From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Apr 01 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Reproducibility of experiments Message-ID: <93092.143854FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 2 Apr 93 19:38:54 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 12 ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS today may not be a manufacturer tomorrow. So details of kits and the instruct- ions may just disappear. Result. Inability to reproduce experiments. Solution? Editors must insist that authors provide full information. Editors should NOT accept phrases such as "according to the manufacturer's instructions ". Any comments? Editors? Authors? Manufacturer's? Sincerely, Don Forsdyke, Discussion Leader. Bionet.journals.note From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Apr 01 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Reproducibility of experiments Message-ID: <93092.150043FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 2 Apr 93 20:00:43 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 21 Sorry, my previous message got truncated. Try again. ACCORDING TO THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS It is axiomatic that authors must provide sufficient experimental details so that others can reproduce their work. This sometimes involves providing a reference to some well established method paper. However, quite often one finds that a "kit" has been used. This comes with a set of instruct- ions. In the paper the author simply names the source of the kit and say that he/she followed the procedures described in the kit "according to the manufacturer's instructions". Now, in these hard times, a manufacturer today may not be a manufacturer tomorrow. So details of kits and the instruct- ions may just disappear. Result. Inability to reproduce experiments. Solution? Editors must insist that authors provide full information. Editors should NOT accept phrases such as "according to the manufacturer's instructions ". Any comments? Editors? Authors? Manufacturer's? Sincerely, Don Forsdyke, Discussion Leader. Bionet.journals.note From owner-note@net.bio.net Tue Apr 06 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!taco!csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu!samodena From: samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu (S. A. Modena) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Reproducibility of experiments Summary: Since When? Message-ID: <1993Apr7.001658.16979@ncsu.edu> Date: 7 Apr 93 00:16:58 GMT References: <93092.150043FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Sender: news@ncsu.edu (USENET News System) Organization: Crop Science Dept., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620 Lines: 48 In article <93092.150043FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> writes: > >It is axiomatic that authors must provide sufficient experimental details >so that others can reproduce their work. This sometimes involves providing > a reference to some well established method paper. However, quite often >one finds that a "kit" has been used. .......... >Solution? Editors must insist that authors provide full information. Editors >should NOT accept phrases such as "according to the manufacturer's instructions >". Any comments? Editors? Authors? Manufacturer's? > Don Forsdyke, If one looks back at "the" Laemmli paper so often quoted for SDS-PAGE technique, the "method" is discribed "crudely" in the footnote to a photographic figure. This particular paper has been cited infinitely. It in no way represents the current "technique" of SDS-PAGE as most people actually practice it. Certainly manufacturers could make life simpler for citation hounds by disclaiming that their kit offers similar, but superior results to such-and-such technique in Methods-in-Enzomology....and if a comparable paper does not appear already in M.I.E., then what? ;^) So I'd like to ask how many people feel that anything taken from a Materials and Methods these days can be "reproduced?" Materials and Methods in mol. bio. appears to be a "starting point" and not a means to reproducable results. Years ago when I worked in an industrial organic synthesis research lab, the lab head was an editor for "Organic Synthesis" and he farmed out "methods" papers to chemists to try their hand at "reproducing" the results. Only then did the paper get published. I can only conclude that today's Materials and Methods are a check point in the casual review of a paper's "believability." :^) Steve --- +------------------------------------------------------------------+ | In person: Steve Modena AB4EL | | On phone: (919) 515-5328 | | At e-mail: nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu | | samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu | | [ either email address is read each day ] | | By snail: Crop Sci Dept, Box 7620, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695 | +------------------------------------------------------------------+ Lighten UP! It's just a computer doing that to you. (c) OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Apr 14 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!usenet From: steffen@mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu (David Steffen) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Reproducibility of experiments Message-ID: <1qjret$5ol@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> Date: 