Bailey Barton
Mr. Ippolito
Biology
May 17th, 2017
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
I read the article “3-D printed ovaries produce healthy offspring” by Kristin Samuelson. As of now, scientists all around the world are using 3-D printing to make huge medical advancements, more specifically, they have begun to produce artificial organs. In this article, Samuelson talk’s about a study by the Northwestern University Feinberg School of medicine. They are trying to create implanted ovary structures that can ovulate, in doing so, they use female mice. By removing a female mouse’s ovary and replacing it with their bioprosthetic ovary, the mouse had the ability to ovulate and give birth. These ovaries are made of 3D printed scaffolds that can house immature eggs and can boost hormone production and restoring fertility in mice, in other words the study was successful. Their study not only shows the immediate results of giving mice fertility but also shows the long term effect which is that these ovaries are durable and can withstand years of use. Scientist Teresa K. Woodruff explained that this is better than transplanting from a cadaver because the bioprosthetic ovary functions as the organ and restores the health of tissue.
This study is impactful for humans because the sole purpose of this study was to be beneficial to women who have either undergone cancer treatments as an adult or those who have survived childhood cancer and now face risks of infertility and hormone issues. These bioprosthetic ovaries restore fertility and hormone production.
I believe this article was very informative on how the study took place and gave a good explanation as to why. It was a very promising article and I hope that the study is successful in providing help to cancer survivors or others facing fertility difficulty.
Catherine Faville
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Current event 12
For this assignment I read my fellow classmate, baileys assessment on the article “3-D printed ovaries produce healthy offspring” written by Kristin Samuelson, Bailey did a excellent job on analysing and reviewing the article, she described the information given very well, so that the reader under what is happening. She also did a great job at describing at how they conducted the experiment with a female mouse, and how they would be able to move this to humans, and as to why this would be needed for human females.
However bailey could have done a better job at adding more outside information on the case, making it easier to understand and better to read. Also if she added her own opinion to it, it would have added to te article and given it more personality. Along with how the procedure would be done, i was confused at what would take place for this to work, so her adding that piece of information would have cleared things up for the reader.
I found this article very interesting because it is just another example of the advancing technologies in the modern day era, and how we as people are evolving and developing things for people who suffer the basic human desire, to create children. This is a safer route than many other ways of trying to produce a child, like chemical treatments.
Alisa Fominykh
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology 10H D Odd
May 19, 2017
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
My classmate Bailey wrote a great current event review on the production of artificial ovaries, producing successful results. She read the article, “3-D printed ovaries produce healthy offspring” by Kristin Samuelson. She did a phenomenal job expressing the relevance of such an article in the medical community. Second of all, her explanation of ovaries was also nicely done, since it was simplified yet informational enough for someone who does not understand their purpose to comprehend the article. Finally, summary was short however contained all the information needed to make a reader of her review feel as if they read the article, indicating most important components were not left out.
Overall I would say her review was nicely done aside from a few sentences being choppy, thus causing the reader confusion in certain instances. Finally, I think she could have lengthened her summary only by incorporating statistics or extravagant information that would have helped support her point and leave the reader thinking after reading the review.
I chose to do my current review comment on this current event review since the title was intriguing and it interesting to see how many medical dilemmas are being solved with the aid of technology, even if it is on such a small scale as ovary replacement in mice. Because one day, such advancements can be made on people.
Kevin Leka
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio H
May 19 2017
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
I read my classmate Bailey’s report on "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring" written by Kristin Samuelson. Bailey wrote a fantastic review and although slightly brief, she did a good job explaining and reviewing the article’s main points. Bailey first opened up on a recent and current article that claims that newly developed 3-D printed ovaries may be able to be implemented soon into humans, since it proved successful for mice. She wrote a good explanation and gave background to the topic, while diving into the multiple surrounding reasons why this would be a scientific breakthrough and game changer in the medical field. Bailey did a good job reporting the information concisely , using good vocabulary, understanding the article, and analyzing it proficiently. She also used the same scientific terms found in the article, which showed her understanding about the topic. She wrote with an intriguing tone all while explaining the significance of the 3-D printed ovaries and the wide range of people it can affect. Lastly, Bailey’s analysis was well done because her review was thoughtful and gave good feedback at the end on what the authors of the article could have done differently.
Although Bailey wrote about a very intriguing topic, she can improve in a few areas. She could have furthered the research and explained how scientists will begin to test this with humans and what will scientists have to change to use it on humans. Bailey did not have any grammatical issues and she wrote a great paragraph on the importance of the study by saying, “This study is impactful for humans because the sole purpose of this study was to be beneficial to women who have either undergone cancer treatments as an adult or those who have survived childhood cancer and now face risks of infertility and hormone issues.” Bailey could have discussed more background information and explained how researchers first came across the new invention. Ultimately her review was well written.
