I found Danny Hills to be a very effective speaker. I was especially impressed with his use of analogies to help his audience and future viewers better understand his points. First, he explained that the human genome is analogous to a restaurant’s list of ingredients. When trying to determine why someone is sick or what is unhealthy, it is necessary to understand the genome or the ingredients involved. However, this information alone doesn’t suffice. He explains that proteomics is essential because it is like understanding what is going on in the kitchen. Proteomics shows what the ingredients at the restaurant produce, which is equivalent to understanding our body at the protein level. He also uses a helpful analogy towards the end of the talk. Hills compares the way we approach cancer to the way we approach plumbing in a house. He notes that a leak in the kitchen shouldn’t be considered kitchen water; its just water from the plumbing in the house that has leaked in the kitchen. He compares this to the body by explaining that cancer in the lungs shouldn’t be considered lung cancer. Instead, it is simply cancer in the body that has shown up in the lungs. I found both of these analogies to be particularly helpful in understanding concepts that are essentially brand new.
I agree with Jim. I found the analogies to be very helpful. Also, by using laymen terms made a difficult concept easier to understand. I felt that the use of pictures also helped keep me more involved during the lecture. His idea that cancer is not a noun was interesting. He says we shouldn't say "cancer" rather "cancering." To explain this idea of using cancering (as a verb), he draws an analogy to plumbing. Basically, he says our understanding of cancering is this. A plumber goes to a house with a leak and asks where the leak is. The homeowner says the leak is in the kitchen. The plumber then responds by saying, "Oh! Kitchen water!" Rather than viewing it too specifically as categorical "things" in the body that needs to be killed, he believes that, in the future, everyone should have a treatment specific to their body and that the body should be helped to help itself to cure itself from cancer.
Danny Hillis lecture on proteomics and cancer was very effective at accomplishing the goals the speaker set at the beginning of the presentation. Hillis says he wanted to try and convince an audience who knew a lot about cancer and convince people that this theory can change the way we treat cancer. The analogies Hillis use were crucial in doing this an allowed the audience to see this new material in easy to understand situations. I also liked that Hillis used humor throughout the lecture, which made it engaging and easier to watch. In addition, I found the visual aides he used on the screen behind him very beneficial in communicating his points about the argument. The various diagrams showed the audience helped make the points more concrete and made the argument easy to follow.
In the TED Talk by Danny Hillis, I liked that he broke down what his talk was going to be about. He broke down the idea that a person's genome is not the blueprint of a human but a list of ingredients, which does make sense. Hillis was able to articulate his words in a way that didn't seem too radical to me (as he mentioned at the beginning of his speech that his suggestions would be radical ideas towards the way we think about cancer). I rarely found myself getting confused in what he was talking about and I haven't taken Biology since my freshman year in high school. He explained things in a concise way without the extra filler stuff that most of our other readings include that I found irrelevant. I found it interesting how he describes that doctors and scientists categorize the cancers found according to where it was spotted. I found it weird, however, when he said that cancer is when the conversations in your body have gotten mixed up, and it's not that something else is in your body. I always thought cancer was something in your body, not your body being "broken." I guess that is how people get confused about cancer. This video did clear a few things up for me.
Danny Hillis's speech was quite impressive. Af first, when he started his speech, I thought 'Oh well, this will be a difficult speech to follow' but as other classmates also mentioned, his exquisite analogies of cancering as plumbing helped me understand the points of his speech a lot more effectively. He argued that cancer should not be a noun but rather should be a verb, cancering, as it is something that is happening inside our body . The main point of his speech was that through proteomics, the treatment of cancer in the future, whenever it maybe, will be like a custom treatment. I liked how he said that we are not generic. I never heard of proteomics before, but by listening to his speech, I could grab the sense of what it is, how it works and thought that proteomics could be a medically tremendous breakthrough if it is implemented and embarked successfully. I hope my body will never be cancering, but I got a positive sense that proteomics can contribute to the treatment of cancer fairly effectively for each individuals who are cancering. It was a very interesting speech.
