HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bates, J. H. T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bates, J. H. T.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Last Word on Point:Counterpoint: Lung impedance measurements are/are not more useful than simpler measurements of lung function in animal models of pulmonary disease

TO THE EDITOR: A debate is ostensibly about winning and losing. After all, this is the issue facing antagonists in the popular debating competitions that are held regularly at many educational institutions. The winners of such competitions are decided by juries imbued with absolute authority, and that is the end of the matter. The same could be said of a court of law. The situation is different, however, when we debate a controversial scientific question. Here, there is no omniscient body empowered to declare the victor immediately following closing arguments. The controversy may eventually become resolved in the court of scientific public opinion or yield in time to some new advance, but in either case the wisdom of the debaters is only fully appreciated in retrospect from some point in the future. What do Dr. Mitzner and I achieve in the short term, then, by having the present debate? The answer to this question is clear and important—we get people to think about a controversial issue of significant current interest. That we have been successful in this regard is amply demonstrated by the variety and intensity of the opinions expressed in the various commentaries offered by members of the scientific community (although "Ugh!" and "Hogwash!" are not, to my knowledge, validated scientific metrics, nor the kinds of expressions that add value to the present discussion or credibility to their esteemed expositors; Ref. 2). Of course, Dr. Mitzner and I vigorously defended our respective positions to the best of our abilities (1, 4), as one does when engaged in any debate, but neither of us is really so naive as to think that the best approach to measuring lung mechanics can be stated in simple definitive terms that apply in all situations. The truth is that there are many considerations involved in the thoughtful and competent assessment of lung function, which depend on the biological questions being asked and the systems being investigated, and there is no substitute for an informed and balanced approach to the task. The only other thing I would like to add to the discussion at this point is a matter of historical record: one of the centerpieces of the current controversy, the so called constant-phase model of lung mechanics, was originally posited by Hantos and colleagues in abstract form in 1987 (3). Finally, if there is any take home message to be garnered from this debate, it is that even if there is no universally optimal approach to the assessment of lung mechanics, it is still a nontrivial business that can cause more confusion than it resolves when practiced by investigators who have no interest in understanding its theoretical underpinnings.

FOOTNOTES

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: J. H. T. Bates, Univ. of Vermont, HSRF 228, 149 Beaumont Ave., Burlington, VT 05405-0075 (e-mail: jason.h.bates{at}uvm.edu)

REFERENCES

1. Bates JHT. Point: Lung impedance measurements are more useful than simpler measurements of lung function in animals models of pulmonary disease. J Appl Physiol; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00369.2007.
2. Cohen JC, Hudak J, Fredberg JJ, Hantos Z, Zeldin DC, Card JW, Carey MA, Voltz JW, Suki B, Lutchen KR, Kaczka DW, Simon BA, Lundblad LKA. Comments on Point:Counterpoint "Lung impedance measurements are/are not more useful than simpler measurements of lung function in animal models of pulmonary disease." J Appl Physiol; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00759.2007.
3. Hantos Z, Suki B, Csendes T, Daroczy B. Constant-phase modeling of pulmonary tissue impedance. Bull Eur Physiopathol Respir 23, Suppl 12: 326s, 1987.
4. Mitzner W. Counterpoint: Lung impedance measurements are not more useful than simpler measurements of lung function in animals models of pulmonary disease. J Appl Physiol; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00369.2007a.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. T. Macklem Emergent phenomena and the secrets of life J Appl Physiol, June 1, 2008; 104(6): 1844 - 1846. [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Free Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bates, J. H. T. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bates, J. H. T.