TASK DEFINITION: Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.
PROBLEM: Paragraph: Chemical engineer Glenanne Johnson was terminated from her position as a lab manager at the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center following her complaints about mouse droppings and dead rodents, KOB-TV reports. Johnson said the work environment got her sick and she later tested positive for Hantavirus — an infectious disease spread by rodents. The university would not comment on why she is no longer employed. But lab director Michael Stanley told the station when Johnson first reported the problem and shared pictures of the working conditions, he temporarily shut down the labs. “We want to respond if we see a problem. We want to take care of it and fix it because it’s very important to us that everybody go home safely every day,” said Stanley. Claim: Scientist: Complaints about rodent infestation led to firing.

SOLUTION: A New Mexico scientist says she was fired from a New Mexico Tech lab job after complaining about a rodent infestation.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: When President Pierre Nkurunziza hands over power, it could be the first truly peaceful transfer of authority in the East African nation since independence in 1962. But the coronavirus poses a threat to the May 20 vote. Burundi has kicked out World Health Organization workers after concerns were raised. The WHO Africa director messaged the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chief about political rallies the day that Burundi’s campaigning launched and images of crowds circulated online. Authorities have been accused by critics of downplaying the pandemic and citing divine protection. But the government appears to be using virus measures to limit election observers, warning the East African regional bloc on May 8 that arriving foreigners face a 14-day quarantine. More than the virus, however, it’s the fear of violence that weighs on many of the more than 5 million people eligible to vote. Government agents have been accused of harassing the main opposition party, the CNL, whose leader Agathon Rwasa is believed to be in a close race with Nkurunziza’s chosen successor in the ruling CNDD-FDD, Evariste Ndayishimiye. More than 145 CNL members have been arrested since campaigning began on April 27, according to SOS Medias Burundi, a group of independent journalists. Police spokesman Pierre Nkurikiye has accused Rwasa of making “incendiary and defamatory” remarks and inciting revolt. Rwasa, the deputy parliament speaker, has drawn large crowds despite the risks of openly supporting him, according to an online group of activists known as i-Burundi. The group worries that a rigged election could spark the kind of street demonstrations that marked the previous vote in 2015. “The ruling party was hoping to use this post-Nkurunziza election to gain a semblance of legitimacy, but given what’s happening we might end up with more violence,” i-Burundi said in an interview. “People want change. ... But the ruling party has the incumbent advantage and controls the electoral process.” Rwasa told The Associated Press he feels it’s important not to boycott the election even if the outcome is not expected to be fair. “Everything has its right time,” he said. “Right now, it is not the time to give up and abandon our people.” Ndayishimiye, a retired general, would be a weak president because he will be a front for Nkurunziza and other powerful ruling party members, said David Gakunzi, a Burundian political analyst: “He consults but he will fear to take independent decisions.” Ndayishimiye fought alongside Nkurunziza as a rebel in the civil war from 1993 to 2005 that killed about 300,000 people. Nkurunziza was chosen by lawmakers to be president during the peace process known as the Arusha Accords, which specified that a president’s term can be renewed only once. But Nkurunziza, who won a second term in 2010, said he was eligible for a third term in 2015 because he had not been chosen the first time by universal suffrage. The deadly turmoil that followed badly damaged ties with the international community, and Burundi became the first country to leave the International Criminal Court after it started investigating allegations of abuses. The U.N. human rights office reported more than 300 extrajudicial killings and was kicked out of the country. Nkurunziza survived a coup attempt shortly after the 2015 vote while traveling in Tanzania and has left Burundi only once since then. Meanwhile international donors have cut support, leaving the government struggling. It has ordered citizens to pay for the upcoming vote. Many Burundians were surprised when the president announced in 2018 that he was serving his last term. Skepticism persists. The government has approved legislation that bestows upon Nkurunziza the title of “paramount leader” after he steps down. “It’s hard to know what’s going to happen ... Nkurunziza has a track record of being quite unpredictable,” said researcher Lane Hartill of the Burundi Human Rights Initiative. “Both the ruling party and the main opposition party, the CNL, are convinced their candidates are going to win the presidential election. It’s telling, though, that government officials continue to arrest large numbers of CNL members.” Even some senior members of the ruling party are tired of rights violations and the cratering economy but are afraid to speak out for fear of losing their jobs or being killed, Hartill said. Burundi’s government has denied allegations it targets its people, calling them malicious propaganda by dissidents. Memories of the 2015 violence are still raw. Jean Baptiste Bakunzi said he remains traumatized by his brother’s death at the hands of the police and the Imbonerakure, a militarized youth group associated with the ruling party. His brother, accused of participating in anti-government activities, “knelt down and begged them to save his life,” Bakunzi said. “Instead, one policeman pulled the trigger and shot him dead,” he said. “Whoever opposes the ruling party becomes an enemy even today.” The violence has dimmed hopes for those outside Burundi who will not be able to vote. Over 330,000 refugees are sheltering in Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda and Congo, according to U.N. figures. “These elections will not bring hope for us because we have lost so much,” said Solange Teta, a refugee in Rwanda. “The ruling party candidate cannot alleviate our suffering.” Sporadic violence persists. Police said two people were killed and eight wounded in a grenade attack Sunday on a bar in Bujumbura that’s a popular hangout for ruling party supporters. Opposition supporters worry the security services may retaliate. Charles Nditije, a former government minister who lives in exile, described the election as a “joke,” calling the polls a formality aimed at installing Nkurunziza’s chosen successor. “What Burundians want now is anything that can bring to (an) end the reign of CNDD-FDD. But the ruling (party) candidate will fight tooth and nail to win fraudulently and set another round of crisis,” he said. Hartill, the Burundi researcher, said disputed election results could put the country back on edge. The big question, he said, is whether the opposition leader will “say enough is enough.” ___ Ssuuna reported from Kigali, Rwanda. Eloge Willy Kaneza in Nairobi, Kenya, contributed. Claim: Burundi defies COVID-19 for election ending a bloody rule.

