User:Marcmatossian/sandbox

Evidence of Common Descent

Article Evaluation

Content

• Due to the concepts within evolution being so vast, i.e. natural selection, common ancestors, environmental adaptation, etc., this article does a good job in focusing in on the specific topic of "Common Descent" and explaining its role in the overall scheme of evolution as a whole.
• The different subtopics within the article, i.e. Evidence from Paleontology, Evidence from Comparative Anatomy, address the abundance of scientific evidence that supports the theory of natural selection and how it relates to common descent from a common ancestor
• The systematic approach of the article, from starting at the biological base level moving all the way up to homologous structures in different species, gives the reader a wide scope in order form their own opinion on the idea, coupled with a diverse selection of credible sources.
• I think the article does a good job in the "Genetics" section of initially explaining the different proven scientific methods used in the field, then going on to explain the significance of each one, and how it applies to the evidence for a common ancestor. For example, first the significance of sequencing a particular organisms genome is explained, and how this leads to an unbiased approach as to where that particular organism stands in the overall tree of life. Next, this gene sequencing is used to compare the similarities and differences between different species, and how they could have come from a common ancestor.

Tone

• Due to the article of the article being "Evidence of Common Descent", I am confident in saying that close to all viewpoints and sources used are from scientific journals, academic groups, etc
• The topic of natural selection in general is a widely held belief and theory in academia and scientific journals, except for religious groups and others
  • For this reason, although select religious groups do not believe in topics such as natural selection and common descent, their beliefs have close to no quantitative evidence
  • I believe if a viewpoint is to be considered in a Wiki article, it needs to have a quantitative backing, for this reason I believe it is ok to keep this specific opinion out of the article.

Sources

• Due to the Wiki article having 7 separate sections, each with a few subsections. Overall the article has about 300 references.
• Many of the references are from established sources, such as the scientific journal Nature, as well as academic institutions such as Oxford University and independent research articles that have themselves been cited several times.
• In my opinion, the sources used throughout the article are diverse enough, from sources ranging from European Journal of Microbiology, U.S., Journal of Evolutionary Biology, etc.

Article Selection (HPV Vaccine)

Content

• One of the points in the Talk Page that I agree with, and believe needs to be changed.
  • The "Mode of Action" section of the article, has a reference on the chemistry behind how the Papilloma Virus enters human cells, which when I followed back to its source, is from a website titled, "genitalwartsite.com".
  • This website is not a proven, credible source on the topic, and although the information may be correct, it should be reinforced with a research article from a trusted academic journal, in order to have no doubts in credibility.
• Another point which is covered in the Talk Page, is that of possibly changing the title from "HPV Vaccine" to "Human Papilloma Virus Vaccine", in order to possibly change the current perspective on a disease such as Human Papilloma Virus.
  • If people search a disease called HPV, and the results show something like Human Papilloma Virus, and the point of this disease possibly causing cervical cancer, could be very beneficial towards preventing the spread of the disease.
  • Due to the HPV vaccine only being transmitted by males, and can only cause phenotypical consequences in females, I thought that point could be more layed out and explained, in terms of all members of society still having the same, equal, moral responsibility to do their part.

Neutrality

• Many of the estimated figures about cases per year and records are using citations from what are viewed largely as unbiased sources, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), and are referenced to their website, as well as being relatively up to date.
  • In the specific case of addressing how long the vaccine will last after its administration, the reference article is a WHO Report from 2017
• A table for the state-by-state legislation in the U.S. on addressing the issue of HPV vaccinations was left on the "Talk" page
  • I was unaware that legislation regarding how vaccination take place was one a state-by-state basis, although based on the discussion, this information was outdated and not important
  • I would be interested to learn if there was any biases placed on a federal government level vs. state government, with respect to representing all sides of the argument for or against specific methods of vaccine administration.

