I believe that you are probably right in what you say.

I'm sure that the scientists' time would be better spent in their research than trying to put together a lawyer-proof definition. Don't you get tired as I do, of the requirement to replace simple phrases with a complex all-inclusive yet perpetually debated and re-debated definition - beloved of our evil triumvirate, the lawyers, judiciary and politicians?

You can't refer to any group of people nowadays without having to mention each individual self-declared-victim-of-discrimination subgroup. You can't refer to a power company without some eager interjector debating the difference between power and energy. You can't even have "jam" (in the British sense) without some definition-freak insisting on calling it "conserve."

Even the humble traditional mince pie, which hasn't contained meat for over 600 years, now must be described as "FRUIT mince pie" so as not to "confuse" people.

This phenomenon, I'm sure, is what the Python crew was pointing out in "Life of Brian" when Reg's endless ineffectual resolutions were interrupted time and again by amendments to make the meaning more and more precise - reducing minor points to great masses of waffle.

Personally, I believe it's better to get the point across simply than to distract from it with the exceptions.

While it is important that scientists are clear and well understood, there is little point dissecting a research project intro.

This sentence says a lot, "Despite advances in therapeutic techniques, there is currently no curative treatment available for persons affected by neuromuscular diseases". It's why we are here.

Totally agree that it's very important to publish what was researched, what was not and what resulted in erroneous results, in order to enable other researchers to carry out missed research or further research.

Thank you, Alessandra Carbone!

That is very interesting to learn.


Lawrence

Thank you Alessandra, that was the insight I was looking for!

-NGM