Weaker Plants, Better Biofuel

Kimberly Farias


0726120





The secondary source I discovered was an article obtained from ScienceDaily, a website with science news aimed at a generally science audience, who are looking for research updates. Despite this the primary and secondary source differed significantly in content, style and diction. I will be comparing the secondary source Biofuel from Inedible Plant Material Easier to Produce Following Enzyme Discovery published September 20, 2010 on ScienceDaily. And its referenced journal approved August 17, 2010 titled Absence of branches from xylan in Arabidopsis gux mutants reveals potential for simplification of lignocellulosic biomass by J. C. Mortimer, G. P. Miles, D. M. Brown, Z. Zhang, M. P. Segura, T. Weimar, X. Yu, K. A. Seffen, E. Stephens, S. R. Turner, and P. Dupree.

When comparing a primary and secondary source, one must be aware that they are aimed at different audiences. The news article allows for a more general understanding of the ideas and research than the journal article. It is aimed at the public, so it is rather easy to comprehend, whereas the journal is written for those in science, with knowledge regarding the specific topic. The primary source journal is full of scientific diction and jargon, words one could only understand if they were educated in that particular discipline. Words like “glucuronoarabinoxlan” are not just common knowledge (Mortimer 2010). The news article was an easy read, but the journal was substantially more difficult, this was one of the most significant differences I noticed between the two sources.

Both the journal and the article are on the same subject, they are discussing enzymes which were discovered, that weaken plant stalks allowing for an easier harvest of the sugars used for biofuels. A lot of the sugars fermented to produce biofuels are inaccessible, or very difficult to extract, but with the weakened stems, they are much more accessible. The research also establishes the possibility for working and streamlining xylan structure to improve lignocellulose for bioenergy usage. Biofuels are non-petroleum products made of biomass. They are renewable fuels that are more environmentally sound then the use of fossil fuels. The new enzymes will allow for a more eco-friendly production of these fuels which already create less harmful emissions than their petroleum counterparts.

The primary source was all about the science behind the new discovery, whereas the secondary source focused more on what can now be done with the technology. “This knowledge can now be used in crop breeding programs to make non-edible plant material that requires less processing, less energy and fewer chemicals for conversion to biofuels or other renewable products and therefore have an even lower overall impact on atmospheric carbon.” (ScienceDaily 2010) I think the public is more interested in how the discovery will affect their world and the environment. Biofuels are a controversial topic and when the news article focuses on how this new finding will affect the earth they are catering to their audience. More people are interested in the direct effects on the environment than the actual gux mutants and their implications on the xylan. The primary source journal only very briefly indicates the applications of the new discovery, and it is mostly directed at industry. It is stated that alterations in the xylan of crops using their gux mutants “could be a feasible goal for the bioprocessing industry” (Mortimer 2010), but it does not go into detail about the environmental sustainability or the economic viability of the discovery.

Even though the secondary source is focused on a different aspect of the topic than the primary source, it does a sufficient job of explaining the science as well. The journal is 6 pages, almost all containing information about the mutated genes, the xylan and the lingocellulose, but only how and why these substances work, and how they can be manipulated. It contains diagrams and graphs showing the data that was collected, and displaying the contrast between the gux mutants and normal plants. The journal is basically six pages of research. The secondary article summarizes the entire bulk of the paper into about three paragraphs, and continues on a tangent about the effects that the research will have on the world. The article also contains comments from some of the scientists who worked on the journal, pertaining to the effects that better biofuels will accomplish.

In my opinion, neither source is superior to the other; it all depends on what an individual is looking for. If one desires the methods and pure science of the enzymes and how they were discovered, then they should read the primary source. However, if an individual wants to understand the most basic principles and practical applications than the secondary source is best suited for them. In my opinion the Science Daily article was a good representation of the journal, and I think it helped to spread the word on this new environmental discovery to a more broad audience.



References
J. C. Mortimer, G. P. Miles, D. M. Brown, Z. Zhang, M. P. Segura, T. Weimar, X. Yu, K. A. Seffen, E. Stephens, S. R. Turner, P. Dupree. Absence of branches from xylan in Arabidopsis gux mutants reveals potential for simplification of lignocellulosic biomass. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1005456107

ScienceDaily Biofuel from Inedible Plant Material Easier to Produce Following Enzyme Discovery Sep. 20, 2010 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100913152202.htm