Danny's Hill speech argues that we should change the way we look at cancer. He used an analogy of a list of ingredients to explain what genomics means. Then he went on to explain that when treating cancer its not important to look at "your predispositions" but instead we need to focus on what's going on in our bodies at the protein level; which is what "proteomics" is. His speech appeals to the audience with the use of his various analogies and use of diagrams to explain genomics and proteomics. It's also convincing because he mentions that intelligent people are collaborating on this research project to come up with a model that will focus on proteomics and will be used to treat cancer plus other neurodegenerative diseases.
I think Danny Hill was most effective in converting me to proteonomics is his example of how doctors treat a viral, fungal, or bacteria infection. There's a standard drug that doctors dispense out to patients with those diseases because the disease comes from the outside, they will have less genetic variability than something like cancer that develop differently in every single person. The approach of thinking about cancer as something that your body just "does" is not really revolutionary, but it is very effective in explaining why we need approaches like personalized medicine or in this case, proteonomics. Overall, he effectively defined the difference between genomics and proteomics for the audience that I would really be excited to see his goals realized.
The rhetoric concept of stasis looks like it could be used to guide someone to or through an argument by asking different levels of questions. I say "level" because it seems like you would have to stick with the arrangement given from top to bottom in the table since when you scramble the order it scrambles the logical flow.
The term "rhetorical stasis" is unfamiliar to me though, so I hope to understand it better after reviewing it in class.
Danny Hillis' speech about proteomics as a way to cure cancer made more sense to me and seems to be a better way than genomics as the route to personalized medicine. His speech was easy to follow, and the humor he used a few times was effective in getting me to like him and actually listen to what he was saying. I think what made it even easier to follow was the analogies he used; he didn't use big science words just because the audience in front of him knew medicine, so he definitely appeals to a broader audience (ie. people who aren't doctors). I think that will help him get the information out about proteomics to the entire population, so that people may lobby for that research.
The way Danny Hills presented science for non-scientists, all the while, making it interesting and clear definitely impressed me. I also appreciated the simplistic way in which he went about explaining a concept that is extremely complex; he used analogies that anyone (doctor, scientist or a person off the street) could understand and made them applicable to the simplest of situations. An example of this would be when he is talking about how we should look at cancer not as a noun but as a verb (cancering); he gave an analogy of a plumbing situation in which you come home and see water all over your kitchen and your friend responds with “Oh, you have kitchen water!” This made me as a viewer laugh, as well as the audience he was speaking to. I believe Hills made a complex concept into something anyone can understand, and he effectively convinced me that the future of treating cancer is going to be completely different than it is now.
As everyone has already mentioned, Danny Hillis is an effective speaker. His analogies are effective, plus the slides help his argument because it coincides with the topics and I believe that adding visuals are always helpful because sometimes it can be hard to understand whats going on IN our body. Theres a statement that stuck with me the most that Hillis said, "But mostly what you need to know, to find out if you're sick, is not your predispositions, but its whats actually going on in your body right now." I think that was an effective way to introduce proteomics because many of us take test, like 23 and Me to find out those predispositions, but no one really focuses on there here and now, how are body might be changing because of proteins. He also mentions his struggles with trying to measure the proteins and at point giving up, I think his honesty appeals to the audience because everyone can relate to roadblocks in life. Also, the approach he takes in cancering seems much more effective because as mentioned in Sontag's reading, "The problem is that in cancer, there isn't something else that's inside of you. It's you; you're broken," We have to focus on the inside and proteins seem the best way right now.
I really liked the way Danny Hillis constructed his presentation. His target audience was not only those in his field, but also the average joe. He pretty much summed up genomics, proteomics,and cancer in terms that anyone could understand and appealed to their logic by providing simple comparisons, definitions, and images. He could have easily added added scientific jargon and explanations to appeal more to the professional world, but it was not really necessary to get his argument across.
