Improving Success by Balanced Critical Evaluations of Assay Methods
Abstract
COMMENTARY Improving Success by Balanced Critical Evaluations of Assay Methods James Inglese, Ph.D.,1 Andrew Napper, Ph.D.,2 and Douglas Auld, Ph.D.3 Editor-in-Chief; 2Deputy Editor; 3Member, Editorial Board; ASSAY and Drug Development Technologies. T he ability to make optimal and efficient use of new assay technologies is dependent in part on accurate and reliable descriptions of experimental protocols in the scientific literature. In all such studies, and especially when one technology is compared to another, the utmost effort must be made to provide a fair and unbiased evaluation of their merits and limitations. The very nature of drug discovery and development, dependent on the seemingly infinite diversity inherent in biological processes, ensures that no single assay technology will supplant the use of all others. On the contrary, available methods and techniques often complement each other, and it is use of more than one assay protocol that allows for the most accurate interpretations to emerge. Given the issues that arose from recent articles published in Assay and Drug Development Technologies,1,2 which are the subject of the correspondence in this issue (available online at www.liebert online.com/adt),3,4 the editors believe it is necessary to provide more guidance for authors wishing to publish comparative