PB2A

A scholarly academic publication is typically a formal and professional publication written by researchers or subject experts. The article that I chose for PB2A is titled "Alzheimer's vaccine: a cure as dangerous as the disease?" and was written by G. Münch, a researcher at University of Leipzig, and S. R. Robinson, a researcher at Monash University. The title poses the question that drives the purpose of the article: is the Alzheimer's vaccine, a supposed cure, as dangerous as the disease itself? 

The article is headed by the title of the piece followed by the names of the authors and their credibility. The article began with a brief summary of what was to be discussed in the full article and provided the main points of the t­ext. The summary informed that there were studies done on transgenic mouse models that supposedly verified the potential for this vaccine's development, but that once the vaccine was used on Alzheimer's patients, the vaccine showed to negatively affect a small number of its recipients with symptoms of brain inflammation. The summary was followed by a short list of key words – “Alzheimer’s disease, vaccine, inflammation, auto-immune disease” (1) –, which, assuming this is an online article would make it easy for people to find this article is they are looking for an article about any of the key words. Following the list of key words is the main body of text in which the authors go in depth about how the studies conducted on the transgenic mice suggested that the vaccine would be safe to use on humans and would not cause any harmful side effects, but when some patients developed unwanted side effects such as ventral nervous system inflammation, brain inflammation, and meninoencephalitis, the use of the vaccine was temporarily suspended. The article was then concluded with acknowledgements and references that listed the authors’ sources of information.

Because this is a scholarly academic publication, the authors use formal, professional language, and as this is a research paper aimed toward the scientific, and more specifically the medical community, the article is written with scientific jargon. The article is also relatively brief – 4 paragraphs long – as it is meant to provide information and educate its readers on the progression of this vaccine. The authors do not include any unnecessary information or any information unrelated to the study done on the vaccine or on how the vaccine was problematic.

The part of the article that seemed the most important to me was the discussion of symptoms of brain inflammation that affected certain patients, and the explanation of what could have caused the brain inflammation to occur, as they address the main question that is posed in the article and is the driving force for the article. Another reason I found that part of the article important is because thee symptoms and side effects related to the vaccine is that the vaccine are what affect the real life patients of these trials. The article explained that the side effects that have thus far affected the patients of the trial have been irreversible, and are potentially life threatening. Even for people who are not apart of the scientific community and do not participate in research for Alzheimer’s, it should be important that more people be aware of life-threatening symptoms from certain vaccines as to be wary of taking and vaccines or forms of medication that could be dangerous.

As this is an article about a trial vaccine that ultimately failed to serve its purpose, the last paragraph of the text include ways in which scientists are trying to improve the vaccine as to reduce and minimize the unwanted side effects produced by this vaccine. Most research articles conclude with a statement about how researchers either have found new advancements, or of how they are trying to improve their methods and studies as to find new advancements.

Works Cited

Münch, G. and S. R. Robinson. “Alzheimer's vaccine: a cure as dangerous as

the disease?”. Journal of Neural Transmission, 2002. Print.