While reading Bailey’s review, I realized the importance of 3-D printing and its many applications. This review was interesting to read because I wanted to learn about the importance of new inventions that could potentially allow a cancer patient who had become infertile to then ultimately give birth once again. The review was very interesting and was recently published which made the article even more interesting. Reading the review reminded me of the unknown areas in the medical field and although we have advanced in great leaps, there is still thousands of new ways to help better each and every important life.
My classmate, Bailey, reviewed the article “3-D printed ovaries produce healthy offspring” by Kristin Samuelson. This article explains, that all over the world doctors are using 3-D printed organs to help patients, and the newest created organ were ovaries. The first thing that caught my eye, was that the organ was first used on mice, and was very successful! I also found it interesting that this 3-D printed organ could also control hormones, ovulate and do normal functions in the uterus. Finally, I thought it was amazing that this organ was able to last, even after giving birth.
ReplyDeleteEven though Bailey did a great job on this current event, I did think she could add some aspects to her review to help the reader understand the article better. When explaining what the 3-D printed organ was made out of, she just said scaffold. This was confusing, but a quick google search answered my question. Finally, I think she could've added more quotes to her article. However, I thought Bailey did an amazing job relating this article to how beneficial it was to humans, and how exciting this breakthrough was to humanity.
This article opened my eyes to how every day we are making breakthrough discoveries in science everyday. I knew 3-D printing was helping people in many ways like building houses, but I never really knew that it could actually make organs. I will definitely look into new breakthroughs in medical technology in the future.
Susie Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology
5/30/17
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516121650.htm
Current Event 13
For this current event, I chose to read my classmate Bailey’s review of the article “3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring” by Kristin Samuelson. This article discusses the recent production of functional ovaries using a 3D printer. Bailey did a great job summarizing the article. She didn’t overload the readers with details and wrote in terms that are easy to understand. Bailey also described the experiment very well. This is an important aspect of the reviews and most people do not include it. The readers are able to better understand how these 3D printers impact the medical world and how it was discovered that functional ovaries could actually come from a 3D printer. She also explained the importance of these discoveries to readers. Bailey relays the impact the results will have on the medical world and the people it can help. The readers come away with more knowledge of the topic and the huge importance of the discoveries.
Bailey’s review was really great, however, there are some aspects of improvement that Bailey could make. First, she should have developed her critique of the article. She gives no criticism of the article and only a few sentences of praise. When I am reading this review, I want to learn about the content of the article, but also what the author did right or wrong. Another aspect that could be improved is the use of quotes. Bailey could have better supported her arguments and statements with quotes from one of the scientists or a researcher that described more background information on the experiment or the results. However, Bailey wrote a wonderful review that was very informational.
I chose to read this review because the title caught my attention. I have heard of other incredible inventions made by the 3D printer, but I hadn’t read a lot about them. I think it is so amazing that 3D printers can help us in so many different ways. This review was really interesting and I learned so much about the impacts of 3D printers.
Alyssa Lee
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology 10H
26 May 2017
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516121650.htm
I decided to evaluate my classmate, Bailey’s, current event review on the article “3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring” by Kristin Samuelson. The article pertains to the development of bioprosthetic ovaries synthesized through the use of 3-D printing- these “ovaries” can be placed into women with fertility issues to enable them to be able to conceive children. Bailey’s article was extremely well-written and it was concise, encapsulating the article very well. This can be seen when Bailey states, “These ovaries are made of 3D printed scaffolds that can house immature eggs and can boost hormone production…”. In one sentence, Bailey is able to describe both the process of creating the ovaries and their effects on the carrier. This was very efficient and in turn led to a more concise, accurate analysis of the article. Another aspect that Bailey performed well was her description of the impact that this innovation would have on the rest of the world. She relates the development of these bioprosthetic ovaries to both the essential role of women in childbirth and cancer survivors, and explains how the ovaries will benefit women suffering from some form of infertility to overcome that issue. Bailey states, “This study is impactful for humans because the sole purpose of this study was to be beneficial to women who have either undergone cancer treatments as an adult or those who have survived childhood cancer and now face risks of infertility and hormone issues…” Bailey was also able to craft a detailed and interesting summary of the article, and the process by which they tested this invention was especially well-described. She states, “By removing a female mouse’s ovary and replacing it with their bioprosthetic ovary, the mouse had the ability to ovulate and give birth”.
