I have problem in understanding the usage of "substituting"

Forums: English, Esl, Grammar, English Grammar, English As A Second Language
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Does " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells" mean " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells for animal testing "?

Context:

Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy

Advances in molecular biology, biotechnology, and other fields are paving
the way for major improvements in how scientists evaluate the health risks
posed by potentially toxic chemicals found at low levels in the environment. These advances would make toxicity testing quicker, less expensive, and more directly relevant to human exposures. They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells. This National Research Council report creates a far-reaching vision for the future of toxicity testing.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 4 • Views: 800 • Replies: 12

[+3] - McTag - 04/21/2013 [quote]I understand it as "substitute human cells for animals,[/quote] Yes! Don't test on live animals. Test on human cells instead. Substitute one test for the other. Replace one...

View best answer, chosen by oristarA

@oristarA,

Substitute means replacing something (or someone). A teacher who comes in to replace another teacher for a short time is called a substitute.
If you can't eat milk or cheese, you use something else to substitute (use instead of) for them.

They are talking here about replacing (substituting) part of the live animal lab tests with other tests that use just human cells.

It's early in the morning here, I hope this is clear.

Joe(yawn)Nation

1 Reply

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Does " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells" mean " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells for animal testing "?

No. It means "When evaluating the health risks posed by toxic chemicals, they could also reduce the need for the animal testing currently practised by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells."

When we substitute A for B we remove B and put A in its place.

In making the cake I followed the recipe except that I substituted margarine for butter. (The recipe specified butter but I used margarine instead.)

The government saved money on delivery costs by substituting smaller vans for the large trucks previously used.

Advances in technology have enabled car makers to save weight by substituting plastic for steel.

Beware of an opposite construction using with! When we substitute X with Y we take away X and replace it with Y.

You’re following a recipe for a fruit pie but you want to make a meat pie instead. You can substitute meat for the fruit. Or the fruit can be substituted with meat. (This confuses many native writers.)

0 Replies

Sorry guys. Nothing got improved in my understanding after reading your replies.
You both have used the format "substitute...for...," which is understandable or easy to understand.
But "substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells" has no "for" there. That is the key problem for me.
I understand it as "substitute human cells for animals," yet Contrex denied this.
Contrex just simply repeated (it means) "by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells", which contains no "for" and doesn't make things easier to understand.

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Substitute means replacing something (or someone). A teacher who comes in to replace another teacher for a short time is called a substitute.
If you can't eat milk or cheese, you use something else to substitute (use instead of) for them.

They are talking here about replacing (substituting) part of the live animal lab tests with other tests that use just human cells.
It's early in the morning here, I hope this is clear.

Joe(yawn)Nation

Isn't it just what I said:
Does " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells" mean " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells for animal testing "?

But Contrex denied it.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Does " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells" mean " They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells for animal testing "? unnecessary.
Try...
By substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells, they could also reduce the need for animal testing.
Or..
The need for Laboratory tests based on animals could be reduced by substituting human cells.

They are already doing some tests using animals and some tests with human cells. Presumably they can substitute more animal testing with/for human cells. If they do more tests on human cells, that would lessen the amount of tests they can do on animals.
I believe your confusion is about word placement.
I can dance at eleven. At eleven, I can dance.
It means the same thing.

0 Replies

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

I understand it as "substitute human cells for animals," yet Contrex denied this.

The initial word "No" in my reply was was an error, for which I apologise. The rest was accurate, however...

oristarA wrote:

Contrex just simply repeated (it means) "by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells", which contains no "for" and doesn't make things easier to understand.

It would be clumsy to have "animal test" straight after "animal testing" and we can omit it: "They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells [for animal tests]"

We can avoid the use of butter by substituting margarine. [For what? for butter, which we have already said]

We can reduce the need for steel by substituting plastic.

We can reduce the need for doctors by substituting specialist nurses.

General form:

We can reduce the need for A by substituting B.

1 Reply

@oristarA,

Quote:

I understand it as "substitute human cells for animals,

Yes!

Don't test on live animals.
Test on human cells instead.
Substitute one test for the other. Replace one with the other.

0 Replies

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

oristarA wrote:
I understand it as "substitute human cells for animals," yet Contrex denied this.

The initial word "No" in my reply was was an error, for which I apologise. The rest was accurate, however...

oristarA wrote:
Contrex just simply repeated (it means) "by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells", which contains no "for" and doesn't make things easier to understand.

It would be clumsy to have "animal test" straight after "animal testing" and we can omit it: "They could also reduce the need for animal testing by substituting more laboratory tests based on human cells [for animal tests]"

We can avoid the use of butter by substituting margarine. [For what? for butter, which we have already said]

We can reduce the need for steel by substituting plastic.

We can reduce the need for doctors by substituting specialist nurses.

General form:

We can reduce the need for A by substituting B.

Of course that is clumsy. But the clumsiness better serves better understanding the grammar. After that (after we've inerrably understood it), we can begin polishing it to make it concise and pretty. Wink

0 Replies

Quote:

But the clumsiness better serves better understanding the grammar.

It's also a perfect example of redundancy and, to the English ear, sounds funny.

Joe(Department of Redundancy Department)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Well, from time to time, I've broken journal entries into two entries when accounting 'tradition' would have had them in one massive entry. When it promotes clarity and understanding of what really happened, you sometimes do that.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
But the clumsiness better serves better understanding the grammar.
It's also a perfect example of redundancy and, to the English ear, sounds funny.

Joe(Department of Redundancy Department)Nation

Well, make it succinct then. I'm interested at how you will shape in pure English style. Very Happy

1 Reply

@oristarA,

oristarA wrote:

Well, make it succinct then. I'm interested at how you will shape in pure English style.

I already showed you how to do that.

0 Replies

I have problem in understanding the usage of "substituting"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know