This is a very important article in the debate of abortion. Many Catholics do not really understand what the Church's technical stance on abortion is. The article clearly shows both sides of the argument and the difficult position this nun was put in in making this decision. The article does explain the condition the woman was in and why she needed the abortion. What would have also been useful in this article is what it means for a fetus to be 11 weeks old. At what stage is the fetus and what does it look like?

This article does not explain the concepts behind the issues of birth control. What is the rhythm method of birth control? The article does not go in depth enough at all and really just grazes the surface. What does that mean the percent of teens that use the rhythm method has gone up. I also do not think that the percentage of teen boys that support unmarried motherhood rose is relevant. I do not think the author of this article is being a responsible journalist.

This article is an ideal science article. It takes a popular cultural event, like a celebrity dying, and relates it to science. The cliche "dying from a broken heart" is now being looked into as an actual heart concern. The science behind this condition is explained very well and does a very good job of using experts and examples. The article also shows the problems with this research in that only 40% of the participants actually suffered a loss. My question is if they were only defining a "broken heart" with death. I think a heart can break from a lot of things, maybe that could be influential to the experiment.

This article was incorporated into the Sci/Tech articles. It was one of the few among the first 25 that was not about the oil spill. The interesting part of this article is not actually written within the body. I find it interesting how influential technology has become in our generation. The fact that there is an entire article defending one person's opinion on a cell phone is amazing. This article just shows how far we have come that technology is not just things that help us during the day, but a part of our culture and who we are. This article has no sources or context and really is not informative.

This article is very relevant considering the U.S has such a high divorce rate at the moment. I would recommend this story because the idea behind it is true, however there is not enough science behind it to really make an impact. It is funny to think about treating your husband how you treat your dog. The only expert cited is the psychologist who is looking into this idea. It would be more interesting if more experts were cited to see how it compares to other types of marriage counseling.

I think this article could explain more of the science behind this issue. For example, what specifically are leading the workers to get physically sick from cleaning up the oil. The reporter uses very good writing techniques to relate the previous oil spill and the BP oil spill. The techniques were focused more on making the strong comparison between the two oil spills which I think negatively influences how accurately the science was conveyed.

This article did a very good job of explaining the debate surrounding this new synthetic cell. I think the audience is not meant to be someone who knows nothing about genetics and the reporter could have potentially explained the science more, but there was probably not enough space given for that.

This article reaches out to the public because today people are reaching to all sorts of different means to stay healthy. Vitamins and natural supplements are very popular so it is important to know if they actually work. In these cases, they did not. It is important for consumers to know that if a supplement is promising a treatment, cure, or prevention must go through the "strict regulatory review". They do say that few companies are doing this, but that they are trying to "police" them. This with the landmark food safety bill make this article very engaging for the public. I would hope that it does have an effect on attitudes about what is promised by vitamins.

This article reaches to the public with its over arching idea that naming something gives it significance. The eating disorder patients who were classified as EDNOS were not treated or taken as seriously as the anorexic or bulimic patients. This article further proves that every person does not fit the mold of a definition. I think those principles are what the public will respond to. Plus the fact that we are in the "obesity epidemic" where children's weights are being watched so closely.

This article reaches out to the public because of its controversial idea of this being the "first stem cell transplant". It is a very interesting take on the idea of just waiting a few more seconds before cutting the umbilical cord. I think this technique was very effective because it related this "something new" to a very big controversial topic. Since stem cell research has such notoriety I think this article will influence the public because they will take what they know about the stem cell debate and apply it here.

This article reaches out to the public because of its subject matter. Cancer has stricken most families and the idea that it could be caught early on or keep them in remission. Their idea of making cancer a chronic disease like diabetes for example would change the way cancer is viewed by everyone. Cancer is one of the worst things a person can hear and this article shows the new research changing that reaction. I think people everywhere will be effected by this article because it is so prevalent in their lives. What I do not like about this article is the idea about yoga helping cancer survivors sleep better. I think the idea was not developed or explained well enough. It seemed like an after thought.

