3 ms·

I read the headline and wondered: "Since when is 'Bad Luck' anything other than a euphemism for the physiological stress which is symptomatic of poverty?" Cle

I read the headline and wondered: "Since when is 'Bad Luck' anything other than a euphemism for the physiological stress which is symptomatic of poverty?" Clever science journalists note that nearly everything outside of the organism can be generically labeled as the environment. __As a reply to DanBC:__ >normal random mutation This phrase does not mean anything in terms of molecular biology or genetics. It is equivalent to "Bad Luck", or "mutation triggered by something". The phrase is inappropriate because it equates point mutations, insertion mutations and deletion mutations. As a rule, when thou wants to say the modifier "normal random"; thou should instead say "normally distributed", and then make sure that is worth mentioning in that field of science.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- williamjennings 11y ago
  The appeal to ego is an important part of clickbait. Sociological approaches are the most effective measure in societies where the incidence of cancer is low. Ironically, people who find out that cancer is their personal problem are those who are most able to receive treatment. Many if not all modern problems must be solved through massive collaboration; that which we can be conditioned to eschew or enjoy. The negative conditioning is thusly a Bayesian impedance to human advancement.
DanBC 11y ago
In this specific case: "bad luck" was being used to talk about normal random mutation, as opposed to a genetic predisposition or a mutation triggered by something you ate or drank or smoked or otherwse exposed yourself. It's unfortunate that the original researchers used that phrase; and the the reporters did a terrible job of explaining it; and that the reporting of this newer study uses similar language.
- williamjennings 11y ago
  This notion of "normal random mutation" does not mean anything in terms of molecular biology or genetics. It is equivalent to "Bad Luck", or "mutation triggered by something". The phrase is inappropriately vague because it equates point mutations, insertion mutations and deletion mutations. As a rule,do not write about data with the modifier "normal random", write "normally distributed" instead; and then make sure that finding is worth mentioning in some field of science.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

williamjennings 11y ago
The appeal to ego is an important part of clickbait. Sociological approaches are the most effective measure in societies where the incidence of cancer is low. Ironically, people who find out that cancer is their personal problem are those who are most able to receive treatment. Many if not all modern problems must be solved through massive collaboration; that which we can be conditioned to eschew or enjoy. The negative conditioning is thusly a Bayesian impedance to human advancement.

DanBC 11y ago

In this specific case: "bad luck" was being used to talk about normal random mutation, as opposed to a genetic predisposition or a mutation triggered by something you ate or drank or smoked or otherwse exposed yourself. It's unfortunate that the original researchers used that phrase; and the the reporters did a terrible job of explaining it; and that the reporting of this newer study uses similar language.

williamjennings 11y ago
This notion of "normal random mutation" does not mean anything in terms of molecular biology or genetics. It is equivalent to "Bad Luck", or "mutation triggered by something". The phrase is inappropriately vague because it equates point mutations, insertion mutations and deletion mutations. As a rule,do not write about data with the modifier "normal random", write "normally distributed" instead; and then make sure that finding is worth mentioning in some field of science.