A bit of medical and historical context seems to invert its interpretation entirely. For example Louis Washkansky, the recipient of the first human transplant (performed by Dr. Christiaan Barnard in 1967 in Cape Town, South Africa) lived for only 18 days before passing away from pneumonia. But nobody considers that historical fact as a negative when thinking about heart transplants these days. In comparison, this statement about the pig kidney is actually very exciting. It means that the xenotransplantation technology is progressing rapidly and will soon become widely available. They seem to have overcome most of the serious difficulties in the process.
I think the person you replied to was objecting to the fact that the wording makes it sound like we're using humans as vessels for extending the life of pig organs outside of pigs.
Not necessarily that 6 months is a short period of time.
That's an interesting way to interpret it! I see what you mean, but I still can't see myself interpreting that headline in that way. Does it really give that vibe?
Yeah I re-read it now and don't feel so strongly about it. But I think its the sentence structure:
"This is the longest a pig organ has survived in a living person"
The pig organ is the first thing mentioned, with the living person last.
Whereas:
"This is the longest time a patient has survived after a pig organ transplant."
This puts the patient first, and doesn't give as much of that kind of vibe.
Edit: Actually, that updated sentence may need some adjustment. I assume when organ transplants fail we don't just let people die with them. So maybe that's why the original sentence had such emphasis on the survival of the pig organ...
Seeing as the subject of the sentence is the pig organ, it's saying the organ is the one doing the surviving and only tangentionally mentions the person surviving by calling then living. I (and presumably we) only come to a different interperetation because I have the context that the latter is the important bit. If I give some other similarly structured sentences but without context, how would you interperet these?
- This is the fastest Alice had driven since Bob broke the speed limit.
- This is the oldest tree still standing in the burnt forest.
- This is the most stable chemical additive to our long-lasting concrete.
Without context, to me these examples sound primarily about Alice going fast, the tree being old, and the chemical being stable. But if those appeared in articles about traffic law, natural disasters, and sidewalk design, then these phrasings might be less ambiguous if flipped (as another commentor pointed out).
Well, the pig organ could fail immediately, causing the person to go back on dialysis for 6 months. That person would've also lived for 6 months after a transplant.
> It means that the xenotransplantation technology is progressing rapidly and will soon become widely available
It also validates the platform. If it can last for 6 months, chances are there isn’t some catastrophic failure mode that would keep it from lasting for 6 or 60 years.
The person can go back on dialysis and have the kidney removed if it starts failing. Which is what happened to an earlier recipient of a pig kidney. So it makes sense to phrase it that way.
A bit of medical and historical context seems to invert its interpretation entirely. For example Louis Washkansky, the recipient of the first human transplant (performed by Dr. Christiaan Barnard in 1967 in Cape Town, South Africa) lived for only 18 days before passing away from pneumonia. But nobody considers that historical fact as a negative when thinking about heart transplants these days. In comparison, this statement about the pig kidney is actually very exciting. It means that the xenotransplantation technology is progressing rapidly and will soon become widely available. They seem to have overcome most of the serious difficulties in the process.
I think the person you replied to was objecting to the fact that the wording makes it sound like we're using humans as vessels for extending the life of pig organs outside of pigs.
Not necessarily that 6 months is a short period of time.
That's an interesting way to interpret it! I see what you mean, but I still can't see myself interpreting that headline in that way. Does it really give that vibe?
Yeah I re-read it now and don't feel so strongly about it. But I think its the sentence structure:
"This is the longest a pig organ has survived in a living person"
The pig organ is the first thing mentioned, with the living person last.
Whereas:
"This is the longest time a patient has survived after a pig organ transplant."
This puts the patient first, and doesn't give as much of that kind of vibe.
Edit: Actually, that updated sentence may need some adjustment. I assume when organ transplants fail we don't just let people die with them. So maybe that's why the original sentence had such emphasis on the survival of the pig organ...
Seeing as the subject of the sentence is the pig organ, it's saying the organ is the one doing the surviving and only tangentionally mentions the person surviving by calling then living. I (and presumably we) only come to a different interperetation because I have the context that the latter is the important bit. If I give some other similarly structured sentences but without context, how would you interperet these?
- This is the fastest Alice had driven since Bob broke the speed limit.
- This is the oldest tree still standing in the burnt forest.
- This is the most stable chemical additive to our long-lasting concrete.
Without context, to me these examples sound primarily about Alice going fast, the tree being old, and the chemical being stable. But if those appeared in articles about traffic law, natural disasters, and sidewalk design, then these phrasings might be less ambiguous if flipped (as another commentor pointed out).
Well, the pig organ could fail immediately, causing the person to go back on dialysis for 6 months. That person would've also lived for 6 months after a transplant.
> It means that the xenotransplantation technology is progressing rapidly and will soon become widely available
It also validates the platform. If it can last for 6 months, chances are there isn’t some catastrophic failure mode that would keep it from lasting for 6 or 60 years.
What seems like a small step now often ends up being the foundation for something revolutionary a decade later
The organ can die without the human dying too, so it makes sense to phrase it that way
The person can go back on dialysis and have the kidney removed if it starts failing. Which is what happened to an earlier recipient of a pig kidney. So it makes sense to phrase it that way.