This has been a very interesting thread. It seems to me that in the final analysis what is being discussed and flirted with here is the need for standardization in flow cytometry, especially as it is used in research applications. Of course, some standardization currently exists in the form of Proficiency Testing (PT) programs for clinical cytometry. The College of American Pathologists (CAP), among others, administers a flow PT program for CAP certified clinical labs. It includes challenges in the areas of phenotyping (e.g.HIV/AIDS CD4 monitoring), leukemia/lymphoma and DNA analysis. Similarly, NIAID/DAIDS requires that flow labs participating in and reporting results for the ACTG and MACS be part of the flow PT program currently run by the folks at the New Jersey Medical School. These programs, while certainly adding to the cost of doing business and generally being a pain in the ..., do serve a practical and important purpose; they reassure clinicians and researchers, respectively, that the quality of the flow data meets some minimum standard! As such, we need not re-invent the wheel. A model already exists for a flow PT program that could be used in the research community as well. All things being equal, the methods and techniques employed in the clinical and clinical research flow community to produce quality flow data (PT programs being one of those) are no different than those that should be employed in the basic research community. Compensation is compensation, and how one does compensation is less important than that one's experiment is properly compensated (my apologies to MR). I know this opens a can of worms but its a can that needs to be opened. Flow cytometry is an arcane field. It is also a very powerful tool that can be easily manipulated and misunderstood. It is just such manipulations and misunderstandings that have given rise to this discussion. Standardization is not a panacea; it can never totally eliminate bad data or protect the uninitiated from producing bad data. But it allows basic questions to be asked and answered about the quality of data produced, both within an individual flow lab and by those outside that same lab. A final commentary and I'll get off my soap box: We in the trenches - operators, grad students, post docs, etc. - look to those of you with the most influence and knowledge in the field for guidance. Whose idea about standardization ultimately prevails is less important than that consensus be found and agreed upon-----for the benefit of the entire scientific community! To paraphrase Steely Dan: Bad data and a Pina Colada my friends......gives one a headache! Fred Menendez Baltimore, Maryland
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:36 EST