15 Apr 93 14:28:44 GMT References: <1qin0l$h41@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <93105.091541FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tx Lines: 56 NNTP-Posting-Host: mbcr.bcm.tmc.edu F. Lehmann, Ph.D. says: "I ask for a description of what a kit does when I review papers. And Don Forsdyke (Discussion Leader) replies: "Splendid! I wish more reviewers would do the name. But the real "responsibiliy lies with journal editors. Phrases such as "according "to the manufacturer' s instructions" just should not be accepted. I think these sentiments are admirable, but I think they are inconsisent with currently accepted practice. One major issue being ignored here is the belief on the part of the Journals that they need to limit the lenth of papers to keep page counts down. (Reading a few "instructions to authors" will confirm this). In one sense, it is intellectually satisfying to take the moral high ground and state that every paper should contain a methods section detailed enough to allow one to reproduce the reported experiments, but there are economic (and ecological?) issues which arise from the vast increase in paper length that would result from this. Current practice is to describe only novel methods, with other methods described by reference. The problems with this are: 1) One can be lead down a long chain of references to references to references to ... 2) It is too easy to say "Southern blots were done by the techniques of Southern (J. Mol. Biol. 98: 503-517, 1975) when you know you have made dozens of changes from the original protocol. 3) As in the case discussed above, the reference may be more or less unavailable. "According to manufacturers instructions" is one example, but references to journals which are not widely available, books, meetings proceedings, etc., in fact raise the same problems. I propose the following general solution: There ought to be a general repository of methods. This ought to be available both in hard copy and electronically. Whenever possible, discussions in the methods section of a paper should be either a reference to one of the standard methods, or modifications thereto. References to references should not be allowed (e.g. redescribe ALL modifications from the standard protocols). Kit manufacturers should be strongly encouraged to deposit kit instructions and descriptions in this archive. It has not escaped my notice that this proposal has a lot in common with the growing practice of referring to either Maniatis or Methods in Molecular Biology (the Red Book). -- David Steffen Department of Cell Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston TX 77030 Telephone = (713) 798-6655, FAX = (713) 790-0545 Internet = steffen@bcm.tmc.edu From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Apr 14 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!lhc!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Reproducibility of experiments Message-ID: <93105.091541FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 15 Apr 93 13:15:41 GMT References: <1qin0l$h41@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 9 F. Lehmann Ph.d.) says: > >I ask for a description of what a kit does when I review papers. Splendid! I wish more reviewers would do the name. But the real responsibili y lies with journal editors. Phrases such as "according to the manufacturer' s instructions",just should not be accepted. Sincerely, Don Forsdyke. Discussion Leader. Bionet.journals.note From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Apr 14 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!daresbury!buzz.bmc.uu.se!corax.udac.uu.se!sunic!pipex!uunet!wupost!spool.mu.edu!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!cleveland.Freenet.Edu!dd544 From: dd544@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul F. Lehmann Ph.d.) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Reproducibility of experiments Message-ID: <1qin0l$h41@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> Date: 15 Apr 93 04:06:45 GMT Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA) Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu I ask for a description of what a kit does when I review papers. You cannot avoid some problems thouigh. I've read papers where hundreds of random DNA sequences have been screened yet only some have been listed. Also, names of materials cannot always we be explained. Some material made by a company such as Pharmacia, e.g. Sephacryl S200, is considered much like a defined chemical. Will commercial catalogs be deposited, acid-free paper and all, in the Library of Congress, the copyright libraries of Europe and the rest of the world? I doubt they will accept them. So the rea reader 50 years hence will have some problems. Still isn't that part of the fun? Paul F. Lehmann, Ph.D. Medical Collehge of Ohio lehmann%opus@mcoiarc.bitnet "When I've discovered how to edit, I won'yt have the mistakes!" From owner-note@net.bio.net Wed Apr 14 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!net.bio.net From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Letter about BIOSCI in Science?!?!? Message-ID: Date: 15 Apr 93 22:06:11 GMT Sender: kristoff@net.bio.net Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology Lines: 16 I received a postcard from Science yesterday indicating that the letter about BIOSCI that I submitted (in response to their Feb 26th article on electronic publishing by physicists) is in the hopper and may or may not be published. The manuscript number is LE37610 in case anyone from Science is reading this posting and can help to ensure that it does see the light of day. