Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Davotk t1_jcqq872 wrote

Reply to comment by Lettuce-Beginning in Specific cannabinoids revive adaptive immunity by reversing immune evasion mechanisms in metastatic tumours by Defiant_Race_7544

Cancerous tumors have shown to not only grow big and fast but avoid immune response.

One way tumors avoid immune response is to stop producing certain molecules that immune response cells (cytolytic T lymphocytes (CTLs) a type of adaptive immune response) recognize to attack.

While cannabis has been linked with fighting cancer/tumors, the precise mechanisms are not well understood. This study has shown one mechanism: certain cannabinoids (mainly d9 THC and in this study CBG is highlighted) can prevent the tumors from not producing those molecules -- reverting from the invisible tumor to now one the immune response bodies will see and attack.

83

Terrible_Yak_4890 t1_jcrwz3s wrote

That was great. It’s a pity the original riders of the paper couldn’t make it that clear.

−17

FodT t1_jcs51f6 wrote

It’s abundantly clear to anyone in the field who knows the language and terminology. Papers would be ten times as long to read if they stuck to nontechnical terms. The primary audience of these papers is other people in this area of research. It’s not anyone in academia’s job to make them understandable for everyone. Learn big words make shorter sentences.

23

meetmyfriendme t1_jcsao22 wrote

Though I generally agree with what you are saying, a single paragraph to explain it in lay terms is not 10x as long. Also, I feel that to some extent it is the social responsibility of researchers to make knowledge available to as many people as possible. This also helps them because where public support goes money often follows.

10

humanefly t1_jcsgtkh wrote

That's a super interesting point, and I think it's an important one.

As an idiot on the interweebs, I think the opposing argument might be something like this:

Researchers, like everyone else, have a limited amount of time and energy. If they focus their resources heavily on the specialized knowledge and advancing the field, they can push the limits farther, faster, increasing the sphere of knowledge; others can follow behind and find ways to share the knowledge and make it more accessible.

12

Davotk t1_jcspz3i wrote

I loved this point. Slippery slope counterpoint for safety's sake.

3

LawnChairMD t1_jctylp1 wrote

This field (of translating hard-core science to layman's terms, and reaching out to the public) is called scientific communications/ communicators. Think Allie Ward, and Bill Nye. But they aren't gonna hit something so specific/political as this. Imo I don't think scientist should use their energy to explain their work in laymens terms.The scientist already decided to dedicate their career to their field. The least we can do is google every 3ed word. Plus they will often send you the article if it's behind a pay wall. Which I also think is nice.

1

-little-dorrit- t1_jcsvz7p wrote

I agree - to a point. European guidances specify though than plain language summaries must accompany results of clinical studies (accompany - not replace). This, along with the fact that an increasing number of journals are going fully or partially open access, indicates a trend towards improving access to scientific knowledge for the public. Because why should this knowledge be privileged? A significant proportion of it is after all publicly funded. And as the OP u/davotk has shown, lay summaries are quite easy to write if you have any experience in communications with lay audiences. Likewise, they should be fairly easy for the paper’s authors to write. I think this bridge to the generally public is a very important positive step in science communication, personally.

I get that the previous comment to which you were responding was unnecessarily snarky. But there is a grain of validity in there as well.

2

andrei_androfski t1_jcsbcpb wrote

> the original riders of the paper

You are here for the cannabis talk and not the science talk, aren’t you?

7