I found Danny Hills to be a very effective speaker. I was especially impressed with his use of analogies to help his audience and future viewers better understand his points. First, he explained that the human genome is analogous to a restaurant’s list of ingredients. When trying to determine why someone is sick or what is unhealthy, it is necessary to understand the genome or the ingredients involved. However, this information alone doesn’t suffice. He explains that proteomics is essential because it is like understanding what is going on in the kitchen. Proteomics shows what the ingredients at the restaurant produce, which is equivalent to understanding our body at the protein level. He also uses a helpful analogy towards the end of the talk. Hills compares the way we approach cancer to the way we approach plumbing in a house. He notes that a leak in the kitchen shouldn’t be considered kitchen water; its just water from the plumbing in the house that has leaked in the kitchen. He compares this to the body by explaining that cancer in the lungs shouldn’t be considered lung cancer. Instead, it is simply cancer in the body that has shown up in the lungs. I found both of these analogies to be particularly helpful in understanding concepts that are essentially brand new.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jim. I found the analogies to be very helpful. Also, by using laymen terms made a difficult concept easier to understand. I felt that the use of pictures also helped keep me more involved during the lecture. His idea that cancer is not a noun was interesting. He says we shouldn't say "cancer" rather "cancering." To explain this idea of using cancering (as a verb), he draws an analogy to plumbing. Basically, he says our understanding of cancering is this. A plumber goes to a house with a leak and asks where the leak is. The homeowner says the leak is in the kitchen. The plumber then responds by saying, "Oh! Kitchen water!" Rather than viewing it too specifically as categorical "things" in the body that needs to be killed, he believes that, in the future, everyone should have a treatment specific to their body and that the body should be helped to help itself to cure itself from cancer.
ReplyDeleteDanny Hillis lecture on proteomics and cancer was very effective at accomplishing the goals the speaker set at the beginning of the presentation. Hillis says he wanted to try and convince an audience who knew a lot about cancer and convince people that this theory can change the way we treat cancer. The analogies Hillis use were crucial in doing this an allowed the audience to see this new material in easy to understand situations. I also liked that Hillis used humor throughout the lecture, which made it engaging and easier to watch. In addition, I found the visual aides he used on the screen behind him very beneficial in communicating his points about the argument. The various diagrams showed the audience helped make the points more concrete and made the argument easy to follow.
ReplyDeleteIn the TED Talk by Danny Hillis, I liked that he broke down what his talk was going to be about. He broke down the idea that a person's genome is not the blueprint of a human but a list of ingredients, which does make sense. Hillis was able to articulate his words in a way that didn't seem too radical to me (as he mentioned at the beginning of his speech that his suggestions would be radical ideas towards the way we think about cancer). I rarely found myself getting confused in what he was talking about and I haven't taken Biology since my freshman year in high school. He explained things in a concise way without the extra filler stuff that most of our other readings include that I found irrelevant. I found it interesting how he describes that doctors and scientists categorize the cancers found according to where it was spotted. I found it weird, however, when he said that cancer is when the conversations in your body have gotten mixed up, and it's not that something else is in your body. I always thought cancer was something in your body, not your body being "broken." I guess that is how people get confused about cancer. This video did clear a few things up for me.
ReplyDeleteDanny Hillis's speech was quite impressive. Af first, when he started his speech, I thought 'Oh well, this will be a difficult speech to follow' but as other classmates also mentioned, his exquisite analogies of cancering as plumbing helped me understand the points of his speech a lot more effectively. He argued that cancer should not be a noun but rather should be a verb, cancering, as it is something that is happening inside our body . The main point of his speech was that through proteomics, the treatment of cancer in the future, whenever it maybe, will be like a custom treatment. I liked how he said that we are not generic. I never heard of proteomics before, but by listening to his speech, I could grab the sense of what it is, how it works and thought that proteomics could be a medically tremendous breakthrough if it is implemented and embarked successfully. I hope my body will never be cancering, but I got a positive sense that proteomics can contribute to the treatment of cancer fairly effectively for each individuals who are cancering. It was a very interesting speech.
