Comparing Two Health Articles with Context Research into Epigenetic - Essay Example

Comparing two health/science articles with context research into epigenetic

Introduction

Various studies have established that many factors affect human behaviors. These include biological factors such as DNA, the parenting we receive, the experience we have had, our culture, religion, class, and geographic areas of our early years and epigenetics. Notably, genes, through their effects on physiology and morphology, establish a framework within which the environment acts to shape and influence an individual’s behavior. The environment can affect physiological and morphological development, resulting in the development of behavior by shaping people's internal workings. Besides, epigenetics, which entails genetic control by various factors apart from the DNA sequence, can alter one’s behavior by switching genes on and off, thus determining the transcribed proteins. It can also be noted that the experience we gather as grow up changes our attitudes and perceptions regarding various issues, thus influencing how we behave in different situations. Also, parenting styles determine the child’s behavior in his future life in which authoritarian parenting mainly results in proficient and obedient children compared to less authoritarian parenting. Some cultures and religions also encourage specific behaviors while abhorring and discouraging some behaviors. The article, “Is Your Cat Making You Crazy?” authored by Kathleen McAuliffe’s and published by the Atlantic, explains the authenticity of Flegr’s findings that Toxoplasma gondii influences how a person behaves by altering the chemical reactions in the brain. Simultaneously, “Human Biome," authored by Nicola Davis and published by the Guardian, outlines why microbes could be crucial to our health and how microbiomes influence our behaviors. In this regard, this essay compares two articles: Kathleen McAuliffe’s “Is Your Cat Making You Crazy?” and Nicola Davis “Human Biome.” The comparison will be primarily based on the tone, depth of scientific data, presumed audience, use of scientific citations and references, and the level of fear or concern raised in the reader.

One difference is that Nicola Davis is keen to use a conversational tone that is aimed to attract the attention of the target audience and instill more fun as someone reads through the article. As depicted in the text, the author takes the position of the audience and asks various questions and subsequently answers them in a manner that emulates a real conversation between the author and the concerned audience. At the same time, Nicola Davis is not worried about grammar, and her choice of words makes it easier for her to write like she talks typically, thus making it easier for her ideas ad words to come out. For instance, she poses the first question: “Hang on, aren’t microbes supposed to be dangerous?” (Davis). This is an open-ended question that enables the author to freely and eloquently describe her ideas regarding the issue at hand, thus keeping the conversation ongoing. On the other hand, Kathleen McAuliffe mainly uses a curious tone in which the author wants to find out more, and he is particularly curious about Flegr’s findings. The article is primarily concerned with unraveling the truth behind the effects of the so-called Toxoplasma gondii parasites on human behaviors. The author wants to know more about the assertions put forward by Flegr. She states, “But if Flegr is right, the "latent" parasite may quietly tweak the connections between our neurons, changing our response to frightening situations, our trust in others, how outgoing we are, and even our preference for certain scents. And that's not all.” (McAuliffe). This means that Kathleen McAuliffe mainly intends to unravel the mystery behind Flegr’s research.

On the contrary, a closer look at a depth of scientific data reveals that Kathleen McAuliffe used extensive scientific data than Nicola Davis. Notably, Nicola Davis does not use any significant scientific data in her study; rather, she mainly bases her perceptions on various scholars' expert opinions, particularly Cyan. The author only cites “various studies," “developing studies,” “mouse studies," among others, but does not indicate the scientific data that was used in these pieces of research. To some extent, this compromises the findings of her research. Contrariwise, Kathleen McAuliffe depicts how Flegr strives to conduct an experiment despite being constrained by finances. In this regard, the author states that “fortunately for him, 30 to 40 percent of Czechs had the latent form of the disease, so plenty of students were available to serve as very cheap experimental animals.” (McAuliffe). This shows how committed the researcher was to establishing credible and authentic results. Also, the article borrows its interpretations from in-depth scientific studies such as that of the “2011 study of 20 European countries, the national suicide rate among women increased in direct proportion to the prevalence of the latent Toxo infection in each nation’s female population.” (McAuliffe)

Another difference is that Nicola Davis mainly targets non-academic audiences with little or no biological knowledge regarding biomes. At the same time, Kathleen McAuliffe’s main target is the academicians who can sufficiently argue about the impacts of Toxoplasma gondii parasites on human behavior. This article is mainly argumentative, and only a well-enlightened audience can comprehend the content. Another difference is depicted in the context of the level of fear or concern raised in the reader. In this case, Nicola Davis raises less concern and fear in the readers than Kathleen McAuliffe, who instills fears in readers who interact with outdoor cats. As for Nicola Davis, the text is specifically informative and optimistic as it discusses the impacts of biomes in human health.

One similarity of both articles is depicted in the use of scientific citations and references in which both texts quote scientists. Nicola Davis mainly quotes Cyan as Kathleen McAuliffe quotes several researchers such as Torrey, Robert Yolken, Ajai Vyas, and Glenn McConkey. Another similarity is that both articles particularly explain how various biological factors influence human behaviors in the long term. Nicola Davis attributes such behaviors to biomes I the human body while Kathleen McAuliffe asserts that Toxoplasma gondii plays a crucial role in determining how an individual behaves.

Conclusion

Based on the above analysis, it can be seen that the two articles depict vital differences, especially in their target audience, tone, depth of scientific data, and the level of fear or concern raised in the reader. In this context, the concept of Toxoplasma gondii (T. gondii) refers to a single-celled parasitic organism that primarily affects animals. The parasite is mainly excreted in cat feces as domestic cats remain the main hosts of the parasite. The human microbiome is the common term describing the microbiota that lives on or within human tissues. Epigenetics entails genetic control by various factors apart from the DNA sequence, which can alter one’s behavior by switching genes on and off, thus determining the transcribed proteins.

Work Cited

Davis, Nicola. "The human microbiome: why our microbes could be key to our health." The Guardian. March 26, (2018).

McAuliffe, Kathleen. "How your cat is making you crazy." The Atlantic 6 (2012).