Ulrich Beutner beutner at chirurgie.uni-wuerzburg.de
Thu Aug 6 02:24:17 EST 1998

>From: Bob Leif, Ph.D.
>To: cyto-inbox
>There are 2 very good reasons NOT to use the term FACS. 1) I believe that
>FACS belongs to B.D. 2) It stands for Fluorescence Activated Cell Sorter. If
>the instrument is an analyzer, it is a total misnomer.

Certainly 1) is true, but why should we stop using registered trade names.
Who in the world would not use the name PCR if she/he is actually
performing it. It would be the same game, PCR is registered by Perkin
Elmer/Roche like FACS is by BDIS. (And there are tons of more examples,
particularly in Molekular Biology)

2) is also true. But what the heck, if even BDIS calls its analyzer FACScan!

Yes, it would be more correct to use flow cytometry, but I think it is
already to late to roll that ball back. I would not make a big point out of
it as a reviewer, unless it is completely out of context. Perhaps simply
state a nice and friendly note, that flow cytometry would be a more
appropriate term. There are already so many misnomers and slang terms in
the scientific literature, that I would consider FACS only a minor problem.

Just my personal opinion
Ulrich Beutner

Ulrich Beutner, Ph.D.
Chirurgische Universitaetsklinik
Abt.: Exp. Transplantationsimmunologie (ETI)
(University Hospital, Department of Surgery
Unit for Experimental Transplantation-Immunology)
Josef-Schneider-Str. 2
97080 Wuerzburg

beutner at chirurgie.uni-wuerzburg.de

Tel. 	++49 931 201-2252
FAX: 	++49 931 201-2249

More information about the Cytometry mailing list