Cancer is a word that invokes numerous powerful emotions in many people.

As so many
have lost loved ones to cancer, it stands to reason that large amounts of manpower, time, and
money are poured into researching ways to cure it. In the past few months, a new method for
curing certain kinds of brain cancer has come to light, and the cure comes from an unexpected
source: Polio. The polio virus and other viruses that are similar to it are now being modified to
mark cancer cells for destruction by the immune system. Obviously, the word of this
breakthrough spread quickly, and the media ran with the story. The question is, though, how did
the media take this information and portray it to the public? Would the source material fly over
the average persons head, or were changes unnecessary? Those questions and more are to be
answered by the analysis of two articles. The two articles in question include one article written
by Dmitriy Zamarin and Sari Pesonen, which is an academic analysis of the effectiveness of the
technique, and one article by Justin Caba, which is an informative piece.

The article written by Caba is far more accessible and understandable to the
general public than the article written by Zamarin and Pesonin. Their article is intended for a
higher level discourse community, being as it was written for other scientists. This is evident if
one looks at the level of language used in the two articles. While some scientific terms, such as
glioblastoma, are used in Cabas article, they are either explained in the article or a link is given
to an outside source that can help better explain the term. The situation is much different in the
professional article on the subject. Zamarin and Pesonin use uncommon words such as
immunomonitoring and oncolysis, which are both words that the average person would have
little or no knowledge about. By not defining or explaining these words, the authors have
established that one needs to be a part of the scientific community or at least have some

knowledge of biological terminology. This somewhat minor-seeming difference in the articles is

quite important, as it shows what each author expected from the audience.
The arrangement of the two articles is also markedly different, and deserves some
attention. As an actual scientific thesis twenty-five years in the making, the Zamarin and
Pesonin article is an excellent example of how a typical biology thesis or article is set up. This
specific thesis is split up into many different parts. The first part in this case is an abstract, which
describes what the thesis is. Following the abstract is an intro section, which gives some
background info to lead into the various summaries of the effectiveness of the different viruses
on the tumors. This all culminates in a conclusion section that is cut and dry, which allows the
thesis to wrap up. Arranging the article in this way allows for a clear and concise summation of
the information, but it unfortunately leads to it sounding rather detached and not emotional.
On the other hand, Cabas article is not set up in a manner that is nearly as formal as the
other. As this is not an actual scientific report, but instead an article meant to be accessible to the
general public. Since this is the case, it is not as rigidly structured as the thesis, and is more
freeform as a result. That is not to say that the article has no structure, its just that the article is
less formal and thus more accessible. By being structured more similarly to any other news
article, Caba can keep the article at a level that almost any discourse group can follow.
While the thesis does not really have any emotionally stirring language, it is still a strong
piece. While this is true, Cabas article manages to find some footing in some charged language.
By beginning the piece with a description of a form of brain cancer that is often fatal, he
manages to paint an emotional picture. However, a couple of sentences later, Caba mentions that
diseases and issues that were a death sentence fifty years ago arent as much of an issue
anymore, which creates a sense of hope.

In all, while these two articles are, at least on the surface, similar due to shared topics,
they are very different in content. Beyond just the intended discourse communities, the two
articles use different methods of conveying the information, as well as establishing authority in
different ways to create two very different pieces. While they use different strategies, the two
articles are appropriate for their individual purposes, which were very different in the first place.