TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: 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.

SOLUTION: Scientists to cook world's first in-vitro beef burger.

PROBLEM: Clearly, the costs involved in cancer treatment already are high. By removing a layer of treatment from an estimated 40,000 patients, those costs would have to drop, but it is unclear from the story by how much. Also, it would have been worth mentioning whether this is likely to affect how insurance companies handle lymph node removals. The story did a good job providing some numbers on benefits, but we wish it had provided more and explained some things a bit more. It says, for example, “In 27 percent of the women who had additional nodes removed, those nodes were cancerous.” How many women had additional nodes removed and, of those, how many had cancerous nodes? A figure like 27% means 1 out of every 4 women had nodes that were, indeed, cancerous, which seems to conflict with other statements in the story about chemotherapy and radiation wiping out the cancer. The story discusses several harms from lymph node removal, and shows that the difference in survival for women who had nodes removed and those who did not was not significant. “Indeed, women in the study who had the nodes taken out were far more likely (70 percent versus 25 percent) to have complications like infections, abnormal sensations and fluid collecting in the armpit. They were also more likely to have lymphedema.” This is where the story really outperformed some of the competition covering the same news. It placed the study into the broader context of a movement in cancer care away from surgeries that don’t provide a clear benefit, and it also explained the study design and the limitations of the study in several ways. “The study, at 115 medical centers, included 891 patients. Their median age was in the mid-50s, and they were followed for a median of 6.3 years. … One potential weakness in the study is that there was not complete follow-up information on 166 women, about equal numbers from each group. The researchers said that did not affect the results. A statistician who was not part of the study said the missing information should have been discussed further, but probably did not have an important impact. It is not known whether the findings also apply to women who do not have radiation and chemotherapy, or to those who have only part of the breast irradiated. Nor is it known whether the findings could be applied to other types of cancer.” It was too bad that it did not mention limitations in terms of lack of enrollment. The targeted enrollment was 1900. There also was an imbalance in the randomization that should have been mentioned. The story is careful to explain to readers that the research findings only apply to a subset of women with breast cancer. “Now, researchers report that for women who meet certain criteria — about 20 percent of patients, or 40,000 women a year in the United States — taking out cancerous nodes has no advantage. It does not change the treatment plan, improve survival or make the cancer less likely to recur. And it can cause complications like infection and lymphedema, a chronic swelling in the arm that ranges from mild to disabling.” The Q&A that ran with the story provided more detail about the different types of cancers and cancer patients, noting, for example, “First of all, 20 percent (the estimate of the study’s lead author, Dr. Armando E. Giuliano) refers to 20 percent of all the newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancer each year. This does not include noninvasive breast cancer, or DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ. The total is about 207,000, so 20 percent is roughly 40,000 women. That is about how many women would match those in the study, in terms of tumor status, affected lymph nodes and course of treatment.”  The story also says, “The results mean that women like those in the study will still have to have at least one lymph node removed, to look for cancer and decide whether they will need more treatment. But taking out just one or a few nodes should be enough.” Good quotes including from Dr. Monica Morrow, chief of the breast service at Sloan-Kettering and an author of the study, but also a few fromindependent experts toward the end. Dr. Grant W. Carlson, a professor of surgery at the Winship Cancer Institute at Emory University, and the author of an editorial accompanying the study, provides some soul-searching context by saying that, in taking out so many lymph nodes, “I have a feeling we’ve been doing a lot of harm.” Dr. Elisa R. Port, the chief of breast surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan, said, “It’s definitely practice-changing.” And Dr. Alison Estabrook, the chief of the comprehensive breast center at St. Luke’s-Roosevelt hospital in New York said, “In the past, surgeons thought our role was to get out all the cancer. … Now he’s saying we don’t really have to do that.” The story does a great job explaining the history of this form of treatment and how it has evolved over time. “But doctors have continued to think that even microscopic disease in the lymph nodes should be cut out to improve the odds of survival. And until recently, they counted cancerous lymph nodes to gauge the severity of the disease and choose chemotherapy. But now the number is not so often used to determine drug treatment, doctors say. What matters more is whether the disease has reached any nodes at all. If any are positive, the disease could become deadly. Chemotherapy is recommended, and the drugs are the same, no matter how many nodes are involved.” The story goes on to do something that stories like this rarely do, it compares compares the harms from different forms of treatment, saying “After armpit surgery, 20 percent to 30 percent of women develop lymphedema, Dr. Port said, and radiation may increase the rate to 40 percent to 50 percent. Physical therapy can help, but there is no cure.” The story makes it clear that removing all under-arm lymph nodes is the standard of care for women with breast cancer and that feelings about that standard are entrenched. The story establishes that a change in treatment protocol away from removing all the lymph nodes under the arms of women with breast cancer would be novel. There is some nuance, here, though that could be missed by a casual reader. Women who have one to two positive lymph nodes would avoid having additional lymph node surgery. The overall tone of the story may make it appear to some readers that women get to avoid lymph node surgery altogether, but they don’t. The story goes well beyond any news release.