Although Bailey’s review was an enjoyable and fascinating read, there are some areas that could be improved. For example, some of Bailey’s grammar in her review was incorrect- she states, “They are trying to create implanted ovary structures that can ovulate, in doing so, they use female mice.” The “in doing so” should be either in a separate sentence, or separated by a semicolon. However, this is only a minor issue. The larger issue with Bailey’s paper was the proportion of the amount of text and effort put into each different paragraph. Although the first paragraph reads very well and contains a sufficient amount of content, the second and third paragraphs are lacking in this respect. They also seem to be less polished and clean, as the sentences are seen to grow more “choppy” and less thoughtful. For example, in the last paragraph, Bailey comments, “I believe this article was very informative on how the study took place and gave a good explanation as to why.” The wording of the sentence is somewhat awkward, and it does not provide an adequate summary of the experiment nor its significance. Despite these shortcomings, I nevertheless believe that this review was an immensely enjoyable read.
From reading this article and the review, I learned that science is expanding, even now, to improve the lives of women specifically in society. The development of these biosynthetic ovaries will certainly be wholly beneficial to the role of women in giving them a choice as to whether or not they would like to conceive. I chose to read this review because I was interested to see how scientists could possibly induce a change in a woman’s reproductive cycle in order to make it possible for infertile women to regain their fertility. My perspective on life has changed from reading and analyzing this review because I was able to not only see how far science and biology have come in terms of pure progress, but I was also able to observe its effects on the future of women and humanity in general.
Kathryn Haggerty
ReplyDeleteMr.Ippolito
Core Biology
September 27, 2018
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516121650.htm
For this week's current event, I read Bailey Barton’s interpretation of the article “3-D printed ovaries producing healthy offspring”. Overall, Bailey did a great job on analyzing and reviewing the article. She did a great job in expressing the relevance of the topic and how it relates to today's society. Secondly, when parts of the article were not fully explained, she gave an explanation of it so the reader understood the topic. In this case, when describing the ovaries she did a great job. Finally, her review gave good feedback at the end of what the authors could have done to further the article. All of these aspects show how devoted she was to the chosen article and improving it in her own way.
On the other hand, even though Bailey wrote a very intriguing review on her topic, she also has a few errors. First, Bailey could’ve discussed more of the background information on the ovaries and how researchers first came up with the invention. This would show the first steps towards the success of the project. Secondly, when she was describing the 3-D printed organ, she was very faint in describing what it was made of. This shows lack of initiative of her chosen topic. Although there were a few mistakes, Bailey did a great job on her review.
In the end, the article just showed how technology is developing more and more everyday. I have always known 3-D printers to print solid objects, but the fact that it could potentially print a living body part shows how far we are getting on a daily basis. This review was very interesting and opened my mind to the many capabilities of 3-D printers.
ReplyDeleteThe blog post written by Bailey Barton on the article 3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring discusses how scientists all around the world are using 3D printers to make huge medical advancements. She talks about how they are creating “implanted ovary structures” that can ovulate. They are currently being tested on female mice. After removing the mice’s ovaries and replacing them with the 3-D printed ones, the mice were still able to ovulate and give birth.
Studies have also shown that these ovaries will be able to be successfully used for years after inserted.
Bailey did a great job explaining in detail what the article’s purpose was. When she said: “Samuelson talk’s about a study by the Northwestern University Feinberg School of medicine.” she did a great job of giving background information about her article. Bailey also did a great job at explaining the importance of her article. Although the use of only one sentence she did a good job getting her point across. When she stated that “This study is impactful for humans because the sole purpose of this study was to be beneficial to women who have either undergoing cancer treatments as an adult or those who have survived childhood cancer and now face risks of infertility and hormone issues.” it is evident that she got her entire point across.
Even though Bailey did a great job explaining her article in detail, her job explaining the article could have been better. Her once sentence explanation was very packed but it would of been better if she had spread the reason of impactfulness out into a few sentences or a paragraph.
She also had a very short and unexplained conclusion which I believe she should work on in the future. When she said “I believe this article was very informative on how the study took place and gave a good explanation as to why.” It would of been nice for her to add some detail and examples. Her conclusion was only two sentences and I feel she could of explained her reason for choosing and her conclusion in a more effective and detailed way.