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager kristoff@net.bio.net From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Apr 15 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!NET.BIO.NET!kristoff From: kristoff@NET.BIO.NET (Dave Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Science declines to publish BIOSCI letter once again 8-( Message-ID: Date: 16 Apr 93 17:35:14 GMT Sender: kristoff@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 21 Well, it took two weeks for the postcard to make it here, but I received the rejection letter from Christine Gilbert, the Letters Editor, a day or so later. This letter was dated 12 April and read: "I regret to say that we are not able to publish it. Space restrictions limit the number of letters we can publish and so we must reject many fine contributions." The letter that I mailed in was brief, with one paragraph mentioning some of the uses of BIOSCI and a second giving our e-mail address to contact for further information. Unfortunately, Science is once again going to leave biologists in the dark about BIOSCI. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager kristoff@net.bio.net From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Apr 15 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!olivea!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!sifon!monod!francis From: francis@monod.Biol.McGill.CA (Francis Ouellette) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Reproducibility of experiments Message-ID: Date: 16 Apr 93 15:59:12 GMT References: <1qin0l$h41@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <93105.091541FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1qjret$5ol@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <93106.083910FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Sender: news@sifon.cc.mcgill.ca Organization: McGill University Lines: 18 Nntp-Posting-Host: monod.biol.mcgill.ca writes: >> Kit manufacturers should >>be strongly encouraged to deposit kit instructions and descriptions in >>this archive. > A little too idealistic. > Sincerely, Don Forsdyke ... maybe, but has anybody asked them? francis -- | B.F. Francis Ouellette * francis@monod.biol.mcgill.ca * | | "Je cherche a` comprendre" Jacques Monod From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Apr 15 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!agate!spool.mu.edu!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Reproducibility of experiments Message-ID: <93106.083910FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 16 Apr 93 12:39:10 GMT References: <1qin0l$h41@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <93105.091541FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <1qjret$5ol@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 29 >Current practice is to describe only novel methods, with other methods >described by reference. The problems with this are: > >1) One can be lead down a long chain of references to references to >references to ... Annoying, but at least the details are there. >2) It is too easy to say "Southern blots were done by the techniques >of Southern (J. Mol. Biol. 98: 503-517, 1975) when you know you have >made dozens of changes from the original protocol. It is perfectly acceptable to state "according to Southern (1975) with the following modifications" > "According to manufacturers instructions" is one >example, but references to journals which are not widely available, >books, meetings proceedings, etc., in fact raise the same problems. Annoying, but at least the details are there. >I propose the following general solution: > >There ought to be a general repository of methods. This ought to be >available both in hard copy and electronically. That is what the existing literature should be. Kit manufacturers should >be strongly encouraged to deposit kit instructions and descriptions in >this archive. A little too idealistic. Sincerely, Don Forsdyke From owner-note@net.bio.net Sun Apr 18 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!NET.BIO.NET!kristoff From: kristoff@NET.BIO.NET (David Kristofferson) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: BIOSCI/bionet Frequently Asked Questions Message-ID: <9304190900.AA16165@net.bio.net> Date: 19 Apr 93 09:00:03 GMT Sender: kristoff@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 16 New users of BIOSCI/bionet may want to read the "Frequently Asked Questions" or "FAQ" sheet for BIOSCI. The FAQ provides details on how to participate in these forums and is available for anonymous FTP from net.bio.net [134.172.2.69] in pub/BIOSCI/biosci.FAQ. It may also be requested by sending e-mail to biosci@net.bio.net (use plain English for your request). The FAQ is also posted on the first of each month to the newsgroup BIONEWS/bionet.announce immediately following the posting of the BIOSCI information sheet. Sincerely, Dave Kristofferson BIOSCI/bionet Manager kristoff@net.bio.net From owner-note@net.bio.net Mon Apr 19 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!utcsri!utnut!