Ron Hartong PhD (X) Apr 11, 2011:

Thank you I appreciate your efforts Joe, in spite of the 'system override' ;)

Joseph Tein (asker) Apr 9, 2011:

Mexican Bureaucracies I've been trying to contact the people at COFEPRIS in Mexico City directly, to ask them what they meant by this term. The one person I was able to reach, in the office where this letter originated, said she wasn't sure, asked me to call back another person who was at lunch. When I called back repeatedly over a period of 2 days, their phone has rung and rung with no answer. I'm going to pursue this until I get a direct answer from them ... so sit tight just a little longer, everyone! (Now I have to wait over the weekend.)

Ron Hartong PhD (X) Apr 3, 2011:

Hi cgowar,

It is one of those cases: what do they say and what do they actually mean to say. As you said before, the use of 'prevenir' seems a bit awkward here.

If you would have to enter a translation for 'prevenir' in the glossary, I think 'forestall' would be a valid possible translation.
I disagree however with the use of 'forestall' in the present context: at least to me (but I admit I may be wrong), 'forestall' does have in this case the notion of a definite ban.

That's why I entered 'raise objections to' as a possible translation. I would hesitate to enter 'object to/raise objections to' as a possible translation for 'prevenir' in the glossary, but I do think that 'object to/raise objections to' transmits the idea of the ban not being definite better than preclude/exclude/prevent/disallow/prohibit/forestall.

Cecilia Gowar Apr 3, 2011:

In which case I would use "forestall" since it is not a definite ban.

Cecilia Gowar Apr 3, 2011:

If the centers listed in the 4 sections describing mistakes match those in the first paragraph, it would mean their inclusion "won't be allowed". However, it would seem that if they do hand over the required documents they might be accepted.

Joseph Tein (asker) Apr 1, 2011:

More information Additional information that may help:

The text is from Mexico (COFEPRIS - la Comision Federal para la Protección Contra Riesgos Sanitarios) -- in case this makes a difference in the language use.

Again, the text starts with "Se comunica que se previene la inclusión de los centros de investigación citados abajo ...." followed by a list of centers. But then it says:

"Por lo siguiente:"
... followed by 4 sections that describe mistakes or discrepancies in the paperwork, such as "el dictamen del Comité de Etica de [name of center] difiere su titulo con el de la solicitud" or a mistake in the numbering of one of the documents, or "falta carta de recursos del centro de investigación y atención en urgencias para los pacientes".

And the last paragraph says "Por lo anterior se solicita la documentación previamente citada ... de no presentar en tiempo y forma lo solicitado, su trámite se dará por concluido y desechado."

To me, "por lo siguiente" means "because of the following" (¿no?) So, I think that the letter says "These centers will not be included because of the following reasons, and if you don't provide the documents, the request will be dismissed.

I welcome your thoughts!

Cecilia Gowar Mar 28, 2011:

If the meaning was "to prevent", you would say "impedir" in Spanish, or even better "se impedirá". The use of "prevenir" here is awkward though: It should say "se prevé".
As Ron suggests, the wider context should make this clearer.

FVS (X) Mar 28, 2011:

I can't understand how so many people can misunderstand prevenir here. cgowr is the only one who seems to understand it.

Ron Hartong PhD (X) Mar 28, 2011:

Confused/ additional information? Joseph says "This is in a letter from a national clinical trials regulatory agency to the sponsor of the trial, setting out some changes/corrections that need to be made in the documents before the proposal will be considered."

This means that a sponsor submitted a proposal for a clinical trial. Such a proposal must include a list of participating centers with their resources, experience, etc. This information is used to assess these centers, and they can be accepted or rejected. This is a selection process and not a pre-selection process, so I find the translation "should not be included" slightly better than "are precluded", although I wouldn't say that "precluded" is wrong.

My confusion comes from cgowar's suggestion, which is almost the opposite of the excluded/precluded option.
I can imagine that the agency lists the centers that should not be included, but I can also imagine that the agency lists the centers that are expected to be included.

So Joseph, do you have some additional information that may help decide whether the agency is accepting or rejecting proposed sites? Do they give reasons for excluding/including participating centers?