Dichloroacetate after incomplete ischemia.

And the same "case series" observations can be spun off, not later or through "data dredging," but at the same time, to create new hypotheses subject to subsequent data collection. And as new hypotheses are generated, the research consortium is in a position to collect the relevant data with few of the usual delays in forming a research team. By contrast, should the authors' proposals for research be adopted in their extreme form, each study presumably would be pursued using only one hypothesis, and any data collected not directly bearing on the hypothesis would be rigorously set aside. Research of this type, while agreeably pristine, would be expensive indeed and would greatly delay the promulgation of new research hypotheses. Many of the consortia who have labored long and hard to generate the most productivity for the research dollar would be chagrined to learn that subsidiary efforts may be of so little interest. Raising the issue of expense as a reason to avoid future projects may prove counterproductive. As computers fall in price, rise in power, and get more friendly, many investigators may be tempted into the field. They will find sophisticated programs available, their displays of frequencies and time-based curves beguiling to the unwary along exactly the lines that worry the authors. If the hostility toward the term "data bank" as reflected in the authors' letter is widespread, existing research groups are well-advised to change their names lest they suffer the "Sambo's effect." That restaurant chain was said to have been forced under by minority groups protesting the name, misconstruing what was the portmanteau of the two owners' first names for the (minority member) hero of the children's story. Thanks to the authors for calling to general attention the ambiguities inherent in the term "data bank." They may have spared many computer-based clinical investigators unwanted future agonies.