This issue comprises a diverse collection of research and clinically based technical notes, research papers, and a review paper. The contributions highlight new or improved methodologies for clinical (Kelly, Mohan) and research (Krauter, Seidu) application. The contribution by Meyerholz reminds us of the need to be open minded, creative, and receptive to the demands of evolving research challenges. He cites the continuing development of new animal models as one techniques innovation driver; I would postulate that new biomedical devices, materials, clinical/patient needs similarly necessitate the highest level of creative insight in order to accommodate their uniquely different needs and challenges. Indeed the contents of this issue underline the importance of technique, process, and consistency in the face of seeking to advance medical care. I will use the contribution by Titford as a basis for explaining this perceived tension between two opposing forces. Titford’s review describes the importance of the Color Index (CI, now the Color Index International) in defining precise colors. As an aside, it is interesting that histology dyes not shared by the textiles world do not have such a number. It makes me wonder if those dyes might be susceptible to ‘color creep’, leading to potential inconsistencies in method, use, and diagnosis. I am intrigued by the translation of the Color Index to CD in 1997. Certainly one can maintain consistency when distributing color standards by hardcopy methods, i.e. the standards are distributed from a single source, printed on the same quality paper, etc. Differences in color are only a function of slight differences between the visualization of color by a range of different individuals. But once this same information is released via electronic means, the visual message is additionally influenced by an individual’s screen resolution and color display. In the not too distant future, ‘telemedicine’ will become more common, where a clinician diagnoses patients in remote locations, or reads slides from afar. Again, one wonders how the colors seen on each monitor may be consistently viewed and interpreted differently from monitor to monitor and therefore, from clinician to clinician. It may be that a calibration step is necessary, matching specific features in known control slides, or perhaps all clinicians will be required to purchase CI calibrated monitors (similar to the existing pantone-calibrated monitors), a cost that would be translated to the patient. The importance of consistency in colors or any other variable factors cannot be understated –benchmarking and standardization are crucial in order to compare or leverage research results, in order to provide consistency in diagnosis, or in order to ensure viable new methods and to remove as much ‘background noise’ as possible in order to focus on a specific question or problem. Without the ability to aggregate data and methods between research groups, it is only possible to advance concepts incrementally. By providing consistent standards and methodology, one stands to advance knowledge and medical care by leaps and bounds. Simply put, we desperately need more widely accepted standardization methods and tools such as the Color Index. Of course, creative freedom and license is the seed for new ideas and innovation. One would not want to stifle creativity; however, I postulate that creativity can only be fully leveraged with a base of standardization. That is, the Color Index and similar modes of standardization and benchmarking allow us the freedom to focus on the possibilities. It is indeed a complementary tension.
Best wishes from Clemson,
Karen J.L. Burg, Ph.D.
Editor-in-Chief