Mario, I don't like the idea of post publication review - the words libel and defamation come to mind. Nor is it a case of "them (the scientists) and us". It's just us the flow community that is failing to as you mentioned: 1. gain respect or recognition in core facilities 2. provide an framework to educate users of FC I find that the word ISAC carries a lot of weight here in the Facility; and people will listen if you talk about international standards. if the "odd" scientist can get inappropriate data published; then personally I believe that is his God given right. Ann At 14:22 01.11.01 -0500, you wrote: > "" While my comments below may rankle a few people--nothing new for >me--please be assured that I mean no disrespect to anyone. > (What a surprise.) > This has been strongly needed for a long time, and I will be more than >happy to help in any way I can. > "" A document such as is proposed isn't going to be considered outside >of our little group of cytometrists. > If they haven't read those excellent texts (or even parts of them), I >don't think that presenting them with even a brief missive is going to >budge them. > "" "" Scientists are the ultimate curmudgeons. > Giving the flowjock a piece of paper to hand the scientist isn't >going to be of much help in this regard. > "" "" "" an Operator, despite the fact that most of the Operators around >know far more about flow cytometry than they do. > To say otherwise would be to accuse them of insecurity.) > I don't like being negative, but I'm willing to bet that for the time >being, it's going to be the only way to get the attention of the people >outside our community. > Of course, once we have their attention, once we've demonstrated that >there are serious flaws in most presentations, then Then they will Then >they will"" And maybe they'll start listening to the Operators, to the >Managers. > Only by empowering the Operators and the Managers to advise the >scientists in a meaningful way will result in long-term success. > > Everyone (including scientists) already thinks that scientists are >arrogant. > This is nothing unique to flow cytometry; the recent burgeoning >field of gene-chip analysis has many problems that could be similarly >addressed. > Just when is it that we've come to the last ditch, if not now? > > mr > ""<> It's very short, it hasn't been updated in a long time, but it's >still valid...)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:58:01 EST