© 2009 The Author(s).
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Editorial |
eCAM: A Closer Look at Clinical Analyses
Department of Neurobiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1763, USA
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
eCAM continues as it began in its quest for providing linkages and revealing the interdependence of basic science and clinical analyses. If one examines the 50 most cited papers for the month of June 2009, it is difficult to determine what is purely clinical and what is basic science; there is significant overlap and blurring. To clarify, one way is to define as clinical any investigations that use exclusively humans in trials. However, using human cells in culture could be classified as an overlap between basic science and clinical investigations. One would not argue that animal models constitute basic science, or that this category would include products from animals or plants and their role in modulating disease. Taking this stance has provided me, the biologist/immunologist, with a chance to explore those areas that (i) overlap, (ii) are biological, (iii) are immunological, and (iv) have a certain "orientation" or trajectory that
For reprints and all correspondence: Edwin L. Cooper, Department of Neurobiology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1763, USA.