By Hayley Mitchell
0712305
Whether primary or secondary literature, both are very useful sources for gathering information. Scientists, students, professionals and amateurs of all kinds read these pieces everyday, whether it is to further their own studies, contribute to someone else’s or just read for their own interests, these sources are extremely important in building a future.
Although one is directed towards all audiences, it does not include specific details of the research, but instead a general summary of the entire report. This type of literature is a secondary source. Often, it is published on television, online, or in magazines and newspapers by the media. These articles serve the purpose of informing those who are not as familiar with the field or being introduced to it by providing a short summary of a research and making it simple for others to read and understand.
The article “Prozac inhibits sex drive in fish: study” by Peter Nowak and published by CBC News, is an attractive page presenting the recent study of the consequences of pharmaceuticals(more specifically Prozac) in fish conducted by the University of Ottawa. They begin by briefly describing the main concerns and impacts of Prozac on the world’s fishing industry, including the decrease in sex drive in Goldfish, which in the long run, could harm our marine ecosystems by putting a halt to reproduction. Since the point is addressed with little detail, it leaves the topic of discussion open ended. This means the reader can elaborate on the material and come to their own conclusion of how serious it is through other research. The article does not discuss any detail of how, when, or where the experiment was taken, but only the date the study was published.
On the other hand, Primary sources of literature are extremely informative. They are written by the scientist(s) and researchers themselves and therefore include data extracted directly from the experiment with all explanations included. These papers will thoroughly explain the process of the experiment including the hypothesis, specific data and materials related to the experiment, the results and then finally a discussion to conclude the research.
To start off, there is a detailed paragraph about Prozac as a drug, why it is currently an issue, and a short caption of how they assessed their results. However, instead of using the common name, Prozac, they refer to it as Fluoxetine. Then it is organized into paragraphs in order of the process. The introduction presents Prozac as a drug, the uses of it in the world and actual facts of the populations of the world that use it, where the secondary source did not bother including. Stating facts about the topic of discussion is helpful as it is accurate and reliable information the reader can digest.
The next section was very impressive as each step of assessing the results were thoroughly explained including calculations and materials. The researchers made sure to include every detail possible, for example:
Hepatosomatic index (HSI) was estimated as the whole liver mass divided by total body mass × 100. Weight gain was calculated by subtracting the initial weight from the final weight. These data were estimated for each individual fish used in the experiment (Trudeau).
Even specifics on the equipment used during the assessments were recorded, for example: Blood tests after 28 days using a 1mL heparinized syringe (Trudeau 2010).
Another key part the article did not include was sourcing where the fish came from and how they were all cared for. If the fish were not all kept in the same environment, the results would be inaccurate. Including this material ensured that it was as accurate as possible by maintaining the same water temperature and tank sizes within each group. Also included was each tank’s daily recordings of food intake and chemical concentrations, shown through various graphs with captions to inform the reader what exactly it is they are proving.
Lastly, the discussion. What I respected about the primary source was the fact that they acknowledge their results may contain errors or not be the only solution to the issue. They understand it is a starting place and it allows further research to build off of in environmental toxicology. The secondary source does not second guess the study at any point and promotes the conclusions as believable and accurate.
The strengths of the primary source was detailing exactly how the experiment took place, with references to how they were sampled, cared for, and assessed. The secondary source did not provide any of this information and only focused on the final results. Including specifics are important because it helps the reader understand exactly what is going on within the experiment and how they come to their final conclusions.
Realistically, anyone without a high level of education in pharmaceuticals or specific sciences would not be able to thoroughly understand all of the material in Trudeau and Moon’s paper. Therefore, these small summaries published in the news are helpful for others who just have an interest in the topic or care to enhance their knowledge.
I understand that primary literature is subjected for peer review and are targeted towards experts, however, they are extremely informative and provide in depth material of how the experiment was recorded. These pieces of literature are what build a path for our future so further research can take place to understand the world we live in.
Reference List:
Nowak, Peter. "CBC News - Technology & Science - Prozac Inhibits Sex Drive in Fish: Study." CBC.ca - Canadian News Sports Entertainment Kids Docs Radio TV. 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 20 Sept. 2010.
Trudeau, Vance L., and Thomas W. Moon. "Aquatic Toxicology." Waterborne Fluoxetine Disrupts Feeding and Energy Metabolism in the Goldfish Carassius Auratus (2010): 1-9. Print.
Screen, By Sarah. Tropical Fish Centre. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
"Blogger: Sign in." Blogger: Create Your Free Blog. Web. 24 Sept. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment