Julian Thomet
Mr. Ippolito
Bio IH D135
11 May, 2017
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/20/science/revive-restore-extinct-species-dna-mamm
oth-passenger-pigeon.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click
&contentCollection=earth®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPla
cement=11&pgtype=sectionfront>.
Current Events 11
The article “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is Is Worth the Cost?” by Steph Yin, asks the important question: Now that we have the ability to bring back extinct creatures, should we do it? The article covers both sides of the debate, both of which make some valid points. On one side, there are those who argue that it is not worth it, and that with the money available for these projects, people should focus more on helping creatures that are still alive. Such a point is advocated by scientists like Dr. Joseph Bennett, of the Carleton University. He argues that, although it would be nice to have these creatures back, the effect could be detrimental to the animals who would have the DNA implanted in them. For example, it could be possible to create a new population of mammoths, but this could harm the Asian and African Elephants, which would get the DNA, and “ ‘In 50 years, we might not have those elephants,’ says Joseph Bennett” (Yin 8). Another issue to consider is that the money required to bring back a species from extinction could be used to save more animals. “If you have the millions of dollars it would take to resurrect a species and choose to do that, you are making an ethical decision to bring one species back and let several others go extinct,” Dr. Bennett said. “It would be one step forward, and three to eight steps back” (Yin 19-22). However, some argue that these arguments do not appreciate the more advanced technology that now exists. Groups like Revive & Restore, a group working to bring back extinct creatures, argue that they always consider the long term benefits and downsides in deciding whether to bring back a creature. They also argue that some animals, like the passenger pigeon, also have a positive impact on the environment around them. The passenger pigeon helps its habitat by breaking down trees and producing fertilizer that helps trees to continue to grow and reproduce. However, scientists like Dr. Joseph Bennett still argue that pursuits such as this one are only worthwhile for the sake of improving technology, but that it is not as worthwhile as conservation of endangered species.
This article bears some relevance on us and the world around us. More and more species are becoming extinct every day. In fact, the article estimates that 20 per cent of species are now endangered, and it estimates that by 2100, half of the world’s species could face endangerment of extinction. This is a trend that may soon become irreversible, if we do not start taking more action to reverse it. Ideally, there would be enough money for both conservation and bringing back animals, but for the time being, there is not enough money for either, and scientists and politicians are being forced to make extremely difficult choices about which animals to save, and which ones to allow to go extinct. If people do not attempt to stop the trend of animals becoming endangered, and extinct, there may come a time when this debate is moot, because we will be dealing only with creatures that have gone extinct.
In general, the article does a good job summarizing both sides of the argument. Both sides’ opinions are laid out in great detail. It includes a lot of relevant information about the topic, which also made it possible for the reader to make informed decisions on his/her own without the opinions provided in the piece. In spite of the article’s thoroughness, one gets the sense that the author was slightly in favor of Dr. Bennett’s point of view. This is because the piece was set up with his points at the beginning and end, with the counter-point seemingly put there so that it could be rebutted. The article was very well written, though. There was very little scientific terminology used, and any terminology that was used was explained in depth. This made it a lot easier to understand what the author was trying to communicate. This topic will become more relevant in the coming years as technology continues to improve.
dope
ReplyDeletedope x2
DeleteSarah Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio: Current Event Comment
9 May, 2017
Current Event #11
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.
.
My classmate, Julian Thomet, wrote a review on the article titled, “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?” from The New York Times author Steph Yin. In his review, Julian did a great job identifying the benefits and downsides of resurrecting extinct species, providing a full summary of the article, and using sufficient quotes from credited sources included in the original article. Firstly, Julian was successfully able to share both sides of the argument regarding the resurrection of extinct animals, without including any bias based on his own point of view. This is important in making sure that each side is accounted for and so that the topic is presented in a manner that both respects and appreciates the readers’ own opinions. Julian was also able to provide a summary on the whole article and expanded on each idea in depth. This is helpful for his audience and allows the rest of his review to be properly set-up. Finally, Julian included strong quotes from the original article that supported each of his statements. For example, he included multiple quotes from Dr. Joseph Bennett of Carleton University. By doing this, Julian has established credibility within his review and has also provided support for each side of the argument that was proposed within the article.
