curbano's blog

I am applying for the Aquarist Intern position for the Summer of 2018. I have heard about the Aquarium's internship program through several people at UMass Amherst and I am very interested in getting involved. I am a junior studying biology at UMass Amherst. I have taken classes at UMass Amherst that include hands-on labs and activities at Hadley Farm on campus. However, I am interested in getting additional exposure and experience working with animals and I think being an Aquarist Intern would give me that opportunity. Additionally, I am a pet owner and I have also done pet sitting and walking for family and friends. I volunteered at MSPCA's Nevins Farm, where I cleaned cages, fed animals, and walked dogs. Although I have never worked with aquatic life before, I have experience with other animals, am hard working, and open to learning new things.  I would love to schedule some time to discuss how my experiences, interests, and skills may be a good fit for the internship program at the New England Aquarium.

The pencil used in the replicated version is different from the pencil I used in my multi-panel figure. I noticed that the pencil in the replicated figure is a completely different pencil and it is facing a different direction than the original. My partner used a mechanical pencil while I used a ticonderoga pencil. This is most likely due to the fact that my partner did not have a ticonderoga pencil to use. Additionally, the tip of the pencil is pointed towards the radiator in my original figure while it is pointed away from radiator in the replicate. This could be because the person who replicated the photo estimated 15 degrees differently than I did.

There are six main factors and reasons for why the original and the replicated figures came out differently. The angle of the camera, the positioning of the photographer, the lighting, the type of pencil used, the interpretation of the methods, and nonspecific instructions are the factors that led to the differences observed in the two multi-panel figures.

The angle of the camera as well as the position of the person holding the camera led to differences in the photographs used for Panel A and Panel B. Since the replicated Panel B has the ceiling of the building, it seems like my partner’s camera was pointed upward while mine was straight on. Additionally, my partner did not include as much of the rug, wall, or doorway as I did. This is most likely due to them standing closer to the Morrill 4 sign than I did. In the duplicated Panel A, the photograph is focused on the radiator pipe rather than the spider web. While I did state to take the photo 6 inches away from the wall while facing the doorway, they may not have completely understood what I meant.

I observed a total of four main differences between my original multi-panel figure (Figure 1) and the replicated figure (Figure 2). I observed differences in the original photographs taken and the replicated photographs. First of all, it is difficult to see the spider web in the close up photograph of the spider web. In the replicated Panel A, I mostly see the pipe of the radiator rather than the web. I also observed that the color and positioning of the pencil used in the replicated photo is different from my original. The pencil I used was yellow while the replicated photograph has a red pencil. For the replicated Panel B, I noticed that the photograph did not include the same amount of the rug, doorway, or wall as my original Panel B. The replicated image included the ceiling in the Morril 4 hallway, but my original photo did not.

In addition to differences in the photographs, I found differences in the editing and formatting of the multi-panel figures. Panel A and Panel B look much narrower and taller than my original Panel A and Panel B. In the replicated figure, the letters A, B, and C are bigger than the boxes they are meant to fit in. The letters are also missing a period after them. The boxes for letters A and B appear to be in a different position than the boxes in the original multi-panel figure. Finally, I noticed that the sizing and placement of the black star varies between the two multi-panel figures.

When studying histology, staining is a procedure that allows scientists to identify and observe different structures. One of the most common stains for histology is the hematoxylin and eosin stain. Hematoxylin is a basic dye. Since it is a basic dye, it has the ability to stain acid structures in the cell. DNA and RNA in the nucleus or cell are often dyed by hematoxylin. Hematoxylin dyes these structures a purple/blue color. For contrast in staining, eosin is a pink acidic dye used to stain basic structures. Proteins are the most common structures stained by eosin. The contrast between the two dyes makes it easier for individuals to find and identify certain structures in the cell efficiently.

When choosing a spider web to photograph and create a figure from, there were six factors I considered for replicability. I considered the angle of the camera, positioning of the photographer, the lighting, the type of pencil used, and my directions when capturing the spider web and its environment. I chose a spider web located indoors to avoid the factor of weather. For the formatting and editing of the multi-panel, I considered the clarity of my methods.

I observed a total of four main differences between my original multi-panel figure (Figure 1) and the replicated figure (Figure 2). I observed differences in the original photographs taken and the replicated photographs. First of all, it is difficult to see the spider web in the close up photograph of the spider web. In the replicated Figure A, I mostly see the pipe of the radiator rather than the web. I also observed that the color and positioning of the pencil used in the replicated photo is different from my original. The pencil I used was yellow while the replicated photograph has a red pencil. For the replicated Figure B, I noticed that the photograph did not include the same amount of the rug, doorway, or wall as my original Figure B.

Writing clear and informative methods allows scientists to replicate experiments effectively. In the Writing in Biology course at UMass Amherst in Fall 2018, I conducted a project to observe and analyze the differences between an original multi-panel figure and a replicated version made by another student. Students in the course created multi-panel figure of a spider web on campus and wrote methods on how they captured and edited the photographs to make the finished figure. Each student switched their methods with another to try to duplicate the other student’s multi-panel figure. I found six differences between my original multi-panel figure and the replicated figure. I observed differences in the photograph of the spider web, the location of the pencil in the photo, the formatting of the figure, the text size, and the placement of the black star between the original and the replicate. Factors such as the angle of the camera, the positioning of the photographer, lighting, the type of pencil used, the interpretation of the methods, and nonspecific instructions led to the differences observed in the two multi-panel figures.

I included all the dimensions, including the X and Y locations, as well as the width of each figure so I am unsure how the formatting differs this much. I did fail to include the height for Figures A and B, which may have influenced the final result. Additionally, I did not mention the units of any of the dimensions. Because of these errors in the dimensions, the location of the three boxes were also off. In my methods, I clearly stated to make the font bold, size 36 Times New Roman and fit the letters into the white boxes. The differences in the text may be from my partner misreading my instructions. For the black star, it was difficult to describe the exact size of the star. Since the replicated figure’s dimensions were not the same as the original’s, it caused the star it be in a different location.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Katheryn Ruzzoli for taking the time to follow my methods and replicate my multi-panel figure. I would also like to thank Liron Burstein for keeping his eyes out for a spider web on campus for me.

Figure 1. Original Multi-Panel Figure of Spider Web. A. shows the spider web with a pencil for scale. B. shows the setting the spider web was located in. C. shows the location of the spider web on a map. The black star in C. shows the exact location of the spider web.

Figure 2. Replication of Original Multi-Panel Figure. This multi-panel was created after following methods describing the steps taken to take the photographs and edit them. A. shows the spider web with a pencil for scale. B. shows the hallway in Morrill IV that the web was located in. C. shows the location of the spider web with a black star on the UMass Amherst campus map. Figure 2 was used to test the replicability of the methods written.

There are a variety of differences between my original multi-panel figure and the replicated figure. First of all, the photograph of the spider web seems to be taken from a different angle than the original. It is difficult to see the spider web in Figure A. I observed that the pencil in the replicated figures facing a different direction than the original. While the photograph for Figure B is pretty similar to the original figure, the replicated version is closer than the original photo. I also noticed that the editing of the figures is drastically different from the original. The sizing of Figure A and B in the replicated multi-panel figure are much thinner and taller than the ones in the original. Additionally, I observed that the letters A, B, and C are significantly larger than the boxes they are supposed to be in. While the white box for C is in the correct place, the boxes for A and B are placed in a different spot than the original boxes. The letters are also missing a period after them. Finally, I noticed that the sizing and placement of the black star is slightly different between the two multi-panel figures.