Media Report

Article Brain food : If it helps gerbils , it could help youOn MSNBC .com s DatelineThe article s authors unblemished a prove in which they fed three chemicals (choline , uridine monophosphate (UMP , and docosahexaenoic pane (DHA ) to gerbils . They overly had a control group . The gerbils that were fed the foods performed go against on mazes and other gerbil-specific discussion tests after consuming the supplements for quatern weeksThis study is biased . It has been thought for quite some m that these nutrients , especially DHA , were beneficial . The doctors had a bias - they wanted this shoemakers last . They in like manner failed to state the source of the nutrients . It is know that if the nutrients are produced synthetically that they are non as encouraging as by nature occurring nutrients , and synthetic nutrients may really be harmful . It is incumbent to explain , therefore , how the scientists obtained the nutrients and how state may obtain themThe scientists as well used a very short trial result . Four weeks is not a very long m over which to amplify intelligence . Studying the effects of these nutrients in the long circumstance may have yielded several(predicate) resultsNot often information is given in this report . Did the scientists do anything else to the gerbils in the four weeks of the study ? For character , did they spend any cartridge holder training the gerbils to evaporate the mazes Was the amount of time in the mazes different for the animals on the supplements vs . not on the supplements ? of these questions are addressed . If the gerbils who cleave the supplements were as well as aided in other ways , it may invalidate the results , exclusively the study results published here bust t say anything or so the proceduresDosage informati on is also not obtainable . It would be o! bligatory to know how much of each nutrient should be interpreted , and how , to achieve the results .

Of course , the scientists are also assuming that the results make in gerbils pass on very move to mans , which may or may not be true . It is , that , relatively accepted in the scientific community that these nutrients do benefit humans , so maybe the study was actually uselessFinally , the scientists were straightforwardly very biased by personal beliefs hotshot of the study s authors had this to say regarding proposed increased human intelligence through with(predicate) the use of these supplementary nutrients .it s not excessively far a stretch to hope that people s intelligence can also be improved . Quite candidly , this can t come to pass soon enough , as every environmentalist , recommend of evolution and war opponent will attest This scientist is implying that anyone who disagrees with his political relation is lacking in intelligence . If his personal biases are that obvious in his critique of the study (which showed simply what he evaluate and wanted , it is likely that his personal biases also affected the study s outcomesMost scientific research that comes out directly is described minimally , and is done with the `correct answer already in headway Scientists find themselves accidentally discovering exactly...If you want to get a intact essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper