Evaluation of New York Times Stories

Why is research so difficult? I am never particularity excited to start, because I know I am just going to be reading huge blocks of text, and within the hour, I'll have forgotten half of what I read.

Kraft, Holger. "Doe Confused". 8/19/14 via pixabay. Public Domain Dedication License.

Based on her facial expression, I think this doe understands the struggle of being 99% done.

There must be an easier way to break through the fluff and get to the main idea.


I will be examining two articles from The New York Times and narrowing down the information in order to understand context (which is honestly the truly important stuff).



Under Science, I found an article explaining the use of genetically engineered monkeys to understand Autistic behavior.

• Main characters: the genetically engineered monkeys
• Role: participating in experiments that will aid in understanding of the development of Autistic behavior, which will give scientists a better idea of what types of therapy may be successful in humans

• What is happening: Scientists are "changing" the genetic composition of monkeys so the monkeys express common Autistic behaviors such as repetitive actions and slight social isolation. 
• Influence on plot/characters: Monkeys are exhibiting some Autistic behaviors, and with further testing, scientists might be able to gain insight on how these behaviors develop, and maybe even lead to insights on what causes Autism (It is important to add this is probably way in the future, as this topic is extremely complex). 

• Disagreement/Debate
•  Ethical dilemma of using monkeys for testing
• Preferred because of they show similar behavioral and social traits as humans and their developmental stages are long (compared to mice).
• However, monkeys are not going to completely eliminate the use of mice for testing in these experiments.
• Brings up the issue of science vs ethics

Under Health, I found an article describing new guidelines concerning patients' access to their medical records.

• Main Characters: Everyone who has a medical record! And also doctors, workers, and health care professionals.
• Role: Both give different perspectives of who should be able to access medical records, what the process should be, and when they can access said records. 

•  What is happening: New legislation has come into place after complaints of the difficulty of getting a copy of a person's medical records. .
• Influence on plot/characters: People believe having a copy of their medical records will enable them to make better, more informed decisions concerning their health care. Some doctors and other professionals do not think this will be necessarily beneficial, and that mostly other doctors will get the most information from the records. 

• Disagreement/Debate
•  Many people say it does not make sense for vital information about yourself to be so inconveniently out of reach. 
• People used to have to give a reason why, wait over a month for a copy, and sometimes pay for the service of pulling up the medical records
• However, health care professionals are hesitant because they do not think all information should be shared with all patients (suicidal patients for example may be particularly sensitive). 

 After addressing those key points, a successful breakdown of a seemingly unconquerable article is complete!

We can now venture on to the next steps of research, and happier days!

McCaffrey, Jamie. "One Relieved Deer". 7/17/14 via Flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic.

Do you think this is an effective way to understand context of a story/news article? Any suggestions on how to improve?