The integration of technology in the field of such natural sciences as biology is a complex matter that requires much groundwork and investigation. Thus, both primary and secondary sources present a high value for the field, as they encompass theological and empirical aspects of the research. In terms of the present research, primary and secondary sources will be compared and contrasted in terms of structure and content. The sources are concerned about using technology in the context of recording the actuation of the living cells.
To begin with, it is necessary to dwell on the structure of both papers. The primary source presents the results of the empirical research aimed at examining the use of technological devices in measuring electrical signals in plants. The paper starts with an introduction that comprehensively addresses the relevance of the research and the authors’ motivation behind the studies. The introduction also encompasses the description of the researchers’ procedure, addressing the aim of examination and stimulation of the electrical signals in plants (Meder et al., 2021). The second part of the research is dedicated to the discussion of the results. This part of the research includes an explicit description of the electrons engaged in the process of leaf transfer and plant structure. Later, the researchers dwell on the specifics of the electronic signal stimulation in D. muscipula or Venus flytrap. The other parts of the result discussion consider the long-term effect of analysis and mechanical stimulation of signals. The conclusion part addresses the description of the procedure and result. The study also comprises the methods of the experimental section.
Secondary source, on the contrary, does not concern any empirical research, so the experimental part is naturally excluded from the structure. The study’s introduction concerns the description of the current state of affairs in the field of actuation of living cells in animal organisms (Ricotti et al., 2017). This part also addresses the research question, presenting the purpose of qualitative analysis through the examination of currently available studies in the field. Later, the research is dedicated to the analysis of the sample, which was divided into such categories as application-oriented biohybrid actuation, general-purpose actuators, and actuator performance (Ricotti et al., 2017). The conclusion of the study addresses the tasks for the future of the field of biohybrid actuators. Having considered the categories, the authors of the research addressed the potential opportunities and challenges of the research. Thus, having compared the structure of the sources, it may be concluded that the structure of the primary source is to inform the results of an empirical study, whereas the secondary source encompasses an in-depth analysis of qualitative data.
When comparing the two articles, it should be emphasized that while operating the field of mechanic cell stimulation, the studies analyze two different fields of actuator application. Hence, it would be reasonable to assume that the primary recipients of the studies also differ in the context of their expertise. Moreover, it is imperative to understand the goals of both sources. The secondary article draws the recipients’ attention to the existing data in the field with the purpose of the juxtapositioning these studies. When juxtaposed, these studies present a general picture of tendencies in the field of electronic stimulation research. Undeniably, this source serves as an asset for the researchers, as it may be perceived as a foundation for practical implications and further development. Still, however, this study discusses the theoretical ways in which science may evolve in order to implement the notion of technology in the sphere.
On the contrary, the primary source provides evidence concerning the actual achievements in the field. Thus, after obtaining the results of the study, the data may be used either as a framework for similar studies or as a constituent of theoretical groundwork in the field. Such implications of the study demonstrate the data relevant for researchers in the field who have profound knowledge in the sphere of electronic signals. Indeed, in order to decode the results of the study, one is to have background knowledge both in the field of biohybrid technology and biology. While the secondary source is also professionally oriented, a person with no expertise in the field may be able to identify general outcomes of the study that secure a promising future for biohybrid actuation in cell stimulation. For this, reason it may be implied that empirical studies such as the primary source are used by researchers as a medium for creating a comprehensive theoretical study.
Having compared the structure and content of the aforementioned sources, it may be concluded that they both had an intention of analyzing the specifics of using technology for recording and stimulating electronic signals in living cells. However, the primary source is purely empirical and is aimed at demonstrating the findings of the research. The secondary source, in its turn, addresses theoretical approaches to the study and aims at outlining the implications for further studies in the field. Moreover, the latter is oriented toward a broader audience, whereas the primary source contains more professional lexis and is aimed at researchers with expertise.
References
Meder, F., Saar, S., Taccola, S., Filippeschi, C., Mattoli, V., & Mazzolai, B. (2021). Ultraconformable, self‐adhering surface electrodes for measuring electrical signals in plants.Advanced Materials Technologies. Web.
Ricotti, L., Trimmer, B., Feinberg, A. W., Raman, R., Parker, K. K., Bashir, R., Sitti, M., Martel, S., Dario, P., & Menciassi, A. (2017). Biohybrid actuators for robotics: A review of devices actuated by living cells. Science Robotics, 2(12). Web.