a 'scientific breakthrough'
Thanks to the LJ Friend who showed me this article about some research into multiple sclerosis.
Having a common disability, with no known cure, you get used to hearing of 'scientific breakthroughs' quite often. It's great that so much research is being done and this particular article is better than some I've seen. The author seems to have correctly understood what the Nature paper's key finding is (a list of genetic associations with MS, noteworthy because most of the genes turn out to be involved with the immune response) and he quotes the scientist who led the research in a way that, to me, sounds like an accurate quote. I like the way this article explains the context of this particular scientific finding: MS is just one of the autoimmune diseases and these findings about MS might contribute to understanding the other diseases of that type.
There's one glaring error in the article: there's no such thing as 'multiple MS'. It's multiple sclerosis and four main forms of it exist. But in a portrayal for the general reader, I don't think that kind of error is very important. Certainly this portrayal is far better than shrieking about 'New Hope For MS Sufferers!' as so often seen in newspapers. This author stays calm, explaining what the new scientific finding is, and stating correctly that it's a step in the right direction but that it doesn't point to a miracle cure.
Having a common disability, with no known cure, you get used to hearing of 'scientific breakthroughs' quite often. It's great that so much research is being done and this particular article is better than some I've seen. The author seems to have correctly understood what the Nature paper's key finding is (a list of genetic associations with MS, noteworthy because most of the genes turn out to be involved with the immune response) and he quotes the scientist who led the research in a way that, to me, sounds like an accurate quote. I like the way this article explains the context of this particular scientific finding: MS is just one of the autoimmune diseases and these findings about MS might contribute to understanding the other diseases of that type.
There's one glaring error in the article: there's no such thing as 'multiple MS'. It's multiple sclerosis and four main forms of it exist. But in a portrayal for the general reader, I don't think that kind of error is very important. Certainly this portrayal is far better than shrieking about 'New Hope For MS Sufferers!' as so often seen in newspapers. This author stays calm, explaining what the new scientific finding is, and stating correctly that it's a step in the right direction but that it doesn't point to a miracle cure.