Andrew Cargill 5/28/15
Chem C Odd Mr.
Ippolito
Markoff, John. "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery
on a Fruit Fly." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2015. Web.
27 May 2015.
The article, “A Robot That Can
Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly” by John Markoff, talks about the advances
being made at Stanford dealing with Drosophila, one of the most popular
experimental animals. The system of
robots has been prototyped by a team of biologists and roboticists at Stanford,
and they are revolutionizing the information that they are bale to obtain. The article states that, “Tasks such as
determining gender, measuring the size of body parts and even performing
micro-brain surgery — long performed by graduate students armed with tweezers —
can now be assigned to a robot.” The
article then explain one experiment where, “the robot exposed a fly running on
a tiny trackball to different odors as the researchers recorded its changing
path. The robot arm is extremely precise and uses the fly’s legs as shock
absorbers, to avoid crushing or impaling the insects.” In addition, to show how
efficient these robots are, the article mentions, “The robot is also far more
efficient than the previous grad student-powered methods. As described Monday
in the journal Nature
Methods, one $5,000 robot was able to study as many as 1,000 flies
in a 10 hour period.”
This has a
big effect on humanity. To be able to go
through with various tests and experiment using these fruit flies will later
serve as useful information for scientists around the world. Also, it provides a unique experience for
robot makers and technological scientists who can benefit from these advances
being made. While it may not impact my
friends of family on a regular basis, it will serve the scientific community
tremendously and will lead to more advances in the near future.
The article
was very disappointing. It did not have
any many quotes or primary sources. However,
the information was relevant and detailed. The article was ridiculously
concise, being as it is only 5 small paragraphs. The information was needed, but a lot more
could’ve been added to further improve the article. After reading the article, I still have a lot
of questions on the topic and I feel unsatisfied with what I just read. Overall, the article served well to deliver
the main idea, but did not go further to elaborate on any ideas.
Scott McGrath
ReplyDeleteCore Chem
Current Event 12
Markoff, John. "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2015. Web. 27 May 2015.
This review by Andrew Cargill of the article, "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly," written by John Markoff, was very well done. It is a very interesting article that gives us a look at how far we have come in technology. Although some believe technology is advancing too quickly and is consuming us, technology has saved many lives and will save more to come. It makes our lives much easier. A team of robots is said to be able to perform brain surgery on something as small as a fruit fly. I really like how he chose an article that was obviously very interesting and how he managed to keep the reader captivated nonstop. One thing I wish he had done better though, was the first part of his first paragraph, at first I found it a little bit confusing and had to read over the first part many times. Another thing he really succeeded in doing was describing the article's main points very clearly. I knew exactly what I was supposed to know at the end of the blog without even opening the article. Something minor that could be improved upon was saving his opinion for the opinionated section, it would keep the organization better. I also really like how he worded the paragraphs. I found this article very interesting and I was amazed to see how far we have come in science.
Markoff, John. "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2015. Web. 27 May 2015.
ReplyDeleteIn A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly by John Markoff we learn about the advances the scientific and medical fields at Stanford University are making. Andrew was able emphasize the advances and progress this technology has made and the impact it will soon have on society. He was able to make a fascinating article extremely easy to understand and follow, allowing the readers to not get lost or confused. I thought it was also very helpful that examples as to what these Robots can and have done were included in the review. Knowing that these Robots have performed brain surgery on a specimen as small as the fruit fly can only let our imaginations soar into the possibilities of their potential and advancements. I also loved how at the end of his review he explained how he didn’t not feel the article had met his standards rather than writing the generic “This article was very well written”. There were some things though that I think could help this review. I think that including an explanation of what Drosophila actually is would have been helpful, because readers may get stuck on the idea of not knowing what that term means, and not pay close attention to the rest of the article. Secondly I think it would have been intriguing to learn Andrew’s own feelings on the technology or what he thinks the potential of it could be. Over all I think he did a great job on his article, especially since he felt so much was missing from the original article.
Markoff, John. "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2015. Web. 27 May 2015.
