3 ms·

I'm not an expert in this field or any related fields. I am, however, in a field where I have to frequently communicate on technical topics to a nontechnical au

I'm not an expert in this field or any related fields. I am, however, in a field where I have to frequently communicate on technical topics to a nontechnical audience. The following is a critique of the technical communication in this article, not of the science. There are some more nuanced claims which are made or hinted at: 1. There's not adequate evidence to prove a difference in mortality between the L and S variations of the virus. 2. There's not adequate evidence to prove increased viral transmission over time of the virus. And if your definition of the word "strain" is "reserved only for special changes that confer a new property to the virus", then both of those would be arguments that there's not adequate evidence to prove the existence of different strains of the virus. However, is the definition of the word "strain" really the important point you want to communicate? Either point 1 or 2 could have been made without talking about the word "strain" (note how I sidestepped the whole strain/isolate issue by using the word "variation"). I would argue that either of those two points are much more important than the meaning of the word "strain". Sure, using the proper jargon is a strong indicator of expertise in a field. But jargon arises from expertise, not the other way around. Correcting people's jargon before they have the adequate mental framework to differentiate between the terms just creates conflict and is counterproductive.

micburks 7y ago
Yes, science can be pedantic at times, but I do believe that it's necessary to describe terms before you discuss why they're important. For me, this article reads exactly as I was taught to write technical papers. It builds upon the definition of "species" to make an argument against the reoccurring claims that this virus is mutating to become more transmissible. Of course, I did study microbiology at university, so I can see how others might find it too focused on the jargon. What this pandemic has taught me over anything else is that wielding scientific terms without proper understanding is damaging to progress of science itself. It becomes difficult to tease apart legend from fact, especially for those not trained to do so. I go crazy every day listening to half-baked hypotheses and conspiracies that don't understand the foundations for the things they're claiming. All this said, Dr. Racaniello is very gracious and humble. He has dedicated his life to teaching, both in the classroom and through his podcasts. I highly suggest sending him your concerns about his discourse and subscribing to his podacast TWIV [0]. He and his colleagues respond to every email at the end of each podcast. [0] http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > Yes, science can be pedantic at times, but I do believe that it's necessary to describe terms before you discuss why they're important. Yes, it's necessary to describe terms, but there's a big difference between giving a definition of "strain" at the beginning of your talk, and explicitly correcting everyone who has misused the term. One is necessary for clarity, the other is unnecessary and combative. > What this pandemic has taught me over anything else is that wielding scientific terms without proper understanding is damaging to progress of science itself. It becomes difficult to tease apart legend from fact, especially for those not trained to do so. I go crazy every day listening to half-baked hypotheses and conspiracies that don't understand the foundations for the things they're claiming. I don't think that's true. It's not the terms being misused. You can still say the wrong thing with the right terms. Let's take a summary of the story that was going around for a bit, "There are two strains of coronavirus, the S strain and the L strain. The L strain is more deadly but it isn't spreading as quickly because sufferers are more likely to be identified and treated/quarantined." That statement is wrong, because there isn't enough scientific evidence to declare any of that. But is the problem the misuse of the word "strain"? I don't think so. Consider the following: "There are two variants of coronavirus, the S variant and the L variant. The L variant is more deadly but it isn't spreading as quickly because sufferers are more likely to be identified and treated/quarantined." I'm not an expert in the field, but as far as I know, the word "variant" doesn't have any specific meaning that would say it's being misused here. But nothing has changed: the summary is still 100%, completely wrong, because there still isn't adequate scientific evidence to say there are different variants with different mortality rates. And, critically, even knowing the definition of the word strain, I can still say the first version of this incorrect statement and be wrong, not because I'm misusing the word, but because there isn't adequate scientific evidence for what I'm saying. > All this said, Dr. Racaniello is very gracious and humble. He has dedicated his life to teaching, both in the classroom and through his podcasts. I highly suggest sending him your concerns about his discourse and subscribing to his podacast TWIV [0]. He and his colleagues respond to every email at the end of each podcast. I'll do that.
kelnos 7y ago
I think it's especially necessary to combat this kind of inaccuracy when the word "strain" also has strong non-scientific connotations. Completely ignoring what "strain" means to a virologist, when you tell a layperson that there is a new strain of something, they generally will worry, and think one (or more) of the following: a) the existing vaccine or vaccine in development won't cover the new strain, b) existing treatments for people who are sick won't be effective, c) it's easier to catch, d) they're more likely to die of it. The fact that a new strain is related to a distinct biological difference doesn't matter; what people care about is what a strain means for their health. So even if you ignore the scientific-jargon meaning, it's important to recognize the layperson meaning, and ensure that you stamp out inaccuracies based on that meaning as well. As much as you'd like to educate everyone as to the true meaning of some terms, it's a losing battle, so you might as well just recognize how people use a term and speak to that usage. In this particular case, the scientific and layperson meanings aren't exactly the same, but it's just as important in both arenas to clear up misinformation.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  I do think they're both important, but it's more important to me to clear up inaccuracies based on what people are trying to communicate, rather than the specific words people are using. For example, if the narrative were, "The S strain and the L strain aren't meaningfully different", would that be a concern? Sure, but not a big one. Sure, it makes no sense to call them "strains" if they aren't meaningfully different--that's a misuse of the word "strain". But the layperson would have the correct impression of the situation from that statement.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    I tend to disagree. I think that the layperson has a generally accurate understanding of the word strain in this context, namely, they are materially different. News stories about new strains pull attention for exactly this reason. The layperson would have the correct impression of "The S strain and the L strain aren't meaningfully different", but the wrong impression of nearly every other sentence starting with "The S strain and the L strain..."
