This web page was produced as an assignment for Genetics 677, an undergraduate course at UW-Madison.
To study about the primary pulmonary artery and its associated with the mutation on BMPR2, I analyzed two different articles that explain research on this topic. One is popular press, and second article is a scientific journal that is written by various researchers. Two articles have written for different readers who have different level of knowledge of the subject and various purpose of reading the paper. For example, popular press is addressing their articles to general public and serves a role of a bridge between science and public. On the other hand, scientific journal is for people who have detail knowledge or who conduct similar research. Therefore, I would like to evaluate how each article serves its role and how two articles depict their messages to their own readers.
Popular press written by Julie Buckle reviews and summarizes the scientific journal written by the international collaborated teams and the groups from the Columbia University. It directly states BMPR2 is the cause of FPPH. Moreover, the author briefly explains how mutation on BMPR2 may lead to the diseased states, such as by proliferation of lesion. In addition to this information, the author also emphasizes the significant, limitation, and future studies. Because the popular press wants to convey the important findings from current research to the public, it focuses on conclusion from both research without distinguish them.
On the other hand, scientific journal is addressing for professional and expertise in this field who have depth knowledge. The article starts with stating the definition of PPH. It seems like the paper starts with a general background and ends with specific results or their implications. The detail explanation of the progress from the mutation of the gene to the disease state is well written. Furthermore, they mention how BMPR2 was investigated as a cause of FPPH. In order to support their claim, they provide all data with numeric and genomic data.
Their writing style is different because they are addressing to different readers. For example, popular press is written to update of current research as a storyteller. However, scientific journal is written to update what they found and their contribution to the field. For example, there is more emphasis that why their research is significant and important in this field. In my opinion, both articles serve their roles well to each group of readers. However, there are a few critiques for both papers to improve. First of all, the popular press should be written with more detail description. In this way, the public readers not only catch what the research has found, but also how understand how they found. To improve this, they can provide numerical evidence to support the conclusion made from the study. For scientific study, I liked their paper because what they emphasize was clear. They clearly state how they conducted the experiment, what they found, and how they are going to carry next experiment.
Popular press written by Julie Buckle reviews and summarizes the scientific journal written by the international collaborated teams and the groups from the Columbia University. It directly states BMPR2 is the cause of FPPH. Moreover, the author briefly explains how mutation on BMPR2 may lead to the diseased states, such as by proliferation of lesion. In addition to this information, the author also emphasizes the significant, limitation, and future studies. Because the popular press wants to convey the important findings from current research to the public, it focuses on conclusion from both research without distinguish them.
On the other hand, scientific journal is addressing for professional and expertise in this field who have depth knowledge. The article starts with stating the definition of PPH. It seems like the paper starts with a general background and ends with specific results or their implications. The detail explanation of the progress from the mutation of the gene to the disease state is well written. Furthermore, they mention how BMPR2 was investigated as a cause of FPPH. In order to support their claim, they provide all data with numeric and genomic data.
Their writing style is different because they are addressing to different readers. For example, popular press is written to update of current research as a storyteller. However, scientific journal is written to update what they found and their contribution to the field. For example, there is more emphasis that why their research is significant and important in this field. In my opinion, both articles serve their roles well to each group of readers. However, there are a few critiques for both papers to improve. First of all, the popular press should be written with more detail description. In this way, the public readers not only catch what the research has found, but also how understand how they found. To improve this, they can provide numerical evidence to support the conclusion made from the study. For scientific study, I liked their paper because what they emphasize was clear. They clearly state how they conducted the experiment, what they found, and how they are going to carry next experiment.
[1] Buckles, J. (2000, August 11). Discovery links BMPR2 gene to primary pulmonary hypertension. Genome News Network. Retrieved from http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/08_00/pulmonary_BMPR2.shtml
[2] The International PPH consortium, Lane, K. B., Machado, R., Pauciulo, M.W., Thomson, J.R., Phillips III, J.A., Loyd, J.E., Nichols, W.C., Trembath, R.C. (2000). Heterozygous germline mutations in BMPR2, encoding a TGF- β receptors, cause familial primary pulmonary hypertension. Nature genetics, vol 26, p.81-84.
[2] The International PPH consortium, Lane, K. B., Machado, R., Pauciulo, M.W., Thomson, J.R., Phillips III, J.A., Loyd, J.E., Nichols, W.C., Trembath, R.C. (2000). Heterozygous germline mutations in BMPR2, encoding a TGF- β receptors, cause familial primary pulmonary hypertension. Nature genetics, vol 26, p.81-84.