ReplyDeleteAndrew’s review of A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly, by John, Markoff was able to state the effects this technology will have on society very well. His articles was very fluent and easy to understand and read. His use of background information on the achievements of robots so far lead me to think of the possibilities in the future. I liked his more truthful and realistic review about how the article disappointed him rather than just saying he liked it to get it over with. There are somethings that he could do to improve his articles. I would have liked a definition and explanation of Drosophila so we, the readers, can get more knowledge and background information about the topic. I think the review could have been made better if Andrew included and personal aspect and the technology itself not just the article. Over all his review was great with a good honest side to help it along.
Markoff, John. "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2015. Web. 27 May 2015.
ReplyDeleteThis review by Andrew Cargill of the article, "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly," written by John Markoff, was very well done. It is a very interesting article that gives us a look at how far we have come in technology. Although some believe technology is advancing too quickly and is consuming us, technology has saved many lives and will save more to come. It makes our lives much easier. A team of robots is said to be able to perform brain surgery on something as small as a fruit fly. I really like how he chose an article that was obviously very interesting and how he managed to keep the reader captivated nonstop. One thing I wish he had done better though, was the first part of his first paragraph, at first I found it a little bit confusing and had to read over the first part many times. Another thing he really succeeded in doing was describing the article's main points very clearly. I knew exactly what I was supposed to know at the end of the blog without even opening the article. Something minor that could be improved upon was saving his opinion for the opinionated section, it would keep the organization better. I also really like how he worded the paragraphs. I found this article very interesting and I was amazed to see how far we have come in science.
After reading Andrew’s review on the article A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly by John Markoff, I was very impressed by how well written and informative it was. There were several things that I think Andrew did exceptionally well. For instance, he summarized the article in very good detail, which allowed me to understand what he was talking about. Also, he threw in many good statistics. This contributed to the overall success of the review because it really backed up the points he was talking about. Lastly, I really liked Andrew’s critique because he praised the article’s importance, but also stated that he was disappointed with the overall quality of the article. For instance, Andrew stated that there was no use of quotes and primary sources. There were a few things, however, that Andrew could have done that would have helped him make the review even better. Something that stood out to me was that he really didn’t go into depth and talk about the article’s significance to our age group or generation. Also, I’m not sure if the article referred to this or not, but it would have been nice to know if any scientists, other than the ones at Stanford, are working on this new discovery. This review of the article interested me a lot and causes me to want to investigate more into the topic. Lastly, something that surprised me while reading this was how one $5,000 robot was able to study as many as 1,000 flies in a 10 hour period.
ReplyDeleteMarkoff, John. "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly." The New York Times. The New York Times, 27 May 2015. Web. 27 May 2015.
Throughout Andrew Cargill’s interpretation of the article, "A Robot That Can Perform Brain Surgery on a Fruit Fly,” Andrew magnificently delves into the revolutionary recent developments in the field of technology. Scientists have proved through experimentation that robots can perform the actions of professional medical researchers and doctors throughout the world without human influence. In Cargill’s opening paragraph, he uses quotes from the article to provide insight into what these fascinating robots can do. This subtle incorporation of the author’s words provided readers with the assurance that these findings are legible and the importance of what has occurred. Furthermore, Andrew connects these recent experiments to society in a terrific way. He speaks of the affects on what these accomplishments could mean to society and technology as a whole. Not only could robots eliminate the impact of the humans in the future, but could also lead to medical research that was unable to grasp the minds of many scientists now and in the past. Adding on to these two great components of a review, Andrew’s last sentence where he includes a fact from the article truly heightens the meaning of this piece. If one robot could study one thousand flies in ten hours, we truly are left wondering what kinds of mind-bottling advancements are to come. while I truly believe that Andrew wrote a great view, there are a few areas in which need improvement. For example, when Cargill mentions his own unsatisfied belief of the article’s content, I would have liked him to state a couple questions that still remain unanswered. Also, he fails to mention the possible effects this research could have on his himself. While these developments might not affect high school students, in several years to come, robots could play the role of humans and eliminate many jobs throughout the world. However, while I do mention these mishaps, I standby my main belief that this article was very well written. Without this review, I would have never realized the impacts robots are now having on the medical world.
ReplyDelete