F:
So, remember when you argued that the
reduced miscarriage rate observed in this one study we did on the breast/ovarian
cancer predisposition database might be associated with an increase in the
rate of congenital anomalies in the children born to those women? After all, if
miscarriages exist in part to eliminate babies with serious anomalies, and
mutations in the genes that put these families at risk of cancer have to do
with DNA repair, and whenever DNA repair is not so good, you have more mistakes
and anomalies, it stands to reason...
Well, there happens to be a large, regional
congenital anomalies register that’s supposedly exhaustive, so I called some
people up and looked into it.
Turns out, not only do families with cancer
risk (any cancer, not just breast cancer) declare fewer miscarriages than
usual, but we could match them to the congenital anomalies register and guess
what? They have far fewer kids with anomalies, too.
Strange, huh?
But there you are.
So I’ve written up a bit of a paper, and I’d
like to get it submitted in November.
N:
Ah, that’s interesting. I’m eager to see
the data. Who knew my annoying objections would go so far.
November, you say? Well, I’m away one week
in two for the next month...
F:
Well, I’d really like to get it submitted.
Perhaps you can take a look at it before you leave.
N:
That gives me just one week. I don’t think
it’s going to happen.
F:
Aw, give it a try.
N:
(perusing the manuscript with its 10 pages of single-spaced F-ese) Um, is this first
part the abstract? Or the introduction?
F:
Oh, I haven’t written the abstract yet.
That’s a sort of introduction. Feel free to flesh it out, maybe add some
references. I’m not really a fertility expert.
N:
Ah.
Well.
I'll see what I can do.
No comments:
Post a Comment