I chose this article because I love 3D printing. I also love medicine and want to be a doctor. At my old school we had a 3D printer and I was able to have hands on experiences with it. I found it very interesting that you are able to both ovulate and reproduce with these printed ovaries. I also found it a very good article that I can use to give tips on how the article could have been better written in some parts. I enjoyed the topic and the article very well and would definitely be intrigued to read more about it in the future
Teddy Wardell 10/11/18
ReplyDeleteBio C ODD Current Event
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516121650.htm
For this week's current event I read Bailey Bartons review on the article, "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." This article talks about how scientists can but 3-D printed Ovaries into a mouse and it will create a completely healthy offspring when giving birth. Bailey wrote a very good article and I liked many aspect of her writing. First, I like how she gives a vast amount of detail in her writing. This gives the readers more insite when reading the article. It also gives the reader good background information. Another thing that Bailey did well was give a strong opinion on weather or not she thought the article was good. She said that she enjoyed the article and we can tell from her response. Finally, I think that Bailey did a good job talking about how this experiment with mice and affect humans. Building prosthetic organs will help humans in the future.
Bailey had a very solid article. However, I would have added some things to the text to make it even better. First Bailey had some grammar mistakes such as missing punctuation. This could have been easily fixed by proof reading the paper or using an application like grammarly to check the work. Another, thing that I would have changed is having a bit more explanation in the final paragraph. This would help the reader understand why you liked or disliked certain aspects of the article.
I learned a lot in this article about 3-D printing. I had no idea that 3-D printing was so impactful to our society. I found this to be very interesting because 3-D printing can change so many people's lives. Adding a prosthetic limb or creating a fake organ is very fascinating. Overall, I thought that this article was very well written and was very insightful.
Isabella Bouvard
ReplyDeleteCore Biology 10H|Block C-Odd - Mr. Ippolito
Current Events #4
10/12/18
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516121650.htm
For this current events assignment, I read Bailey Barton’s review of the article “3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring” published by ScienceDaily. In general the analyzation of the article was very well written as the article was very understandable. Bailey's point of view described how such a discovery can impact the lives of many struggling with issues today, and the overall relevance of this artificial organ specifically. She also did a very good job of explaining all of the evidence included in the article, making sure to note key points to the reader throughout her reflection. This report also included many accounts of how this has been successful in general and it was thoroughly explained in a very structured fashion that was easy to understand while going into depth at certain points.
However, despite presenting such a well written review, there were a few things I noticed as to how Bayley can improve through her analysis. First of all, There aren't indents or spacings between each paragraph. This makes it hard to determine where the paragraph ends and starts up again. While I first read through it, I had a difficult time viewing the specific paragraphs. By making this slight altercation, her format would be more organized and presentable for the reader. Also, I wish Bailey explained more information as to how the idea of the artificial organs was originally thought out and when/where they were first tested. This would describe to the reader the first actions taken by researchers in this process. However, despite these mistakes, Bailey is a strong writer and did a good job on her review in general.
Bailey’s writing made me aware as to the usage of 3-D printed organs. I knew that 3-D printing was normally utilized in science, technology, architecture, etc., although I never knew that they could be used for something as complex as the human body. This review describes how technology is advancing and being applied to medicinal and scientific purposes as well. Although this is simply an experiment being performed on mice, it will one day have the ability to potentially help a cancer patient or just someone in need of ovaries.
Alex Doukas
ReplyDeleteCurrent Event Comment
Bio C Odd
Mr. Ippolito
Samuelson, Kristin. "3-D Printed Ovaries Produce Healthy Offspring." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 May 2017. Web. 17 May 2017.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170516121650.htm
I read the review written by Bailey Barton. She read the article “3-D printed ovaries produce healthy offspring” by Kristin Samuelson. In this article, the author further explains how technology is advancing in our society today and looked deeper into that fact and explained what new advancements scientists around the world are creating involving 3D printers. Bailey added that Samuelson, the author talks about a study by the Northwestern University Feinberg School of medicine and that they are trying to create implanted ovary structures that can ovulate using female mice. By removing a female mouse’s ovary and replacing it with their bioprosthetic ovary, the mouse had the ability to ovulate and give birth. I chose this review because I am unfamiliar with this certain topic and it is interesting to learn about how technology is improving everyday.
While reading this review, I think Bailey could have further explained what's next with this idea. She clearly stated what the purpose was and what scientists are going to be performing but explaining in more detail about the experiment in general will engage the reader. Also getting perspectives such as scientists working on the new development will give the reader a better understanding and have a different perspective on it. After explaining the objectives that scientists are seeking to perform, she could have added what people are thinking about it so far in the process and what the next steps are to improvement.
Although there were very few weaknesses throughout the review, Bailey overall did a great job. She got into great detail about what the ideas of scientists was and what their ideas and new inventions were. She added that these bioprosthetic ovaries restore fertility and hormone production which is a very interesting point that I'd guess most don't know about. Overall this was a very important and interesting article and Baileys review on it gave insight about the topic and what scientists are doing moving forward.