Perfect Paragraph

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. I could have been clearer when stating how far away from the rug I was standing in my methods. 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.

There were ten total differences observed between the original (Fig. 1) and the replicated figure (Fig. 2). Some of these differences were in the pictures and others were in the organization of the panels.

The open-street map of the replicate figure did not include Life Sciences Laboratory as a landmark and included the Integrative Learning Center, unlike the original Panel A. The identifying labels (street names, building names, water bodies, etc. ) of the replicate openstreet map appeared larger, and the map overall appeared more saturated in color. The close-up of the spider web did not contain an water bottle for scale and included more of the helpline box than in the original figure. The second picture of the spider web showed less of its environment/settings(excluded much of brick wall) than the original picture. The pictures taken on-site appeared more saturated in color in the replicate figure.

Although the corresponding labels of the different panels (A, B, and C) were bolded in both, the letters were of a much bigger size and of a different font type in the replicate figure (Fig.2). The labels were also lesser distance away from the borders than in the original figure.

The purpose of the Methods Project was to identify variables which produce the differences between the two resultant figures. To that end, five variables were identified which can be discussed in the ‘methods’ section to avoid common replication errors: camera angle, distance between camera and subject, weather conditions, and scale and bounds of the map.

Weather Conditions

The replicated on-site pictures appear more saturated in color than the original ones. While this may result from different camera type and saturation settings, a more likely explanation is differing weather conditions. The original pictures of the spider web were taken before rain, and brick walls appeared dry in both the ‘close-up’ and the ‘overview’ shots (Fig 1B,1C). In the replicated pictures, brick walls appear redder and more saturated due to being wet from the rain (Fig 2B,2C).

The kingdom of animalia may be seperated into protostomes and deuterostomes. Protostomes includes animals such as annelids, molluscs, and insects, while deuterostomes includes organisms such as the echinoderms, hemichordates, chordaes and verebrates. There are 5 main characteristics which separate the protostomes and deuterostomes. During protostome development, the first opening to appear in the blastopore becomes the mouth of the organism. This pore deepens, eventually reaching through the organism, forming the gut and exiting at the anus. In contrast, during deuterostome development, the anus will form first, followed by the mouth. Protostomes cell layers develop slightly offset from one and other. This produces a spiral cleavage pattern. This is unlike deuterostome development, which has a radial cleavage, where the cells are stacked on top of each other. Furthermore cell role is determined very early on in protostome development, while deuterostome cell role is indeterminate. Lastly, the method of coelom development differs between protostome and deterostomes. Protostome coelom development proceeds through a process called schizocoely. During this method masses of the mesoderm migrate and form the coelom. However, deuterostomes perform enterocoely, where the mesoderm folds and pinches off to form the coelom.

    A methods section of a scientific paper has the potential to have the greatest impact on the lasting legacy of a scientific paper. The methods section is what is used to replicate a paper’s experiment and serves to try and replicate the results. In the fall 2018 Writing in Biology class offered at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, a project was assigned to demonstrate this point.  I conducted this project by first writing a methods section that included how to find a previously discovered spiderweb, photograph it and then turn the images into a multi-paneled figure.This was followed by another student in the class being given the methods section with the task of following as best as possible so as to try and produce an identical replicate of the final multipanel figure. Once a duplicate figure was made, I set out to identify observable differences between the two figures and from that, infer what could have caused the differences. Being able to identify differences in an end product and what may have caused them will be an important part in understanding not only the data that this experiment generated, but data that any experiment may produce. Even if the methods section is written as precisely as possible, small variables may still cause an end product to be different and the ability to recognize what is different and why is how best to understand what the experiment’s results mean.

 

The finer details of Figure Two were analyzed for differences. To start, there is a red UMOC sticker on the UCard in figure two that is not in Figure One. The labels of the images are different as well. The size of the circle in which the letters are placed is much larger than those in Figure One as well as the size of the lettering being larger. The images in Figure Two are labeled differently than those in Figure One. I noticed that the labels for picture of the environment and the map are reversed in Figure Two when compared to Figure One. Figure two also captures more of the surrounding environment including railings, more of the windows, a light post bulb, and the windows behind the air duct are closed whereas they are open in Figure One. Another difference was the red box used to highlight the location of the web within the environment. The box used for Figure Two has different dimensions thus making it more boxy and larger than that in Figure One. The map in Figure Two is also different in that it is more zoomed in than the map of Figure One. The dot specifying the location of the web is also in a different location. It appears to be more towards the front of the building where as my dot was more towards the middle.

