"Genetics" field of expertise is useless
Thread poster: Dr. Matthias Schauen

Dr. Matthias Schauen  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 07:48
Member
English to German
Sep 28, 2009

Hi, the specialty field "Genetics" seems somewhat odd. Why is genetics singled out of all biology disciplines as a separate specialization? Is there anything special about genetics texts, more special than about texts on biochemistry or microbiology? I do understand the separate entries for botany and zoology, but genetics is covered very well by "Biology (-tech, -chem, micro-)" (and also sometimes by "Medical (General)"). I propose deleting this field, which only blocks one of the five specialization slots.

 

Selcuk Akyuz  Identity Verified
Turkey
Local time: 08:48
Member (2006)
English to Turkish
+ ...
The list is confusing Sep 28, 2009

What about Cardiology? And why Neurology, Oncology, Ophthalmology, Urology or Dermatology are not included?

The current list related to medical disciplines includes the following:
Medical (general)
Medical: Cardiology
Medical: Dentistry
Medical: Health Care
Medical: Instruments
Medical: Pharmaceuticals


 

Maria Diaconu  Identity Verified
Romania
Local time: 08:48
English to Romanian
Indeed... Sep 28, 2009

I've always wondered why cardiology is on the list, leaving out other medical fields... What makes cardiology more necessary (as a field of expertise in translation, I mean) than oncology, neurology etc.?

 

Dr. Matthias Schauen  Identity Verified
Germany
Local time: 07:48
Member
English to German
TOPIC STARTER
Okay, let's get rid of Cardiology, too Sep 28, 2009

I agree that the situation is quite similar with Cardiology. So let's get rid of both of them.

 

Henry Dotterer
Local time: 01:48
SITE FOUNDER
The list was created empirically Sep 28, 2009

The list was created using an empirical, rather than an intellectual, approach. In other words, an item is in the list because people wrote it in when entering KudoZ questions. (And others are not in the list because they did not get entered.)

The exercise was carried out several years ago. Perhaps it is getting to be time to do another review.


 

Niraja Nanjundan  Identity Verified
Local time: 11:18
German to English
Include other fields as well Sep 29, 2009

Henry D wrote:
Perhaps it is getting to be time to do another review


I think there must be more fields members work in that are not included in the profile fields of expertise. I suggest conducting a survey on what fields members are currently working in, what they think should be added and what should be discarded. It would also be a good idea to have a couple of blank fields in this area of the profile updater, so that members can fill in areas of expertise that may not be included or may be unusual.


 

Henry Hinds  Identity Verified
United States
Local time: 23:48
English to Spanish
+ ...
Less Fields Sep 29, 2009

Many askers are quite inaccurate in defining fields in any case. I think it is best to limit fields to just a few major classifications and leave it at that. Anything more is meaningless. Forget about the sub-specialties.

 

Nicholas Stedman  Identity Verified
Italy
Local time: 07:48
French to English
In theory, these fields should provide useful information Sep 29, 2009

I don't agree with most of the above comments. Medical translators have to work very rapidly quite often with badly and very rapidly written texts containing lots of acronyms and short-hand. How can someone with no experience in cardiology translate a 2O-page cardiology report in 2 days? The same is true of the other specialities mentioned above which reflect quite well the general catagories of documents that I see. Genetics is the most rapidy expanding field of medical science at the moment so I don't see a reason for suppressing it as a separate field.

The two main problems are first that judging from the translations I sometimes revise, not all translators are completely truthful about their specialities so that if I was an outsourcer I would only use the translator profiles as a rough guide. The second problem is the infinity of specialisations which means that even really tiny fields such as drug addiction or call centre hazards have a highly specialised vocabulary.

[Edited at 2009-09-29 06:44 GMT]


 

PAS  Identity Verified
Local time: 07:48
English to Polish
+ ...
Second that Sep 29, 2009

Henry Hinds wrote:
I think it is best to limit fields to just a few major classifications and leave it at that.


The more fields, the better chance that somebody will get the field wrong, making any sort of detailed search quite useless.

Leave the core disciplines. That should suffice.

Pawel Skalinski


 

Kay Barbara
United Kingdom
Local time: 06:48
Member (2008)
English to German
+ ...
Classifications should be reviewed Oct 6, 2009

Henry Hinds wrote:

Many askers are quite inaccurate in defining fields in any case.


Henry, this is not only about Kudoz (I know you are fond of them) but about job postings as well. The main purpose of the specialties is not to facilitate putting kudoz questions in the right fields (you can inform mods to move any kudoz to a more fitting field) but to serve as an important criterion in job posts and searches, too.

Henry Hinds wrote:
I think it is best to limit fields to just a few major classifications and leave it at that. Anything more is meaningless. Forget about the sub-specialties.


I appreciate that you might be perfectly fine with how everything is right now with regard to the topic discussed here, good for you. However, I am positive that an improvement of the organisation of the specialties would benefit more people than it would harm.

IMHO, a specialty should be something a translator knows a great great (great) deal about and so for me "specialties" such as just "Medicine" would be way to imprecise since no one is a specialist in medicine (rather in one or two disciplines of that field). Omitting specialties cannot be in the interest of outsourcers and translators.

There has also been a similar request (which I second) for splitting ""Games / Video Games / Gaming / Casino" (a combination of two rather unrelated fields) into something like "Gaming: Computer+Video Games" and "Gambling/Casino".
http://www.proz.com/forum/prozcom_suggestions/147340-about_splitting_games_video_games_gaming_casino_work_field.html

@ Henry D: please let us know if and when changes will be considered.

Kay


 

Anna Haxen  Identity Verified
Denmark
Local time: 07:48
Member (2005)
English to Danish
+ ...
Genetics is not useless Oct 6, 2009

Genetics is nothing like biochemistry or microbiology. You can be an expert in the latter two and know nothing about genetics. Believe me, I've studied all three of them.

You can even distinguish between Mendelian (or classical) genetics and molecular genetics.

I don't think there's any need to weed out certain fields of expertise such as cardiology. Why not just suggest addition of fields that we don't find on the list - urology, for instance?


 


To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator:


You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request »

"Genetics" field of expertise is useless

Advanced search






CafeTran Espresso
You've never met a CAT tool this clever!

Translate faster & easier, using a sophisticated CAT tool built by a translator / developer. Accept jobs from clients who use SDL Trados, MemoQ, Wordfast & major CAT tools. Download and start using CafeTran Espresso -- for free

More info »
SDL Trados Studio 2017 only €435 / $519
Get the cheapest prices for SDL Trados Studio 2017 on ProZ.com

Join this translator’s group buy brought to you by ProZ.com and buy SDL Trados Studio 2017 Freelance for only €435 / $519 / £345 / ¥63000 You will also receive FREE access to Studio 2019 when released.

More info »



Forums
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search