Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-fmk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-17T21:18:39.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Image Processing and Scientific Misconduct

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

William R. Oliver*
Affiliation:
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In a recent microscopy discussion group, a correspondent questioned the use of a contrast enhancement method applied to a microscopy image for publication. What kinds of image processing, folk asked, are “acceptable” in a general sense? What kinds of image processing should be noted in the text or caption and what kind of images should be archived?

It is an interesting set of questions, and I face them wearing three hats, I am a forensic pathologist who performs forensic image interpretation in the investigation of homicide and assault, an anatomic pathologist with an interest in confocal microscopy, and a computer scientist with training in image processing and computer vision. Image processing is part and parcel of my everyday work. I use tools such as contrast enhancement, debarring, and photogrammetry for image interpretation. I build tools for visualization in my confocal work. I collaborate in the design of data acquisition devices for the evaluation of crime scenes and bodily injury.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 1998

References

Information for Authors, American J Clin Path, 108(1):119, 1997.Google Scholar
Frye v. U.S. (Frye), 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C, Cir, 1923)Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Daubert), 61 U.S.L.W 4805 (U.S. June 29, 1993)Google Scholar