4 ms·

Does this article seem weirdly phrased in places to anyone else? Like here: > They identified the genetic background of the previously known AnWj blood group

Does this article seem weirdly phrased in places to anyone else? Like here: > They identified the genetic background of the previously known AnWj blood group antigen, which was discovered in 1972 but unknown until now after this world-first test was developed. That sentence feels ponderous and a bit ambiguous to me. How does the genetic background of the AnWj blood group antigen relate? And if it was known in 1972, what exactly did these researchers discover about it? Am I missing background knowledge, or am I just having a bad day for reading comprehension or something?

teamonkey 2y ago
“Everyone has proteins outside their red blood cells known as antigens, but a small number might lack them.”
xelamonster 2y ago
This bit seemed off too: > The test [...] will make it easier to find potential blood developers for this rare blood type. Developers? Do they mean donors?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jmcgough 2y ago
Yep, they claim it's a new blood group that was discovered, but then the body of the article seems to imply that this was known for decades. What's notable is there's a new blood test for the group. Article feels like it was written in a hurry or partially written by AI with poor editing.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- williamwcyoung 2y ago
  I’m glad to see someone mention this, I got a very strong “nice words in the wrong order” vibe from this article which is strange for something off the BBC.
hirenj 2y ago
The phrasing seems weird because of how knowledge is acquired in this area. The first achievement was discovering that indeed some blood group antigen exists, and the second is figuring out what that antigen is. As an analogy, a bug can be discovered (e.g., UI glitch), but what the bug in the code “is” may remain unknown until a deep dive into the code, and fixing this bug can only happen once the cause is known. Each of those steps can be entirely separate endeavours.

teamonkey 2y ago

“Everyone has proteins outside their red blood cells known as antigens, but a small number might lack them.”

xelamonster 2y ago

This bit seemed off too: > The test [...] will make it easier to find potential blood developers for this rare blood type. Developers? Do they mean donors?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jmcgough 2y ago

Yep, they claim it's a new blood group that was discovered, but then the body of the article seems to imply that this was known for decades. What's notable is there's a new blood test for the group. Article feels like it was written in a hurry or partially written by AI with poor editing.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
williamwcyoung 2y ago
I’m glad to see someone mention this, I got a very strong “nice words in the wrong order” vibe from this article which is strange for something off the BBC.

hirenj 2y ago

The phrasing seems weird because of how knowledge is acquired in this area. The first achievement was discovering that indeed some blood group antigen exists, and the second is figuring out what that antigen is. As an analogy, a bug can be discovered (e.g., UI glitch), but what the bug in the code “is” may remain unknown until a deep dive into the code, and fixing this bug can only happen once the cause is known. Each of those steps can be entirely separate endeavours.