On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Ray Hicks wrote: <some interesting points, as did Mario, and although I have not checked for typos or glaring grammatical errors, I have snipped them all except this bit> > The other issue I take is; how is the collective going to select the > experts? Surely the people who are publishing this stuff ARE people "with a > modicum of experience in flow". Putting the responsibility on editorial > boards is probably going to end up in a status quo. How about pressuring > your lab-fellows to sling the FACS aspect of papers, that they're reviewing > anyway, in your direction? Going back a few years, all data generated by flow cytometers was generally centrally archived. Certainly my experience in this post was that whenever users wanted to publish or present flow data, they had to come to me to get it and I made a point of sitting with them and discussing how best to present and interpret the data and plots. So there was at least a modicum of control if not quality control. These days though thanks to the fact that much more data is generated and the fact that there are several good, cheap analysis packages for FCS files, it means that more data leaves the Lab. Users are therefore much easier able to look at their own data and create presentations. This is OK when they know what they are doing but how often is that? We have all been to meetings/seen papers/theses where there is clearly badly presented or misinterpreted data. Leaving aside the arguments about uses of contour/dot plots etc, even if an analysis program is perfect in the way it presents data, we still have the problem of interpretation and spin of the conclusions. I always encourage users still to come back and discuss with the Flow Lab any data generated here that they are going to present but it is difficult if not impossible to oversee it all. I have even managed to persuade reviewers to seek explanation if any papers they are asked to review contain flow data - some have taken this on board but I'm sure many more havent. What Ray says is the first step - make sure that all local users come to the local expert to get advice. At the same time we local experts need to have some sort of consensus as to data presentations and analysis at least at a basic level. This surely is where this forum (and ISAC) needs to be involved. Derek ************************************************************************ Derek Davies Voice: (44) 020 7269 3394 FACS Laboratory, FAX: (44) 020 7269 3100 Imperial Cancer Research Fund, e_mail: derek.davies@icrf.icnet.uk London, UK mobile: 07790 604112 Web Page: http://www.icnet.uk/axp/facs/davies/index.html In tenebris lux *************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:57:58 EST