Literature DB >> 28726008

The trouble with collective nouns for genome editing.

Sara Wells1, Jean Stéphane Joly2.   

Abstract

We should start as we mean to go on and try to avoid the confusion most of us experience when bombarded with acronyms with overstated significations. You will be familiar with the situation, you are in a seminar or a meeting and someone who has been using a set of acronyms for years, includes them in sentence after sentence that has you lost because you don't know what some or most of them stand for. Even worse when scientists start making verbs out of them, CRISPR seems to have fallen into this category; how many of us have heard someone asking if a mutation can be CRISPRed! Does it matter though? We are all familiar with informal language in scientific talks and discussions which is replaced by more formal dialect when research is published or presented to the general public. However, when an ill-defined acronym slips outside of laboratory chatter and is widely recognised by the general public, we need to proceed with caution to avoid misinterpretation and misunderstandings.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28726008     DOI: 10.1007/s00335-017-9707-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mamm Genome        ISSN: 0938-8990            Impact factor:   2.957


  3 in total

1.  The nonsensical GMO pseudo-category and a precautionary rabbit hole.

Authors:  Giovanni Tagliabue
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health.

Authors:  Y Tony Yang; Brian Chen
Journal:  J Sci Food Agric       Date:  2015-12-16       Impact factor: 3.638

3.  Genome editors take on crops.

Authors:  Armin Scheben; David Edwards
Journal:  Science       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 47.728

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.