 |
 |
 |
 |
It's a slow day in Your Nation's Capital, so how about we throw another log
on the fire.....
On 14 October, 1996, Tom Delohery wrote:
>Along those same lines, I'm surprised there was little or no discussion on
>this mailing list about the article in Communications in Clinical Cytometry
>(vol.22, No.3, 232-242) concerning "instrument-dependent fluorochrome
>sensitivity". At one point I heard rumors of litigation. I wasn't shocked
>by the article as much as the fact that it was published.
>
>==============================================================================
> Thomas Delohery | Internet: t-delohery@ski.mskcc.org
> Manager, Flow Cytometry Core Facility | Phone: (212) 639-8729
> Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center | Fax: (212) 794-4019
> 1275 York Ave. Box 98 |
> New York, NY 10021 |
>==============================================================================
Judging from the response to this posting, it seems that nobody out there
has read this article, or else has no opinion on the subject. This is a
little hard for me to swallow, considering the moderately incendiary
conclusions that were drawn from the data presented and the strong opinions
people in this business profess regarding the qualities of particular
instruments.
I have two concerns:
1. Four of the authors work at the CDC. When the CDC weighs in on one side
of a particular question, it carries a whole lot more weight than many other
institutions; people tend to take information from the CDC at face value, for
better or worse. Although we're admonished by the authors that the article is
not to be taken as an endorsement of a particular manufacturer's instruments,
the implications in the Discussion section seem clear enough.
2. How in the world did this article pass muster with the reviewers? The CCC
IS a peer-reviewed journal, isn't it? Is the publication of this type of
article to be construed as an editorial comment by the journal and its editors/
editorial board? What hope, then, for people with inferior intrumentation to
get a fair shake with the editors/reviewers of this journal? And what if, next
time, the disinformation propagated by one of the more prestigious publications
in the field of cytometry is less blatant than this?
As if that weren't enough...
On 22 October, 1996, Linda Tedlock wrote for John W. Parker, M.D.:
>The clinical cytometry journal, Communications in Clinical Cytometry
>has proven to be highly successful. After two years of publication
>as a quarterly journal it will be increased to six issues in 1997.
>for those of you who have written clinically oriented cytometry
>manuscripts and are looking for an appropriate journal, keep us in
>mind. For further information regarding the CAC meeting, CCS or CCC
>please contact me.
>John W. Parker, M.D.
>President, Clinical Cytometry Society
>Co-Editor, Communications in Clinical Cytometry
The irony here is almost too much, even for me.
Look, folks: the aspersions cast in this article are pretty serious,
especially for people like myself who use Coulter instrumentation. They were
thoughtfully refuted by both James Wood of Coulter and M.J. Waxdal of
FAST Systems, in Communications in Clinical Cytometry, 22:331-333 (1995), but
several aspects of this paper and its publication *CERTAINLY* deserve *AT
LEAST* some discussion in this forum. IMHO.
Often Wrong, Never In Doubt.
mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mark moorman, mt(ascp) / technical coordinator of flow cytometry
biomedical instrumentation and imaging center
the uniformed services university for the health sciences
vox: (301) 295-3544 e-mail: moorman@usuhsb.usuhs.mil
fax: (301) 295-1640 moorman@bicwater.usuf1.usuhs.mil
** No Matter How You Slice It, It's Still Baloney **
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|