David L. Haviland, Ph.D. dhavilan at imm2.imm.uth.tmc.edu
Wed Aug 5 13:20:08 EST 1998

At 09:54 8/5/98 -0400, tac at isolab.com" Tom wrote:

>I am reviewing a paper which uses the term "FACS" to describe 
>general flow cytometry protocols.  It is my impression that "FACS" is a 
>copyrighted term, describing the sorting of cells, but much like "Xeroxed", 
>etc., has become a generic term for flow cytometry protocols.  Am I right? 
> Should this person be allowed to use this term, or should it be changed? 

Unfortunately, I think we are fighting dogma again.  I see that at least
for J_Immuno, the abbreviation "FACS" comes *without* the BD tradmark sign
or acknoledgement thereof.  

Whether BD likes it or not, I think "FACS" has become jargon for flow
cytometry whether it be analysis or sorting.  As a result, I've seen the
abbreviation "FACS" used in M&M sections regardless of what type of machine
has been used.  

Is this another tidbit for the "Data Presentation Standards Committee"??
(We still need examples of bad data... ;-))


 David L. Haviland, Ph.D.
 Asst. Prof. Immunology 
 University of Texas - Houston, H.S.C.
 Institute of Molecular Medicine  
 2121 W. Holcombe Blvd.  
 Houston, TX  77030 
 Internet:"dhavilan at imm2.imm.uth.tmc.edu" 
 Voice: 713.500.2413  FAX: 713.500.2424
Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.

More information about the Cytometry mailing list