|
|
|
|
 |
|||
|
|||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Volume 54 (10): 1073-1074, 2006
Copyright ©The Histochemical Society, Inc.
EDITORIAL |
A Beautiful Science
Correspondence to: Kevin A. Roth, MD, PhD, Division of Neuropathology, Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, SC 961E, 1720 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35294-0017. E-mail: kroth{at}path.uab.edu
I am often struck by the incredible beauty of the images published in each month's issue of the Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry. Similarly, my office is decorated with framed photomicrographs of multi-labeled brain sections, brightly fluorescent neural stem cells, and quantum dot stained embryonic mouse brain. Devoid of their scientific content, these images remain aesthetically pleasing (Figure 1 ). I suspect that you too, as a reader of the Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry, were drawn to the field of histology and molecular anatomy in part because of the allure of images revealed through the microscope. Like artists, we spend countless hours in the planning and production of our "creations" before exhibiting them to the public in the form of published images. Despite this similarity to artists, I take offense when scientific colleagues sometimes refer to our discipline as an "art" or to its practitioners as "artists." Inherent in the description of histochemists as artists is the concept that the creative end-product is in some way unique and/or irreproducible. In contrast, science by its very nature must be reproducible.
|
Imagine in your mind a Pablo Picasso, Vincent Van Gogh, or Jackson Pollock painting. Each of these artists has an identity and style that is unique and cannot be reproduced in a meaningful fashion by following a "paint by numbers" template. In contrast, the images created by a Paul Nakane, Ron Van Noorden, or Julia Polak must be capable of exact replication by someone adequately trained in the discipline following a careful set of detailed instructions. Otherwise, the Journal of Histochemistry and Cytochemistry could not be considered a scientific journal and those of us in the field would lose the right to call ourselves scientists.
Why then are we so often called artists by other scientists who would never refer to themselves in this fashion? I feel there are two main factors perpetuating this misperception, "them" and "us." The nonhistochemist can readily appreciate the beauty in the images we produce but might perhaps be unwilling or reluctant to invest the time and effort to consider the many variables that must be controlled if reproducible and high-quality molecular detection is to be achieved. Brilliant investigators capable of manipulating genomes and creating unique organisms through rigorous science often put little thought into the scientific protocols and methods necessary for adequately investigating the cell biological, morphological, and pathological consequences of their genetic manipulations. Putting tissues in containers of formalin and setting them on a shelf for later "analysis" is simply not good scientific practice. Labeling what we do as "art" absolves those not willing to approach molecular morphology as a scientific discipline, because after all, "it's art, not science." Unfortunately, "we" are also part of the problem.
In my opinion, histochemists have alternately presented our scientific discipline in two distinct fashions: either as so complex and variable as to be beyond mere scientific mortals and thus best left to us highly trained "artists"; or as so simple as to be unworthy of consideration by our more talented and often better-funded molecular biology colleagues and thus best left to us "technicians."
In truth, histology is a science with a long history of rigorous investigation of the parameters and variables that affect the quality and reproducibility of our data. The data we generate from our activities, often in the form of beautiful images, must withstand careful scientific scrutiny and prove useful for testing scientifically relevant hypotheses. Histochemistry must be unequivocally recognized as a scientific discipline whose practitioners are trained in the art of beautiful science.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Guidelines | Subscriptions | About | exPRESS - Current - Archive | Business Information | Contact |