Dear Anders,
Much as I appreciate your comments (as always), I must differ from
the views you express.
I'm presently preparing a reply to Dr Hill's comments on my
criticisms, albeit other pressing commitments will almost certainly
delay my completing and sending them to him until early next week.
This must therefore be a very brief response to your message,
However - in regard 'analytical sensitivity' - the fundamental point
I am making in my reply to Dr Hill is that the term constitutes
nothing more than a synonymous term (or expression) for the term (or
expression) 'response curve slope'.
OK: anyone is free to invent a new word (or expression) to represent
an old and well known concept, but I can't see the necessity for so
doing , especially when the new terminology is likely to be
misleading and suggest that it represents something other than was
clearly conveyed by the older terminology.
I am therefore very interested to understand why you appear to feel
so passionately about this issue, assuming you agree that
'analytical sensitivity' and 'response curve slope' have identical
meanings.
If not, why not?
With best wishes,
Roger
>Dear Roger,
>Thank you for taking time to read our document on verification and comment.
>The document is the result of a collaboration between the Nordic group and
>ACB and we have opted to follow the internationally agreed terminology in
>metrology. I think we have been through this discussion several years ago
>already. Not only is the revised VIM a product of
>BIPM-IEC-IFCC-ILAC-ISO-IUPAC-IUPAP-OIML (all central stakeholders in
>metrological terminology) but the document has also been endorsed by RCS -
>as you know.
>It is safe to forecast that the terminology is here to stay. The concepts
>are there and the naming of them has been widely agreed. The philosopher
>Wittgenstein formulated it nicely: "The meaning of words is their use in the
>language, once understood you may forget them".
>There is a Scientific English and a Colloquial English; the VIM sets out to
>define metrological terms in Scientific English and no doubt, sometimes,
>conflicts are unavoidable with Colloquial English. To some extent it is a
>parallel to the resistance to using SI units in some countries.
>
>I believe it is our obligation to encourage the use of the defined and
>internationally agreed terms - even if we do not personally always agree and
>even if it may require special attention and explanations in some local
>languages. I can give numerous examples of problems encountered in the
>translation of VIM to other languages e.g. the Nordic, German, Russian and
>Arabic.
>
>I work a lot with the ISO and CLSI these days and recommendations and
>standards from both organizations are widely available - but like ordinary
>books they are sold, not given away. ISO documents are sold by BSI and CLSI
>offers an Internet bookstore. Both organizations offer hard-copies as well
>as downloadable files. Appropriate documents should really not only be a
>natural part of laboratories' libraries but read and understood by serious
>workers in the field. I am afraid, however, that clinical laboratories have
>become mere factories without interest and competence in basic science.
>
>On another note I have serious doubts that comparisons of different
>immunochemical assays are generally adequate and meaningful. Although they
>may intend to measure the same quantity - the measurand - the different
>specificity and reactivity of antibodies and epitopes and presence of
>various molecular species (e.g. FSH) in health and different stages of
>disease may invalidate any useful comparison. It is a dilemma which already
>Hans-Ulric Bergmeyer recognised and we addressed at the first Bergmeyer
>conferences - as you remember - without really resolving.
>
>With my very best regards,
>Anders
>
>Anders Kallner
>Dept Clin Chem
>Phone +46 8 5177 4943
>Karolinska University Hospital
>SE 171 76 Stockholm
>Sweden
--
With best wishes,
Roger Ekins
Prof Roger Ekins, PhD DSc FRS
Windeyer Institute
University College London
London W1T 4JF
Phone +44 20 7679 9410
Fax +44 20 7679 9407
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|