Author: Natalie Angier
The article I read by Natalie Angier described the dangers that bats are in, because their bodies may be hosts for some of the deadliest diseases in the world. However, research has shown that bats are immune to most diseases they carry, and they live longer than animals of their size should live to. As scientists are discovering, the bat immune system is astonishingly tolerant of most pathogens — a trait that could pose risks to people, but that also offers clues to preventing human diseases of aging, including cancer. Also, Because the fungus attacks bats as they hibernate in caves, the researchers are exploring the complex biology of normal bat hibernation, and so-called arousal bouts turn out to be a big part of the puzzle, said Kenneth Field, an associate professor of biology.
Although many people may think that this research isn’t relevant to the general public, or to humans, it is. Bat experts argue that a keener understanding of bat biology could not only help prevent the next outbreak of Ebola or other cross-species “zoonotic” infection, but also offer a fresh take on immune and inflammatory disorders like diabetes or heart disease. Secondly, this article really persuaded me not to be afraid of bats, because although they may carry diseases, they are essential parts of the environmental food chain.
I think that this author did a good job at providing a thorough, complete article. There was a lot of information to work with, and she provided enough quotes to make this article valid and believable. Also, there were images to go along with the words, which made the article easier to read, and I found myself engaged for the whole time.
Sam Abukhadra 1/14/15
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event Review Chemistry
Angier, Natalie. "No Time for Bats to Rest Easy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12
Jan. 2015. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.
I read Laura Holland’s review of “No Time for Bats to Rest Easy.” Overall, I thought Laura did a really good job and thought his review was very well written, although there were a few areas for improvement. One aspect of Laura’s review that I thought she did particularly well was how she incorporated such specific detail. For example, how she went so in depth about bat’s immune systems. This really allowed us readers a better understanding of the topic. Another aspect I really liked was how she did such a good job connecting between topics. For example she connect the understanding of bat biology and the possible prevention of the next Ebola outbreak. This really shows her true understanding of the topic to be able to do this. The final aspect of Laura’s review that I thought was really well presented was how she provided specific pieces of evidence to go along with her opinions. For example, when she was critiquing the authors article, she gave the exact reasons for her high regards of the article.
Although this article was very well written, there were a few areas for Laura to improve on. For example, there were a couple grammatical mistakes throughout the review. This shows that enough care was not taken to fully check over the review. This could easily be fixed by just rereading the article a few more times. Another aspect that could be improved was when she would give a opinion but wouldn’t back that up with evidence from the article. This could easily be fixed if she had provided evidence to go along with her opinions to prove herself.
One thing that really astonished me, was how if we furthered our understanding of Bat biology, we could also deepen our understanding of diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. This impressed me so much because it is such an incredible connection. Overall, Laura did a really good job, despite the few areas which she could improve.
ReplyDeleteAngier, Natalie. "No Time for Bats to Rest Easy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.
I read Laura’s review on the article “No Time for Bats to Rest Easy.” Overall, Laura did a very good job reviewing the article. I thought that the strongest part of her review was her summary. She kept it concise, while still providing enough information for the reader to grasp what her topic is about. Although she kept it brief, I think that it was just enough. In addition, I thought that it really helped the reader when she explained specific words in her article. For example, she told the reader what “pathogens” are. I personally was unsure of the meaning when I first came across it, but was relieved when I later saw a simple definition beside it. Lastly, I think that Laura’s connection to Ebola was very interesting and relevant, as this has recently been a big issue many have heard about. I am impressed that she could connect these two topics and think that she provided a good explanation along with the connection. Although Laura did many good things in her review, there were some points that she could improve on. For example, she could have read over her work a few more times, as I found commas that were unnecessary and capitalized letters that should not have been capitalized. Also, I think that Laura could have included quotes. This always ties up the work and gives legitimacy to her claims, as the reader now has evidence. Overall, Laura did an excellent job on her review on “No Time for Bats to Rest Easy.” I found the connection to Ebola to be the most fascinating part of the article. Although this was a small connection, I would have never known this before.
I read the article “No Time for Bats to Rest Easy” and Laura’s review of the article. Overall, I thought that Laura did a good job reviewing this article. One thing I liked about her review was how she gave details about why bats are in danger. She didn’t just say they were in danger, she said they were in danger because their bodies host diseases. Another thing I liked about Laura’s review is how she explained how this research can be beneficial to humans. I also liked how Laura talked about how the article affected her personally.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Laura did a good job reviewing, there were some things she could improve on. She could have talked about how the article could have been improved. This makes her opinion seem not bias. Laura also could have explained just exactly how we can improve the immune system of humans using bats.
Overall, I thought that this article was written extremely well. One thing that amazed me about this article was learning about how immune bats are to deadly diseases. Bats are immune to viruses that affect humans, monkeys, pigs, or other animals. In conclusion, I think both the review and the article were well written.
Angier, Natalie. "No Time for Bats to Rest Easy." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 13 Jan. 2015.
ReplyDeleteI read Laura's review of the article, "No time for bats to rest easy." By Natalie Angier. I thought that Laura did a very good job reviewing this article. First of all, I like how she used the correct format and broke her review into three body paragraphs. This makes the review easier to read and flow better. Another thing Laura did very well was to go into specific detail about unclear topics. For example, she explained why bats' immune systems hold dangerous diseases, but could also help us find cures at the same time. Lastly, I like how Laura defined words that her readers may not know, like pathogens.
ALthough there were many things good about her review, there is still room for improvment. First, I would have liked if she put quotes from the author or anyone else involved. This would have given us a better understanding of what the author thought. Also, Laura could have explained exactly how we can prevent human diseases using bats instead of just stating it.
Overall Laura did a great job reviewing this article. One thing that amazed me is that through the research of such a heavily diseased animal like a bat could lead to cures in heart disease and Ebola.