Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Dear Tom et al.,

Sorry that is danger of writing emails at night when you are tired. I in
no way meant to imply that Tom's research was tainted in anyway, and I
apologise unreservedly if anyone may have received that impression.
Especially to Tom.

I was simply making the point that scientists in an ideal world should
not have to be thinking in the first place, "How much is this going to
cost?" 

For those who were after the Nature references I was talking about here
are some of the editorials. If you look at the "related articles" links
you'll probably find more. 

Pearson, (2007) Nature 447:138-140
http://www.nature.com.ezproxy.lib.unimelb.edu.au/nature/journal/v447/n71
41/pdf/447138a.pdf 

Pearson, Nature 439, 520 - 521 (2006)
http://www.nature.com.ezproxy.lib.unimelb.edu.au/nature/journal/v439/n70
76/full/439520b.html 

Pearson, Nature 434, 952 - 953 (2005)
http://www.nature.com.ezproxy.lib.unimelb.edu.au/nature/journal/v434/n70
36/full/434952a.html 

Stephen H. Cody
Microscopy Manager
Central Resource for Advanced Microscopy
Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research
PO Box 2008 Royal Melbourne Hospital
Parkville, Victoria,      3050
Australia
Tel: 61 3 9341 3155    Fax: 61 3 9341 3104
email: [log in to unmask] 
www.ludwig.edu.au/labs/confocal.html
www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal

Tip: Learn how to receive reminders about you microscope booking: 
http://www.ludwig.edu.au/confocal/Local/Booking_Hint.htm 

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Thomas E. Phillips
Sent: Friday, 1 June 2007 1:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: core facility user charges

Search the CONFOCAL archive at
http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal

Stephen - Not surprisingly, I don't feel I sacrificed the quality of my 
data and came no where close to fraudulent in my publication. By
collecting 
with less averaging, the 100's of stacks I used gave good quality images

that were perfectly acceptable for counting the number of bacteria that
had 
been taken up by the cells I was looking at. Were these stacks the
quality 
I would use to illustrate uptake in a coverphoto? No - but science
doesn't 
demand a coverart quality image every time you acquire one. The
advantage 
of long acquisitions with lots of averaging is that all of my stacks
would 
have been publishable quality and the hour acquisition time would have 
given me time to leave and do something else before returning to start
the 
next one. You need to learn the difference between high quality data and
a 
beautiful illustration of that data.


  At 05:42 AM 05/31/07, you wrote:
>Search the CONFOCAL archive at
>http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=confocal
>
>G'day list,
>
> >My own research used our core
> >confocal to collect 3 color stacks that took up to 30 min of
acquisition
> >time even when we used bidirectional scanning with minimal averaging.
If I
> >hadn't of been paying for the time, I would have done single
directional
> >scanning with 4x averaging and taken over 60 min per stack and
probably
> >collected a lot more stacks.
>
>This is one reason I argue against hourly rates. Why should a scientist

>compromise the quality of an experiment to reduce the fees charged? If 
>something needs replicating with 10 experiments why should a student be

>encourged to replicate it only a few times, or worse, not replicate the

>result at all. Imaging is a time consuming process, scientists and 
>students should be taught to take their time and do it properly. I
prefer 
>no charges at all, but a subscription system seems better than an
hourly 
>rate. It should be about the quality of the science first, everything
else 
>should be of secondary importance.
>
>I also believe that the pressure to produce beautiful images in a great

>hurry is part of the reason that sadly many papers have poor quality
data 
>(if not fradulant) in the form of images in them. There is a demand by
the 
>journals for beautiful images not rock solid data.
>
>See editorial in JCB by Mike Rossner
http://www.jcb.org/cgi/reprint/166/1/11
>and most recent Nature.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Stephen H. Cody
>Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research

Thomas E. Phillips, PhD
Professor of Biological Sciences
Director, Molecular Cytology Core
2 Tucker Hall
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211-7400

573-882-4712 (office)
573-882-0123 (fax)
[log in to unmask]
http://www.biology.missouri.edu/faculty/phillips.html
http://www.biotech.missouri.edu/mcc/


This communication is intended only for the named recipient and may contain information that is confidential, legally privileged or subject to copyright; the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research does not waiver any rights if you have received this communication in error.
The views expressed in this communication are those of the sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research.