Although Julian’s article was very well-written, next time he can try to improve upon two minor flaws. First off, he could have suggested some ways that people can try to save or help endangered species. By including this, Julian could have further persuaded his audience to take action and make change in our world. For example, Julian could have included this when he discusses how endangerment “is a trend that may soon become irreversible, if we do not start taking more action to reverse it.” Secondly, Julian could have talked more in depth about the possible plans either in resurrecting species or protecting them by using the money that would instead be used to recreate them. In doing so, he would have provided his audience with further explanations into the minds of the groups on either side of this argument and would have allowed his readers to be more informed.
To conclude, Julian’s review made me realize that we all need to be more aware of our surroundings and all need to pitch in and work together, in order to save our planet. These animals are fading away at a more rapid pace everyday, and we need to be more cognizant of how our actions are affecting the world, and, more specifically, the animals that inhabit it. I chose Julian’s review because this topic of discussion means a lot to me and I was unaware that groups have begun to think about resurrecting extinct animals, so I was curious about this topic.
Kevin Leka
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Bio H
May 10 2017
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017. .
For this week’s current event review, I read Julian Thomet’s report on "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" Julian did a good job on the review that was precise and relative to a growing concern regarding extinct species. He did a good job explaining and reviewing the article’s main points by addressing the economic issue first and how bringing back a species from extinction might have positive effects on society like the passenger pigeon.
Julian introduced his article by speaking about the debate on both sides. He gave background to how large of an issue this was and can become. Julian wrote a good explanation representing groups like Revive & Restore which works to bring back extinct creatures. Their argument is that they always consider the long term benefits and downsides in deciding whether to bring back a creature. Although this topic is relatively new, Julian did a good job reporting on this issue because at the trend the world is currently at for animals going extinct, “there may come a time when this debate is moot, because we will be dealing only with creatures that have gone extinct.” My classmate used a rich vocabulary which showed his understanding of the article. While he was analyzing the article in his review, he used the same terms found in the article. Julian’s analysis was well done because his conclusion was carefully put together, while giving good feedback towards the author of the article and areas of improvement.
Julian could only improve in a one area, since he had written such a phenomenal review. He could have expanded on the research and explain more of the pros and cons of this issue. He also could have explained any potential drawbacks that the author did not mention. Although the author of his article did a good job discussing the current issue at hand, Julian could have given more of his opinion in his review of the article. For example, he writes “This topic will become more relevant in the coming years as technology continues to improve,” he could have expanded more and really left the reader with a resounding conclusion to remember.
While reading Julian’s review, I realized how big of an issue this will soon become and how many animals are becoming extinct. This review was interesting to read because I had not known that this new technology had become available and that it had been created to recreate forgotten or past species. The review was very interesting and his analysis was well done. Reading the review reminded me of every animal's role in the environment and we as humans, have a responsibility to uphold since we have taken so much of their much needed space to survive and live.
Alisa Fominykh
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology 10H D Odd
May 11, 2017
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.
.
This week I chose to critique the current event review my classmate Julian did on the article called “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?” by Steph Yin. In the summary Julian states the article was about how in the future we will have the ability to bring back extinct species to life, however also states that it might come at a cost, since in the long run animals are becoming extinct on a regular basis. I thought Julian did a good job utilizing quotes to support his summarization of the article. Additionally, his analysis of both the pros and cons was also nicely done since it left the reader with almost no questions. Finally, his use of statistics such as the data at which species are becoming endangered or predicted years helps further the importance of the article and how although we may in the future have the ability to recreate these animals, it is still important to stall their extinction in the present moment.
Overall I believe he wrote a good review, however I do believe that he could have done a bit more outside research, along with potentially mention his personal point of view regarding the matter since as the reader that was something I was interesting in learning. Also, I believe he could have further emphasized what we as people can do to protect endangered species since the rapid rate of extinction is something which I realized after reading this and hope to help stop this process.
I chose to read this review of the article since animal extinction has always interested me since it makes me sad to think that one day certain creatures which may be amongst my favorites may no longer roam this Earth.
Susie Goodell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology
5/17/17
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.
.
Current Event 12
This week, I read my classmate Julian’s review of the article, “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?” by Steph Yin. This article discusses both sides of the debate about whether or not we should bring back extinct species with the new technologies. Julian did a great job explaining the arguments of both sides. There is no bias in his summary as he discusses the differences between the two sides of the debate. This is important for readers to have a non-biased explanation of the situation. He also incorporated quotes from both sides of the debate which supported his arguments and made his summary stronger. We get to hear directly from scientists who are studying this problem and trying to come up with solutions. Julian did a wonderful job placing this problem in perspective. He reminded the readers of the relevance of the problems in this situation and how we need to decide which are more important: saving living animals or bringing back extinct. He did a great job relaying the importance of this debate to the readers.
