From a recent study concerning a differential purpose of ‘fish-killing toxins’ two scientists, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) microbiologist Paul V. Zimba, and chemist Peter Moeller of the U.S National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), have ‘claimed’ to come to a remarkable conclusion. Or so says Green Environment News. The article written on the news website states that these two scientists have determined that a “fish-killing toxin could kill cancer cells” (Green Environment News, 2009). The article somewhat describes the possible positive “cancer killing” effects of certain toxins that are known to be harmful to select fresh water fish. To summarize, the article details why the toxin, euglenophycin, was originally tested, the results from the test, and also discusses briefly the lab test that was done to conclude that these toxins may help to decrease cancer cell growth. The article differed from the journal due to over-sensationalizing and also the article did not support the bold findings of the study well enough for the reader to believe the findings.
To begin, the reviewer from Green Environment News appears to have overstated the potential impact of the toxin on cancer cells. The title of the article “fish-killing toxin could kill cancer cells” is quite intense. The title suggests that this study, and the scientists who conducted the study, have more or less discovered a way to cure cancer. When reading in depth into the study however, it can be determined that tests conducted had shown that certain concentrations of the toxin, euglenophycin, decrease the growth of cancer cells. The article however presents the information differently in order to draw the readers in by stating that “lab tests have shown that even low concentrations of euglenophycin led to a significant decrease in cancer cell growth, and can kill cancer cells” (Green Environment News, 2009). By using added phrases such as “even low concentrations” and “significant decrease” and “can even kill cancer cells” the author has over sensationalized the study.
Secondly, the author did not produce enough actual evidence in the article to make the piece seem credible. There are some stats listed pertaining to the fish mortalities and initial testing to determine which toxin was killing the fish. However no stats are given to explain or show the findings that this toxin can decrease the growth of cancer cells. All the reader is provided with is the statement that “lab tests have shown”.
Even though the primary study has concluded that euglenophycin can decrease the growth of cancer cells, I believe that the reviewer of the study has selectively chosen not to expand upon the possible side-effects or other risks inherent with the beneficial use of this toxin that are detailed in the study. Therefore, it is in my opinion that the author of the article has been almost to optimistic with results from this study, jumping to the conclusion in the article that these toxins, which are known to be deadly to fish, will solve one of the foremost problems in the world today; cancer.
Sources
Moeller, Peter & Zimba, Paul V. (2009)
Journal of Fish Disease
Green Environment News (2009), “Fish-killing toxin could kill cancer cells”
September 8th 2009
Accessed October 5th 2009
-Emily Hartwig
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you did a great job of specifically pointing out the syntax that the journalist used to over-state the results of this experiment. It is amazing the difference in connotation and meaning of a phrase that a few little words can make! There exists a fine line between simplifying a complex scientific experiment and using inadequately explained results to support outrageous claims, which is what these authours seem to have done.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Olivia in the comment previously posted above. It is truly amazing how an author can distort research by changing a few simple words. With out anyone really knowing how much those words exaggerate the real truth of the research done in the primary article.
ReplyDeleteOverall it was a great analysis of your primary resource. You did a good job of showing the authors weakness and exposing what she had done wrong.
Kendra Bester
I'm glad you made it clear that the author of the secondary article made exaggerated claims. So many authors manage to do exactly that, and people fall for it, and without properly analyzing the text they assume the claim made in the title is accurate. Rather than helping the population become more knowledgeable, all it does is make the author richer (if the article is being sold) and bring the general population farther from the truth. Although those in search of further knowledge on the topic should read the primary article for more insight, I believe authors should stop making overdone claims, as they are of no real help.
ReplyDelete