introduction/main.tex: 'as' -> 'because' for drug-designer consumption

I think this reads a bit more clearly.

diff --git a/src/introduction/main.tex b/src/introduction/main.tex
index b34aead6a5e3f0bbcd07f75bd7b02b051a8ec92b..20f64815b69e43c7515acad54cb8b38a0ea86b30 100644 (file)
--- a/src/introduction/main.tex
+++ b/src/introduction/main.tex
@@ -190,16 +190,16 @@ so knowledge about the unfolding behavior \emph{does} shed light on
 the folding behavior.
 
 Practically, the distinction between folding and unfolding makes
-little difference, as drug designers and doctors are not consuming
-SMFS results directly.  For researchers calibrating molecular dynamics
-simulations, it doesn't matter if you compare simulated folding
-experiments with experimental folding experiments, or simulated
-unfolding experiments with experimental unfolding experiments.  The
-important thing is to compare your simulation against \emph{some}
-experimental benchmarks.  If your molecular dynamics simulation
-successfully predicts a protein's unfolding behavior, it makes me more
-confident that it will correctly predict the protein's native folding
-behavior.
+little difference, because drug designers and doctors are not
+consuming SMFS results directly.  For researchers calibrating
+molecular dynamics simulations, it doesn't matter if you compare
+simulated folding experiments with experimental folding experiments,
+or simulated unfolding experiments with experimental unfolding
+experiments.  The important thing is to compare your simulation
+against \emph{some} experimental benchmarks.  If your molecular
+dynamics simulation successfully predicts a protein's unfolding
+behavior, it makes me more confident that it will correctly predict
+the protein's native folding behavior.
 
 
 \section{Thesis outline}