Writing in Biology

Organizationally, the two figures diverge due to the height difference of the image on the right side of the figure in the recreation and the photo on the right side (Figure 1, image C) in the original figure (Figure 1). The photo in the recreation figure (Figure 2) does not extend down to the bottom edge of the images on the left side, creating a large, box-sized gap in the figure that is not present in the original figure. This creates a stark contrast, with Figure 1 being held to the shape of a structured box and the recreation maintaining an uppercase L shape.  

When comparing the bottom left images of the figures, images B, differences are present. One difference is that the Figure 1 image B does not contain a URL and contains a marker on the portion of Morrill 4 where the photos were taken. In the Figure 2 image B the screenshot contains the URL of the website used to create the map and the marker appears to be placed on top of North Pleasant street. The two photos are also different due to their respective labels, with the orignal having a box that has a black outline, while the recreation has a label that has no border and that has a letter that is stretched horizontally. The images on the right side of the different figures are also different in several ways. The original figure, Figure 1, contains on its right side a image of a spider web at the base of the stairs in respect to the location described in the methods section. The photograph in Figure 1 also contains a ten dollar bill for the purpose of providing a real life scale for an observer. In Figure 2 image B, the recreation of the original figure seems to be picture of a different spider web near the location described in the methods and contains no ten dollar bill for scale. This image also appears to have a much shorter height than the image that can be found in the original figure.

There were approximately thirteen observational  differences between Figure 1 and Figure 2. Beginning with the photos, in Figure 1 the top left image, or image A was taken from a straightforward shot that includes the bottom landing where the spider web was located. The original photo also includes an arrow pointing at the web. In the recreation (Figure 2) the photograph seems to be sideways, with an arrow pointing to the left side of the staircase at a location that is not where the spider web is located. The two images of the respective figures also differ in their labelling with the original photograph containing a label A that is contained in a box with black borders that appears proportional in size to the picture and does not appear stretched. In the recreation the label does not contain a black border and the letter appears to be larger than the original and stretched more horizontally.

In Fall 2018, as part of the Writing in Biology Class at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project in which I was tasked with creating a scientific figure and a METHODS section detailing how the figure was created. In the methods project I was instructed  to locate and photograph a spider web, then use the photographs that were taken and other resources to create a figure alongside a methods section of a standard scientific report. The methods section was meant to detail how each individual experimenter approached the problem, and investigate how they went about finding and documenting their spider web. The methods section needed to be a clear, concise set of steps that could be easily replicable by another individual so that they too could take similar pictures and create a figure resembling the original.The goal of the project was to create a methods section that would be clear enough for another personal to follow, allowing them to recreate the original figure accurately. This is an extremely valuable skill for any scientist, as scientific work needs to be replicable for its results to be held valid.  I kept these objective in mind seeking to maintain factors of setting, organization, and photographic consistency within the figures through a highly structured and clear methods section. My methods section was written in a way to provide specific conditions for consistency such as including the direction of photographic shots and control factors such as having a ten dollar bill for scale.

In the Fall of 2018 in Bio 312 Writing in Biology students partook in a project in which they were required to create a scientific figure of a spider web and related images pertaining to its location. Once this figure was created we were instructed to create a methods section detailing how we individually went about creating our figure, which included but were not limited to how we found our spider web, the conditions of our photographs, and how we used digital tools to assemble images. With our figures and methods created, each student swapped their methods section with another student so that their colleague could attempt to recreate their figure. Once each individual received their recreated figure they were tasked with detailing the differences between the two figures in the RESULTS section of the report.  After, detailing these differences, the reasoning for the differences were to be explained by the DISCUSSION section. In my report approximately thirteen notable differences between the figures are distinguished and their causes are explored. This project demonstrated the difficulty of replicability in science, with factors such as human errors, conditional differences, and imperfection in the methods section affecting the outcome of having a recreated figure accurately reflect the original figure.

Picking only one dog breed to save is quite impossible as all dogs are friendly and make great pets for families all around the world. However, if I had to pick one dog breed to save it would the labrador retriever. This is the most popular dog breed according to the "Most Popular Dog Breeds List" from the American Kennel Club. Labrador retrievers have ranked number one since 2013 and are therefore an important breed to the American people. If we could only save one breed, saving the most popular breed would be a good choice because once this litter begins to repopulate and grow, the majority of Americans who lost a dog would have lost a labrador retriever, so they could be given another retriever. Although you can never replace an old dog, getting a new dog of the same breed is a good way to deal with the loss. Repopulating the dog population with the most popular dog breed would ensure the majority of people that lost a dog would be happy with getting a new dog.

