Author: madisondegrezia26

Madison DeGrezia

Professor Vejdemo-Johansson

HON 223

21 November 2021

Children or Adults: Who would risk more for the learning experience?

After thoroughly researching and examining the recent articles uploaded to the New York Post, the news article comparing learning habits between children and adults caught my interest. The article, “Study Reveals why children may be better learners than adults’”, by Shiv Sudhakar discusses how children are less likely to get discouraged when making mistakes, in comparison to adults. Children are very creative and enjoy exploring new things. They have an imagination like no other and are constantly pushing themselves to further their learning. In contrast, adults easily lack interest and motivation when they aren’t successful. Research has been conducted to further explore the optimistic demeanor of children when learning in stark contrast with adult responses to their own failure.

The New York Post article written by Sudhakar based its findings off of the research published in the peer-reviewed paper, “Children are more exploratory and learn more than adults in an approach-avoid task”, written by Emily G. Liquin and Alison Gopnik. The research carried out was composed of four different studies where the actions of young adolescents, ranging from preschool to early ages in school, were compared with adults, ranging from ages 21-62 years old. This study prompted both parties to choose which objects were “zaffs”, which would reward them with a green smiley face on the screen if they identified them correctly. The second study was conducted similarly to the first study except this time they either gained or lost stickers based off of the outcome of choosing which objects were “zaff”. The third study explored whether there was a correlation between age and the choices made when choosing the “zaffs”. They were shown four different objects and were prompted to decide each time if it was a “zaff”. In this case, the second one was not a “zaff” to see how the participant would respond to the outcome and if they would continue playing without being discouraged by their mistake. Finally, the fourth study analyzed whether the evidence participants were given affected how they learned. For example, the evidence both parties received were deemed as either “child-like evidence” or “adult-like evidence”, depending on the objects they were given information about and how many objects they approached. Overall, the four studies concluded that children explore more than adults and were unafraid to test objects even though they were unsure of the outcome. Consequently, children have proven to produce ample data and learn more sufficiently in comparison with adults.

After extensively reviewing the information discussed in the article and the paper, it is clear that there are several similarities, along with few discrepancies. The abstract and the article were in agreement with each other, as they both captured the concept that children can be more creative and accepting of failure when it comes to learning than adults. However, the article stated that only four to five year olds participated in this scientific experiment, while the paper clearly acknowledges that preschoolers and young adolescents, up to the age of seven, were used as participants in this study. The article failed to mention that there were a total of four studies conducted, which the paper extensively discussed the procedures and results for each corresponding study. The article was considerably short in length and lacked important details that the paper included to support the claim that children are better learners than adults, as a result of their willingness to explore. This did not come as a shock due to the articles on the New York Post typically being condensed versions of the corresponding scientific paper. The purpose of the article is to intrigue their audience and convince them to conduct more research. All things considered, the New York Post article was in agreement with the paper and the abstract, despite the presence of very few discrepancies. 

 

Work Cited

Liquin, Emily G., and Alison Gopnik. “Children Are More Exploratory and Learn More than Adults in an Approach-Avoid Task.” Cognition, Elsevier, 26 Oct. 2021, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027721003632#s0245.

News, Fox. “Study Reveals Why Children May Be Better Learners than Adults.” New York Post, New York Post, 12 Nov. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/11/12/study-reveals-why-children-may-be-better-learners-than-adults/.

Madison DeGrezia

Professor Vejdemo-Johansson

HON 223

8 November 2021

Cure for Obesity: Fact or Fiction?

After thoroughly researching and examining the recent articles uploaded to the New York Post, the news article pertaining to controlling obesity rates has caught my interest. The article, “Scientists believe obesity may be cured by modifying a series of genes called ‘hippo’”, by Chris Pollard discusses the possibility of controlling the obesity rates by altering a series of genes referred to as “the hippo pathway”. Obesity has greatly affected America due to the lack of exercise and the increasing amount of fatty foods. The new generations are getting even more lazier in the surge of technology and the absence of physical activity during the Covid-19 pandemic. More and more people are remaining confined to their homes and are less motivated to go outside and parktake in some healthy physical activity with their peers. Consequently, the obesity rates have skyrocketed over the years, however recent research and studies have provided hope for a cure for obesity and the possibility of a healthier generation.