SOLUTION: Lymph Node Study Shakes Pillar of Breast Cancer Care

PROBLEM: On 13 March 2018, one day before a scheduled nationwide student walkout protesting Congress’s inaction on gun violence in the United States, reports surfaced that a teacher trained in the use of firearms had accidentally fired his handgun in a California high school classroom, injuring at least one student. According to a local press coverage, the incident occurred during a gun safety class at Seaside High School in Seaside, California. The Monterey County Herald reported: Police were called to Seaside High School on Tuesday afternoon after a report that a teacher accidentally fired a hand gun in a classroom full of students. The teacher was identified as Dennis Alexander, a reserve police officer for Sand City, according to a press release from the Seaside Police Department. Alexander was believed to have been providing instruction related to public safety awareness when he fired a single shot from a semi-automatic handgun into the ceiling. According to Seaside Police Chief Abdul D. Pridgen, a student was struck in the neck by debris or a fragment after the bullet ricocheted off the ceiling. The student was not seriously injured. Pridgen said class resumed after the incident was brought under control. The Monterey Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD) released a statement the same day which read, in part: The safety and well-being of students and staff are high priorities for the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District. Today, an accident occurred in the Administration of Justice class at Seaside High School. During class, the teacher, who is also a reserve police officer, accidentally discharged his firearm during a lesson while it was pointed at the ceiling, and debris from the ceiling then fell. Upon learning of the incident, school site administration, the District Office, and the Seaside Police Department immediately began investigating, including interviewing students in the class. It was determined that there was no immediate threat to students or staff, and school remained in session. Due to the nature of this personnel incident, we are unable to share any other details at this time. The teacher has been placed on administrative leave for the duration of the on-going investigation. California law prohibits firearms on campus, and MPUSD’s Board of Education policy prohibits any person other than authorized law enforcement or security personnel from possessing weapons, imitation firearms, or dangerous instruments of any kind in school buildings, on school grounds or buses, or at a school-related or school-sponsored activity away from school, or while going to or coming from school. The school district informed us that the teacher has been with Seaside High School since 1994 and formerly taught mathematics, though more recently his only responsibility was teaching the Administration of Justice course during which the accident occurred. MPUSD declined to comment further, noting that the matter is still under investigation and there have been “multiple and differing accounts of the incident and the response immediately following.” Some early press reports said that as many as three students had suffered superficial injuries, but according to the most recent coverage only one student, a 17-year-old male, was confirmed injured. Chief Abdul D. Pridgen of the Seaside Police Department said the wound was caused by a bullet fragment or debris falling from the ceiling. The student was treated at a local hospital and released. MPUSD superintendent Daniel “PK” Diffenbaugh told KSBW-TV News that among the questions that need to be answered is why a teacher was pointing a loaded gun at the ceiling in front of students. “Clearly in this incident protocols were not followed,” he said. Coincidentally, a similar incident occurred the same day at a middle school in Alexandria, Virginia. Police reported that a school resource officer accidentally discharged his pistol while sitting down in his office at George Washington Middle School. No injuries were reported, and the officer, a five-year veteran of the police department, was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. The accident brought the total number of confirmed gunfire incidents in U.S. schools so far in 2018 to 32, according to the gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.

SOLUTION:
A teacher trained in the use of firearms accidentally discharged a handgun in a California classroom, causing minor injury to a student.