First, the disposition of the CBCC collection of coded information was uncertain. Therefore, 

 there was no assurance that the files, as static files, would ever again be consulted on a regular 

 basis, a factor that was irrespective of the undetermined intrinsic worth of the finite collection. How- 

 ever, the assumption was made that the files might possibly be used and that the unaltered Biology 

 Code might be needed for its interpretation. 



The second factor was the question of the extent of usefulness of a Biology Code whose design 

 and detail had been based on the special objectives and mechanical equipment of the CBCC. The Code 

 was recognized as being too detailed and broad in scope for use in coding and indexing information 

 collections of very limited nature, and not sufficiently detailed in certain of its coding fields for 

 certain other uses. It was disturbing also to recognize that the act of closing the Center had the 

 unfortunate but unavoidable effect of creating an atmosphere of failure which the Center's Code and 

 methods would bear with them. For these reasons, an alternative to publishing the Biology Code in 

 its entirety had to be considered, that of publishing only an outline of the Code with examples and a 

 very brief resume of the use of the Code. 



It was finally agreed that the greatest value of the CBCC experience in coding biological 

 information actually resided in those details which would be omitted in publishing only an outline. 



The Code and Key, therefore, are presented here in essentially the form used by the Center. 



The question as to whether to make revisions for the published form was finally settled by 

 resolving to incorporate all the suggestions made by coders and resident staff members, since it 

 seemed senseless to present, as a publication, a code in which there were recognized deficiencies 

 that could be corrected. This decision was made in the face of the impossibility of altering the files 

 to bring them to conformity with any alterations in the Code and Key. Thus, there was the prospect of 

 defeating one purpose in publication, that of preserving the Code as an interpretive tool for the CBCC 

 files of information. The decision to incorporate changes had to be made, then, by accepting the 

 philosophy that the balance of the argument was for a corrected version for publication, leaving the 

 files to be interpreted by the last unpublished edition of the code lists, assisted by information in the 

 published Key and Code. 



It must be made clear that most of the alterations are minor. In most fields, no changes have 

 been made except to enlarge and, it is hoped, to clarify the definition and use of symbols. In certain 

 of the fields, some of the items have been only slightly rearranged or redefined to make a more logical 

 pattern and this has involved making a few changes in symbols. On the other hand, the lists of the 

 Taxonomy Code (Field E) were all reviewed and the classification and code symbols were revised where 

 it seemed appropriate. The published symbols for test organisms must therefore no longer be depended 

 on for retrieval from the CBCC files, even though certain of the organism groups are essentially as 

 they were when the information in the files was coded. It might be said that, had there been promise 

 of resumption of coding information into the CBCC files, revisions of the Taxonomy lists might have 

 been more conservative in view of the task it might involve to retrieve all the coded information and 

 recode it according to the new lists. 



The Tumor Code and Pathology Code were both analyzed and the organization and symbols 

 entirely replaced; neither had been used to any extent by the CBCC, because so few tumor and pathology 

 identities had actually been needed for coding the type of information selected by the CBCC. Unfortu- 

 nately, no explanation was prepared or survived for the original Pathology Code symbols and very little 

 was recorded for the Tumor Code. The analysis of these sections of the Biology Code, in terms of 

 time and effort, was an expensive lesson which strengthened the conviction that the detailed explanation 

 of the Biology Code and its parts are more valuable than the bare lists of code items and symbols 

 which conceivably might be compiled by anyone. 



In preparing this edition of the Code (as a list of symbols with their definitions), there has 

 been some deviation from the principle of restricting the definitions of symbols to the briefest possible 

 form. The merits of brevity are not underestimated, especially when speed is important in scanning a 

 list to select the most appropriate item; to provide this quality to the Code, essentially all instructions 

 and explanations are omitted from it and compiled separately as the Key. Nevertheless, there are limits 

 to which abbreviation can be carried beyond which the definitions and efficiency in use are impaired. 

 It has seemed certain that confusion of the coders and many errors in coding have been directly due to 

 inadequacies of explanation and definition in the Code (regardless of the adequacy of explanations in 

 the Key). This is also indicated from the experience of the resident staff members in using the Code. 



12 



