EFCS Discussion Forum

J.L.D'Hautcourt, Dec.16,1996

Dear Colleagues,

It's a long time I have read something new from you. May be it's due to the esthablishement of the new mailing list? In anyway, I will made some declarations.

First during the last AFC board meeting we have discussed again my proposals, taking into account your comments. It is obvious for some of us that some points could be updated in their formulation but we stay on ours position for their content. I have taken this opportunity to ask to the AFC secretary the exact number of members. December 1st there were 321 ordinary members and 29 corporate members.

Responding Prof. G.K. Valet's mail of 12 Dec 96 12:21 I'm definitively in favour of the first model, an Union. There are numerous reasons for that, the principal ones are:

First: As G. Brugal says in his mail of 28/11/96 17:53 :

From many years the national societies have extended their initial scope to all fields of Cytometry (Flow and image, Basic research or clinical applications). In addition to our annual four days meeting, we organize 2 or 3, special topics, one day meeting covering different fields. Last year, the AFC has also sponsored a one day meeting "cytometry in microbiology" and this year "DNA content in plant biology". We also organize every year a one day meeting in molecular cytogenetic (FISH, PRINS, CGH, ...). So I believe that NCS are better basis than individuals to form the EUNCS and to give it a broader scope.

Second: The NCS have a long tradition of democracy with periodical elections, annual general assembly and published status. They also publish many information letters for their members all along the year.

Third: The board members of NCS, very often have proved their ability to manage a society in terms of administration but also in terms of scientific initiatives. Althought many of them are not always recognized as the best scientists in the field, they promote collaboration between experts.

Fourth: Regarding the problem of countries without national societies, I will point out the fact that if we need a European Organisation involved in all fields of cytometry, we must provide to it enough financial power to defend the interrests of all the cytometrists (doing basic research or clinical applications). I don't think this is possible if only 260 pathologists agree to pay a little bit more than the subscription to the ACP journal as it is now. But that becomes true if NCS pay for more than, may be, two thousands european cytometrists. So, I consider if the NCS can mobilize most of the cytometrists, it seems normal that they have also the major responsabilities of the orientation of the union.

Of course we must organise something acceptable and democratic for the people of the countries without NCS, but only if they don't have the opportunity to adhere to a national society.

I would suggest that Guenter Valet make the ESACP directory available on a national basis to see, by comparing with NCS directory, how many ESACP members are orphans of NCS in countries with or without NCS.

I will finish by asking, to the most part of the silent colleagues present on the mail list, why they didn't say anything up to now, although they have all accepted to participate to this challenging discussion on the future of european cytometry.

Best regards,

********************************************
** I wish you a Merry Chistmas and a happy new year **
********************************************

Jean-Luc D'Hautcourt President de l'Association Française de Cytométrie