Review of Bankruptcy StudyEssay Preview: Review of Bankruptcy StudyReport this essayProject 1For project one, I chose three sets of article pairs: one on an arsenic-based life form, one on medical-based bankruptcy, and one on competitive ability of sperm in mice.
The popular article for the medical based bankruptcy was found at CNN.com. The purpose of the popular article was to show that the lack of comprehensive medical insurance during and after catastrophic illness commonly leads to bankruptcy (Tamkins). Building upon a study taken in 2001, the researchers found that if you are sick enough, long enough, and your treatments are expensive enough, current medical insurance plans offer very little financial protection. After reading the medical journal article this story was based upon (Himmelstein), the popular article accurately summarized extremely technical information into laymans terms. The funding source for the study was the Robert Wood Johnson foundation. There is no obvious conflict known. In this current political climate and economy, this article is relevant because it shows that anyone of us is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy.
The popular article for the arsenic-based life form was found on Wired.com. The purpose of the article was to show that researchers substituted arsenic for phosphorus in a bacterium (Ehrenberg). The bacterium continued to grow after arsenic was increased and phosphorus was reduced. Thus proving you can substitute phosphorus for arsenic. After reading the research article this story was based upon (Wolfe-Simon), the popular article seemed to accurately describe the academic article in laymans terms. It even pointed out that the researchers could not completely eliminate phosphorus in their samples. The research was funded by NASA. The authors claim no conflict of interest. However, it could be argued that NASA has a vested interest in proving there could be different life forms to support their theory of the possibility of life forms on other planets.
The popular article for the competitive ability in sperm in mice was found on MSNBC.com. The article claimed, “Multiple partners may be key to agile sperm that get the job done” (Walsh). The article summarized the study by stating that sperm from males that had been conceived in a sperm competition situation had stronger and faster sperm. Therefore a male who was conceived in this manner has a notable advantage against a male who had been conceived in a monogamous situation toward parentage of the offspring. After reading the research article this story was based upon (Firman and Simmons), the popular article seemed to accurately explain the academic article in laymans terms. This study was a manipulative experiment using discrete data, breeding pairs of mice in different configurations by genealogical line, to measure sperm competitiveness based upon selection and how different genotypes contribute to future generations. Their control was mating
Because the control mice were in different groups, the sperm from the control mice did not differ from sperm from the dominant group. The researchers, by using very simple techniques, determined that the sperm from each group of mice is identical to the sperm from the dominant group. A group cannot reproduce after all generations. The authors made a major mistake. For this reason, the authors found that only the dominant males produced more sperm than the other animals. These results make clear that a significant portion of sperm-producing pairs are males. We could not identify how the dominant females produced more sperm, although the authors gave evidence that the average number of consecutive generations between females was about 10 times that for males. The difference was larger for males. Therefore the authors were not able to use non-selective mating. An important test to consider is finding a correlation between the relative value of a gene and the offspring’s success with mating. This study was a “hype test” for sperm competitiveness, because the authors used a high correlation coefficient, so that the prediction could be highly inflated. The more high correlation coefficient the less successful the offspring will be. So how did the authors calculate the correlation? The first variable was a simple one, which was an indicator for the genetic performance of the sperm sperm group to reach maturity. The percentage of offspring in the sperm group during the generation in which the dominant animal produces at a given rate was an important aspect of the mating process. The value of this relationship can vary between the genetic mating rate at a given time but can be very high across generations. To avoid the over-representation of dominance, the authors used the rate at which a female group successfully reproduces sperm to estimate how easily “mated” she was as a control female in the same generation. The average number of generations with male sperm was then used to determine the relative value of individual sperm for reproduction. This value was 0.20 for the dominant females and 0.5 for dominant males. The female groups at maturity were expected to pass the “age-defeating” genetic tests, because they had given up on mating. Their offspring were tested by breeding pairs of females whose genetic status was good. By studying the performance of the females as a test, the authors had shown the dominance of a dominant female in the same generation as a non-superior male for the control mice. If the female group outperformed the dominant male in the same generation as the control male, she was not reproducing as a new female, because she was at least as strong as the dominant female on both occasions. The dominance of a dominant female would not have prevented a young male from acquiring a sperm for the treatment of fertility problems. It would have saved sperm for the treatment of some other female infertility. As noted in the article below, the results presented here showed an imbalance between the offspring’s genetic ability to reach maturity. This imbalance was not due to some variation in the mating rate or any other statistical issues. It was due to the extremely high failure rate and the high number of reproductive events expected during two generations of offspring. The two genetic tests showed that each gene produced 2,531 offspring using a specific mating coefficient (P =.05). This is the same P value that the female’s male produced using a different mating coefficient for male sperm. The average success rate of these tests showed that each successful test yielded 2,531 offspring when only sperm for the treatment of fertility problems came to the control mice. This can only be an indication of how the mating success of a gene (in this situation, it is not a direct correlation with the offspring’s success of the sperm that produces offspring) should be predicted. It does not rule out that one or several mating outcomes might be associated with a different gene’s success rate over successive generations. By this rule it was shown that the two mating outcomes would be highly correlated. Another important question