56
plines will take time, but the future course
seems almost assured (perhaps inevitable).
More specifically, the symposium demon-
strated that:
(1) The mathematical strategy of bio-
stereometrics is sound, but the methods must be
further refined to make solutions more efficient
and cost-effective.
(2) There is no universal “best” method of
stereometric sensing. The range of potential ap-
plications is so broad and the measurement con-
ditions are so varied that we can expect to see
many different techniques and instrumentation
systems play important roles in the future.
(3) More objective evaluation of the various
approaches to stereometric sensing is needed.
(4) Research which is aimed at better under-
standing and definition of a problem must be
clearly distinguished from the development of
clinical tools (aimed at improving hardware or
software design). It is generally inappropriate to
evaluate one type of study by the standards one
would apply to the other.
(5) Communications between exponents of
biostereometrics, photogrammetric engineers,
physical scientists and manufacturers must be
greatly improved. There is still too much “re-
inventing of the wheel.” Instrument manufac-
turers could benefit from using a wider knowl-
edge base than in-house and local experts can
provide.
(6) Most of us yield too often to an unfortunate
ethno-centricity in attributing the sources of rel-
evant literature and ideas, which belies the po-
tential of modern information retrieval systems
such as are available in libraries around the
world. American writers tend to quote other
Americans, the British other British, the Canadi-
ans other Canadians, the French other French,
the Germans other Germans, Swedes other
Swedes, and so on. In the biomedical sciences
there should be no national knowledge bound-
aries.
This writer will continue to do everything
possible to remove such boundaries (inadver-
PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING, 1976
tent or otherwise). By the time of the Helsinki
meeting, I hope to complete a supplement to
the bibliography on biostereometrics com-
piled for the 1972 ISP meeting in Ottawa.
Anyone interested can obtain a copy of the
supplement after the Helsinki meeting by
writing to the Biostereometrics Laboratory,
Baylor College of Medicine, 1333 Moursund
Avenue, Houston, Texas 77025, USA. Con-
tributions of reprints and other pertinent in-
formation would be greatly appreciated.
Before concluding this report, I want to
express my personal thanks to Dr. H.M. Kar-
ara, for his indefatigable and always timely
contributions as symposium coordinator; Dr.
K. Wong, U.S. Correspondent for ISP Com-
mission V, for yeoman service on the program
committee; to V.D. Brandow and J.B.
Ihenacho, both from the University of Il-
linois, for supervising the registration proce-
dures and helping the participants in myriad
ways with consistent good humor, and to
Jaime R. Cuzzi, John E. Hugg, Sherry Gille-
land, Marjorie Gordon, and other staff mem-
bers of the Biostereometrics Laboratory,
Baylor College of Medicine, for assistance
too wide-ranging to recount in detail here.
I have not been able to do justice to all the
planners, speakers, exhibitors, program assis-
tants, and other participants whose contribu-
tions made the symposium what it was. One
experienced observer commented that “It
was as perfect a symposium as I have ever
experienced.” This remark reflects the un-
usual spirit of cooperation and enthusiasm
which prevailed among those involved at all
stages of the undertaking. It also might help
to explain why the program chairman and the
planning committee regard their association
with this stimulating event as a rare privilege.