ReplyDeleteDanny's Hill speech argues that we should change the way we look at cancer. He used an analogy of a list of ingredients to explain what genomics means. Then he went on to explain that when treating cancer its not important to look at "your predispositions" but instead we need to focus on what's going on in our bodies at the protein level; which is what "proteomics" is. His speech appeals to the audience with the use of his various analogies and use of diagrams to explain genomics and proteomics. It's also convincing because he mentions that intelligent people are collaborating on this research project to come up with a model that will focus on proteomics and will be used to treat cancer plus other neurodegenerative diseases.
ReplyDeleteI think Danny Hill was most effective in converting me to proteonomics is his example of how doctors treat a viral, fungal, or bacteria infection. There's a standard drug that doctors dispense out to patients with those diseases because the disease comes from the outside, they will have less genetic variability than something like cancer that develop differently in every single person. The approach of thinking about cancer as something that your body just "does" is not really revolutionary, but it is very effective in explaining why we need approaches like personalized medicine or in this case, proteonomics. Overall, he effectively defined the difference between genomics and proteomics for the audience that I would really be excited to see his goals realized.
ReplyDeleteThe rhetoric concept of stasis looks like it could be used to guide someone to or through an argument by asking different levels of questions. I say "level" because it seems like you would have to stick with the arrangement given from top to bottom in the table since when you scramble the order it scrambles the logical flow.
ReplyDeleteThe term "rhetorical stasis" is unfamiliar to me though, so I hope to understand it better after reviewing it in class.
Danny Hillis' speech about proteomics as a way to cure cancer made more sense to me and seems to be a better way than genomics as the route to personalized medicine. His speech was easy to follow, and the humor he used a few times was effective in getting me to like him and actually listen to what he was saying. I think what made it even easier to follow was the analogies he used; he didn't use big science words just because the audience in front of him knew medicine, so he definitely appeals to a broader audience (ie. people who aren't doctors). I think that will help him get the information out about proteomics to the entire population, so that people may lobby for that research.
ReplyDeleteThe way Danny Hills presented science for non-scientists, all the while, making it interesting and clear definitely impressed me. I also appreciated the simplistic way in which he went about explaining a concept that is extremely complex; he used analogies that anyone (doctor, scientist or a person off the street) could understand and made them applicable to the simplest of situations. An example of this would be when he is talking about how we should look at cancer not as a noun but as a verb (cancering); he gave an analogy of a plumbing situation in which you come home and see water all over your kitchen and your friend responds with “Oh, you have kitchen water!” This made me as a viewer laugh, as well as the audience he was speaking to. I believe Hills made a complex concept into something anyone can understand, and he effectively convinced me that the future of treating cancer is going to be completely different than it is now.
ReplyDeleteAs everyone has already mentioned, Danny Hillis is an effective speaker. His analogies are effective, plus the slides help his argument because it coincides with the topics and I believe that adding visuals are always helpful because sometimes it can be hard to understand whats going on IN our body. Theres a statement that stuck with me the most that Hillis said, "But mostly what you need to know, to find out if you're sick, is not your predispositions, but its whats actually going on in your body right now." I think that was an effective way to introduce proteomics because many of us take test, like 23 and Me to find out those predispositions, but no one really focuses on there here and now, how are body might be changing because of proteins. He also mentions his struggles with trying to measure the proteins and at point giving up, I think his honesty appeals to the audience because everyone can relate to roadblocks in life. Also, the approach he takes in cancering seems much more effective because as mentioned in Sontag's reading, "The problem is that in cancer, there isn't something else that's inside of you. It's you; you're broken," We have to focus on the inside and proteins seem the best way right now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really liked the way Danny Hillis constructed his presentation. His target audience was not only those in his field, but also the average joe. He pretty much summed up genomics, proteomics,and cancer in terms that anyone could understand and appealed to their logic by providing simple comparisons, definitions, and images. He could have easily added added scientific jargon and explanations to appeal more to the professional world, but it was not really necessary to get his argument across.
ReplyDelete