Blood type conversion
A report was released on Sunday stating that Danish researchers found a way to convert individuals' blood type from A, B and AB to the universal donor type, O. This could possibly end blood shortages.
The first article I looked at is from ABC News and can be found here: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3001613
The article has timeliness because it tells the reader right off the bat that the report was released on Sunday. The article also shows that the event has impact, because it is breaking news. It has an international impact:
** "The enzymatic conversion processes we describe hold promise for achieving the goal of producing universal red blood cells, which would improve the blood supply while enhancing the safety of clinical transfusions," Clausen and his team conclude.**
This information isn't given to the reader until the last paragraph. The reader may ask him or herself, 'Why does this matter?' if they don't pick up on the implied meaning of this new discovery. It is a novelty, since this kind of process has never been done before. The article shows this by telling of the studies done before this one and how they have failed:
** More than two decades ago, researchers began testing the concept of removing the surface proteins on red blood cells to create universal blood cells, according to the report in the April 1st online issue of Nature Biotechnology.
In 2000, findings from a trial showed that type B red blood cells could be converted into type O cells, which then survive normally when given to type A and O individuals. However, the usefulness of this approach was limited by the large amount of enzymes required for the conversion. **
It is also a novelty because it is human interest. It has currency, as well; because it has an impact on so many people around the world, it becomes worthy of discussion. Therefore, because this event has an impact on so many health-wise, it is a necessity, not to mention helpful for people to know about. It is important for people to know about this option.
The second article I read is from ImediNews, found here: http://www.imedinews.ge/en/news_read/30732
It is a short article, but contains many news values and explains the situation to every day people, without the scientific jargon. The article does not say he day this information was released but it does say "April 2" in the dateline. This is one of the few downfalls to this article, for the reader doesn't know exactly what day this came about. The article does show the event has impact, even more so than the first. The headline itself, "Breakthrough could end blood shortages" shows the impact it may have on the public. In comparison to the first article, titled, "Blood types A, B converted to type O just doesn't do it - it doesn't get to the point. This article's lead shows the impact right away:
**An international research team led by a Danish scientist has developed a process to change blood types, which could spell the end of blood shortages.**
The article doesn't show novelty like the first one did; it doesn't go into past studies on this procedure. But it does show currency, necessity and helpfulness in the same way the previous article does.
I think that both of these articles are plainly written, but contain enough news values to make it helpful and show it has an impact. In my opinion, the reporters could have found a way to directly relate this finding to the people, state what this discovery could do for us as a human race. It could save lives, clearly, but it doesn't say that in the article. It is up to the reader to think about that. Also, the first article uses a lot of jargon - I don't feel that it was simplified enough for the every day person who isn't educated in scientific terms to read. The second article spells out the details of what the procedure is about very clearly and directly.