John David Russo (0707990)Blog Assignment #1
Whether reading an article, news post or watching a news video, it is important to remember that these forms of information are usually secondary sources of information. In the process of taking a piece of primary information, such as a scientific journal, and summarizing can be a great way to convey large amount of information in a convenient and informative. However; it may also lead to some of that information being altered or misinterpreted.
For my comparison of a secondary source and its predeceasing primary source, I chose the news article “Organic Pesticides Can Be Worse than Synthetic: Study”, which was based on the study, “Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans”(CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. 2010)(Bahlai 2010).
When comparing the secondary source with the primary source, I found that most of the resulting information from the primary source was correctly implemented in the secondary source as a generalization (CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. 2010). The primary source states that in many cases, organic pesticides are used with the assumption that they are have less of an impact on the environment then synthetic pesticides simply due to the fact that they are organic. However; the study reviled, in fact, that this is not the case as their experiments showed that the organic pesticides were more harmful then synthetic pesticides. There basis for this claim was that the organic pesticides required higher doses and killed both the targeted aphid as well as its predators (Bahlai 2010). The secondary source clearly states these finding within its article, although; the secondary did not present any supporting data from the primary source (CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. 2010).
The fact that no data was presented in the secondary source is one of the major differences between the two sources. While the secondary source cited the primary source and stated that that data within the primary source supported its claims, it itself did not present any of this data. This causes the secondary source to be far less credible then the primary source, as they are simply stating facts without any evidence to support them. This could cause readers to ignore the findings due to the lack of evidence and the argument seems weaker. Also, the secondary source lacked much of the detail from the primary source, giving only a general explanation of the information in the primary source.
This lack of detailed information is one of the key differences between the primary and secondary sources. The secondary source states that the findings within the primary source confirm that synthetic pesticides are safer to use and are better for the environment then organic pesticides (CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. 2010). However; this is simply a generalization and a misinterpretation of that data and results. The primary source actually states that the experiments they performed showed that the two organic pesticides they tested, specifically Beauveria bassiana and Mineral Oil, where more toxic then the two synthetic pesticides they tested, Spirotetramat and Flonicamid. Their data also showed that the organic pesticides had a greater impact on organisms that were not the targeted pest, specifically Harmonia axyridis and Orius insidiosus, which increased its negative impact on the environment. Also; the organic pesticides were not as effective as the synthetic when it came to eliminating the targeted species (Bahlai 2010). While this may seem as if the primary source is stating that synthetic pesticides are better and safer for the environment then organic, that is not the case. The results of the primary source suggest that the specific organic pesticides, Beauveria bassiana and Mineral Oil, were less effective and more harmful then the synthetic pesticides, Spirotetramat and Flonicamid. So the conclusion made in the primary source only applies to these specific pesticides and the organisms that they were tested on, not in all cases like the secondary source led readers to believe by stating the study found that synthetic pesticides were better than organic.
Another difference is that the secondary source implies that the primary source is being hostile towards organic farmers and their methods (CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. 2010). However; there is no aggressiveness within the primary source towards organic farmers or their methods. The primary source simply states that there is a misconception that organic pesticides are safer for the environment, when in reality some synthetic pesticides are both safer and more effective. They support this statement with the analysis of the data they collected in their experiments (Bahlai 2010). Although the secondary source states that the primary source was not planned to be against organic techniques, it still implies that the primary source is slandering organic farmers (CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. 2010).
In conclusion, I find that while secondary sources of information, such as news paper articles, are an excellent way to become informed about new discoveries and debated topics, they should be read with some skepticism as they may present the data falsely. An article may simply generalize the information so that it is easier for the reader to understand, or to simply draw the reader’s attention, rather than educate the reader. Therefore; as readers it is our responsibility to ensure that secondary sources used for scientific research are only used as a reference to the actual research, the primary source.
Works Cited
Bahlai, CA, Y. Xue, CM McCreary, AW Schaafsma, and RH Hallet. "Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans." PLoS ONE (2010). Www.plosone.org. Bahlai Et Al., 22 June 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2010.
CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. "Organic Pesticides Can Be Worse than Synthetic: Study." The Globe and Mail. Phillip Crawley, 22 June 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment