This week we read the paper that was published where an entire genome of a free organism was sequenced, as well as a smaller article that summarized the paper’s findings. It was extremely interesting to read about how the team approached the task of sequencing. I noticed that they used the high throughput sequencing, like we used in this class. It really shows how effective the sequencing technique is, as it is quick and powerful enough to let a group of researchers analyze a entire genome of an organism. The paper reflected a much more advanced view of the high throughput sequencing, and at times I felt lost. The general outline of the procedure stood out to me, it was all things that I recognized such as creating a library and sequencing the genome. We have covered the sequencing process pretty in depth, but there were still parts where I was confused as to what they were doing. As the paper continued it became more unclear and I felt like I lost the focus of what the paper was discussing.
This is where the Nowak commentary was extremely important. Its shortened version of the text allowed me to quickly understand what was occurring in the later stages of the experiment due to the more readable text. It stood out to me that the text was easier to interpret, and I was able to quickly deduce how the steps being show were connected to the overall goal. Reading this I’m reminded of some of the other writing exercises that we’ve done through this class, where we have to write to a certain audience. I think the Nowak article was written to a more generalized audience, and that is what allowed me to read it more easily. It shows that having the mix of writing styles can be beneficial, as it allows you to expand the topic without knowing a ton of information.
