article is important. She told that Ebola is causing fear all over the world and that robots helping care for ebola victims could help to stop the spread of Ebola. A last thing that Lexi did well was tell what was good and bad about the article. She was detailed and gave examples of what she thought the author did a good job of and what he could have improved upon. One thing that Lexi might have done to improve her review would be to answer or acknowledge further questions that were brought up by the article. For example, I wondered how much the robots would cost to make and how many would be made. Another thing that Lexi could have improved would be to explain what Ebola is, what it does to people, and talk more about its spread. While she could do certain things better, Lexi's review was very revealing. I did not know that robots were advanced enough to perform jobs that healthcare workers usually do. Overall, this review was incredibly well written and easy to understand, and it did a good job of explaining the impact of this article on the Ebola crisis.
ReplyDeleteLexi did a fantastic job with her review of the article "Scientists Consider Repurposing Robots for Ebola." She did a great job with her sentence structure, and it could be read enthusiastically and easily. Her sentences really rolled off the tongue. She also did a great job with her formatting. While I see many reviews that are shaky and all over the place, Lexi stayed true to the given rubric and format, and as a result, her response was very clear and was easy to read. Lastly, Lexi did a great job with her comparisons in her response. By clearly stating and critiquing what was done well and what the author could have improved upon, we almost did not even need to read the article to know what was going on. However, Lexi, although it was great, could still have brought more to the table. Some of her sentences seemed choppy, and some of the flow was not great. However, this is a cosmetic change, and can be improved easily. One thing that she could have improved on that is a little bit deeper and hard to fix was that she never really talked about what Ebola was. I think she assumed it was known what it was, us all being freaked out about what might happen to us, but you can never assume. She merely stated that we were scared. Not WHY we were scared. She did not really give us an idea of the magnitude of the outbreak. However, I was really surprised just when I read the title. HOW ARE ROBOTS SO ADVANCED? It is really and truly unbelievable to see that robots are so advanced that they can mock the actions of a sophisticated human. Overall, Lexi did a great job with this article, and I look forward to reading more in the future.
ReplyDeleteLexi’s review, “Scientists consider repurposing robots for Ebola" was very interesting and well written. First of all, the fact that she started off telling why treating Ebola was dangerous for health care workers, helped me understand the need for robots. In addition, I thought that Lexi did a very good job talking about the benefits and problems if scientists use robots instead of health workers. Moreover, I liked the way Lexi explained why this article was important and relevant to today.
ReplyDeleteEven though Lexi's review was very well written, the fact that she listed everyone attending the meeting on November 7, made it a bit confusing and I had to reread this passage to completely understand what she meant. Furthermore, by saying only "he" in the last paragraph was confusing because it was hard to understand to whom she was talking about.
Overall, Lexi's review was well presented and captivating. The one thing that I learned and really stood out to me was that one reason people would not like the robots is that since they are the ones that would bury the patients, people would think of it has not respectful to the dead patients.
For my review, I reviewed “Scientists Consider Repurposing Robots for Ebola” reviewed by Lexi Raviol. Overall, I thought Lexi did a really good job reviewing this article. One thing I liked about Lexi’s review is how she shared her own opinions. She said why she thought that robots could be helpful for treating patients with Ebola. Another thing I really liked is how she talks about how robots can also be bad for treating patients will Ebola. This makes the review and the article seem like it is not bias. A final thing I liked about Lexi’s review is how she started off giving background information on Ebola and talked about why it was so dangerous. This is extremely helpful for people who don’t know exactly what Ebola is.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Lexi did an extremely good job on her review, there were a few things she could have done to improve her review. One thing I think she could have done is concluded the article better. It seemed to end abruptly. I think she should have ended the article by briefly summarizes what she said. Another thing she could have done to improve the article is she could have added a quote from an expert researching this topic. This makes the article seem more legit.
I found reading about the robots they want to use extremely interesting. Some of these robots extremely high tech, but cannot do simple things such as handling glass beakers. This makes me wonder is we will ever have robots that are as helpful and useful as humans. In conclusion, I believe that Lexi’s review was written very well, but could be improved.
I read Lexi Raviol's review of "Scientists Consider Repurposing Robots For Ebola". In her review, Lexi did a good job of providing a detailed summary. She included good facts, like the one about colleges and the government meeting to discuss the issue. Lexi also did a good job of connecting the article to today. For example, she did a great saying how this would not only prevent Ebola but help the health-care workers. A final, pro of Lexi's paper was that she made it easy to read. The article had an awesome flow and did not have any confusing sentences.
ReplyDeleteTo improve the review Lexi could have said, other reasons why people do not like the robots other than that is it rude for them to burry people. Also Lexi could have added more names rather than saying he or they. The non specified names confused me at times.
After reading the article I think that is amazing that the scientist are creating robots to stop Ebola.