Neurotoxicity of Penicillium Crustose Secondary Metabolites - Essay Example

Section/# Article Analysis and Review In each and every publication that attempts to rely upon science to prove its point, it is usually very easy to determine the overall level to which such a study actually and truly displays an adequate and correct usage of scientific knowledge as a means to ring about the point in question. As opposed to the theories and analytical inference that is oftentimes drawn in other subjects, those studies that attempt to relate their findings to the reader/researcher in terms of scientific knowledge are far easier to verify due to the fact that the levels of meaning and inference that the researchers draw upon can be easily verified, computed, and weighed as a function of how greatly they relate back to the concepts that the author(s) is attempting to get across to the reader. In this way, this particular student has chosen the following paper to analyze as a function of how well the scientific and mathematical information related within it help to reinforce or weaken the arguments that the authors make: “Neurotoxicity of Penicillium crustosum secondary metabolites: Tremorgenic activity of orally administered penitrem A and thomitrem A and E in mice”. For purposes of analysis, one can quickly infer that the authors of this particular article have performed due diligence with reference to the use of mathematics and scientific research as a means to prove their point. Firstly, the introduction relates to the reader/researcher that the authors are highly familiar with the area of focus and the preceding literature and studies which have been performed. In this way, the authors are able to draw a firm line of understanding and scientific advancement based upon the research that has preceded this particular study. Although this is a nice touch to note, it should be further noted that the authors rely heavily on the results of three specific studies to set the background for their analysis. As such, the rigor of the study is called into question somewhat. I found that this lack of inclusion of other studies and resources significantly weakened the baseline from which the reader enters the research from. Furthermore, had a more rigid analysis of prior and existing scholarship been performed, the starting point for the reader would be advanced and a need to accept some of the results printed within the study would have been reduced; thereby allowing the reader or researcher to focus on the most important points of the research that has been presented. To the author’s credit, the study does pay careful attention to relating the factors that were present at each and every stage that the experiment and/or study was performed. Rather than simply relying upon an understanding that the reader would be satisfied with the level of scientific rigor with which the researchers approached the problem, the authors relay in great detail all factors which may have had an effect in changing or contributing to the results which would be related later in the study. By paying careful attention to the temperature, environmental factors, specimen samples, time periods involved, and a host of other factors, the researchers are able to provide a rigidly documented piece of research that only goes to show the reader that all necessary rigors were followed and elaborated upon to, as near as one could tell, the highest degree. Although the purpose of this analysis is to consider the level of scientific and mathematic information that was included, as well as how well these inclusions are incorporated, this author would be remiss if not to mention the fact that the research is not well segmented between the phases that take place. Furthermore, although the reliance on scientific data is sound, the research beings and runs along at a rapid pace without any clear dividers that help the reader to differentiate the particular phase or steps that are occurring. Such an oversight means that the piece creates a very negative disconnect in the minds of the reader and/or researcher. Due to the fact that a case is being built, the reader necessarily expects that such a case will have the prime elements of points a,b,c etc. However, rather than differentiating these and building a verifiable means of measurement, the authors and/or researchers seek to relate a massive amount of information without differentiating such information for the purpose of form, function, and clarity to the reader. Strongly encouraging within the data that the authors have introduced to the reader is the fact that an adequate representation of the data that has been collected and produced is found within the form of graphs and tables. Whereas inclusion of relevant data is itself useful in understanding the results that have been produced, presenting such information in the form of graphs and tables helps the reader and/or researcher to quickly find the requisite information they are searching for without becoming bogged down within paragraph explanations of the results that have been yielded form the studies that have been performed. Due to the fact that the data itself is clearly represented in the form of graphs, tables, and figures within the text, the reader can quickly draw inference and locate the data that they seek with respect to any particular research interest that the reader/research might seek to answer. A noticeable flaw with respect to the data and figures that are presented throughout the piece is noted in the way that the introduction seeks to engage the reader and/or researcher. Rather than relating the research questions again and seeking to draw inference as to the reasons that the data that have up until that point been presented and analyzed could help to draw inference to the conclusions that have been stated, a mere regurgitation of text is the only convincing proof that has been given in order to lend a level of understanding to the preceding data that has been utilized. This in and of itself does a disservice to the data that has been so painstakingly referenced due to the fact that it does not allow a clear and convincing conclusion to rest the case that the researchers have presented upon this data (Moldes-Anaya et al 2012). Instead, an irresolute and unverified conclusion merely states that the findings of the researchers point to a specific set of conclusions; without seeking to at least briefly relate why such a level of inference has been made possible through the revelation of preceding data. In the end, to state the piece was a failure would be too strong a condemnation. Likewise, to praise it as an exemplary demonstration of scientific representation and careful use of statistics, figures, mathematics, and data representation/analysis would likewise be foolish. The difficulty with such a piece is the fact that although many factors of research are performed well and related in a manner that provides a level of credence and believability to the reader, many other sections fail to provide a clear linkage between the points that the authors and/or researchers would like to demonstrate to the reader. In this sense, although the paper deals with an engaging topic of interest and presents a great deal of data to substantiate the position that it takes, the actual connection of this data to actionable and well inference conclusions is lacking to the point that the reader is left to wonder if what they have just read or analyzed is connected in any verifiable way to the conclusions that the authors have drawn. Reference Moldes-Ayana, A., Rundberget, T., Faeste, C., Eriksen, G., & Bernhoft, A. (2012). Neurotoxicity of Penicillium crustosum secondary metabolites: Tremorgenic activity of orally administered penitrem A and thomitrem A and E in mice. Elsevier, 60(2012), 1428-1435. Retrieved from www.elsevier.com/locate/toxicon. Read More