Citing

• Main points about Citing Issues that I found addressed in the above sections.
  • The citation used for the "Mechanism of Action" section references a possibly biased, unqualified source
  • The majority of the article does use reliable sources including peer-reviewed academic journals and the WHO
• The statistics on surveys conducted on asking teenagers about their awareness level on the disease were from unbiased sources, specifically the Journal of Adolescent Health

Ethics

HPV vaccination has been controversial. Some researchers have compared the need for adolescent HPV vaccination to that of other childhood diseases such as chicken pox, measles, and mumps. This is because vaccination before infection decreases the risk of a number of forms of cancer.

Public consensus typically agrees with the need to vaccinate; with some of the controversy around the rollout and distribution of the vaccine. Countries have taken different routes based on economics and social climate leading to issues of forced vaccination and marginalization of segments of the population in some cases.

The rollout of a country's vaccination program is more divisive, compared to the act of providing vaccination against HPV. In more affluent countries, arguments have been made for publicly-funded programs aimed at vaccinated all adolescents voluntarily. These arguments are supported by World Health Organization (WHO) surveys showing the effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention with HPV vaccination.

In a 2009 population study from the Journal of American Academy of Pediatrics, the rate of HPV detection decreased after the implementation of the vaccine in 2009.^[6]

In Europe, HPV accounts for more than 70% of cases of cervical cancer. Removing the risk of developing cancer through vaccination has led to the push for mass vaccination. Opposition exists due to the monetary interests of pharmaceutical companies to conduct mass vaccination, and safety issues has caused tension. ^[7]

HPV Article - References

• Anjali Shenoi. "The HPV Vaccine: Science, Ethics and Regulation." Economic & Political Weekly, 2010, Economic & Political Weekly, Nov 27, 2010
• White, Mark Donald. "Pros, Cons, and Ethics of HPV Vaccine in Teens—Why Such Controversy?" Translational Andrology and Urology 3, no. 4 (2014): 429-34.

• Anjali Shenoi. "The HPV Vaccine: Science, Ethics and Regulation." Economic & Political Weekly, 2010, Economic & Political Weekly, Nov 27, 2010.
  • A recent civil society-led investigation has highlighted serious ethical violations in a trial of the Human Papilloma Virus vaccine on girls in Khammam district in Andhra Pradesh. The findings are presented along with a review of clinical trials of the hpvvaccine in India and an analysis of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules. Together they illustrate how the promotional practices of drug companies, pressure from powerful international organisations, and the co-option of, and uncritical endorsement by, India's medical associations are influencing the country's public health priorities.
• White, Mark Donald. "Pros, Cons, and Ethics of HPV Vaccine in Teens—Why Such Controversy?" Translational Andrology and Urology 3, no. 4 (2014): 429-34.
  • PMID: 26816799
  • Review of available literature on the HPV Virus and potential vaccines, citing several different sources
• Wood, Fiona, Lucy Morris, Myfanwy Davies, and Glyn Elwyn. "What Constitutes Consent When Parents and Daughters Have Different Views about Having the HPV Vaccine: Qualitative Interviews with Stakeholders." Journal of Medical Ethics 37, no. 8 (2011): 466-71.
  • The UK Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine programme commenced in the autumn of 2008 for year 8 (age 12-13 years) schoolgirls. We examine whether the vaccine should be given when there is a difference of opinion between daughters and parents or guardians. DESIGNQualitative study using semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTSA sample of 25 stakeholders: 14 professionals involved in the development of the HPV vaccination programme and 11 professionals involved in its implementation. RESULTSOverriding the parents' wishes was perceived as problematic and could damage the relationship between school and parents. A number of practical problems were raised in relation to establishing whether parents were genuinely against their daughter receiving the vaccine.
• Beppu, Hirokuni, Masumi Minaguchi, Kiyoshi Uchide, Kunihiko Kumamoto, Masato Sekiguchi, and Yukari Yaju. "Lessons Learnt in Japan from Adverse Reactions to the HPV Vaccine: A Medical Ethics Perspective." Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2, no. 2 (2017): 82-88.
  • Explores the side effects of the HPV Vaccine, such as the effects of increasing the antibody level in the body after injection. This article could be used as an argument to why HPV Vaccines should not be used, implemented, etc. Or at the very least, there should be a more defined medical screening system when determining who should be given the vaccine.