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: A developmental biologist and tissue engineer, Dr. Mironov, 56, is one of only a few scientists worldwide involved in bioengineering “cultured” meat. It’s a product he believes could help solve future global food crises resulting from shrinking amounts of land available for growing meat the old-fashioned way ... on the hoof. Growth of “in-vitro” or cultured meat is also under way in the Netherlands, Mironov told Reuters in an interview, but in the United States, it is science in search of funding and demand. The new National Institute of Food and Agriculture, part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, won’t fund it, the National Institutes of Health won’t fund it, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration funded it only briefly, Mironov said. “It’s classic disruptive technology,” Mironov said. “Bringing any new technology on the market, average, costs $1 billion. We don’t even have $1 million.”   Director of the Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Center in the Department of Regenerative Medicine and Cell Biology at the medical university, Mironov now primarily conducts research on tissue engineering, or growing, of human organs. “There’s a yuck factor when people find out meat is grown in a lab. They don’t like to associate technology with food,” said Nicholas Genovese, 32, a visiting scholar in cancer cell biology working under a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals three-year grant to run Dr. Mironov’s meat-growing lab. “But there are a lot of products that we eat today that are considered natural that are produced in a similar manner,” Genovese said. “There’s yogurt, which is cultured yeast. You have wine production and beer production. These were not produced in laboratories. Society has accepted these products.”   If wine is produced in winery, beer in a brewery and bread in a bakery, where are you going to grow cultured meat? In a “carnery,” if Mironov has his way. That is the name he has given future production facilities. He envisions football field-sized buildings filled with large bioreactors, or bioreactors the size of a coffee machine in grocery stores, to manufacture what he calls “charlem” — “Charleston engineered meat.”   “It will be functional, natural, designed food,” Mironov said. “How do you want it to taste? You want a little bit of fat, you want pork, you want lamb? We design exactly what you want. We can design texture. “I believe we can do it without genes. But there is no evidence that if you add genes the quality of food will somehow suffer. Genetically modified food is already normal practice and nobody dies.”   Dr. Mironov has taken myoblasts — embryonic cells that develop into muscle tissue — from turkey and bathed them in a nutrient bath of bovine serum on a scaffold made of chitosan (a common polymer found in nature) to grow animal skeletal muscle tissue. But how do you get that juicy, meaty quality? Genovese said scientists want to add fat. And adding a vascular system so that interior cells can receive oxygen will enable the growth of steak, say, instead of just thin strips of muscle tissue. Cultured meat could eventually become cheaper than what Genovese called the heavily subsidized production of farm meat, he said, and if the public accepts cultured meat, the future holds benefits. “Thirty percent of the earth’s land surface area is associated with producing animal protein on farms,” Genovese said. “Animals require between 3 and 8 pounds of nutrient to make 1 pound of meat. It’s fairly inefficient. Animals consume food and produce waste. Cultured meat doesn’t have a digestive system. “Further out, if we have interplanetary exploration, people will need to produce food in space and you can’t take a cow with you. “We have to look to these ideas in order to progress. Otherwise, we stay static. I mean, 15 years ago who could have imagined the iPhone?” Claim: South Carolina scientist works to grow meat in lab.

SOLUTION: In a small laboratory on an upper floor of the basic science building at the Medical University of South Carolina, Vladimir Mironov, M.D., Ph.D., has been working for a decade to grow meat.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The Nobel Assembly, which awarded the prize of 8 million Swedish crowns ($1.1 million) at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute on Monday, said the discovery solved a problem that had occupied philosophers and scientists for centuries:  “How does the brain create a map of the space surrounding us and how can we navigate our way through a complex environment?”   Ole Kiehn, a Nobel committee member and professor in Karolinska’s neuroscience department, said the three scientists had found “an inner GPS that makes it possible to know where we are and find our way”. O’Keefe, now director at the center in neural circuits and behavior at University College London (UCL), discovered the first element of the positioning system in 1971 when he found that a type of nerve cell in a brain region called the hippocampus was always activated when a rat was in a certain place in a room. Seeing that other nerve cells were activated when the rat was in other positions, O´Keefe concluded that these “place cells” formed a map of the room. Uta Frith, a UCL professor of cognitive development said O’Keefe had shown “it is possible to literally map the mind”. “He has done much more than discovering neuronal mechanisms in the brain: he has discovered cognitive mechanisms that explain how human beings and other animals navigate,” she said. “This beautiful work is heralding a new age of exploration of brain and mind.”  In 1996, Edvard Moser and May-Britt Moser, who are married and now based in scientific institutes in the Norwegian town of Trondheim, worked with O’Keefe to learn how to record the activity of cells in the hippocampus. Nearly a decade later, the Moser team discovered cells, in the entorhinal cortex region in brains of rats, which function as a navigation system. These so-called “grid cells”, they discovered, are constantly working to create a map of the outside world and are responsible for animals’ knowing where they are, where they have been, and where they are going. Bill Harris, head of physiology, development and neuroscience at Britain’s University of Cambridge, said the scientists’ work “has not only revolutionized our understanding of this amazing puzzle (the brain), but has also opened the door into problems of place memory and how we learn and remember routes of navigation, and what sleep and dreams may be doing for memory and performance.”  While the findings help explain how the brain works, they have no immediate implications for new medicines or other therapies, since they do not set out a mechanism of action. But knowledge about the brain’s positioning system can also help understanding of what causes loss of spatial awareness in stroke patients or those with devastating brain diseases like dementia, of which Alzheimer’s is the most common form and which affects 44 million people worldwide. O’Keefe told reporters in London he was very surprised to get the Nobel Prize, particularly after what he described as a “checkered youth” jumping from studying classics at school, then aeronautics at college before getting into philosophy and psychology. “I’m still in a state of shock,” he said. May-Britt Moser danced and drank champagne with her colleagues in Trondheim after she was told of the award. “This is so great, this is crazy. I am just jumping, screaming,” Moser told Reuters. “I am so proud of all the support that we have had. People have believed in us, in what we have been doing and now this is the reward.”  Norwegian TV showed her co-workers singing “Happy Nobel to you” to the tune of “Happy Birthday”. Her husband did not immediately learn that he had won the Nobel Prize as he was on a plane bound to Munich. Someone was waiting for him at Munich airport with flowers and gave him the news, he told the Norwegian news agency NTB. The Mosers join a small club of married couples to win a Nobel Prize that includes Pierre Curie and Marie Curie. John Stein, an emeritus professor of physiology at Oxford said that, as with so many Nobel Prize winners, the scientists’ discovery was at first ridiculed and dismissed, only later to get the recognition it warrants  “This is great news and well deserved,” Stein said. “I remember how great was the scoffing in the early 1970s when John first described ‘place cells’. ‘Bound to be an artefact’ and ‘he clearly underestimates rats’ sense of smell’ were typical reactions. Now, like so many ideas that were at first highly controversial, people say: ‘Well that’s obvious’!”      Medicine is the first of the Nobel Prizes awarded each year. Prizes for achievements in science, literature and peace were  first awarded in 1901 in accordance with the will of dynamite  inventor and businessman Alfred Nobel. (1 US dollar = 7.2230 Swedish crown) Claim: Nobel Prize for medicine goes to discoverers of brain’s 'inner GPS'.

