News Comment #12

There’s finally an Alzheimer’s vaccine in the works

By Melissa Pandika (Mic)

In the article, the author addresses a nasal vaccine that could potentially cure and prevent Alzheimer’s disease and is currently in a phase I clinical trial. She talks about the stage of research the vaccine is in, explains the trial that is conducted and how the vaccine would work, and mentions a potential problem with the vaccine.

First off, the article appears to be very credible. The author included quotes from experts, statistics, and attribution to other articles.

In the introduction, the author talks briefly about the impact of Alzheimer’s, the problem that there is no cure yet, and the new vaccine. I think it does a good job of getting the reader’s attention (at least mine) and indicating what the article is about.

Furthermore, the topic is very news-worthy, in my opinion. The disease could have a huge impact as millions of people struggle with Alzheimer’s, and the article was published the same day a statement about it was released.

The article seems to be suitable for a large part of today’s audience, as it is very short. It gets to the point fast and only contains information that I found quite essential. In addition, the author was able to explain how the vaccine would work in an understandable way. 

Lastly, the article is a bit subjective. In the end, the author even clearly states her own opinion (“I’m all for investigating a plethora of approaches”). Given that the topic is not very controversial, it doesn’t seem like a big issue to me. However, in general, articles should be as objective as possible.

https://www.mic.com/life/alzheimers-vaccine-humans

1 thought on “News Comment #12

  1. fuglsang

    Much of this is written like your first assignment for this class. It takes quite a bit from the Boston Globe, and from press releases and announcements. Not necessarily bad, but it does make me skeptical of Mic.com.

    The reason I presented it as a future is because of the way it’s written. It’s not written from a science perspective. It’s written from a “human” perspective. It’s about hope rather than a scientific breakthrough.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.