The New York Post article written by Pollard based its findings off of the data published on the peer-reviewed open access platform, PLOS Biology, titled, “Zyxin Links Fat Signaling to the Hippo Pathway”, by authors Cordelia Rauskolb,Guohui Pan, B. V. V. G. Reddy, Hyangyee Oh, Kenneth D. Irvine. The article highlights the role the hippo pathway genes play in our body and their responsibility of regulating organ size. A study was conducted on fruit flies where four genes in the brain were turned on and off to pinpoint the effect it would have on the behavior and growth of the body. Fruit flies specifically share a similar gene makeup with humans, roughly 75%, of genes that are linked to causing disease. Researchers used the data gathered on the fruit flies and suggested a possible solution to limiting the number of people suffering from obesity. It was proven that when the hippo pathway genes were not active, the species in question gained a significant amount of weight. Therefore, researchers were optimistic in determining if the same outcome would occur in the human body, allowing for treatments to be created and put in practice in the future to reduce fat. According to the study, researchers analyzed the direct impact the hippo pathway has on organs in a fruit fly, specifically the wing growth and the wing discs. The study demonstrated that the lack of Zyx in wing disc development resulted in adult flies having significantly smaller wings compared to their fellow counterparts. It was also proven that hippo signaling is in control of leg growth, so shorter legs were a consequence of Zyx depletion. The study further explored the correlation between Zyx and the hippo pathway and looked at the effect it had on the discs of wings. Overall, the study concluded that the absence of Zyx influences the Yki pathway, ultimately resulting in reduced organ growth.

The published New York Post article and the research paper share some commonalities, but there are some discrepancies that clearly set them apart from each other. Both the article and the research paper acknowledge the role the hippo pathway genes play in the body and the control those genes have on organ growth. However, the study specifically focuses on fruit flies and how the absence of Zyx, which is “a regulator of hippo signaling”, affects the growth of valuable organs in fruit flies, such as their wings and legs. The paper never clearly states that this could be connected to human obesity in the world and that hippo signaling could promise a cure to reduce fat. The article does mention that there was not a clear link between hippo pathway genes and obesity, however the author does do a great job at selling the idea of the possibility of it to his audience. This is a common issue in the scientific community when their findings are released and discussed on social media platforms. This is due to the public altering the findings of a study and making a bizarre assumption of what it could possibly infer. The public tends to completely revamp a study’s findings and alter it in a way that would grab the attention of the public. The New York Post article was condensed and provided minimal background information for the study conducted on fruit flies. The abstract and the New York Post article were in agreement that the hippo pathway genes regulate organ growth, but the abstract provided a significant amount of information regarding the study. The abstract expressed that there was a correlation between Zyx and hippo signaling along with organ growth. The purpose of both the abstract and the New York Post article is to grab the reader’s attention and draw them in to wanting to read more. However, the NY Post article gave false hope to the public and rather made an inaccurate assumption based off of the study that has not been fully researched yet.

 

Work Cited

Rauskolb, Cordelia, et al. “Zyxin Links Fat Signaling to the Hippo Pathway.” PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, 7 June 2011, https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000624#abstract1. 

Sun, The. “Scientists Believe Obesity May Be Cured by Modifying a Series of Genes Called ‘Hippo’.” New York Post, New York Post, 5 Nov. 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/11/05/scientists-believe-obesity-may-be-cured-by-modifying-a-series-of-genes-called-hippo/. 

 

Madison DeGrezia

Professor Vejdemo-Johansson

HON 223

18 October 2021

Coronavirus: A New Disease or One From the Past?