Despite all the great parts of this review, there are a few things that Julian could improve on. For starters, he could add details about how it is possible for us to bring back extinct animals. I didn’t know that we had this ability and I am sure other readers had not heard of it either. This would be an important fact to explain at the beginning of his review. Also, Julian should have spoken a bit more about the side that wants to bring the extinct species back. He discusses in great detail the arguments of the people who don’t want to bring the species back, but he only briefly introduces us to the arguments of the other side when comparing the two. It is important for readers to understand both sides in order to see the pros and cons of both. However, Julian’s review was very well-written overall.
At this time in class, we are studying fossils and the information we can gather from them. I saw the title of this article and was immediately interested in it. It is so incredible that there might be a way to bring back these amazing creatures that have been extinct for millions of years. However, as Julian mentions in the review, it is important for us to realize the impact these creatures will have on our world and remember that we have to protect the species we already have.
Luke Redman
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Biology 10H
May 18th 2017
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.
.
My classmate Julian wrote an excellent review of Steph Yin’s article, “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is it Worth the Cost?” Julian extensively outlined the positives and negatives of resurrected ancient species back to life, using quotes and his own full summary of the article. He also presented the information with no bias, showing both sides of the argument. This is incredibly important because when presenting the review to other readers, it allows them to be informed on both sides, allowing them to form their own opinion on the topic. Lastly, the quotes that Julian included in his review are extremely credible, which gives his review more credibility with those who might be more skeptical about the information. Although Julian’s article was extensive and well informed, there were a few extremely minor errors that he could have fixed. In his review, he could have engaged the reader a bit more in the topic and his own opinion, using more colorful language to convey the importance of the topic. Another aspect that he could have improved upon was how we can prevent the extinction of species without resorting to this technology, which could have made people more aware of the problem of extinction. Overall, Julian has written a great article that provided extensive information and will enjoy reading his next review.
Catie Burnell
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
Core Biology Honors
May 19, 2017
My classmate Julian Thomet recently wrote a review on the article “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?” by Steph Yin of the New York Times. Julian did a great job including details of both points of view on the subject detailed in the article, which is important so that readers know all of the pros and cons of reviving extinct species, a large scientific advancement. Additionally, Julian reviewed Yin’s writing very well, showing that he fully read and analyzed the article. Julian also included some very helpful quotes from the article in his review, which further proved the claims he made in his review and verified his statements.
Julian overall had a very well-written review, but there are a still a few things upon which he could improve. For example, I felt that there was very little summary or context on the actual issue at hand, which would have been helpful for me to fully understand his review. Also, I think that Julian should have included more detail on the disadvantageous aspects of bringing back extinct species in order for readers to get the full viewpoint of the article he read. However, Julian still did a great job in writing a comprehensive, interesting review.
The most surprising point I learned from this article was how quickly many species are becoming extinct and how nearly half of the current species alive will be extinct or endangered by the year 2100. This fact truly shows how dire the need to preserve and aid the environment is, especially amongst the debate occurring in America over government involvement in the environment.
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 19 May 2017.
Marina Alfano
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
5/18/17
Current Event 12
Yin, Steph. "We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 20 Mar. 2017. Web. 08 May 2017.
.
My classmate Julian Thomet wrote a review on the article titled “We Might Soon Resurrect Extinct Species. Is It Worth the Cost?” published by the New York Times. In his review, Julian did a good job explaining why this topic is controversial. I liked that he provided a full summary of the article and also included quotes that further explained the article because we got to hear from the scientists studying from the studies. Another thing Julian did well in his review was having no bias. He explained both sides of the review, explaining the downsides and the upsides to resurrecting extinct species. Lastly, I enjoyed that Julian showed the relevance of these studies to our lives today.
Although I think that Julian did a great job writing his review, there were a few minor areas where he could have improved. After reading his review, I am still slightly confused on how scientists can bring back animals. I think Julian could have included a few details about that at the beginning of his review to help the reader better understand. Also, I think Julian could have included more information supporting the argument that we should resurrect species.
I was compelled to read this article because we have recently been learning about evolution and I didn’t know that it was even possible to resurrect extinct species. The main thing that surprised me in his summary was the rate at which species go extinct and how it is extremely fast. This shows that we need to protect our environment as best as we can because if we continue how we have been, the number of species on our planet will begin to dwindle.