 

In the Fall 2018 semester at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, students in Professor Brewer’s Writing in Biology class constructed a methods section to describe how they created a multi-panel figure containing photographs of a spider web located somewhere on campus. The methods were then given to another student who was to follow them and reconstruct the original figure. Analysis of the observational differences between the two figures yielded several similarities and differences between them. Similarities between the figures clearly showed which parts of the methods section were well written and able to be reconstructed. These included the location of the web, the photographs of nearby buildings, and the layout of the figure. The layout of the two figures was nearly identical, consisting of a four panel figure labeled A-D in large black letters with a white background. The differences between the figures could be attributed to the lack of clear instruction in the methods with regard to the camera angle, camera location, and precise location of the spiderweb in relation to nearby landmarks. The figures differed from each other in several ways. First, the angles that photos C and D were taken differed significantly. Second, the location of the superimposed white circle meant to identify the location of the spider web was on the wrong side of the handrail in the replicate figure. Third, the formatting of the letters labeling the four photographs in each figure differed between the original and replicate figures.  The factors that contributed to these differences between the figures include specific details being left out of the methods regarding camera angle and camera height while taking the photographs. The location of the superimposed white circle identifying the spider web was clearly outlined in the methods section, so human error was a potential factor in the misidentification of the spider web’s exact location. Lack of detail about the font size, shape, and boldness were also absent in the methods which led to differences in figure labels. This paper outlines in detail the observational differences between two figures that were constructed using the same set of methods, and describes the most likely reasons for these deviations.

As a student in the Fall 2018 Writing in Biology class at University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project to practice scientific writing and replication. In this project, students find a spider web on campus and create a multi-panel figure illustrating the location of the spider web. Students then create methods explaining how the student found the spider web; these methods also describe the steps taken to format the photographs into a multi-panel figure. Upon completing the original methods, a students follows another classmate’s methods and replicates the multi-panel figure based on those instructions. The students then observe the differences between the original and replicated multi-panel figure and use factors to infer why the differences are present. The possible differences between the two figures include variations in the size of the objects in the photo, lighting, cropping of the image, and font formatting. The factors that could affect the creation of the multi-panel figure include the time of day, sunlight, weather, or discrepancies in the methods. Overall, the purpose of this project is to practice writing concise and descriptive methods of an experiment, as well as provide practice for explaining differences between the two multi-panel figures.

    In Fall of 2018, I conducted an experiment for the class Writing in Biology at the University of Massachusetts. The project was a demonstration of the importance of clear, concise methods writing. I located a spider web on the University of Massachusetts campus and created a figure displaying a spider web and its relative location. Once completed, I shared it with another student in the class for the purpose of recreation. The student tasked with recreation did not see the original figure until submitting their version of it. The replicate version of the figure had variation in the size and location of certain components, different photographic elements, as well as map localization. The methods section included dimensions for all of the markings on the figure, but did not include any units of measurement. This caused the differences in size of markings and font in the replicate figure. The localization of the markings were different in the replicate as well because of missing details in the methods. Furthermore, the angle and location at which the photographs were taken differed in the replicate because of missing details as well. Weather and resultant conditions were different, but this was a factor that could not be controlled. The map image used in the replicate was zoomed out further than the original since the area encompassed in the original map image was not described in enough detail.

In the Fall of 2018, as a part of the Writing in Biology Class at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, I conducted a project that used observation and inference skills to create a method that would be followed in order to recreate a multi-panel scientific figure. This project challenges the ability to examine and describe the procedure used to create a multi-panel scientific figure of a spider web found on campus. The description was detailed enough to direct the reader to recreate the figure as similar to the original as possible. I explained that the spider web used in the original figure was found on the third floor of the Morrill II building and how the pictures were taken. In addition, the methods section outlined how the figure was developed on the program, Inkscape. The replicate result had eight differences from the original figure. The replicate picture had been taken at a different location, at different angles and without flash. The map picture on the replicate had different navigation symbols. The lettered labels were different sizes, fonts, and were incomplete on the replicate. Lastly, the arrow was displayed differently between the two figures. I concluded that the different location was due to the unclear explanation of the location of the web. The variance in map symbols and size/font of the labels was a result of the absence of direction in the provided methods. The incomplete labels were a consequence of the reader not thoroughly reading the methods section. Ultimately, this project reveals how important precise observations and descriptions can be when explaining an experimental procedure. If clear directions are not given, the result may be different than the writer, or scientist, had intended.