On ‘in vitro’ and ‘in vivo’. Maybe we’d have more success communicating this difference if we didn’t expect the layperson to know jargon? Yes, it’s two words, but they’re pretty similar so confusion is inevitable.
decompress a tension pneumothorax to prevent obstructive shock? depends on which site is cirucumstantially advantageous (midclavicular or midaxiallary), but generally involves palpating to locate the correct intercostal region. need a catheter of sufficient french.
or
if someone's chest is filling with air and crushing their organs, you have to find the correct space between ribs by touch. use a big needle. if the front of their chest is blocked, you can go in under the armpit.
give me break.
C'mon! This may seems true for english speakers and non-romance languages. But I as a non-english native speaker, can say exactly the same about CS terminology! It is just too pompous and unnecessary, as it will in almost any other non-germanic/anglic language.
Rather than expecting specialists to water down their vocabulary to cater to the uninitiated, it seems more reasonable to expect that science journalists should instead learn said jargon and learn how to interpret studies and abstracts properly. I'd go a step further and even argue that a highly educated society ought to encourage and celebrate cross-discipline learning not just by media reporters but by every individual, rather than expect everyone to meet at a mediocre common denominator.
Yes, you have to learn a new language, no you don't have to learn all of them (which would be the case if we did not standardize on languages for specific fields).
It costs nothing to say "lab testing" instead of "in vitro". Literally the same number of syllables, zero loss of precision, and immediately understandable to a wider audience.
In vitro is a consice term, useful to me in my profession.