In these set of articles, the author, in this instance Dina Fine Maron, health writer for Scientific America, intends to address a rumor or myth circulating the scientific community and question their validity. I this article, Maron discusses a claim made by Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, who said that Ebola's transmitttion through the airwas a real possibility. Maron asks other infectious disease experts who all claim that though the neccessary series of mutations to make Ebola airborn is possible, it is extrememly unlikely. Also, Ebola would have to adapt to thriving in the respitory system if it were to become airborn, because Ebola in its current state thrives in blood vessels.
This articles structure was very helpful in terms of following her argument. Maron starts off with an introduction to the issue, mainly asking "Could Ebola go airborne?" Next, she tells an anecdote about Osterholm and his New York Times op-ed peice. Following, she gives a point-counterpoint for the validity of airborn Ebola. Even though she concludes that its very unliekly that Ebola will spread through the air, her counterpoint is that it is possible, although extremely unliekly. Then she cites studies done where Ebola was able to be transmitted through the air, although neither study could replicate their data again. Her conclusion deals with the fact that even though Ebola is unlikely to dpreadthrough the air, it is still an extremely dangerous disease that needs massive humanitarian and medical attention. By showing that Ebola is still dangerous without being airborn, Maron dispells the myth without dispelling the danger. It really helps you remember that sometimes, just because something is not as bad as it could be, things can still be pretty bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment