I think I really mean, "Not the death of the scientist". Just as television was not the death of radio, I seriously do not think that high technology diagnostics remove the need for human experience and consideration in a laboratory. The use of genotyping in antimalarial clinical trials: a systematic review of published studies from 1995–2005 is a case in point. Different methods of genotyping, different technologies, interpretations, and analytical approach result in somewhat different biases in any work. In this case it was applied to genotyping of malaria infections, to see whether a positive blood sample in a drug trial is the result of an old infection raising its ugly head again, or a brand new one.
No surprise there, that different methods have inherent strengths and weaknesses. In my mind, the key element of the article is that a reasoned approach to technology & information handling can be applied to any diagnostic situation. The right mix of tools and methods can be found to apply to any conditions. Choices that are appropriate in one setting are less than ideal in another, based on the genetic and socio-economic factors of the tested population, the resources available to the testers, and of course the amounts of money available for various business practices and technologies.
Comments