To the Editor.\p=m-\Wehave read with interest a recent critique' of the human skin blanching assay. We are concerned about the accuracy of statements and the interpretation of results presented in this publication. Having successfully employed this bioassay for over 15 years, and having noted similar, productive usage of this optimized technique reported2,3 from laboratories worldwide, the negativism expressed in the critique could dissuade potential researchers from employing this extremely useful assay procedure.A major objection to our published methodology is that the intensity of blanching is estimated by the human eye. We agree that this is a highly subjective method, but we feel that if the optimized, double-blind methodology is rigidly applied, this problem is easily overcome. Emphasis has recently been made' of the alternative methods of reflectance spectrophotometry, laser Doppler velocimetry, and surface thermography as more accurate, objective techniques for the assessment of skin blanching. A later publication4 reports comparative data where direct correlation was found between reflectance spectrophotometry measurements and "subjective" visual observations. If this correlation is as good as the authors claim then there should, surely, be no further objection to the continued use of the visually assessed skin blanching response; the latter now having been proven several times to be as accurate as numerous instrumental methods. A good test of any experimental methodology is its durability. Visual blanching as¬ sessment has been in continual use for about 30 years. Other assessment methods seem to have been only of academic interest, appearing as comparative evaluations in the sci¬ entific literature, never to be practically utilized on an on¬ going basis, probably because present technology is cum¬ bersome, slow, expensive, and incapable of performing the number of observations per reading interval required by optimized methodology.2 Advocates of instrumental meth¬ ods are continually attempting to discredit the discrimina¬ tory ability of the eye, whereas their comparative evalua¬ tions have, without exception, shown the "subjective" visual observations to correlate directly with the "objective" instrumental measurements. We concede that it may be more expedient for new researchers to learn instrumental operation rather than gain experience in visual assessment through trial participation; however, once experienced, there is (currently) no match for the eye in terms of speed and convenience.Furthermore, in contrast to the comparative bioavailability results obtained from a single reading of blanching practiced in some laboratories, we have for many years advocated25 the use of a multiple-reading methodology and the subsequent generation of blanching response vs time profiles that are amenable to area under the curve analysis. Clinicians would certainly not accept a comparative drug bioavailability conclusion for other types of dosage form based on a single measurement after dosing; why, therefore, sho...