From: Randy T. Fischer (fisch...@vax.grc.nia.nih.gov)
Date: Thu Jul 17 1997 - 03:25:15 EST
* Next message: kc...@samsung.co.kr: "LDL Receptor Assay for FH"
* Previous message: Bob Ashcroft: "RE: Cell Culture after DNA
Ploidy
Staining"
* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ attachment ]
________________________________________
I agree with both Marty and Gunter in the very important issue
of
standardizing data formatting. I would point out that lobbying ISAC is
only, however, part of the answer. Regardless of what ISAC may choose
to
recommend, it is still up to the manufacturers to implement what they
want
to do, and if they do not agree with ISAC, then too bad for ISAC and
the
flow community. A potentially more powerful force for change might be
the
FDA, which regulates machines used in CLINICAL settings. If the FDA
could
be persuaded to require all CLINICAL data be universally both
accessible
and readable, then the manufacurers would be forced to upgrade
machines and
software or lose theLUCRATIVE CLINICAL market.
This would make anlyzing data from different sources easier, and could
facilitate the exchange
of
crucial clinical results from various trials where multiple sites and
machines are in use.
So how does this get done?
Gunter (and Paul's agreeing response)
are correct this needs to be revisited at Asilomar, with perhaps an
additional idea. Any concrete standardization protocol, FCS3.0 or
whatever
it ends up being designated, should be then presented to any and all
regulatory agencies by ISAC to ensure no individual manufacturer
decides FCS3.0 in their format is acceptable, even if it is not
universally
readable.
Randy T. Fischer
NIA/NIH
GRC
Baltimore, MD 21224
fisch...@vax.grc.nia.nih.gov
