Drafts

The project focused around the photography of a spider web, which is why some of the biggest factors in causing discrepancies were camera settings. Figure 2 included more of the environment than Figure 1, which can be seen by more of French Hall showing. The number of feet was given as to where to take the picture of the environment from, so it is possible that the phone used for Figure 2 had a different focal length. If it was specified to use an iPhone 7 plus, this could have been avoided. In addition, in Figure 1 the bush appears to be darker. This was most likely because the flash was on when the photograph was taken for Figure 2. When the photo for Panel A in Figure 1 was taken the camera was on 1% zoom, in the second figure the web appears closer which suggests that the camera was zoomed in.

Access to materials is a factor that was involved in creating differences between the two figures. For example, without access to a gift card a Ucard had to be used. The gift card and the Ucard are the same size so it was ok for scale, but the look of them were different. In addition, the maps were from different places. Due to the maps not being the same the coloring of them were different. The website that the map was from was featured in the methods so the use of a different map points to being unable to access the map used in Figure 1.

My most recent work with children comes from my summer job position at Pappas Rehabilitation Hospital for Children. As a 1:1 aide, I help a patient with severe disabilities complete daily tasks including personal care and hygiene, ambulating, transferring, feeding and getting around from class to class. The age range of patients that I work with is 7-22 years old. As an aide, I guide the patients through the activities planned for the day; these activities include arts and crafts, music, sensory integration and sports. These activities are interactive for all patients with varying cognitive abilities. I also assist and shadow the patient’s therapy appointments including Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech Therapy. Throughout these appointments, I am a helping hand to the therapists in their daily tasks that they work on. These tasks included walking, biking, transferring and standing for my patient. Other skills worked on during the therapies included reading, handling silverware, and doing laundry. The nursing staff and doctors at Pappas work closely together to make sure any medical problem with the patient is addressed and handled right away, to ensure the highest quality of care. Shadowing the nurses through their interactions with the patients has inspired me and showed me how important quality of care is for a patient. 

It is important for cells to be able to react with their surroundings and to do this, cellular molecules need to be able to interact with one another. Most often, cells use proteins to interact and carry out cellular functions. Proteins are able to interact with one another, but it is important that they can interact with non-protein ligands as well. This is achieved through the use of a binding pocket. The binding pocket is a site on the protein that allows the ligand to fit in and non-covalently bond. Non-covalent bonds include ionic and hydrogen bonds as well as van der Waals and hydrophobic interactions. This is not to say that proteins cannot bind to other proteins using a binding pocket, it is just not always used as sometimes the flat surfaces can simply bind two proteins.

               One of the ways that the interactions between proteins and ligands is measured is by their binding affinity. Also known as the dissociation constant, binding affinity is characterized as the concentration of ligand for when half the binding sites in the protein are filled. The smaller the dissociation constant, the tighter the binding interaction will be, meaning there is a strong binding affinity. Conversely, a low dissociation constant means there is a lower affinity for binding.

The brain has fascinated me since high school, and taking classes at this University has only reinforced my interest. I have completed a number of biology, chemistry, and neuroscience courses that have all given me the skills needed to work in a lab setting. Said classes have regularly required me to use an array of biological and chemical apparatuses with a certain degree of precision and accuracy. Learning a number of different programs for data entry and brain imaging also became requirement for some of my classes and I believe I have learned a great deal from acquiring the necessary skills to operate them. I have TAed a neuroscience lab on campus, and in doing so I have become skilled with a number of laboratory techniques including usage of a cryostat, crystal violet staining, and fMRI data processing. Furthermore, on a number of occasions during my biology and chemistry labs I’ve had to take the lead in order to get my group going in the direction we needed to be proposing new approaches and diffusing tension among members. I know how to properly manage my time and think critically when it is necessary thanks to the experience that I have accrued at this University. But now I would like to move on to the next level and actually contribute something meaningful in the form of research,

When I was at Bunker Hill Community College I took Population Ecology, where I carried out a field project based on using transects for documenting the presence of squirrels in Boston Common. As part of my individual project I recorded other data as well, including temperature and whether the squirrels were on the ground or on trees. Using this data I studied squirrel behavior depending on temperature to find on which temperature ranges they were more likely of being active (foraging on the ground) or inactive (resting on trees). In this course I received an A.

Description

    The original and replicate are different webs close to each other.  This is probably because the bad weather that week destroyed the web or damaged it badly.  The methods were pretty thorough on where the original web was so the only reason why it would be different would be it having to be gone.  The are of the tree in the original is also a very heavily travelled area so a human could have also damaged the web. This difference in webs led to figure C also being completely different in the two panels.  The web itself is more visible in the original figure A, this is because the purple folder was used to bring out the white web which is absent in the replica causing the web to barely even be visible. The angle of the picture is also different which is because nothing about this was mentioned in the methods followed.  The lack of the folder and also measuring tape(edited out of the original by accident) shows that there also may have been lack of supplies on the replicators end as both of those things were listed in the methods. There were many difference in the presentation of the figures(panel shape, size, lettering,etc), this is due to the lack of thoroughness in the methods written for the original panel.  The methods included things like the app used but not the shape to make the collage or the size of the map. The editing and presentation part shows how the methods section could have contained a lot more precise information

Abstract

There were many differences in the photographs taken and used and in the way in which they are presented.  This is because the methods written lacked many details that were necessary to replicate the original on a very precise scale.  Other factors like weather and lighting also caused differences like ruing the original web, causing an entirely different web and tree to be used.

To better understand how methods are written in the scientific community, this project was undertaken for my Writing in Biology course. A figure was built consisting of two photos of a spider-web on the UMass campus, along with a map of the location of the spider web. It was found that unless a methods section is explicit on important factors such as the number of pictures, labeling, and figure size specifications, it is difficult to replicate a figure or process.

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.