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: Berkeley City Council voted unanimously to add the measure in the form of a referendum on the city's ballot, drawing cheers of support from residents and health advocates, and vows to fight from the U.S. food and beverage industry. "When we pass this measure in November, Berkeley will be the first in the country where such a measure has been passed," said Vicki Alexander, a co-chairwoman of a local campaign to put the measure on the ballot. "We are very excited to see that day happen." Public health advocates across the country have clamored for ways to reduce consumption of sugary drinks and junk food, but lawmakers and voters have generally opposed enacting taxes or other regulations. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to limit the sale of large sugary drinks was rejected on June 26 by the state's highest court. A California bill to require sugary soft drinks to carry labels warning of obesity, diabetes and tooth decay died in the California Legislature on June 17. Two California cities, Richmond and El Monte, failed two years ago in their attempts to become the first in the country to impose taxes of a penny per ounce on businesses that sell sugary drinks. Revenues from Berkeley's tax, if it passes, would go toward the city's general fund. "It's disingenuous because there's nothing in this measure that's going to education. This goes right into the general account. It's a money grab," said Ted Mundorff, CEO of Landmark Theatres, which has movie theaters in Berkeley. A Berkeley vending machine executive said her company would be forced to pass the tax on to consumers in order to stay in business. A city survey of 500 likely voters showed majority support for the tax in April.
Example Output: Berkeley residents to vote on soda tax in November.

Example Input: The story doesn't mention cost at all. Since Lucentis can cost $2,000 per injection, that's a significant oversight. It would also be useful to tell readers how Lucentis injections compare with the cost of laser treatment. The benefits are, for the most part, reasonably well explained. But those explanations lack numbers to back them up and are overstated in at least one place. "One benefit discussed in the release is that study participants who received laser treatment were more likely to suffer peripheral vision loss than participants who were treated solely with Lucentis although this isn't quantified. A second benefit was that participants who received laser treatment were more likely to require subsequent surgery to remove blood from the eye and this was quantified. But the release pushes things a bit when it comes to vision, or visual acuity. The release states: "At two years, vision in the Lucentis group improved by an average of about half a line on an eye chart, compared with virtually no change in the laser group." But here's how the journal article puts it: "There was no statistically significant visual acuity difference between the ranibizumab and PRP [laser] groups at 2 years. The language in the journal article itself stresses that what was being evaluated was whether Lucentis was at least as good as laser treatment and they found that, after two years, the visual acuity of patients who took Lucentis (and had no laser treatment) was as good as patients who had the laser treatment. The release could have simply stated this and avoided confusion. In short, this was a close one but the lack of numbers on peripheral vision and the overstatement of the visual acuity results make this a "Not Satisfactory." The release mentions that one study volunteer in the Lucentis group developed an eye infection and stated that "serious systemic adverse events," namely cardiac arrest and stroke, occurred at similar rates among the two groups undergoing the two different procedures. We'll rate that satisfactory for the disclosure although the release might have gone even further by mentioning the other side effects named in the study including inflammation and elevated intraocular pressure which occurred in both treatment groups. The release does a good job of describing the study design, the number of participants, and the fact that this was a randomized clinical trial. A few words about the limitations of the study e.g. the investigators and patients could not be masked to which treatment they were getting, would have be useful as well. No disease mongering here. The release does tell readers that the study was funded by the National Eye Institute. However, it does not make clear that Lloyd Paul Aiello who is quoted in the release was also a co-author of the journal article. The release also fails to mention that several co-authors receive research funding or consulting fees from Genentech, which developed ranibizumab and markets it in the U.S., and Novartis, which markets the drug outside the U.S. The release does a good job of comparing Lucentis to conventional laser treatment for PDR and we'll award a Satisfactory rating on that basis. However, we'd note that these are not necessarily the only two options. Lucentis is classed as an "anti-VEGF" (anti- vascular endothelial growth factor) drug by blocking a protein called VEGF, the drug can reverse abnormal blood vessel growth and decrease fluid in the retina. Other drugs in this category include Avastin and Eylea. Are those drugs under consideration for trials related to PDR treatment? If so, it's worth mentioning particularly since Avastin costs around $60 per dose, as compared to Lucentis's $2,000 per dose. The release notes that Lucentis is already used to treat other diabetes-related eye problems, and "should be considered a viable treatment option for people with PDR." The clinical trial at issue here appears to be the first to look at the use of Lucentis as a treatment for PDR, particularly in a randomized study with direct comparison to laser treatment. However, the release doesn't tell readers that. On the other hand, the release does make clear that this is the first significant advance in clinical treatment for PDR since the 1970s that's good context. The release does a good job of avoiding hype and explaining what was a complex study.
Example Output: Lucentis Proves Effective Against Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy

Example Input: Research fields in which fetal tissue is used include HIV, childhood cancers, treatments that enlist the body's immune system to battle cancer, and the hunt for a vaccine against the Zika virus, a cause of birth defects. Republicans said alternatives to fetal tissue are available and should be used instead. Democrats said that view is at odds with science. Each side called on expert witnesses. "Most of my constituents don't understand when you harvest baby parts, why that is OK," said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., who chaired the hearing by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Meadows, leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is one of President Donald Trump's biggest allies in Congress. But Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., responded, "The consensus in the scientific community is that there is currently no adequate substitute for fetal tissue in all of the cutting-edge research for which it is used today." The government has funded research using fetal tissue for decades, under administrations of both political parties. Trump has gone out of his way to court social and religious conservatives among his staunchest supporters. The administration's new review of whether taxpayer dollars are being properly spent on fetal tissue research has raised alarms among medical investigators, who fear their work will be stopped to satisfy anti-abortion activists. Under Secretary Alex Azar, the Health and Human Services Department says it is trying to balance "pro-life" and "pro-science" imperatives in its ongoing audit of fetal tissue research. Azar's office said in a statement that the National Institutes of Health put a pause on procurement of new human fetal tissue in the fall, after the audit was announced. The department says research with fetal tissue already on hand was allowed to proceed, and that it never intended to stop research. The HHS statement left open the possibility of procuring new fetal tissue to prevent research projects from being interrupted. Research involving fetal tissue accounted for $98 million in NIH grants and projects during the 2017 fiscal year, a small fraction of the agency's overall research budget. NIH said that $98 million figure represents the entire budget for the grants at issue, even if only a portion of a particular grant was devoted to fetal tissue research. HHS has not announced a timeline for completing its audit. Fetal tissue is used to produce research mice that model how the human immune system works. The tissue, from elective abortions, would otherwise be discarded. Biochemist Tara Sander Lee told the committee that alternatives to fetal tissue are available and can be used. "We do not need fetal body parts from aborted babies to achieve future scientific and medical advancements," said Sander Lee, with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is opposed to abortion. Tissues from infants who have to undergo heart surgery are among the alternatives, she said. But neuroscientist Sally Temple, testifying on behalf of the International Society for Stem Cell Research, told lawmakers that alternatives to fetal tissue are simply not suitable for every disease and condition being studied. "The consensus opinion is that those alternatives are not sufficient," she said. Temple explained that tissue samples from different stages of the life cycle are not interchangeable. "It is not the same material," she said. "It is a different developmental stage. It has unique properties." Temple said researchers would readily use alternatives to fetal tissue if that was suitable.
Example Output:
Renewed battle over using fetal tissue in medical research.