Blogs

The reliability, validity, and trust of this website, https://www.sierraclub.org/home, is generally acceptable, but not for research purposes. The web address ending with ".org," indicates that it is a legitimate organization. Furthermore, there are 3.5 million members of the organization. However, it is politically charged. The organization first requests a donation upon visiting the website in order to "Fight Back," and "Protect America from Trump." Though the website is biased, it mainly focuses on the environmental status of the Earth and how to protect it. Still, the political language could suggest that certain pieces of information may be presented in a way that would alter our understanding of the science. It is confirmed in the terms and conditions that the money that is donated are not tax deductable, therefore all funds that are donated are directly used to benefit the "cause." On the surface, this is lobbying for advocacy. However, they do state that " The Sierra Club offers competitive salary package commensurate with skills and experience plus excellent benefits that include medical, dental, and vision coverage, and a retirement savings 401(k) plan." Thus, it is unclear where the donations go to supporting because the organization is supposedly "non-profit."

Google gains its credibility from being a well-known resource used by the vast majority of computer-users. The amount of information available on Google also contributes to its reliability; however, the reliability of Google can be questioned based on recent accusations against their bias for website order. The order of website results is affected by your location, history, etc. It's up to users to decide which websites available on Google are trustworthy or not. The fact that Wikipedia pops up on the side of the page when "ecology" is searched also lessens its credibility becasue Wikipedia is not considered a very trustworthy source. Google curates scientific literature in Google Scholar that is more credible and from established scientific journals. 

Our link led us to an ecology article from Encyclopedia Britannica. At the top of the screen, it displays a 250th anniversary sign, which leads us to conclude that it is reliable, since it has been around for so long. We have also personally used the website in the past, which leads us to trust it more. Aesthetically, the website has a clean layout and is organized in an accessible way. It has multiple tabs for different resources (such as newsletters, quizzes, and biographies) and within those, a multitude of subjects (such as sports health and medicine, history, music, science, etc.) It also allows the reader to view the article contributors, who consist of university professors. This leads us to believe the source is valid due to the highly educated editors and scope of its information. The willingness to display the editors and read about them also lead us to trust the source more. Overall, we believe Encyclopedia Britannica is a highly valid, reliable, and trustworthy source.

The Google Scholar is a reliable search to broadly search a topic and find a direction. On the left hand side, there are filters to refine their ideas. In terms of reliability, it provides a variety of sources, which could offer a diverse pool of information. The links include books, articles, and papers that are valid and trustworthy because it comes from notable organizations and experienced authors. We assessed the characteristics by skimming the papers and looking at publication dates and sources.

Rosemary and Skylar

The article is not reliable, the article being on a fake animal. On the top of the page there is a link to conspirary theories and pictures of octupi in trees . The links it cite lead back to its own website, so there are no external links. Besides it being a fake website, the language personifies the octopus throughout the article. The author of the article also states personal opinions on whether or not the animal should be on the endangered species list. It has a lot of "facts" but it is written more like a news article rather than a scientific report. 

Wikipedia is not a relable, valid, or trustworthy source. Anyone has the ability to edit the content. However, there is a long list of refferences that you could check out. That would be time consuming though, and not all of the refferences are necessarily valid. There are a lot of journals out there that have good reputations. Wikipedia does not have a good reputation.

Nick Carbone & Liam Potter

http://www.sciencemag.org/

First indication of this source not being reliable is it comes up as a "Not Secure" website on the top of the bowser screen. However it is sponsored by AAAS (American Associastion for the Advancement of Science) which is a legitimate non-profit organization. They also have a list of sceince awards that they have won in the past. They also do have research articles that are cited and refrenced and it is inlcuded on the UMASS Amherst Library webpage. Overall I would say that it is a credible source of information.

Dravet's syndrome is a rare, severe, genetic epileptic encephalopathy. Most cases of Dravet's syndrome are caused by a mutation in the SCN1A gene. This gene codes for a sodium channel, voltage gated type 1 alpha subunit. Most of these mutated genes are expressed in GABAergic neurons; hence, GABAergic neurotransmission is compromised. GABA is a neurotransmitter with vast inhibitory functions. As such, seizurelike locomotor behavior and epileptiform brain activity are signs of Dravet's syndrome. In humans, the presence of one mutant allele is sufficient enough for the display of the mutant phenotype but in zebrafish, the common model organism for studying neural networks and disorders, the mutant phenotype is only observed in larvae that have two copies of the mutant allele. Though GABAergic neurotransmission has been found to be most directly affected by the mutations underlying Dravet's syndrome, scientists have explored the potential of other neurotransmitters rescuing the phenotype, relieving mutant zebrafish larvae of epileptic seizures. One of the neurotransmitters that has shown some promise is serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine). It's been revealed that increasing serotonin levels can reduce epileptic locomotor and brain activity. The drug fenafluramine was identified to be capable of targeting serotonin receptor subtypes, acting as an agonist for those subtypes and allowing serotonergic neurotransmission. However, this drug does not restore the sodium channels that are absent in GABAergic neurons. While this drug is effective at targeting the right subtypes, it does have some comorbidities. It happens to target the serotonin-2B receptor subtype, which leads to cardiac valve hypertrophy. Fenafluramine's off-target activity has made it unsuitable for use in treating Dravet's syndrome.

Tarsiers were initially categorized alongside lemurs and lorises, and apart from humans, apes, and monkeys. This original taxonomic system, known as the gradistic division, held that the two suborders of primates were Prosimii and Anthropoidea. Prosimians, which means “before apes”,  were comprised of lemurs, lorises, and tarsiers, due to the perception that they represented grades of evolution. They were seen to possess many of the same traits, such as similar teeth, skull, and limb anatomy, to early, now extinct primates. These “primitive” features being shared amongst the three extant groups were believed to be evidence of close relation, and were thought to set them apart from the “more evolved” characteristics of anthropoids. The more recent categorization, known as the phyletic division, posits that tarsiers should actually be grouped alongside monkeys, apes, and humans, and apart from lemurs and lorises. In this taxonomic system, the two suborders of primates are instead Strepsirhini and Haplorhini. The reasoning behind grouping tarsiers with the formerly named anthropoids as a new group called haplorhines is that humans, apes, monkeys, and tarsiers all have shared derived features that indicates closer relation amongst them than with the lemurs and lorises which comprise strepsirrhines. Strepsirrhines are defined by features such as wet rhinarium, the presences of a tooth comb, a laterally flaring talus, and a grooming claw on the second digit of the foot. Tarsiers are distinct from the strepsirrhines in that they have a dry rhinarium, lack a tooth comb, as well as having certain skeletal and physiological traits that are more similar to the other haplorrhines. The superior taxonomic system is likely the phyletic division of haplorhines and strepsirrhines. The extant haplorhines share a number of derived cranial features, including postorbital closure to some extent, a retinal fovea in their eyes, a reduced number of nasal conchae, a short, vertical nasolacrimal duct and the lack of a moist rhinarium, giving them the dry nose and continuous upper lip from which haplorhine derives. In addition, haplorhines all have a hemochorial placenta and an inability to synthesize vitamin D. The tarsiers’ similarities to other prosimians are primitive features, like an unfused mandibular symphysis, molar teeth with high cusps, grooming claws on their second toes, multiple nipples, and a bicornuate uterus. In contrast, their similarities to anthropoid primates seem to be derived specializations indicative of a more recent common ancestor, a hypothesis that has been supported by genomic analysis.