I’m reading Gene therapy can protect against HIV. DNA immunization was something a few of my colleagues were working on when I was in grad school and it’s awesome to see that it works.
I remember I actually have a Nature subscription and can read the article behind the paywall. That one has a slightly different title: Antibody-based protection against HIV infection by vectored immunoprophylaxis. I’m going through the introduction and I see the following sentence:
However, the efficacy of this prophylaxis was limited by an endogenous immune response directed against the immunoadhesin proteins.
A number of things went through my head.
- wow. that is a lot of big words
- 15 years out of immunology and I still understand all those big words
- that’s a very clear sentence conveying a lot of concepts in a few, big words
- i could never write a sentence using that kinds of vocabulary in my current job
- *sigh* I miss science
Of course at least a few of those statements are wrong. I do understand that sentence and the big words. I am quite amazed at how much of a picture that creates in my head, even 15+ years out. But, I do actually write like that in my current job, then I go through and edit out a lot of the words of more than one syllable. Then I add in 3 intervening sentences to detail the steps from concept A to concept B.
Different audiences, different communication styles.
But, man, I miss the uber specialized language of science.