Rhetorical Analysis

The journal that I read articles from was the PLoS Biology. After reading Linton et al.'s article, I noticed multiple conventions they list as specific to the sciences. For instance, many times the articles would start out with an abstract that provided an overview of the research and the conclusions found, then in the substance of the article would follow with materials/methods, results, a discussion and conclusion. Also, there were never direct quotes from people, but things were still cited. Many times in science writing, the specific language isn't important, but the ideas are what matters. The authors of the articles would find information from other sources and then put it into their own words. There was never any mention of other particular people or research like there would be in articles relating to the humanities. If there ever was a mention, then it related more to past research rather than to specific individuals. Instead of trying to disregard or completely change views, the goal is to add on to previous experiments and from the accumulation of all the results comes new theories.

It makes sense to me that articles for people in the sciences focus less on language and more on the actual data in the paper because in many instances, people aren't as skilled in that field. That's not to say that they don't know how to write, but just that they don't see the choice of each and every word as the most important thing. The audience that the journal is directed toward is definitely towards people who understand how and why the articles are written, and know how to gather the information they need to find.

Microglia may contribute to learning and memory in the brain

Microglia are a type of cell found in the brain and spinal cord, and act as an immune defense in the central nervous system. They constantly scavenge the the nervous system for damaged neurons, plaques, and infectious agents. It is well-known about the important role microglia play in immune responses to brain injury, and how they become very active when the nervous system is threatened.
However, less is known about what microglia do when there is no threat present, so a study was done to further explore the roles of microglia under non-pathological conditions. The researchers used electron microscopy and other techniques to observe the interaction between inactive microglia and synaptic elements in the visual cortex of mice, and how microglia behaved in response to limited light exposure. They found that there were surprising changes in microglial behavior during alterations in visual experience, which could mean that microglia may participate in the modification or elimination of synaptic structures, and therefore may actively contribute to learning and memory in the healthy brain.

The upside of slackers

The article I read this week is about an experiment done by researchers that looks at yeast populations and whether or not so-called slackers benefit the rest. Classic theory holds that cheating comes at the expense of society as a whole, making populations composed entirely of co-operators the most fit. I thought this was pretty interesting, as we've already discussed group dynamics and what type of people exist in groups, and this article strives to solve the biological basis of group work. In yeast, co-operators are ones that secrete an enzyme called invertase that converts sucrose into glucose. The cheats, or slackers, are strains of yeast that do not secrete invertase, thus enjoying the benefits of glucose without incurring the costs of production.
Researchers found that under certain conditions, slackers actually benefited the population, and that a mix of co-operators and slackers was the combination the yielded the most production.
So-called co-operators and cheats are common in societies from microorganisms to people, and game theory is used to inform economic and social policy. But people are far more complex than yeast and even this microorganism may be too complex to be neatly divided into co-operators and cheats. We all have different strengths and a slacker in one context may be a contributing member of society in another.

Science Blog

My major is biological sciences, so I decided to look at articles from the journal PLoS Biology. Biology is a pretty broad subject with lots of more specific disciplines within it, and this journal has articles from pretty much anything you're interested in. Hopefully this way I will be able to look a wide range of research instead of being restricted to just ecology or cell biology, for example. Also, by looking at this particular journal rather than a more specified one, I have a greater chance of finding articles that are not super difficult to summarize for people that are not in the same subject, or even for me because sometimes they can be pretty hard to grasp. Over the past semesters I've taken a wide array of biology courses, so I like that when I look at the different articles from this journal that I can recognize things I've learned in class before. I'm constantly changing my mind about which area I want to focus on in the future, and maybe by reading all the different articles I can from a better idea about which area I like the most and what type of research I would like to be involved in.

Genre

So I know our assignment for Tuesday was to read the article about genre, and has been basically reassigned for Thursday, but I still find it hard to read. I skimmed it once, then reread, and have looked at it again but some of the language just makes no sense to me. It's hard for me to grasp things like this, because I see it as so abstract. I feel like because it's not concrete at all that I can't apply it to situations that make sense to me. It's all well and good to discuss what genre or rhetoric is, but if I can't repeat it in my own words where others can understand me, then I don't think I've really learned anything. I'm going to look at it again, and hopefully with the discussion tomorrow some of my questions will be answered.

Wikipedia Debate

Last week in class, we watched a video of a debate between the founder of wikipedia Jimmy Wales and a wikipedia opponent, who was writer Andrew Keen. I thought they both brought up valid points, but in the end I tended to side more with Jimmy Wales.
I do not think that the internet is bringing about the demise of the intellectual, as Andrew Keen believes. The reason I sided against him more is that it seemed most of his arguments had clear holes that Jimmy Wales had perfectly rational explanations for. One such argument was that wikipedia does not limit how long the articles are, and therefore people who read it can't tell which subject is more important. With print encyclopedias, the more important subjects are longer compared to less significant subjects. Keen said that without this discrimination, people will not be able to tell the difference and will not know what is significant. I don't think this is true, and Wales brought up a good point when he said that the only reason encyclopedia writers actually did this was because they had to use paper so there was limited space. I thought it was interesting when Wales said that wikipedia is the realization of all encyclopedia writers-- to have the ability to cover all subjects equally and factually. Of course there are mistakes on wikipedia, as there are in any encyclopedia, and it is necessary to read the information critically, but I think wikipedia is a great service. I use it all the time, and don't really know what I would do without it.

Working in Groups

After reading the article about the different types of people that are in groups, I can definitely say that I've encountered a couple of them. I think some of the categories may be a little extreme from what I have seen, but they definitely seem similar. There's definitely been the person who means well, but that really doesn't know what they are doing and the rest of the group has to end up rewriting that person's part. And of course, there always seems to be a slacker who doesn't do anything, but is still able to take some credit.
If I were to categorize myself, I'm not really sure that I would fit into one of the categories. I'm definitely not a slacker, but I don't think I'm the other extreme which is the dominant leader. I tend not to be an aggressive person by nature, so it isn't my first instinct to take the lead in a group right off the bat. However, if no one else seems to be doing anything and nothing is getting done, then I usually step up. It's kind of like when a teacher asks a question in class, and no one answers, I will raise my hand just break the awkward silence and keep the conversation going. I won't immediately assume the leadership role, but I'll jump in if necessary. I think it should be interesting to start a new group project, and so far it seems like it won't be too bad.