Queen's University, Belfast. "Chemists devise new approach for rapidly identifying 'legal highs'." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 March 2016. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160303084622.htm>.
Chemists from Queen’s University Belfast have developed a test that allows for rapid screenings and identification of “legal highs” or novel psychoactive substances (NPS). “Legal highs” are substances used like illegal drugs and have been responsible for a n umber of deaths in the UK. These legal highs were legal because they were not covered by the drugs legislation and will not be covered until April 6th, 2016. This project was funded by the Department of Justice’s Asset Recovery Community Scheme. The new approach works by detecting the characteristics vibrations of the bonds within the samples by focusing a laser on the sample and measuring the energy of light scattering from it. These vibrations are chemical signatures of the compounds, so when they have been recorded, they can be used to compare vibrations in a “library” of compounds. It is hoped for the future that this will allow laboratory facilities to be freed up for in-depth investigation of those compounds identified as new and unknown.
This will help solve any drug related cases along with quick and faster drug tests. This is needed since people are making their own drugs just by combining different chemicals. It was said that “In 2014 alone 101 new psychoactive substances were identified.” This new test will help save lives and prevent serious injuries. While this test needs more work, what they have will help tremendously towards identifying these legal highs more quickly.
The article was very interesting to read and to write about. It went into depth about what the legal highs were and the impact it has had and will have in the near future. Overall, this article was very easy to read and written well.
7 comments:
He presented very well what the new techniques for rapid screenings are. He also explained well what legal highs are. Lastly Martin explained well why the new technique for drug screening will help investigators.
Overall I think this review was very well written. To improve this review I would add more quotes from the article. Also I would explain more about cases the screening technique would help solve.
I was impressed that the new technique investigators use can detect the characteristics vibrations of the bonds inside the samples by concentrating a laser on the material and measuring the energy of light leaving it.
Queen's University, Belfast. "Chemists devise new approach for rapidly identifying 'legal highs'." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 March 2016.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160303084622.htm
Martin did a great job reviewing his article about this new test to identify “legal highs”. He did a good job of showing why these psychoactive drugs are of great concern to the British government. These growing number of deaths were met with prompt action. Martin also explained the scientific basis for how this new test. He also explained how the new test can lead to quicker identification of substances to allow for more time for research. He showed how the data that they collect will be inputted into a library to rapidly identify the substances that they have encountered previously and signal if a substance that comes in is a new substance that they had not previously encountered.
One of the only things I think Martin could have done better is to further elucidate the connection between this innovation and forensic science. I wasn’t quite convinced that this was a groundbreaking innovation in the field and I think there was further evidence presented in the article that could have made the argument more convincing. Either through the use of quotes, or some summed up evidence, he could have created an even better review. The review was also just a little bit short and contained a few convention errors. These can be a bit distracting and could be largely eliminated with a bit more proof reading.
The article itself was definitely interesting and Martin did a good job with his review. He chose an article on which I had no knowledge. It also showed a problem that I didn’t know existed. It really shows the dangers abusing legal or prescription drugs.
Martin, I really enjoyed your review of the article “Chemists devise new approach for rapidly identifying ‘legal highs.” There were a few things that stood out. One, it was very helpful that you defined what exactly a “legal high” is. This was important because the article was all about “legal highs.” Two, you did a great job summarizing the article. Your summary was concise enough so I understood the concepts and not too long that I was overwhelmed. Three, it was helpful how you explained that the new tests can lead to quicker identifications of substances which in turn leads to more time for research.
Although your review was great, there are a few things you could do to make it even better. One, it would have been nice if you added a quote or two from an expert in this field. This would have strengthened your review by providing more insight on this topic. Two, I wish you went into a little more depth into the relevance and connection between this new approach and science. I feel this new approach is important, and it would have been great if you expanded on its importance.
After reading your review, I was very interested about this new discovery. I had no knowledge of this topic prior to reading this, and I was exposed to a problem that I didn’t know existed. Again, I really enjoyed your review.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160303084622.htm
Queen's University, Belfast. "Chemists devise new approach for rapidly identifying 'legal highs'." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 March 2016.
I thought that Martin’s review was a good example of a current event review, the article was neither too long nor too short. I thought that the review was sufficiently interesting, and contained enough information on the article to give the reader a good idea of what it was about. I thought that this is important because too much important could make the review dull, while his contained just enough to educate the reader, while still encouraging them to read the article. I thought that martin choose a good article to write the review on, this makes a huge difference, because if the review is written on a poor article, then the review as a whole suffers. I think that review could be improved by including an actual quote or two. I also thought that he could have added more info on why this topic was so relevant to today’s society. I thought that this article was quite interesting, and taught me a lot about why the abuse of prescription and legal drugs can be a problem.
I thought the review was very nice and a great example of the correct current event. The article was a great length, not too long or too short, and was interesting and relevant. Martin did a great job summarizing the article. He did not make the analysis confusing or too detailed and therefore it was coherent and easy to follow. I also liked how he would explain the new tests to lead to quicker identifications of a substance that i did not already know about. Martin was able to explain new ideas and new science to the readers. One thing that could've helped with the review would be including a quote from the article to make it a little more interesting and it would've strengthened the review a little bit. Going into a little more detail would not hurt either, therefore, putting in a quote would be helpful. Overall, it was a nice review, very interesting and relevant.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160303084622.htm
Queen's University, Belfast. "Chemists devise new approach for rapidly identifying 'legal highs'." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 March 2016.
I thought that Martin did a fantastic job at summarizing this article in a concise and clear way. He had a skillful blend of facts and opionated content. He made it very easy to understand and very interesting to read. Martin could use some information from outside sources in order to create a piece of literature that leaves no questions unanswered. Overall this was a great current event.
Post a Comment