escape_goat 7y ago
The article sets out specifically to caution about the misuse of jargon, so I think that probably is the important point that it seeks to communicate. I think that it goes off track and gets bogged down a bit in the details of SARS-CoV-2. There are two critical weaknesses in what has been written, taken as technical communication rather than blowing off steam. Firstly, it does not do a good job of providing the reader with an alternate word that expresses the relationship for which 'strain' is being misused (in the author's opinion). I believe that he himself would describe identical genome sequences as being the same virus 'isolate', but he doesn't explain that well, and the practical etymology of the term — the notion that the same virus isolate could be isolated in two different instances — makes adoption difficult. If this is indeed how 'isolate' would be routinely used (I am not even sure, as he doesn't establish this clearly) then it would be an instance of something that we might call 'deep jargon' or 'cryptic jargon', when normal words have specific meanings in a professional context that require a mental compartmentalization. Secondly, it does not establish why it is important for a less-informed reader to draw the distinction between a _____ of the virus and a new strain of the virus. We can imagine that there are differences in importance between a mere genetic difference, a genetic difference with functional biological consequences, and a genetic difference with epidemiological consequences. It is probably our expectations for the last of these, based on prior experience, which makes the distinction important; a very critical difference would be if the immune response to one strain was ineffectual against the other. However, this is muddled in an attempt to instead explain why it is difficult to distinguish the founder effect from biological selection.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > The article sets out specifically to caution about the misuse of jargon, so I think that probably is the important point that it seeks to communicate. I think that it goes off track and gets bogged down a bit in the details of SARS-CoV-2. That's an interesting hypothesis and you're making me think that maybe I was wrong. It certainly was effective in getting me to stop misusing the word "strain". My argument was based on the idea that they were trying to communicate the fact that there are no meaningful differences between different genetic sequences of SARS-CoV-2, and got bogged down in the semantics of the words "strain" and "isolate".
godelski 7y ago
As a scientist, but not a technical expert in this field, I felt that this article read pretty straight forward. Though I will admit that there could be added clarity for a more general audience (pretty much all work can). > is the definition of the word "strain" really the important point you want to communicate? I think in the author's case, yes. If you are unfamiliar with the subject you learn some nuance about the subject and the terminology used. A basic understanding of the science should have already clued you into that viruses don't replicate perfectly, so the reader should question at what point a change constitutes a new strain. The author answers this question in the beginning. > A virus strain is an isolate with a different biological property, such as binding to a different receptor, or having a distinctly different stability at higher temperatures, to give just two of many possible examples. So we learn simply that the different isolate has to have a new biological property. More akin to having a third arm rather than a difference in skin color. The author circles back to this with a clear example: > The most recent offender is a preprint claiming that SARS-CoV-2 with an amino acid change in the spike glycoprotein (D614G) increases the transmissibility of the virus. > Until proven otherwise, their emergence is likely due to the founder effect. Let’s say a virus with D614G emerges during replication in a person’s respiratory tract. If viruses with that change infect the next person, and the next, and so on, then the D614G change will predominate. The change is simply __a single nucleotide polymorphism of little consequence.__ I do think here the author could have strengthened their argument by noting what the founder's effect is. > (via wiki) the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. So the author gives a reasonable assertion for this observation. We then apply Occam's razor and we have the author's thesis. (He should have stated this explicitly)
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > As a scientist, but not a technical expert in this field, I felt that this article read pretty straight forward. Though I will admit that there could be added clarity for a more general audience (pretty much all work can). Yeah. My concern isn't that the meaning wasn't clear. My concern was that by focusing on the semantics of the jargon, it comes across as combative and alienates readers over something which is ultimately not important. I think you and I are at a point of understanding where we're able to receive this feedback on the terminology and correct our own usage very quickly. I've certainly taken note.
lmilcin 7y ago
The word "strain" is used to help us communicate. Viruses get small mutations as they multiply. By now, there is likely huge amount if unique viruses, not a single one. But, most mutations don't actually change anything because they might hit non coding part or maybe she mething unimportant so for the purpose of our communication we lump them together and call them strain. Most of the time we only start discerning differences when they change the virus behaviour in an interesting way, and most of interesting stuff is around how it propagates, what it does to us and what it is susceptible to.
jobigoud 7y ago
> There's not adequate evidence The final thesis thus should be that there's no adequate evidence that there are two strains. Not an affirmation that there is only one strain. Absence of proof vs proof of absence.