SOLUTION: British-American John O’Keefe and Norwegians May-Britt and Edvard Moser won the 2014 Nobel Prize for medicine for discovering the brain’s navigation system and giving clues as to how strokes and Alzheimer’s disrupt it.

PROBLEM: Paragraph: We give the story high marks here for at least addressing the costs at a couple of centers. It says, “At Memorial Sloan-Kettering, treatment for inpatients is available at no extra charge; outpatients pay $90 to $110 a session. At Norris Cotton, trained volunteers administer treatments free of charge—often while patients are at the hospital receiving intravenous chemotherapy treatments. Insurance typically doesn’t pay for Reiki.” That last sentence is crucial. The reporter might have asked an insurance company for what other sorts of pain relief or anxiety relief treatments insurance does cover and why Reiki didn’t meet the same bar. Another mixed bag. But if we gave a barely satisfactory grade on “evidence,” we must balance the scale here and render this unsatisfactory. Why? One of the selling points of Reiki is how harmless it may be (lack of efficacy notwithstanding). The story could have addressed what might be the greater harm in people choosing Reiki for therapeutic benefit and forgoing other, proven treatment methods. We’ll again give the column the benefit of the doubt. This is a mixed bag. The first reference to the evidence in this story is misleading. It says, “Several studies suggest a benefit to patients, but scientists say more large, rigorous studies are needed.” In fact, as the story goes on later to explain, there is no evidence that Reiki itself has any therapuetic value beyond the simple person-to-person contact that is a necessary part of the experience. But since the story explains that the studies cited have size limitations or produced results that were not statistically significant or were not focused on Reiki – and because one independent expert says one theory is “absurd,” we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. In the future, we suggest that the evidence not be presented to readers in between enthusastic comments such as “How it works is a mystery, but we see anecdotally the amount of delight” it brings patients.”  Our heads were spinning at the “on-again, off-again, yes it does, no it doesn’t” nature of the column. No disease mongering of cancer or of side effects of chemotherapy. The story quoted many experts. Most, however, were used to at least hint at the idea that Reiki has some benefit. We do appreciate some of the candor, though. “Barrie Cassileth, chief of the Integrative Medicine Service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, calls the energy theory ‘absurd’ but says light-touch therapy can have a ‘great relaxing effect’ on cancer patients ‘who are constantly poked, prodded and given needles. '” The column does not compare Reiki to any other alternatives. It mentions one study that looked at other massage techniques, but doesn’t explain how/if those approaches differ from Reiki. “A 2004 study of 1,290 cancer patients at Memorial Sloan-Kettering found a light-touch massage, standard Swedish massage and foot massage all helped symptoms including pain, depression anxiety, nausea and fatigue; the study didn’t have a control group.” The premise of the story is that this is a treatment that is “increasingly being used.” The story says, “Reiki, a therapy in which hands are placed lightly on the body or just above it, is increasingly being used to reduce cancer-related fatigue, anxiety, nausea and pain.” The story never goes on to prove that this is a method that is increasingly being used. All we are given are a few examples of treatment centers that do offer Reiki and then this: “Other centers don’t offer Reiki, citing insufficient evidence. “There isn’t a good evidence base for its utility in cancer care as of yet,” says Lorenzo Cohen, a professor in the departments of general oncology and behavioral science at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.” Readers across the country may be left wondering just how widespread this practice is. The story explains that Reiki originated in Japan in the early 1900s. The story did not rely on a news release. Claim: A Touch of Massage Therapy: Reiki Used for Cancer Patients

SOLUTION:
We give the online version of this column credit for being merely descriptive in its headline: “Reiki used for cancer patients.” Yes. This method of light massage is indeed being used for cancer patients. But there isn’t much evidence to support it. The story tries to make this point clear, but the point is muddied by some of the more exuberant language in the piece. By referring to it as “a form of healing” and talking about how parts of the body are “treated” by “therapists,” the story legitimizes what is actually an uNPRoven form of massage that at times does not even involve contact between the massage therapist and the patient. Cancer patients often are in extreme pain and can feel deep depression about their condition. Stories about alternative therapies to relieve anxiety or pain need to present real evidence with a more clear focus on the weight of the evidence or lack thereof.