Category: Biology

please edit to make it 0% ai. One page 350 – 400 words harvard reference style

Critically read the article below:

Rakic P. (2009). Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 10(10), 724735.

For the Module 4 synopsis assignment, you will write a scientific review of the Rakic article. In addition to summarizing the papers main arguments, you must include a methods-focused deep dive explaining how the data behind Figures 4 and 6 were generated. Because this is a review article, Figures 4 and 6 are built from results originally reported in primary research papers that are cited in the reviews reference list. Your job is to trace each figure back to its source paper(s) and describe the key experimental methods those source papers used to produce the figures data

How do I write about a scientific paper?

Watch the video The write up is not a reiteration of the article or a string of citations. Instead, it demonstrates that you are able to analyze, comprehend, and discuss the article content in your own words.

Your write up should be between 1,500 and 2,000 words, Times New Roman 12, one-inch margins.

Using Scientific Names

• Always italicized
• Genus capitalized, species not
• Abbreviate genus name after the first reference: Querus alba becomes Q. alba
• Avoid using common names without scientific names. For example, “corn” is not the same thing in different parts of the world. Give the scientific name instead of or following the common name: The great white shark, C. carcharias, is commonly found—- or C. carcharias is commonly found—- Do not use articles (the, a, an) with scientific names
• “Species” is a collective singular: There is no such word as specie. For example, “This species is specific to one locale.”
• Genera names can be used alone if you are referring collectively (Some species of Sargassum grow—-)
• Taxonomic levels above the genus level are capitalized but not italicized: the
• Chilopoda (centipedes), Animalia, Chordata, Osteichthyes
• Some taxa have been modified to become common names, which are not capitalized: lycopsids from Lycopsida; dipterans from Diptera

Using Subscripts and Superscripts

• Use superscripts for degree measurements, ion charges, and mathematical expressions: 36oC, Ca++ or Ca2+
• Use subscripts for chemical compounds: CaCl2 Fe2(SO4)3

Step 1: Find and summarize sources

Find two sources on your topic that take different positions or perspectives. These should not be polar opposites, but they should reflect meaningful differences in values, priorities, or conclusions. (For example, two sources that support healthcare reform but disagree on how to achieve it.) At least one of these should be by a reputable publication or outlet (academic journal, major newspaper, policy report, etc). The other can be from a reputable publication or from an advocacy group, blog, or a smaller media outlet.

Once youve chosen two sources, write a short rhetorical summary that includes:

• Title, author, and publication
• Purpose and intended audience of the source
• Summary of the main claims and supporting evidence
• A brief analysis of the tone and stance

Remember that you can find these terms defined on page ### of your textbook.

Write at least 75 words for each source.

Step 2: Compare the sources

This is where youll begin to explore nuance. Many conversations in the public sphere are more complex than they first appear. Your job here is to find points of agreement, identify subtle differences, and reflect on how each source contributes to a deeper understanding of your topic.

Use the guiding questions below to help structure your response. You dont need to answer every question in order, but your response should address most of the questions. Write at least 150 words total.

• Where do the authors agree or overlap?
• Do they agree on the core problem or issue?
• Do they use similar types of evidence?
• Do they both support action?
• Where do the authors diverge- and why?
• Do they disagree on the cause or source of the current situation?
• Do they disagree on what matters most (example: the key source of the problem or the key aspect of the solution)?
• Are they using different kinds of evidence to reach their conclusions (does one use statistics while one relies on personal testimony)?
• Are they addressing different audiences (average voters vs policy makers; young voters vs older generation)?
• What uncertainties, nuances, gray areas emerge between the two?
• Does one source acknowledge a limitation or counterpoint?
• Is there a tension in the conversation between the ideal solution and barriers to that solution?
• Is there a tension or uncertainty around the exact cause of the problem or the publics perception of the problem?
• Do both sources seem partially right, but in different ways?
• How does this comparison affect your own thinking?
• Have your views shifted or become more complex?
• What questions do you have now that you didnt have before? Or what questions seem less/more important now?
• How might this new complexity reshape how you approach your topic? What aspects of your research question might need to change, narrow, or be reframed?

Examples to help you think through the questions above:

• An example of an overlap would be two sources on climate change that agree that its both human-caused and urgent.
• An example of a divergence would be one source emphasizing individual responsibility for reducing waste, while another source argues that the problem requires large-scale corporate reform.
• An example of nuance could be one source acknowledging the limits of individual responsibility while still arguing for its potential contributions to a prolonged response.
• An example of nuance is one source showing that standardized tests are harmful due to stress caused to students, while another source shows that these tests are crucial to identifying learning gaps. Therefore, maybe the answer isnt that tests are all good or all bad, but the issue depends on how tests are used.
• An example of a change in thinking after identifying complexity is realizing there is more than one potential way to solve the problem but the different solutions each represent competing values/priorities.

*my research topic is how shark finning contributes to climate chage