micburks 7y ago

Yes, science can be pedantic at times, but I do believe that it's necessary to describe terms before you discuss why they're important. For me, this article reads exactly as I was taught to write technical papers. It builds upon the definition of "species" to make an argument against the reoccurring claims that this virus is mutating to become more transmissible. Of course, I did study microbiology at university, so I can see how others might find it too focused on the jargon. What this pandemic has taught me over anything else is that wielding scientific terms without proper understanding is damaging to progress of science itself. It becomes difficult to tease apart legend from fact, especially for those not trained to do so. I go crazy every day listening to half-baked hypotheses and conspiracies that don't understand the foundations for the things they're claiming. All this said, Dr. Racaniello is very gracious and humble. He has dedicated his life to teaching, both in the classroom and through his podcasts. I highly suggest sending him your concerns about his discourse and subscribing to his podacast TWIV [0]. He and his colleagues respond to every email at the end of each podcast. [0] http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/ http://www.microbe.tv/twiv/

kerkeslager 7y ago
> Yes, science can be pedantic at times, but I do believe that it's necessary to describe terms before you discuss why they're important. Yes, it's necessary to describe terms, but there's a big difference between giving a definition of "strain" at the beginning of your talk, and explicitly correcting everyone who has misused the term. One is necessary for clarity, the other is unnecessary and combative. > What this pandemic has taught me over anything else is that wielding scientific terms without proper understanding is damaging to progress of science itself. It becomes difficult to tease apart legend from fact, especially for those not trained to do so. I go crazy every day listening to half-baked hypotheses and conspiracies that don't understand the foundations for the things they're claiming. I don't think that's true. It's not the terms being misused. You can still say the wrong thing with the right terms. Let's take a summary of the story that was going around for a bit, "There are two strains of coronavirus, the S strain and the L strain. The L strain is more deadly but it isn't spreading as quickly because sufferers are more likely to be identified and treated/quarantined." That statement is wrong, because there isn't enough scientific evidence to declare any of that. But is the problem the misuse of the word "strain"? I don't think so. Consider the following: "There are two variants of coronavirus, the S variant and the L variant. The L variant is more deadly but it isn't spreading as quickly because sufferers are more likely to be identified and treated/quarantined." I'm not an expert in the field, but as far as I know, the word "variant" doesn't have any specific meaning that would say it's being misused here. But nothing has changed: the summary is still 100%, completely wrong, because there still isn't adequate scientific evidence to say there are different variants with different mortality rates. And, critically, even knowing the definition of the word strain, I can still say the first version of this incorrect statement and be wrong, not because I'm misusing the word, but because there isn't adequate scientific evidence for what I'm saying. > All this said, Dr. Racaniello is very gracious and humble. He has dedicated his life to teaching, both in the classroom and through his podcasts. I highly suggest sending him your concerns about his discourse and subscribing to his podacast TWIV [0]. He and his colleagues respond to every email at the end of each podcast. I'll do that.

kelnos 7y ago

I think it's especially necessary to combat this kind of inaccuracy when the word "strain" also has strong non-scientific connotations. Completely ignoring what "strain" means to a virologist, when you tell a layperson that there is a new strain of something, they generally will worry, and think one (or more) of the following: a) the existing vaccine or vaccine in development won't cover the new strain, b) existing treatments for people who are sick won't be effective, c) it's easier to catch, d) they're more likely to die of it. The fact that a new strain is related to a distinct biological difference doesn't matter; what people care about is what a strain means for their health. So even if you ignore the scientific-jargon meaning, it's important to recognize the layperson meaning, and ensure that you stamp out inaccuracies based on that meaning as well. As much as you'd like to educate everyone as to the true meaning of some terms, it's a losing battle, so you might as well just recognize how people use a term and speak to that usage. In this particular case, the scientific and layperson meanings aren't exactly the same, but it's just as important in both arenas to clear up misinformation.

kerkeslager 7y ago
I do think they're both important, but it's more important to me to clear up inaccuracies based on what people are trying to communicate, rather than the specific words people are using. For example, if the narrative were, "The S strain and the L strain aren't meaningfully different", would that be a concern? Sure, but not a big one. Sure, it makes no sense to call them "strains" if they aren't meaningfully different--that's a misuse of the word "strain". But the layperson would have the correct impression of the situation from that statement.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  I tend to disagree. I think that the layperson has a generally accurate understanding of the word strain in this context, namely, they are materially different. News stories about new strains pull attention for exactly this reason. The layperson would have the correct impression of "The S strain and the L strain aren't meaningfully different", but the wrong impression of nearly every other sentence starting with "The S strain and the L strain..."

