>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
