While reading an article on identification of genotoxic drug degradation impurities (DOI is 10.1021/op100007q if you’re really curious) I ran across the following sentence.
Look. I realize that in silico has been used more and more often over the years as computer modeling gets more powerful and useful. But, seriously, in cerebro? And not only that, but “interrogation…in cerebro”? Could the authors think of a more obscure way to say “think about what you’ve got and what it could become”?
That’s awesome. I’m totally working that into my next paper.
I can see the advantages of using Cerebro, but where are they going to find a mutant telepath powerful enough to run it?
Well, it won’t be Magneto, that’s for sure…
Cerebro…Magneto…
What’s a parent structure?
And can I get a full translation of the sentence?
Okay, that sentence is late in a six-page paper. The paper is about the use of a particular piece of software to look for potentially genotoxic chemical compounds. Genotoxic impurities (mutagenic or carcinogenic chemical compounds in very small quantities) in pharmaceuticals are being looked at more closely by the various regulatory agencies (FDA, European regulatory agencies, etc.) So the idea is to look at what the active drug is and see if they have any organic functional groups that are flagged as genotoxic or potentially genotoxic. Many compounds will naturally degrade over time during storage and those degradation products may also be possibly genotoxic. So the sentence is basically saying that you should look at the chemical structure of your drug and see if it has any structures that could be genotoxic and think about possible ways the drug could degrade and see if either the genotoxic structure remains or if a new one is created.
Ah, that explains where they’re going to get their telepath.
Gaaak. In Cerebro??? In silico is bad a-freekin’-nough. Would it just not be sufficiently precious to say “we computer-modeled this”?
If there’s no author, then he’s using it In Cognito.
I’m writing a paper now.
By god, I will find a way to fit this in there.
Jargon is one of my biggest pet peeves in science. Sure, it’s necessary to invent new vocabulary pretty frequently in order to describe a new phenomenon, or establish shades of meaning in a previously describe concept. Both perfectly fine. No problem.
But scientists have a tendency to obfuscate with verbiage a great deal.
“Lyophilize”? What was wrong with “freeze-dry”?
“In cerebro” is just infuriating. Makes me want to smack that idiot. Science, by its nature, is getting more and more conceptually inaccessible to the general populace. Scientists should be bending over backwards to make sure that their work is comprehensible.
It’s perfectly comprehensible, given the investment of sufficient in cerebro resources over an extended temporal flux.
Sounds like they’ve been conversing in gluteo.
That was stochastic.
Don’t tase me, cerebro?
Cereeeebroooo…Magneeetooo!
(You stole my joke, damnit!)
Dear God, what have I done? You guys aren’t supposed to be spreading this!