escape_goat 7y ago

The article sets out specifically to caution about the misuse of jargon, so I think that probably is the important point that it seeks to communicate. I think that it goes off track and gets bogged down a bit in the details of SARS-CoV-2. There are two critical weaknesses in what has been written, taken as technical communication rather than blowing off steam. Firstly, it does not do a good job of providing the reader with an alternate word that expresses the relationship for which 'strain' is being misused (in the author's opinion). I believe that he himself would describe identical genome sequences as being the same virus 'isolate', but he doesn't explain that well, and the practical etymology of the term — the notion that the same virus isolate could be isolated in two different instances — makes adoption difficult. If this is indeed how 'isolate' would be routinely used (I am not even sure, as he doesn't establish this clearly) then it would be an instance of something that we might call 'deep jargon' or 'cryptic jargon', when normal words have specific meanings in a professional context that require a mental compartmentalization. Secondly, it does not establish why it is important for a less-informed reader to draw the distinction between a _____ of the virus and a new strain of the virus. We can imagine that there are differences in importance between a mere genetic difference, a genetic difference with functional biological consequences, and a genetic difference with epidemiological consequences. It is probably our expectations for the last of these, based on prior experience, which makes the distinction important; a very critical difference would be if the immune response to one strain was ineffectual against the other. However, this is muddled in an attempt to instead explain why it is difficult to distinguish the founder effect from biological selection.

kerkeslager 7y ago
> The article sets out specifically to caution about the misuse of jargon, so I think that probably is the important point that it seeks to communicate. I think that it goes off track and gets bogged down a bit in the details of SARS-CoV-2. That's an interesting hypothesis and you're making me think that maybe I was wrong. It certainly was effective in getting me to stop misusing the word "strain". My argument was based on the idea that they were trying to communicate the fact that there are no meaningful differences between different genetic sequences of SARS-CoV-2, and got bogged down in the semantics of the words "strain" and "isolate".

godelski 7y ago

As a scientist, but not a technical expert in this field, I felt that this article read pretty straight forward. Though I will admit that there could be added clarity for a more general audience (pretty much all work can). > is the definition of the word "strain" really the important point you want to communicate? I think in the author's case, yes. If you are unfamiliar with the subject you learn some nuance about the subject and the terminology used. A basic understanding of the science should have already clued you into that viruses don't replicate perfectly, so the reader should question at what point a change constitutes a new strain. The author answers this question in the beginning. > A virus strain is an isolate with a different biological property, such as binding to a different receptor, or having a distinctly different stability at higher temperatures, to give just two of many possible examples. So we learn simply that the different isolate has to have a new biological property. More akin to having a third arm rather than a difference in skin color. The author circles back to this with a clear example: > The most recent offender is a preprint claiming that SARS-CoV-2 with an amino acid change in the spike glycoprotein (D614G) increases the transmissibility of the virus. > Until proven otherwise, their emergence is likely due to the founder effect. Let’s say a virus with D614G emerges during replication in a person’s respiratory tract. If viruses with that change infect the next person, and the next, and so on, then the D614G change will predominate. The change is simply __a single nucleotide polymorphism of little consequence.__ I do think here the author could have strengthened their argument by noting what the founder's effect is. > (via wiki) the loss of genetic variation that occurs when a new population is established by a very small number of individuals from a larger population. So the author gives a reasonable assertion for this observation. We then apply Occam's razor and we have the author's thesis. (He should have stated this explicitly)

kerkeslager 7y ago
> As a scientist, but not a technical expert in this field, I felt that this article read pretty straight forward. Though I will admit that there could be added clarity for a more general audience (pretty much all work can). Yeah. My concern isn't that the meaning wasn't clear. My concern was that by focusing on the semantics of the jargon, it comes across as combative and alienates readers over something which is ultimately not important. I think you and I are at a point of understanding where we're able to receive this feedback on the terminology and correct our own usage very quickly. I've certainly taken note.

lmilcin 7y ago

The word "strain" is used to help us communicate. Viruses get small mutations as they multiply. By now, there is likely huge amount if unique viruses, not a single one. But, most mutations don't actually change anything because they might hit non coding part or maybe she mething unimportant so for the purpose of our communication we lump them together and call them strain. Most of the time we only start discerning differences when they change the virus behaviour in an interesting way, and most of interesting stuff is around how it propagates, what it does to us and what it is susceptible to.

jobigoud 7y ago

> There's not adequate evidence The final thesis thus should be that there's no adequate evidence that there are two strains. Not an affirmation that there is only one strain. Absence of proof vs proof of absence.