News Article: "DNA Molecules Display Telepathic Abilities"
Scientific Journal: "DNA Double Helices Recognize Mutual Sequence Homology in a Protein Free Environment"
1) What specific claim(s) does the news article make about the study? That is, what did the news article say was discovered? For each claim, indicate if the original paper actually makes that claim.
The headline of the news article claims that scientists discovered that DNA has telepathic abilities. Probably, the word “telepathy” was used to catch the reader’s attention. It is clear that DNA does not have supernatural powers (and obviously the scientific journal never claims this), but instead follows the laws of physics as the article than later describes. The article itself more correctly states that double-stranded DNA can assemble with another double-stranded helix based on their base pair sequence without the help of proteins. This agrees with the findings of the study. However, the journalist states that previously it was not known that double stranded DNA had this ability. This disagrees with the journal which talks about previous studies that had similar findings.
When describing the results of the study the article claims that DNA double-stranded molecules with the same base pair sequences are twice more likely to move close together than molecules with different sequences. This matches the findings made by the scientist. The article also correctly summarizes what the scientist think is the mechanism behind the matching. Because the structure of the helix depends on the base pair sequence, DNA fragments with the same sequence will have the same structure, so the grooves and pitches match. The matching of the helical structure minimizes the repulsion of the phosphate groups on the backbone of the DNA
2) Most technical papers have a "Conclusions" section (often labeled as such). Find this section. Are the items which the original authors highlighted as conclusions of their study discussed in the news article? Indicate "yes" or "no", giving your evidence.
In the conclusion, the scientists establish “homology recognition between intact double helices through physical forces as an intrinsic property of DNA”. This is also the issue being discussed in the news article. However, the scientists also point out that the exact mechanism is not known, so more studies have to been done. The journalist on the other hand, only talks about the mechanism that was speculated by the scientists of the study.
3) Most technical papers will describe the uncertainty around their conclusions and discoveries, often discussed in a section labeled "Discussion." Does the original paper describe the degree of confidence the scientists have in their discoveries? If so, describe this, and indicate whether or not the news article also discusses the degree of uncertainty.
For every experimental measure, the scientists record the standard deviation, or error in the measurement. The researchers do not directly discuss the degree of certainty their conclusion has. The journalist does not mention any statistical calculations.
4) It is the job of the news reporter to make whatever item they are reporting on relevant to some larger issue or set of issues; in contrast, a technical paper is often much more focused and may not deal with broader implications of the work. Do you find examples of the reporter discussing "broader implications" not present in the original paper? If so, describe them. Additionally, if so, indicate whether you (as a reader) can see that this broader implication actually does follow from the conclusions of the study.
Towards the end of the article, the journalist writes that the ability of DNA helices to match according to their base sequence could help to reduce DNA combining wrongly, errors that can cause cancer or the process of aging. Because, the correct lining up of DNA molecules is an essential step during cell division which plays a role in cancer and aging, I can understand how the journalist came to this observation. However, it is not known whether this ability of DNA helices discussed in the study influences any cellular processes in the body or whether it is only significant under special circumstances like those in the lab. Therefore, the journalist’s observation is a far stretch.
5) In some technical paper the original scientists might describes previous contradictory work of previous research (often in the "Introduction"), which they presumably consider their new work has overturned. If so, does the news article reflect that this study has resulted in the rejection of a previous hypothesis?
The researchers do not mention studies with results contradictory to theirs. Nevertheless, they mention previous studies that propose mechanisms behind the DNA helices matching different to what they speculate. The news article does not mention any contradictory study.
6) Journalists very often couch science news items as "debates between equal sides", even if the weight of the evidence is not equal. Does the news article discuss alternative hypotheses that are not mentioned in the original paper? If so, does the news article give a measure of what degree of evidential support exists for either of the alternative models?
The news article does not mention any alternative hypothesis.