TY - JOUR
T1 - Soft X-ray Microscopy in Biology and Medicine
T2 - Status and Prospects
AU - Rothman, Stephen
AU - Anderson, Erik
AU - Attwood, David
AU - Batson, Phil
AU - Goncz, Kaarin
AU - Tackaberry, Ron
AU - Turek, Simonetta
AU - Howells, Malcolm
AU - Rothman, Stephen
AU - Anderson, Erik
AU - Buckley, Chris
AU - Kern, Dieter
AU - Jacobsen, Chris
AU - Kirz, Janos
AU - Rarback, Harvey
AU - Rivers, Mark
AU - Shu, Deming
AU - Buckley, Chris
AU - Shu, Deming
PY - 1990/1/1
Y1 - 1990/1/1
N2 - There are two central motivations for developing new scientific methods. One is, of couse, to accomplish what established methods cannot. A second is for comparison: To verify the conclusions of established methods. That is, are results obtained by one method congruent with those obtained by another independent means of measurement? In regard to microscopic imaging in biology, this means that we seek to ground our view of microscopic structure on more than a single methodological standard, with whatever particular uncertainties that standard presents. These are the motivations that underlie the current impetus for the development of x-ray microimaging methods. Our knowledge of the internal structures of biological cells has been shaped in great part by 40 years of study applying and developing the methods of electron microscopy. This has led to the evolution of a model of the cell that contains defined structures with established details and known spatial relationships. Belief in the fidelity of this model to the natural cell rests in great part on the understanding that the preparative procedures commonly used in electron microscopy, procedures that greatly modify the natural object, do not alter or distort intracellular structure as to form, location or high resolution detail. Even though the cell as seen in the electron microscope most certainly resembles the natural object, important questions of the faithfulness of the image often remain.
AB - There are two central motivations for developing new scientific methods. One is, of couse, to accomplish what established methods cannot. A second is for comparison: To verify the conclusions of established methods. That is, are results obtained by one method congruent with those obtained by another independent means of measurement? In regard to microscopic imaging in biology, this means that we seek to ground our view of microscopic structure on more than a single methodological standard, with whatever particular uncertainties that standard presents. These are the motivations that underlie the current impetus for the development of x-ray microimaging methods. Our knowledge of the internal structures of biological cells has been shaped in great part by 40 years of study applying and developing the methods of electron microscopy. This has led to the evolution of a model of the cell that contains defined structures with established details and known spatial relationships. Belief in the fidelity of this model to the natural cell rests in great part on the understanding that the preparative procedures commonly used in electron microscopy, procedures that greatly modify the natural object, do not alter or distort intracellular structure as to form, location or high resolution detail. Even though the cell as seen in the electron microscope most certainly resembles the natural object, important questions of the faithfulness of the image often remain.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0002573474&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0002573474&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1088/0031-8949/1990/T31/002
DO - 10.1088/0031-8949/1990/T31/002
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0002573474
SN - 0031-8949
VL - 1990
SP - 18
EP - 22
JO - Physica Scripta
JF - Physica Scripta
IS - T31
ER -