After thorough research and skimming through the recent articles published on the New York Post, “Coronaviruses have been around a lot longer than you think, study says” by Kathianne Boniello caught my interest. The Covid-19 pandemic rapidly spread across the world with a variety of symptoms that range from mild to severe cases. This disease has taken a toll on society and left people with many unanswered questions. Many people questioned where it came from and how it managed to spread so quickly. A vaccine was urgently needed, however Covid-19 mutated creating a new strand of the virus that medical officials lacked the knowledge of. Despite the common belief that the coronavirus is an upcoming disease that originated in Wuhan, China and spread to several other countries across the world, study shows that the virus may have been around much longer than we all believed.

The New York Post article written by Boniello based its findings off of the data published in the peer reviewed journal posted on “Current Biology”, “An ancient viral epidemic involving host coronavirus interacting genes more than 20,000 years ago in East Asia” by Yassine Souilmi, M. Elise Lauterbur, Ray Tobler, Nevan J. Krogan, Kirill Alexandrov, and David Enard. The article focuses on the coronavirus pandemic and the identification of past epidemics through the response and adaptation of genomes. Researchers used evolutionary information to trace the immune responses of the infected hosts and utilized this information to help predict future breakouts of diseases that can affect humanity. The study employed the STARS Method, which is a structured technique to approach unanswered questions and draw valid conclusions. In this study, the selection signals were analyzed to see if a set of VIPs were present that interacted with the coronavirus pandemic. The behavior of the VIPs were the main focus due to the protein interactions illustrating how a virus can hijack and infect a host. Based on the 35 interactions of proteins that were studied, 24 of them, approximately 73%, were verified to be CoV-VIPs. The data provided further evidence that a past epidemic in East Asia could have existed, which possessed similar protein interactions to the viral coronavirus outbreak.

The published New York Post article and the research paper share some similarities, however there are discrepancies that set them apart from each other. Both suggest the possibility of a virus in East Asia, similar to the coronavirus outbreak, spreading and infecting our ancestors. Nevertheless, the academic paper discusses how it is possible for a viral infection to exist in the past that was similar to the coronavirus, but was not identical to the one that is impacting society today. The paper rather focuses on selection signals that possess a set of VIPs that were verified to be CoV-VIPs. Therefore, the paper focuses on the interactions between the proteins and proves that their behavior is similar to how the coronavirus attached to the cell’s in the infected host’s body and replicated itself. The New York Post article was condensed and provided very little background for the study conducted. It failed to specifically explain how researchers were able to conclude that a virus similar to covid infected people in the past and enabled the genes to adapt. The article lacked the scientific evidence that strengthened the researchers’ arguments and instead provided a condensed version of the study that did not include all of the important information that was mentioned in the study. The abstract and the New York Post article were in agreement with one another for the most part, but the abstract was more in detail with how a past virus had similar interactions to how the coronavirus reacted with the host. This eye opening revelation provided researchers with evolutionary evidence that could assist in understanding and predicting future outbreaks of viruses across the world. The purpose of an abstract and a New York Times article is to grab the audience’s attention and intrigue them to read further. This explains why articles in NY Times have attention-grabbing titles that catch the eye of readers right off the bat. To sum up, the news article briefly introduces a breakthrough in science, in contrast to the research paper that provides insight on the scientific study conducted by experts.

Work Cited

Boniello, Kathianne. “Coronaviruses Have Been around a Lot Longer than You Think, Study Says.” New York Post, New York Post, 27 June 2021, https://nypost.com/2021/06/27/coronaviruses-have-been-around-longer-than-you-think-study/. 

Souilmi, Yassine, et al. “An ancient viral epidemic involving host coronavirus interacting genes more than 20,000 years ago in East Asia.” Current Biology 31.16 (2021): 3504-3514.

 

Below I attached the link for my source review.

MadisonDeGreziaSource#1