Tommy Purdy
Mr. Ippolito
Biology D-Odd
5 October, 2016
Current Events
Staff, News. "Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines." Sci News. N.p., 30 Sept. 2015. Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
In the article, “Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines,” the authors prove that many viruses are actually living things. The debate on whether or not viruses are living things has been happening for a while now. One of the main issues, the article talks about, is identifying the viruses. The article says, “Part of the confusion stems from the abundance and diversity of viruses. Less than 4,900 viruses have been identified and sequenced so far, even though scientists estimate there are more than a million viral species.” Because of issues like this, it is very hard to get a better understanding of viruses. The article mainly talks about Prof. Caetano-Anollés and Arshan Nasir’s experiment. There experiment was to look at protein folds and see how they cipher viruses genomes. In their experiment, they learned that some viruses can build a full “tree of life” alone without any other assistance from other organisms. This disproves a commonly believed hypothesis that viruses get all of their genetic material from cells. Also from their research, they learned that viruses most likely evolved from cells which gives even more reason to believe that they are living. The main reason that many believed that all viruses were non-living was because they believed that they relied on other cells from genetic material.
The experiment that the article talks about is a very important experiment for many reasons. One of the reasons it is important is because many scientists now have been believing that viruses are nonliving. Now that the experiment with protein folds has happened, our understanding with viruses and how they are formed is completely changed. Also, the experiment has also gained information on the history of viruses and how they came to be what they are today. One thing that they learned from the experiment is that the genetic sequence in the viruses are nothing like what is inside cells.
Overall, I think that the Author’s who made this article did a very good job but could have worked in a few areas. One of the good things in the article was how the Author’s made sure to say specifically what happened in the article. Sometimes the author will abbreviate the experiment and put less information on it. Another strength of the article was how the author’s explained why the virus discovery was so big. Often authors will say the discovery and not back it up with why the discovery was so important. In this article however, the author’s explain the importance of learning the viruses are living, which is because we originally did not know whether or not they were alive. Even though the article was mostly good, there were some weaknesses. One issue was that the author’s did not explain clearly what some of the things they said meant. For example, the article states, “The new study focused on the vast repertoire of protein structures, called ‘folds,’ that are encoded in the genomes of all cells and viruses.” To people who are not experts on the subject, such as myself, do not have a great understanding of the subject. This can be improved on by more clearly defining the terms that the average person does not understand. That would make the article easier and more enjoyable to read.
Bridget Sands
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio 10
10/17/16
Hyperlink/Citation:
Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines
Staff, News. "Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines." Sci News. N.p., 30 Sept. 2015.
Web. 4 Oct. 2016.
I read my classmate Tommy’s report on viruses. One strength of his report was the way he explained the issues of the article. He showed that there was great debate between whether or not viruses are alive. He emphasized this point by saying that there had been confusion for eras about this. He also did a good job explaining the scientific view on the situation. He supported the idea with experiments by Caetano-Anollés and Arshan Nasir, where they tested the life of viruses by seeing if proteins would fold or not. He also noted that scientists expect that there are millions of different types of viruses, when only about 5,000 have actually been found. Another section that Tommy excelled in was the critique of the article. He showed that even though the author of the original article showed the example of Caetano-Anollés and Arshan Nasir’s experiment, he didn’t quite explain it, which confused me as well.
Although Tommy’s overall report was excellent, there were a few flaws. First, he could have summarized more of the idea, explaining more of the background. By doing this, it would’ve created an easier understanding. He could’ve also brought in another experiment as an example, pushing his research further.
When reading Tommy’s reflection, my “ah-ha” moment was when I learned that scientists have debated whether or not viruses were alive. Prior to that moment, I had always assumed that they were alive, with no debate.
Andres Saralegui
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio 10
10/16/16
Hyperlink/Citation:
Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines
"Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines." Sci News. N.p., 30 Sept. 2015.
Web. 4 Oct. 2016
My classmate Tommy Purdy wrote a current event article on “Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines” by the news staff at sci-news.com. This article discusses the debate on wether virus's are actually considered living things or not. Tommy starts off the current event with a great quote from the article itself discussing the difficulty of getting a better understanding of viruses. Tommy than continues the assignment by explaining the experiment done by Prof. Caetano-Anollés and Arshan Nasir that makes the reader have a better understanding of the dilemma and give information about how the experiment disproves a commonly believed hypothesis that viruses get all of their genetic material from cells. By giving even more information from the experiment, Tommy further explains how virus's can be considered actual living things and then gives an example to why we used to think virus's were not living. Added information that Tommy put into his article really help make the reader wrap his head around the topic.
One element that Tommy could have done to improve his assignment is bring in another experiment done by professionals instead of just leave the experiment done by Prof. Caetano-Anollés and Arshan Nasir. Another example of how Tommy could have improved his current event article was by giving background information at the start of the paragraph instead of at the end. "The main reason that many believed that all viruses were non-living was because they believed that they relied on other cells from genetic material" this piece of information should've been put at the start of his first paragraph.
In conclusion, I was surprised to read that there are actual experiments to prove wether virus's are alive or not. Its interesting to see how far technology can get us to give us an answer to a simple debate.
Matthew Rizzo
ReplyDeleteOctober 16th, 2016
Purdy, Tommy. "Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines." Bronxville HS Core Biology:. N.p., 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 16 Oct. 2016.
http://bhscorebio.blogspot.com/2016/10/study-viruses-are-living-entities-not.html
The article that Tommy has reviewed it titled, “Study: Viruses Are Living Entities, Not Machines." This response that Tommy is very thorough as he goes into depth about this topic. One of Tommy’s strengths while writing this response was that he was able to use many quotes that supported the claim that viruses are alive. In addition, Tommy reviews both sides of the argument in which some members of the scientific community claim that viruses are not alive. Also, this response includes many citations including Caetano- Anollés and Arshan Nasir who were the designers of an experiment to see if viruses are alive.
Although I believe this is a well written, there are a few minor errors. At the beginning of one of his quotations, there is slight confusion because there is not a lot of context for why the quote was said however, the quote does add depth to the response. In addition, there are a few grammatical errors in the article.
Overall, this article is important as it exposes a very important scientific debate as to whether viruses are living organisms or “machines”. This article sheds light on new experiments that are proving that viruses are living, but as of right now, it is not fully accepted. With this article and response, more people can listen to this argument and may contribute to the debate.