Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Example Input: Maria Andrade of Cape Verde, Robert Mwanga of Uganda and American Jan Low, who all are from the Lima, Peru-based International Potato Center, and American Howarth Bouis of the international research group HarvestPlus were honored in a ceremony at the U.S. State Department. Kenneth M. Quinn, president of the World Food Prize Foundation, called their work “a breakthrough achievement in developing and implementing biofortification.”  He defined biofortification as “the process of breeding critical vitamins and micronutrients into staple crops, thereby dramatically reducing hidden hunger and improving health for millions and millions of people.”  The honorees’ work has focused on the orange-fleshed sweet potato, an important source of vitamin A, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Vitamin A deficiency, especially there and in Asia, is a cause of blindness and premature death, according to the International Potato Center, an agriculture research center based in Lima, Peru. “The impact of the work of all four winners will be felt around the globe but particularly in sub-Saharan Africa,” said Gayle Smith, head of the U.S. Agency for International Development. The prize is awarded annually by the World Food Prize Foundation for food and agriculture innovation. The scientists will share the $250,000 prize equally and it will be awarded at a ceremony during World Food Prize week in Des Moines, Iowa, in October, when the prize will celebrate its 30th anniversary. Past recipients include John Kufuour, a former president of Ghana; former U.S. Senators Bob Dole and George McGovern; and Grameen Bank founder and Nobel laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh.
Example Output: Sweet potato experts win World Food Prize.

Example Input: The in-vitro burger, cultured from cattle stem cells, the first example of what its creator says could provide an answer to global food shortages and help combat climate change, will be fried in a pan and tasted by two volunteers. The burger is the result of years of research by Dutch scientist Mark Post, a vascular biologist at the University of Maastricht, who is working to show how meat grown in petri dishes might one day be a true alternative to meat from livestock. The meat in the burger has been made by knitting together around 20,000 strands of protein that has been cultured from cattle stem cells in Post’s lab. The tissue is grown by placing the cells in a ring, like a donut, around a hub of nutrient gel, Post explained. To prepare the burger, scientists combined the cultured beef with other ingredients normally used in burgers, such as salt, breadcrumbs and egg powder. Red beet juice and saffron have been added to bring out its natural colors. “Our burger is made from muscle cells taken from a cow. We haven’t altered them in any way,” Post said in a statement on Friday. “For it to succeed it has to look, feel and hopefully taste like the real thing.”  Success, in Post’s view, would mean not just a tasty burger, but also the prospect of finding a sustainable, ethical and environmentally friendly alternative to meat production. According to a 2006 report by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), industrialized agriculture contributes on a “massive scale” to climate change, air pollution, land degradation, energy use, deforestation and biodiversity decline. The report, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, said the meat industry contributes about 18 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and this proportion is expected to grow as consumers in fast-developing countries such as China and India eat more meat. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), annual meat production is projected to rise to 376 million metric tons by 2030 from 218 million metric tons in 1997-1999, and demand from a growing world population is expected to rise beyond that. Post cites FAO figures suggesting demand for meat is expected to increase by more than two-thirds by 2050. Animal welfare campaigners applauded the arrival of cultured meat and predicted a great future for it. “In vitro technology will spell the end of lorries full of cows and chickens, abattoirs and factory farming,” the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign group said in a statement. “It will reduce carbon emissions, conserve water and make the food supply safer.”  A study published in 2011 comparing the relative environmental impacts of various types of meat, including lamb, pork, beef and cultured meat, said the lab-grown product has by far the least impact on the environment. Hanna Tuomisto, who conducted the study at Oxford University’s Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, found that growing meats in-vitro would use 35 percent to 60 percent less energy, emit 80 percent to 95 percent less greenhouse gas and use around 98 percent less land than conventionally produced animal meat. While Monday’s fry-up will be a world first and only an initial proof-of concept, the Dutch scientist reckons commercial production of cultured beef could begin within the next 20 years. “What we are going to attempt is important because I hope it will show cultured beef has the answers to major problems that the world faces,” he added.
Example Output: Scientists to cook world's first in-vitro beef burger.

Example Input: This story doesn’t discuss how much the vaccines cost. Therefore, readers can’t compare the affordability of these vaccines to existing treatment options. The story says that four of the six patients had no cancer recurrence after 25 months in the first study, and in the second study, eight of the 13 patients remained tumor free after 23 months. But the studies cited are both phase I clinical trials designed to address safety, not efficacy. Any claims regarding the latter, especially given the limited number of subjects, would be highly speculative. Therefore, the headline is misleading. As noted in the final sentence of the article: “… The next step will be to test these personalized vaccines in larger clinical trials to see if they are better than existing treatments, if they improve survival, and what their long-term side effects could be.” We give the story credit for making an important point that waiting for the vaccine to be made might be detrimental to patients with advanced cancer. It says, “As the vaccine therapies are designed and generated specifically for each individual there is a lag time from enrollment to commencement of treatment—approximately four months—which may be too long from some patients with advanced cancer.” The story also notes that “Both vaccines were deemed safe” but it doesn’t discuss any side effects that may have shown up in the trials. What happened to the five patients who were not tumor free at 25 months? The story does mention that more research is needed to identify potential harms. The story mentions the types of studies that were conducted and the size of the trials. Both of these factors impact the claims that can be made from the research. And that’s important because the claims made seem out-sized compared to the very preliminary nature of the research. Phase I clinical trials are used to look at safety and side effects, not to make conclusions about the future success of personalized medicine. To its credit, the article includes a very important quote from one of the study authors that clarifies that no conclusions should be drawn from these preliminary studies: “It is still unknown whether these vaccines will extend the survival of cancer patients, or whether they are more effective than other recently developed immunotherapies. Additional clinical trials will be required to determine the utility of these individualised neoepitope vaccines.” There is no evidence of disease mongering in this story. The story incorporates insights from a few independent sources. This gives readers additional information about how the findings should be interpreted. However, no information is provided about potential conflicts of interest. The story doesn’t mention any other treatment options for melanoma by name but states that additional research is needed to determine the effectiveness of these vaccines in comparison to existing options. The story could have been improved by including information about the prevalence of cancer recurrence among cancer patients using existing treatment options such as surgery and chemotherapy. One of the trials described was conducted in people who had had surgery and no other treatment options. It would have been helpful to include the length of time to tumor recurrence in people who had not received any other interventions. Although not explicitly stated, most readers will understand that the vaccines are not currently available and have to undergo a lot more testing before they are available — if ever. The article discusses what is and isn’t new about the research in this section: “Cancer vaccines that are personalized to the patient—designed to help the immune system identify tumors as foreign bodies and destroy them—have been considered as a potential treatment for a number of years. But working out the unique mutations of each person’s cancer, a time-consuming and complicated process, must first be identified before a vaccine can be developed for them.” The story includes independent sources and does not appear to be reliant on a news release.
Example Output:
CANCER BREAKTHROUGH: PERSONALIZED MELANOMA VACCINES ‘SAFE AND EFFECTIVE’ IN FIRST HUMAN CLINICAL TRIALS