Sorry, I'm late!!! Here is the essay for biology. The source was a made-up article from school, so I won't post that part because I'm unsure if people can find me through it, and I prefer to maintain my privacy. Names have been changed for privacy reasons, but other than that, this is what I submitted. No other changes made. They were grading based on my response and knowledge of the material, not my writing skills. Tell me what y'all think! (I hope y'all also know that I cringe when I read my essays back when I post these, because I couldn't use apps like Grammarly or anything like that for just basic checks of spelling and grammar, because otherwise I would get a zero for AI usage. All of my classes are like this... ugh)
80Please respect copyright.ＰＥＮＡＮＡYkwPOocxdt
Erin Quinn
Professor Redacted
Concepts of Biology
October 3, 2025
Publish or Perish: A Review
After reviewing the research summary provided, it is safe to say that this experiment is by no means ready for publication. Looking over each section, there are significant pieces of information that are ignored and could have been handled differently, though there are some parts that can be seen as reasonable. First, the background information (section one) gives a clear basis for what this experiment is and why they are performing it. They write in the background information, “Currently, no regulatory authority requests mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be performed for edible GMOs and formulated pesticides.” They go on in section one to say that though there have been experiments conducted, they were much shorter and are not as large-scale as the experiment they have performed, which is seen as a concerning observation to the experimenters. They hypothesize that the presence of GM corn and Roundup in Sprague-Dawley rats' food and water, which are in different concentrations, will show an increase in tumors in the rats and also show a higher mortality rate over the course of two years.
Section two moves into the Materials and Methods used by the experimenters. The experimenters were specific about the independent, dependent, and control variables from the beginning. The independent is the GM corn and the Roundup; the dependent is the rats’ mortality rate (MR) and tumor incidence (TI). The control variable is the rat group that had zero GM corn and Roundup in their diet. They used a specific process to make the food, with the only problem being the unmentioned amount of Roundup used for the experiment. There were two hundred rats used for this experiment, one hundred males and one hundred females. Before the experiment results are mentioned, they write that Sprague-Dawley rats are prone to tumors as they age, especially females. The age and housing arrangements are shown in the second paragraph, the housing situation bringing up causes for concern. When putting them in pairs by sex and giving them free rein, there are three concerns that are immediately stand out. First, when putting two rats together, one is going to eat more than another, because one will be more dominant than the other, which could affect the outcomes of the results. Second, the mental health of the rats could be affected when seeing the death of their pair, which could also skew the results. Finally, there is a higher chance that the rats could fight each other, leading to cuts and infections that could affect their lifespan and the results of the experiment.
Section three and four were where we on the review team saw the biggest issues. Starting with section three, the summary of results, the first thing that stands out is the lack of information. They did not show the percentage of Roundup that was used on the different groups, they did not report all of their results, only the females, and finally, they did not record the percentage of rats that had to be euthanized. The rats could have been euthanized halfway through, or even a couple of weeks after the experiment started, and know one would know the difference. Also, did all of the rats die because of health reasons? There is a 10% gap between the MR and TI. What did that 10% die from? Moving onto the results, the first piece of evidence to note is that the control group had a 30% MR and a 20% TI, which is already a significant percentage of deaths. Second, the higher the GM corn percentage, the higher the MR and TI. Third, the dosages of just Roundup in the water were 10% more in terms of MR and TI that the GM corn only results. For example, the GM corn (11%) had a 50% MR and a 40% TI, while the low dose of Roundup in water had a 60% MR and 50% TI. Finally, the groups with GM corn and roundup together were significantly higher that the other groups in comparison. For example, the GM corn 33% + Roundup, which is the highest concentration in the results, had a 100% MR and a 90% TI. This shows that every single rat in this group died in the two year span and that 90% of them got tumors.
Section four, the summary of discussion, shows the conclusion based on their results. They write that the study did not follow the “more exposure = worse result” pattern, and that even the lower exposures had health problems and tumors. They state, “This suggests there might be a threshold, where once exposure hits a certain point, health problems start, no matter how much more is added”. They also write that both chemicals could be acting as hormone disruptors or be reducing the natural plant chemicals that are used to help protect the rat’s body from cancer in both males and females. They end the summary with, “…long-term testing is needed to understand the full effects of GMOs and herbicides”, like GM corn and Roundup. The data presented logically supports the conclusion, except for one piece. The threshold statement implies that the chemicals are the causation, when actually there is only a correlation between the chemicals, and the MR and TI. This is because the control group was already having MR and TI issues without the chemicals. This fallacy, Post hoc Ergo Propter hoc, where there are assumptions that an event occurred after another event, takes away from the credibility of their argument and data.
This leads into the conclusion of this review, section 5, point of view. As a part of the journal article review team, I believe that this article has too much missing information and points that were not handled correctly to be published, making this experiment invalid. From leaving out percentages of Roundup, the euthanization percentage, the male results, to the housing, mental health, and eating habits monitored, the fallacy, etc…, this article shows that there are too much that is wrong with this experiment to be valid and usable. There are many things that should have been changed. As the leading biologist, I would have first, chosen a different type of rat, preferably one that was not as predisposed towards tumors and are not mentally effected with living alone. Next, the housing arrangements would be separated, to prevent fights leading to cuts and infections, mental health issues, and to better monitor their eating habits. Third, I would make sure to add the percentages specifically used for the roundup and the amount of food and water given to the rats, because when publishing experiments, scientists need to keep in mind that experiments are meant to be copied and tested over and over by them and others to see if there are similar results, which cannot be done if there are no specific guidelines. Fourth, I would make sure that the data shows all of the results including, but not limited to, the MR and TI of both male and female rats, the percentage of rats that had to be euthanized, and mention the reasons why not all of the rats died with tumors. Finally, I would makes sure that my discussion mentions that the GM corn and Roundup in the experiment were a correlation to the tumors, not the cause, because the control group was already having instances of death and tumors, which could change with the different type of rat I would choose, as mentioned above. To conclude this review, I would strongly suggest that if you were to try again on this particular experiment, to keep in mind what has been pointed out in the above review, and to try to limit these errors in the future so that your article is more likely to be published.
ns216.73.216.13da2
and then Add to home screen.