PubMed · 9631049
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S Yarus. 1996. Classifying transgenics.. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0996-1057b
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Since the publication of the Revised European-American Classification of Lymphoid Neoplasms in 1994, subsequent updates of the classification of lymphoid neoplasms have been generated through iterative international efforts to achieve broad consensus among hematopathologists, geneticists, molecular scientists, and clinicians. Significant progress has recently been made in the characterization of malignancies of the immune system, with many new insights provided by genomic studies. They have led to this proposal. We have followed the same process that was successfully used for the third and fourth editions of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematologic Neoplasms. The definition, recommended studies, and criteria for the diagnosis of many entities have been extensively refined. Some categories considered provisional have now been upgraded to definite entities. Terminology for some diseases has been revised to adapt nomenclature to the current knowledge of their biology, but these modifications have been restricted to well-justified situations. Major findings from recent genomic studies have impacted the conceptual framework and diagnostic criteria for many disease entities. These changes will have an impact on optimal clinical management. The conclusions of this work are summarized in this report as the proposed International Consensus Classification of mature lymphoid, histiocytic, and dendritic cell tumors.
Despite a widely recognised need, most countries still have no coherent system to deal with scientific misconduct. Committees have been established by the national medical research councils in Denmark (1992), Norway (1994), and Sweden (1997), and by the Ministry of Education in Finland (1994), to deal with scientific misconduct--ie, to initiate preventive measures, to investigate alleged cases, or both. Each committee includes both scientifically and legally qualified members. The employing institutions are responsible for possible sanctions or punishments. So far, 47 cases have been accepted for investigation, the majority (25) being Danish. Disputed authorship was the most frequent reason for investigation. Junior researchers made complaints in only three of the investigated cases. Investigations have been completed in 37 cases; in nine cases, dishonesty was revealed--two of them were related to the same researchers. Cooperation between the four Nordic committees has shown close agreement on specific issues and cases, despite minor differences in definitions, organisation, and procedures.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.