From: BIGOS@Beadle.Stanford.edu
Date: Wed Aug 12 1998 - 04:23:38 EST
The discussion regarding the term "FACS" has been very interesting to us at the Stanford Shared FACS Facility, and it does raise a number of issues to which we would like to contribute. First is the historical record. Len Herzenberg and his group here at Stanford, building on the work of Marv Van Dilla, Mack Fulwyler, Lou Kamentsky, Dick Sweet, and others, developed and demonstrated cell sorting based on fluorescence (Science, 1969). The acronym ³FACS² was not used then. Looking in the published record, "fluorescent cell sorter" was used by Len in "The Proceedings of an International Conference at Brook Lodge" (Academic Press, 1971). In 1972, "Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorting" was used by Bonner, et al (Rev. Sci. Instrum. 43: 404-409), although given the lag associated with publishing, the term and its obvious acronym were coined earlier and in common use (at least locally); this verified by Len and Dick Sweet. Becton Dickinson, in a joint project with Len's lab funded by the NIH, came out with the FACS I in late 1973. We do not know the date of their trademark, but it may have been registered as late as the end of the '70s or early '80s; it did not predate the 1972 article. So unlike "xerox" or "kleenex", the use of "FACS" occurred before the term was trademarked (or became closely associated with a commercial entity). Thus, use of it as a generic term to describe cell sorting based on fluorescence, as opposed to analysis, would be correct. To return to the original question as to whether the use of the word "FACS" is appropriate terminology, we would look at the larger picture. Does the use of the acronym render the science in the article incorrect or confusing? If not, then let's move on and not validate the stereotype of academic nit-picking. Lastly we would like to comment on the "MoFlo" vs. "FACS" ballyhoo. Both manufacturers (Cytomation & BD) use the same basic technology although there are some significant design differences. We have found uses for both in our core facility. Having the better design or technology, however, doesn't mean one wins out in the market-place; recall, for example, Beta vs. VHS. Many other factors, rational and irrational, will determine what the cytometry offerings exist five and ten years from now. We hope, however, that there are multiple sources of flow (and image!) cytometry equipment each competing with and learning from the others. -Marty Bigos -David Parks -Dick Stovel Stanford Shared FACS Facility
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 17:35:22 EST
