2. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091002104022.htm
By: Newton Tran
Found in the journal Toxicon was the article “Identification of euglenophycin – A toxin found in certain euglenoids” written by 5 scientists including Paul V.Zimba. In their research they focused on a killing toxin produced by freshwater algae that kills certain types of fish. However it has a very similar molecular structure to a tumor inhibitor. After the release of this journal article a reviewed article was written by Science Daily explaining the results the scientist found. By reading both pieces of literature I have found a few things the secondary article was missing in terms of the original journal article: Sentence structure, facts that were not included, and complex terminology.
Within both articles many of the facts remained the same. However a few things that were different between the two were the sentences structure. This is because of the target audience the article is presented towards. The Journal article that includes the results and methods are directed to other scientists. On the other hand the other article is directed towards to the public, the sentences in this article are given more flavor to be gain attention.
The audience does have an impact on how each type of literature is written; this influences other things such as how in depth the content goes. One of the details that were left out in the secondary article was the location of each of these experiments; the author claims that all of the experiments were held in North Carolina. However this is not the entire truth, the experiments did occur in other locations including: South Carolina, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. As you can see the secondary article does not include these other location, even though they are equally important.
Another difference between the two articles was details in chemicals used in the experiments. It is evident that in a science journal, complex chemical names are described in their experiments. Unlike the other journal article the number of science terms were cut down very short. I believe this is the only way to keep the public reader informed about the topic without making the topic sound complex. That is one of the major differences that were found, the types of terminology that was used. Relating this to the previous point about the audience, the secondary article does large amounts of simplify with the information.
There was one confusing or at least a false fact that was stated in the secondary source that was not found in the primary source. It stated in the secondary source that the chemical “Euglenophycin” it could kill cancer cells. However when I looked at the primary source it only said that cancer cells were decreased, and nothing related to the mortality of cancer cells. This is probably an example of how different the two articles are. One will try to capture the reader’s attention while the content is watered down, and the other is providing detailed explanation of their experiments. These are 2 different goals the articles are attempting to achieve.
Overall the comparison between the primary articles against the secondary article both has its limitations. The primary article’s limitation is that the majority of their content is only understood by other scientists; the regular person would not be able to understand it or want to read it due to its complexity. However besides its complexity the primary source provides all the details of the experiment. The secondary source only includes the important details; all of the content is simplified so the public is able to understand. In this case it was found that there was a false claim about the subject, this is probably a tactic to capture the regular people’s attention. Therefore each of the articles are written for different audiences and for that reason the language and use of terms are varied depending on who the article is directed to.
References:
Zimba, Paul V., Peter D. Moeller, Kevin Beauchesne, Hannah E. Lane, and Richard E. Triemer. "Identification of euglenophycin – A toxin found in certain euglenoids." Toxicon (2009): 1-5. 15 July 2009. Web. 6 Oct. 2009.
USDA/Agricultural Research Service (2009, October 4). Fish-Killing Toxin Could Kill Cancer
I think you did a good job about pointing out the differences in your articles. Your secondary article definitely dramatized much information but it did make it more interesting! I also noticed the difference in the effects of the titles of the articles. The title of your secondary article grabs the readers attention easily because it concerns human health, while the title of the primary article didn't really have an effect. I didn't know what euglenophycin was and therefore wouldn't really be interested in that article. This illustrates the differences in the purpose of the sources
ReplyDeleteGreat comparison of the two articles. I find it interesting that you conclude by stating that the secondary article would make a false claim to captivate the general public. It would be interesting to find out what the primary article means when they say that the cancer cells are decreasing. Overall your blog was well structured and easy to be intrigued.
ReplyDeletei loved the comparison, it was very evident that the primary article was for science purpose and the secondary article for grabbing readers. The differences between that articles were very well described. Great work!!!
ReplyDelete