I agree with both Marty and Gunter in the very important issue of standardizing data formatting. I would point out that lobbying ISAC is only, however, part of the answer. Regardless of what ISAC may choose to recommend, it is still up to the manufacturers to implement what they want to do, and if they do not agree with ISAC, then too bad for ISAC and the flow community. A potentially more powerful force for change might be the FDA, which regulates machines used in CLINICAL settings. If the FDA could be persuaded to require all CLINICAL data be universally both accessible and readable, then the manufacurers would be forced to upgrade machines and software or lose theLUCRATIVE CLINICAL market. This would make analyzing data from different sources easier, and could facilitate the exchange of crucial clinical results from various trials where multiple sites and machines are in use. So how does this get done? Gunter (and Paul's agreeing response) are correct this needs to be revisited at Asilomar, with perhaps an additional idea. Any concrete standardization protocol, FCS3.0 or whatever it ends up being designated, should be then presented to any and all regulatory agencies by ISAC to ensure no individual manufacturer decides FCS3.0 in their format is acceptable, even if it is not universally readable. Randy T. Fischer NIA/NIH GRC Baltimore, MD 21224 fischerr@vax.grc.nia.nih.gov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:49:56 EST