Ava Chiang 5/17/19
Biology Odd / C Current Event 12
Citation: Uppsala University. "Owning a dog is influenced by our genetic make-up." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 17 May 2019. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190517081636.htm>.
The article I read for current event 12 is called "Owning a dog is influenced by our genetic make-up" and was written based on the materials provided by Uppsala University. The article talks about how Swedish and British scientists collaborated on an study of genetic concordance of dog ownership within twins by using the Swedish Twin Registry. Twins are often used to differentiate between the effects of epigenomes and genes because “identical twins share their entire genome, and non-identical twins on average share only half of the genetic variation.” They found out that “concordance rates of dog ownership to be much larger in identical twins than in non-identical ones.” Which means that if one identical twin own a dog, the other is more likely to own one compared to a non-identical twin. Therefore, this “demonstrate for the first time that genetics and environment play about equal roles in determining dog ownership.”
This study is interesting because it can help researchers understand many issues regarding the relationship between pets and owners. For example, dog ownership is associated with lots of psychological and physical health benefits but we don’t know why. If this study continues then we may be able to figure out how human interaction with animals affect their epigenetic makeup.
I think this article was a very good read, the author was concise about the experiment and it’s result. He or she also talked about where this research could lead and what can be improved about it. However, I would’ve liked to know more about the process. For example, why was this research suggested? What purpose does it serve. I think they should’ve waited until there’s more information and results before publishing an article about this subject because although the research was interesting, the information included wasn’t very informative.
Chris Aherne
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio
5-27-19
Uppsala University. "Owning a dog is influenced by our genetic make-up." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 17 May 2019. .
For current event 13, I decided to read Ava's review of "Owning a dog is influenced by our genetic makeup". One thing I noticed Ava did very well was that she gave a good number of quotes and facts in order to make her review more substantive. It made her review more real and believable. Secondly, she did a great job explaining the article. She gave both the perspective of the author and great amounts of detail to back up what was seen as a dull article. Lastly, I found that her overall fluidity was great. Each sentence complemented the other and there were no grey areas when reading the review.
Although Ava did many things very well, she could have worked on a few different things. One of those things being that she did not shape a good background for the reader. This is seen in the beginning where she jumps right into the review instead of giving sufficient background info. Secondly, it was evident that she wrote this in a hurry because I found numerous grammatical errors. It didn't take away from the review too much but its disappointing to see.
After reading this review, I got a complete understanding of what the original article was about. I chose this article because it stood out to me when scrolling through the blog. Considering that this topic was relevant in our biology class, it was only natural that I wanted to read it. This review gave me a completely different outlook on genetic and how it Affects everybody, no matter who you are.
Megan Barker 5/27/19
ReplyDeleteBio 10 H Current Event 13
Uppsala University. "Owning a dog is influenced by our genetic make-up." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 17 May 2019. .
Ava’s review of the article "Owning a dog is influenced by our genetic make-up” is very well-written. For example, her use of quotes throughout the article helps readers to further understand the article and the points she is making, which is obviously very important. Also, her review has a really great and insightful connection to the real world. Though the findings themselves are interesting, Ava’s paragraph proves its significance. For example, she states that the research may help scientists to understand why humans and dogs have such a deep relationship, and why dogs provide humans so many psychological benefits. Furthermore, Ava’s third paragraph, or her critiques for the author, were well-written and logical. Suggesting that the article do more than simply point out the findings, without contextualizing or explaining their purpose, is a suggestion that definitely would have helped the article.
Although Ava’s article was great, there were still a few aspects of it that could have been improved. For example, if she were to add more explanation in the summary, or first, paragraph, it would greatly help the clarity of the review. I’m still somewhat confused as to how the research found actually helps to demonstrate that genetics and environment play nearly equal roles in dog ownership, and adding an explanation would easily clear up that issue. Also, in the connection paragraph, Ava could have gone farther in describing the the health benefits that dogs provide their human owners. Though she mentions the psychological and physical health benefits dogs can bring humans, she does not explain them or mention any specific ones, and doing so could definitely strengthen her paragraph and review.
In Ava’s review, an aha-moment of realization for me was the finding itself, that a genetic component was involved in the choosing of dogs. I did not think that genetics had anything to do with humans finding certain dogs cute. This new finding was extremely interesting to me, being a dog owner. It also raises new questions, such as ‘does the dog’s background influence whether or not a person finds them cute? Why or why not?’ Ava’s review of this Science Daily article was extremely well-written, and, though a few parts could have been explained slightly better, was incredibly interesting and insightful.