{"id":534,"date":"2026-03-05T05:18:18","date_gmt":"2026-03-05T05:18:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/joneegrant\/?page_id=534"},"modified":"2026-05-07T01:44:38","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T01:44:38","slug":"genetics","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/joneegrant\/genetics\/","title":{"rendered":"Genetics"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Jonee Grant Genetics
February 18th, 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Primary Articles, Review Articles, and the Scientific Peer\u2011Review Process<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When researchers make a written report on data they have collected, that report or manuscript is a primary source of information on the topic that was reached. Before primary source reports can be accredited and published the report goes through screening and then on to a peer review process. The screening is done by the editor where they proofread the report for grammar, readability, and substance of the information therein. The next step is the peer review. This is the main quality control process where other scholars in the respective field review the report and assess its importance to the respective field. The multiple step peer review system consists of written dialog between the editor and the reviewers that require several revisions to the original report. When the process is concluded the report is accepted only then is it published as a primary source article.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another accepted research source is a review article. Unlike a primary source article, a review article does not introduce new material done by the reviewer. Instead, it is a compilation of summaries, critiques, and comparison of existing primary sources on a specific topic. This type of review is done to identify patterns, gaps in knowledge, disagreements, and agreements on the subject matter. Then all the information or data is compiled and organized. The layout of review articles starts with an abstract to introduce the topic. That is followed by paragraphs of the organized data and questions raised. Then there is a conclusion that highlights the current state of the knowledge in the field and suggests directions for future research in attempts, to fill those knowledge gaps. It is concluded with an extensive reference list.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, a process that involves quality control of information before publication is the scientific peer review process. Just as with a primary source, and review articles, the report is reviewed by experts in the field. The major difference is the structure of the data presented and the acceptance process. The manuscript \/ report is submitted to the editor for its initial screening, at his stage manuscripts can be rejected. If the manuscript is not rejected it is sent to reviewers. This is the step where the expert reviewer reviews the data. Their focus is on evaluating the clarity of he over all work. Questions like did the researcher take an original approach, how did they run their experiments and were their experiments designed to produce unbiased information and is there statistical analysis of the data and finally will all of this contribute to the field? The third and last step of quality of data reviewing is the peer review evaluation. The peers who are also experts in the field and have successfully completed this process themselves do another review of the manuscript. This final review determines whether the scientific research methods were followed thoroughly, does the data support the conclusion, is the data clearly stated and will the information contribute meaningfully to the field. Step four is where the editor considers all the reviewers\u2019 comments and make necessary revisions to the manuscript. The fifth and last step is acceptance and publication. when all the reviews and revisions are completed to satisfaction the manuscript is accepted and is published.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Jonee Grant
May 1, 2026
Genetics
Writing Assignment #3
In the New York Times article \u201cNature Is Still Molding Human Genes, Study Finds\u201d (Zimmer,
2026), researchers present new evidence that human evolution has been much more active
over the past 10,000 years than many scientists previously assumed. The study analyzed DNA
from 15,836 ancient human remains and identified 479 genetic variants that appear to have
been shaped by natural selection. Earlier research had only found a few dozen, so this dataset
dramatically expands what we know about recent human evolution. The main takeaway is that
natural selection did not stop once humans developed agriculture or modern technology.
Instead, the pressures simply changed.
The article highlights several examples that make this point clear. A mutation linked to
celiac disease appears to be only about 4,000 years old, yet it spread widely, suggesting that
people who carried it had some kind of advantage despite the autoimmune risks it causes
today. Another example involves variants associated with smoking behavior, which have been
declining in Europe for 10,000 years, long before tobacco existed there. The study also found
that some genetic variants linked to Type 2 diabetes, wider waistlines, and higher body-fat
percentages have become less common over time. The researchers suggest that this shift may
be tied to the transition from hunter-gatherer diets to farming. For hunter-gatherers, storing fat
was a survival advantage during periods of scarcity, but once agriculture created a more stable,
carbohydrate-rich food supply, those same traits may have become less beneficial. The study
also identified changes in genes related to blood type, immune function, metabolism, and even
polygenic traits like body fat distribution and years of schooling. While some scientists are
cautious about the strength of evidence for polygenic selection, most agree that the scale of
the dataset is impressive and that many of the results are solid.
This topic is directly tied to genetics because natural selection works by changing the
frequencies of heritable genetic variants over generations. The article shows how modern
genomic tools allow scientists to detect evolutionary patterns that were invisible before. By
using ancient DNA, researchers can track how changes in diet, disease exposure, and lifestyle
shaped the human genome. For students studying genetics, this is a good example of how
evolutionary theory and population-genetics methods apply to real human populations, not just
textbook models.
A 2026 scientific review article by MemarMoshrefi, Johnson, and Huber supports the
accuracy of the NYT article\u2019s claims. Their review explains how ancient DNA has transformed
our ability to detect recent natural selection, especially over the last 10,000 years. They
describe the same types of genomic signatures highlighted in the NYT article, shifts in allele
frequencies, selection on immune and metabolic genes, and rapid evolutionary responses to
agriculture and new pathogens. The review also emphasizes that large ancient-DNA datasets,
like the one used in the study Zimmer (2026) summarizes, provide far more reliable evidence
than earlier methods. Both sources agree that human evolution is ongoing, measurable, and
strongly shaped by cultural and environmental change.
Overall, the popular-press article provides an accurate and well-supported explanation
of recent human evolution, and the evidence it presents aligns with what current scientific
research shows. The reporting is grounded in a large, peer-reviewed study published in Nature,
and the examples it highlights such as the celiac mutation, smoking-related variants, and
metabolic traits are directly supported by the data. The article also acknowledges scientific
uncertainty where appropriate, especially around polygenic traits, which adds to its credibility.
When compared with the findings summarized in the 2026 review by MemarMoshrefi, Johnson,
and Huber, the NYT article\u2019s claims are consistent with modern genomic research and the
broader understanding of how natural selection continues to shape human populations. For
these reasons, the article is both trustworthy and effective in communicating complex genetic
concepts to a general audience. I agree with the scientists because their conclusions are
supported by a large and well-designed study, and the evidence they present is consistent with
what current genomic research shows. The allele-frequency changes they describe are backed
by ancient DNA data and confirmed by more recent scientific reviews. Their findings are
credible, well-supported, and make sense in the context of what we know about human
evolution.
References<\/p>\n\n\n\n