Did you really "untreat" those cells?

As a technical writer/editor for a biotech company, I frequently change the word "untreated" to "nontreated" and "unbound" to "nonbound." Occasionally, someone will ask why I prefer the prefix non-. The untreated/nontreated issue began in graduate school. My major professor believed that "nontreated" is more accurate than "untreated" because the original meaning for the prefix un- was reversal of some action or state. For example, unplug, untie, unfold and uncap are all reversal words. Therefore, "untreated" could be interpreted to mean something was treated and then the treatment was somehow removed or reversed, but scientists usually mean that a treatment was never applied. Everyone in my major professor’s lab used "nontreated" in all our writings and presentations.

Of course, un- doesn’t always mean the reversal of something. "Unknown," "ungrateful," "unforgiving," "unfit" and "unfinished" are just a sampling of words that obviously mean something that was never done in the first place. The word "unbound," however, is vague and can be easily interpreted to mean something that was once bound has been released, whereas the word "nonbound" clearly describes something that had never bound.

I sometimes wonder how the issue began for my major professor. I’m sure someone she had respected preferred "nontreated" and passed on his belief. The end result is that there exists a population of scientists that believe "nontreated" is more accurate than its undone analog. So, rather than alienate or otherwise irritate any portion of our scientific community, I use non-. It is understandable if "nontreated" seems unnatural or unconventional, but using "nontreated" really is a non-issue.