Labrador retrievers are also great dogs for anyone looking for a new pet. They are gentle and are perfect for families, especially ones with young children. They are athletic and high energy so they are perfect for young people looking for a dog to play with and to go on runs. They also make great service dogs and can be trained to be emotional support dogs or service dogs for anyone with a disability. They would be able to repopulate the service dog population. Labradors also calm with age and older retrievers can make a good match for older people looking for a dog to keep them company. These dogs are not too high maintenance because they are short hair so they don't shed as much as other dogs and they are relatively clean.

Repopulating the dog population with retrievers would ensure that we have a flexible and diverse dog for anyone interested in having a dog and they also are a popular dog, so a great majority of the population would be happy having this as the new dog.

Picking only one dog breed to save is quite impossible as all dogs are friendly and amake great pets for families all around the world. However, if I had to pick one dog breed to save it would the labrador retreiver. These are the most popular dog breed according to the "Most Popular Dog Breeds List" from the American Kennel Club. Labrador retreivers have ranked number one since 2013 and are therefore an important breed to the American people. If we could only save one breed, saving the most popular breed would be a good choice because onec this litter begins to repopulate and grow, the majority of americans who lost a dog would have lost a labrador retreiver, so they could be given another retreiver. Although you can never replace an old dog, getting a new dog of the same breed is a good way to deal with the loss. Repopulating the dog population with the most popular dog breed would also ensure the majority of people that lost a dog would be happy with getting a new dog.

Labrador retreivers are also great dogs for anyone looking for a new pet. They are gentle and are perfect for families. They are athletic and high energy so they are perfect for young people looking for a dog to play with and to go on runs. They also make great service dogs and can be trained to be emotional support dogs or service dogs for anyone with a disability. They would be able to repopulate the service dog population. Labradors also calm with age and older dogs can make a good match for older people looking for a dog to keep them company while not being too high maintence, because they are short hair so they don't shed as much as other dogs and they are relatively clean. 

Repopulating the dog population with retreivers would ensure that we have a flexible and diverse dog for anyone interested in having a dog and they also are a popular dog, so a great majority of the population would be happy having this as the new dog. 

I found it interesting that parts of the plasmids often end up integrated in the original genome as well as that immune responses sometimes compete with the gene editing and influences its efficiency and effectiveness. While clearly with further research and understanding of the CRISPR-Cas9 pathway and function as well as its transfer to target cells can help limit this, it makes me question gene editing. I feel like our genome is our genome for a reason and when we mess with that, it messes with the function of our DNA, cells, and our entire system. Additionally, there is still a decent amount of complications and even patient death with this process and I feel like it is very difficult to have volunteers for studies with this due to the risk involved.

Upon review of the video information, 62 actions and behaviors were analyzed and categorized into the tables shown above. Table 1 illustrates the behaviors we found to be associated with the state of feeding. Such behaviors include the actual feeding of the foal, drinking the mother’s milk, digging for food, and so on. In total, eleven feeding behaviors had been observed and categorized into Table 1. In video files three and five, it was observed that the foals were given free range to play and interact with each other thus introducing Table 2. Table 2 encompasses the 22 behaviors we denoted to be associated with play. All the specified behaviors occurred during the interaction between the foal and its partner(s) and so we deemed them to be playful. Table 3 establishes the behaviors associated with the foals grooming themselves. These primarily consist of the foal scratching, nipping, and licking its coat. This category contained the least amount of behaviors but was significant in that it displayed a very unique set of behaviors. Communicative behaviors are represented within Table 4. These behaviors range from mechanical and visual modalities of communication to even a few sporadic vocal cues. The foals were effective in getting the attention of their mothers and partners via these communicative behaviors and thus sending the signal they wished to get across. Lastly, Table 5 includes the behaviors associated with miscellaneous locomotion and movement. For example, behaviors like sprinting, non-playful trotting, and indiscriminate head bobbing are included in this table. These behaviors pertain no other use than moving from one location to the other and the ways in which the foal moves upon the initiation of said behaviors. To recap, each of the above tables aims to illustrate the a portion of the overall 62 behaviors within its set category. These categories were drawn from the analysis of the two video files provided and used as an organizational tool to effectively present the collected data.

 

When designing these reserves, my goal was for the subpopulations, or total reserve, to be highly connected in order to create a larger breeding ground to maintain heterozygosity and minimize genetic drift. The advantage of having subpopulations is that if one section had the loss of an allele, the whole population does not suffer. Yet, smaller subpopulations are at higher risk for genetic drift. This is because smaller populations have a greater chance of an allele being lost, altering the gene pool. The advantage of the reserve being one single unit is the larger breeding ground. This encourages heterozygosity due to the increased amount of interactions between the population. The disadvantage about this style of reserve shape is that if an allele is lost, it is lost in the whole population. Knowing all of the pros and cons of reserve shapes, I intended to create a perfect balance of subpopulations and a single unit reserve.