(paragraph 7). The expected results were normal in head tracking under the photopic condition. In addition, they used the water maze test. This test examines the visual information of the mouse and his mental processing. The results were different than the other test, because the mouse was under the scotopic conditions. “Nrl-GFP-treated animals were significantly better at solving the water-maze task than either control group”, this states that the results were based on the conditions the mice were put in. After the transplantation of the photoreceptors, all mice were unable to perform the water maze due to the scotopic conditions they were put in. The sensitivity illustrated in the light, was the main factor in the visual cortex of the …show more content…
The study was designated to ingrained ailment of night blindness. The experiment used mice as their recipient. They grouped mice, according to the integrated photoreceptors cells. They were out under 4-6 weeks observations. The measured material in the study was the Nrl-GFP under the conditions of photopic and scotopic. I found the results of the research very interesting, since they introduced new methods that can reach the area where the restoration of vision occurs. Such as, electroretinography, fluorescence-activated cell transplantation, etc. The study found unusual results of each experiment, the inability of the mice to pass the water maze test after the transplantation of the photoreceptors and Nrl-GFP into the mice retinas. I found some scientific discoveries difficult to comprehend. I was able to understand to extent of the discoveries and their assumptions but hardly I understood the scientific terms that were used or the medical terms. I liked the way the study was conducted and how it was explained throughout in the article. I like how they arranged their questions, and then their hypothesis. They listed all the steps they took which portrays the ethics of their study. When they mentioned the results, whether they were accurate or inaccurate, they displays their honesty in bioethics. Their conclusion was very vague, however they were justified about their