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Read only to MEDFORUM bulletin board? Message-ID: <93110.085633FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 20 Apr 93 12:56:33 GMT Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 8 MEDFORUM is the latest USENET addition. It has apparently been going for some time, but USENET access is new. It appear to be a "read only" board, as far as most of us are concerned, since one has to be a "subscriber" to post messages. This is a strange development, since usually subscriber status is automatic for anyone who has USENET access. Can anyone clarify the situation? Sincerely, Don Forsdyke From owner-note@net.bio.net Mon Apr 19 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!math.fu-berlin.de!news.belwue.de!softserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de!studserv!zxmkr08 From: zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Cornelius Krasel) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Read only to MEDFORUM bulletin board? Message-ID: Date: 20 Apr 93 16:43:21 GMT References: <93110.085633FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen Lines: 8 NNTP-Posting-Host: studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de Maybe this is a stupid question, but what is MEDFORUM? Which is the full newsgroup name? --Cornelius. -- /* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen */ /* email: krasel@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de */ /* "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous) */ From owner-note@net.bio.net Mon Apr 19 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!MONOD.BIOL.MCGILL.CA!francis From: francis@MONOD.BIOL.MCGILL.CA (Francis Ouellette) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: BIOSCI not in Science ... :-( Message-ID: <9304200435.AA29408@monod.biol.mcgill.ca> Date: 20 Apr 93 04:35:16 GMT Sender: daemon@net.bio.net Distribution: bionet Lines: 27 >"I regret to say that we are not able to publish it. Space >restrictions limit the number of letters we can publish and so we must >reject many fine contributions." >The letter that I mailed in was brief, with one paragraph mentioning >some of the uses of BIOSCI and a second giving our e-mail address to >contact for further information. Unfortunately, Science is once again >going to leave biologists in the dark about BIOSCI. So Dave, what do you recommend the bionet community do now? Should we bombard Science with mail telling them we are not happy about this? Should we all cancel our Science subscription? :-) francis -- | B.F. Francis Ouellette * francis@monod.biol.mcgill.ca * | | "Je cherche a` comprendre" Jacques Monod From owner-note@net.bio.net Tue Apr 20 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!s.u-tokyo!news.u-tokyo.ac.jp!wnoc-tyo-news!nec-tyo!nec-gw!sgiblab!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!news.ccs.queensu.ca!qucdn!forsdyke From: FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Read only to MEDFORUM bulletin board? Message-ID: <93111.132854FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Date: 21 Apr 93 17:28:54 GMT References: <93110.085633FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Organization: Queen's University at Kingston Lines: 6 >Maybe this is a stupid question, but what is MEDFORUM? Which is the >full newsgroup name? > >--Cornelius. The full designation is bit.listserv.medforum Sincerely, D.Forsdyke From owner-note@net.bio.net Thu Apr 22 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!concert!samba!sunSITE!una From: una@sunSITE.unc.edu (Una Smith) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: Read only to MEDFORUM bulletin board? Summary: Here's how it works Message-ID: <1993Apr23.134807.21387@samba.oit.unc.edu> Date: 23 Apr 93 13:48:07 GMT References: <93110.085633FORSDYKE@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Sender: usenet@samba.oit.unc.edu Followup-To: poster Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Lines: 52 Nntp-Posting-Host: sunsite.unc.edu writes: > MEDFORUM is the latest USENET addition. It has apparently been going for >some time, but USENET access is new. It appear to be a "read only" board, as >far as most of us are concerned, since one has to be a "subscriber" to post >messages. This is a strange development, since usually subscriber status is >automatic for anyone who has USENET access. Can anyone clarify the situation? This is VERY clever! I wish I'd thought of it myself. MEDFORUM is an old LISTSERV mailing list that has now established a gateway into Usenet. Due to the popularity of the group, the current subscribers are concerned that they might be overwhelmed with "I have this rash..." postings asking for medical diagnoses etc. So they have very cleverly used one of the LISTSERV program features to build in a hurdle. The plan is to explain once a week or so how to get over this hurdle, so that only people who actually read the group will figure out how to post there. Below is the explanation of how it works that was posted in bit.admin this week. Note that by "subscription" they mean subscription to the mailing list, via the LISTSERV@ARIZVM1.bitnet, not merely reading via Usenet. See my FAQ for help with the listserver system: it's posted in bionet.general, and available via anon. ftp from rtfm.mit.edu as pub/usenet/news.ansers/biology/guide. Una From bit.admin: At the request of the listowner, this gateway has been established. MEDFORUM@ARIZVM1 is now available in Usenet newsgroup bit.listserv.medforum which is moderated. The list itself is the moderator. Since the list is set to "Send= Private" this means only *mailing list* subscribers can post. The owner has agreed to send out a weekly post to the list telling Usenet readers that they must subscribe to the list (and then set their subscriptions to NOMAIL if they wish to read and post from Usenet) before they can contribute to the discussions. MEDFORUM is for discussions between medical students. The moderator is medforum@arizvm1.ccit.arizona.edu. For your newsgroups file: bit.listserv.medforum Medical Student Discussions. (Moderated) --- Jim McIntosh (jim@american.edu) The American University Washington DC 20016-8019 USA -- Una Smith una@sunsite.unc.edu From owner-note@net.bio.net Fri Apr 23 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!ira.uka.de!news.belwue.de!softserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de!studserv!zxmkr08 From: zxmkr08@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (Cornelius Krasel) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: MEDFORUM bulletin board Message-ID: Date: 24 Apr 93 21:26:28 GMT Organization: InterNetNews at ZDV Uni-Tuebingen Lines: 14 NNTP-Posting-Host: studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de [I had to start a new thread since replies to Una's posting would have been sent to her instead of to the group...] Funnily, although I would be interested in this MEDFORUM bbs (just to have a look, anybody learns more by being curious) it seems that it is not (yet?) available on this side of the great pond... When did they start gating MEDFORUM into Usenet? --Cornelius. -- /* Cornelius Krasel, Department of Physiological Chemistry, U Tuebingen */ /* email: krasel@studserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de */ /* "People are DNA's way of making more DNA." (R. Dawkins / anonymous) */ From owner-note@net.bio.net Sun Apr 25 23:00:00 1993 Path: biosci!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!emory!nigel.msen.com!yale.edu!not-for-mail From: smith-una@yale.edu (Una Smith) Newsgroups: bionet.journals.note Subject: Re: MEDFORUM bulletin board Summary: More cancer/medicine LISTSERV mailing lists Message-ID: <1rh2u6INNpm1@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU> Date: 26 Apr 93 16:34:14 GMT References: Organization: Department of Biology, Yale University Lines: 69 NNTP-Posting-Host: minerva.cis.yale.edu To get the following (headers removed), I sent e-mail to listserv@bitnic.bitnet with the following text List Global /cancer List Global /medic Enjoy, and remember: don't send subscription requests to the lists, but to the username "listserv" at the same site. Una Excerpt from the LISTSERV lists known to LISTSERV@BITNIC on 26 Apr 1993 10:58 Search string: CANCER Network-wide ID Full address List title --------------- ------------ ---------- CANCER-L CANCER-L@WVNVM WVNET CANCER discussion list CLAN CLAN@FRMOP11 Cancer Liaison and Action Network Excerpt from the LISTSERV lists known to LISTSERV@BITNIC on 26 Apr 1993 10:58 Search string: MEDIC Network-wide ID Full address List title --------------- ------------ ---------- ADMRA-L ADMRA-L@ALBNYDH2 ADIRONDACK MEDICAL RECORDS ASSOCIATION LIST AMIA-37 AMIA-37@UMAB AMIA-37 American Medical Informatics Associa+ AMIED-L AMIED-L@MCGILL1 American Medical Informatics Association Edu+ BABSON BABSON@HARVARDA Discussions on Organizational Design of Acad+ BIOMED-L BIOMED-L@MCGILL1 Assoc. of Biomedical Communications Directors BIOMED-L@NDSUVM1 BIOMED-L Biomedical Ethics CFS-MED CFS-MED@NIHLIST Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/CFIDS medical list COCAMED COCAMED@UTORONTO Computers in Canadian Medical Education COMPMED COMPMED@WUVMD Comparative Medicine List CONFLIST CONFLIST@UCSFVM School of Medicine Conference List CROMED-L CROMED-L@AEARN CROatian MEDical List EMFLDS-L EMFLDS-L@UBVM Electromagnetics in Medicine, Science & Comu+ FAMILY-L FAMILY-L@MIZZOU1 Academic Family Medicine Discussion. HEALTHCO HEALTHCO@RPITSVM Communication in health/medical context HERB HERB@TREARN Medicinal and Aromatic Plants discussion lis+ HYPBAR-L HYPBAR-L@TECHNION HyperBaric & Diving Medicine List HYPERMED HYPERMED@UMAB Biomedical Hypermedia Instructional Design IMIA-L IMIA-L@UMAB International Medical Informatics Assn. Boar+ ISCAMI ISCAMI@GREARN Computer Assist. Management & Manipulation o+ JMEDCLUB JMEDCLUB@BROWNVM Medical Journal Discussion Club LASMED-L LASMED-L@TAUNIVM Laser Medicine MEDCONS MEDCONS@FINHUTC Medcons (Medical consulting and case descrip+ MEDIMAGE MEDIMAGE@POLYVM Medical Imaging Discussion List MEDLIB-L MEDLIB-L@UBVM Medical Libraries Discussion List MEDNETS MEDNETS@NDSUVM1 MEDNETS Medical Telecommunications Networks MEDPHY-L MEDPHY-L@AWIIMC12 EFOMP Medical Physics Information Services MEDSTU-L MEDSTU-L@UNMVMA Medical student discussion list MEDSUP-L MEDSUP-L@YALEVM Medical Support List NNLM-SEA NNLM-SEA@UMAB National Network Library of Medicine South E+ OXYGEN-L OXYGEN-L@MIZZOU1 Oxygen Free Radical Biology and Medicine Dis+ PANET-L PANET-L@YALEVM Medical Education and Health Information Dis+ SMCDCME SMCDCME@WAYNEST1 Continuing Medical Education Discussion List SMDM-L SMDM-L@DARTCMS1 Medical Decision Making List VETCAI-L VETCAI-L@KSUVM VETERINARY MEDICINE COMPUTER ASSISTED INSTRU+ VETLIB-L VETLIB-L@VTVM2 Veterinary Medicine Library issues and infor+ VETMED-L VETMED-L@UGA (Peered) Veterinary Medicine VETMED-L@VTVM2 (Peered) Veterinary Medicine -- Una Smith Biology Department smith-una@yale.edu Yale University New Haven, CT 06511