SOLUTION: Burundi is pushing ahead with an election on Wednesday that will end the president’s divisive and bloody 15-year rule.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Although the article notes that current desensitization efforts involving time-consuming immune system drug infusions to stifle rejection antibodies add up to $30,000 to the cost of a transplant, it does not make any estimate of the cost of the enzyme infusion that was the subject of the “novel” approach described in the new study. Based on later comments, it is presumed to cost about $65,000. The story does an adequate job of noting the actual numbers of patients in the study group, the absolute number that were able to have a successful transplant and the absolute number who later had a rejection episode that required standard anti-rejection therapy. Although the article makes clear the patients were “successfully treated” if sensitizing antibodies returned, it does not give any information about side effects, from the enzyme infusion nor the anti-rejection drugs subsequently used. To its credit, the article does emphasize that the long-term value of the new therapy is open to question and that far more work needs to be done to answer questions about quality, safety, efficacy and cost. The article tells us little about the people who participated in the clinical trial, such as type and duration of previous disease treatment, age, gender, race, co-morbidities, insurance status and so on. Nor will the reader get a really clear idea of how healthy–or ill–patients have done on other desensitization protocols overall and in the long term. No mongering here. The article duly discloses that the study was conducted or somehow supported by Hansa Medical, the maker of the enzyme infusion, and quotes at least two experts not involved in the study itself. The story mentions the existence of other desensitization efforts. But it could have done a much better job of comparing such efforts and their likely impact to programs designed to increase the supply of tissue matched organs and to suppress rejection of donor organs. The article makes clear that the only way for patients to receive the experimental therapy at present is through a clinical trial, although it does not say where such trials are taking place or recruiting patients. The article makes it clear that this treatment is novel, but could have been much strengthened if it had explained more of the biology of the enzyme and the way it was developed. One of the experts quoted was clearly astonished enough at the effects of the enzyme that he would consider it a “game changer” if further studies verify its impact. But just why the enzyme works is not clearly explained. Hansa Medical issued a news release pursuant to publication of the study results in the New England Journal of Medicine, but the story clearly goes beyond the release. Claim: Novel Procedure Improves Kidney Transplant Success

SOLUTION:
This news article describes a small clinical trial of an enzyme engineered to remove sensitizing antibodies from a patient about to undergo kidney transplantation within a few hours, increasing the chances of transplant success for potentially thousands of patients whose bodies are likely to quickly and forcefully reject a donor organ and for whom it is highly difficult to find a compatible tissue-matched donor. So-called pre-transplant “desensitization” is a strategy that has been around for about 15 years, but the new study involves a one-time, shorter-term, less complex approach than previous efforts. The article includes most of the needed cautions, shortcomings and barriers to clinical use of what remains an experimental treatment. However, the piece needed a stronger, explicit statement up high in the story that this treatment is clearly not yet ready for prime time, especially to counter the headline, which needed more context. Any strategy that can safely, effectively, more easily and at lower cost improve successful transplant rates will be newsworthy to thousands seeking donor organs. But these hopeful patients also deserve to know the hurdles that stand in the way before the treatment is available to them. This story covered most of those hurdles.