(not) just out of interest - how do you suggest that an auditor would function in peer review? (see, I am a scientist, and the word audit rings a bell, but does not bring to mind a clear and sharp image) Hans Jurgen Hoffmann -----Original Message----- From: sterling stoudenmire [mailto:sstouden@thelinks.com] Sent: 3. november 2001 03:44 To: cyto-inbox Subject: Re: Bad FACS data presentation -- more discussion points. Your comments are well received here, but the issue is not just flow it is science publications in general. Scientists are just 90 years behind the financial people.. Auditing the peer reviewed works of an author before publication is the way to solve this problem. Think of the peer reviewer as the controller, while he has the knowledge to do the reivew, he also has vested in interests in many different directions. A 4th party, completely independent is needed. This 4th party will of necessity force all of the other parties to conform and be answerable to the readership communities .. In financial accounting Audited financial statements were the only way that financial reporting ever responsibility served the stock market. Over the years it achieved readibility, conformity, reproducibility and responsibility.. and in science it will prove to do the same. One problem mentioned is people do not believe they have a problem, another is, the auditor will be able to help each person see the need and make sure the word products are moving toward a standard. But the biggest problem is that well heeled publishers and authors in highly recognized institutions do not always want publications to be equally produced and compared against a standard. It sometimes is in their best self-interest to be the bully. Because the issues regarding the needed standards are both difficult and obscure, it may take professional auditors years to engage the problems in sufficient depth to bring about the needed changes. No one can now summarize the problems or bring them into focus. All that can be said is there is a problem in scientific publication. sterling At 02:22 PM 11/1/01 -0500, Mario Roederer 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...) Computer Aided Cell and Molecular Biology (CACMB), not medicine, will find the cure for cancer and other diseases. There will always be a need for the trained clinician (MD/RN) but, advanced diagnostic and treatment option selection has become gene based, has moved from the physician's practice to the computerized cell and molecular biology laboratory, and appropriate treatment options should now be based on the personal biology of the patient.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:38 EST