This article explains the key concepts of schizophrenia, the gene mutation, and the experiments used to test this theory very well. It was well translated for the reader. I think they could have explained the regular functions of the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. The author uses definitions and quotes from experts like Dr. Joshua Gordon. I think it was interesting that it was mentioned that the interviewing was done on the phone for Gordon. However it was obviously a good technique since the story is explained well. I think by talking to the actual Doctor performing the experiment it proved the science was being explained well by a first hand researcher.

This was a very funny blog post on a new massive galaxy found by a telescope in Chile. I think the article does offer a form of balance by its in-depth comparison to this new galaxy and our Milkyway. It uses humor to present both sides of information. it does use context, however there is no evidence from other sources. The author does seem knowledgeable and explains his points well though. I do not think the issues are contrived or extreme. He presents the debate over growing galaxies very well.

The post named Sunday Function dealt with the difference between math and physics. I did not think it gave an accurate balance of the issue. It did give a clear example of a major difference in the logic of the two subjects, however it did not divulge enough into physics to really present the issue well enough. The evidence it presents is a mathematical "not-so difficult sum" to explain the idea of absolute convergence, but I do not think it is strong enough to prove their point. I would not say the issue is contrived. I just think the author explains their point well enough.

This article challenges my expectations about science because it is a normal every day man that blows what science says is true about Parkinson's Disease out of the water. Science says that this man is not supposed to be able to ride a bike, but he proves them wrong. I liked that the writer included the video the Doctor recorded of the man. This helps the credibility and shock factor of the article. Lastly, I think the ethical issue the journalist faced while writing this article might have been whether to use the man's name or not. He does cite Dr. Bloem, but he never mentions the patient by name.

This article somewhat questions what I would expect from science because the elderly are usually assumed to be grumpy and bitter and these experts are testing against it. I don't think its a new idea to experiment on the factors of happiness. The journalist used contrary findings in his article which I found very interesting, and then used them to support his own argument. The article over all just showed that happiness is relative and there is no guideline for it. The ethical issues the journalist might have dealt with was who do interview. I think it would have been interesting if he had some real life examples, however that may be too intrusive. Also it was probably very hard to go through every side of the story to keep it ethical.

The author explains the key concepts about food poisoning and specifically ciguatera poisoning very well. I did not know the actual bacteria that causes normal food poisoning. There wasn't a lot of definitions, but I think she defined the necessary ones well. I liked that the author started the piece off as a narrative. It really showed the effects of the bacteria and showed how scary it is. It was easy to understand the terms because we read them as the Doctor explaining them to the man. I think since she did describe the science within the story it decreased the amount of science explanations she had to put in. She interviewed and reported the story like a narrative and it helped translate the story for the reader very ... More »

The author does a very good job at explaining key concepts and answering questions. There are links to terms and a very good explanation of the research findings. I also liked that she raised questions that have yet to be answered. The writing technique was insiteful. She thought about what her readers wouldn't already know. I also liked that she broke her article up into different sections. I think it would have been interesting to interview more than one researcher. However, since it is such a narrow subject I can see how the one is beneficial in explaining this specific experiment. Her reporting of the actual methods were very understandable and translated well.

The author does not explain key concepts in the article. I feel like they could have gone more into the inner workings of antidepressants, depression, and diabetes. I feel they could have gone into much more explanation than they did. They do link to where the findings were published. The writing technique they used were not very effective because it was just an explanation of the research method and findings. The interviewing and reporting techniques could have be improved to help explain why the research was significant. I think they should have interviewed the researchers.

The article does not explain key concepts,but rather has them linked so the reader can further read about those items. The article pokes fun at the scientific process. It was entertaining to see someone take another person's claim and poke fun, but also test it. The writing technqies the author uses are important because they put the story into context by showing how far the issue has reached. I also like when authors organize their articles into subjects. I think the author should have interviewed the Iranian cleric to get his response. The article has a sense of humor, but I think it is too one sided.

The author does a very good job of putting the research into context at the end of the article by asking if students can benefit from dream learning. For the most part, the author explained the idea of sleep learning by explaining the research's experiment. It was also helpful that she linked the research's published article. It was important to note the future of this study and the improvements to the maze. The author did interview the lead researcher, but it might have interesting if she had interviewed someone from the opposing side or other scientists. It was a short piece so I can see why she did not dive more into the issue