Nucleology, nuclear medicine, molecular nuclear medicine and subspecialties

Henry N. Wagner Jr started the presentation of the highlights of the 39th Annual Meeting of the Society of Nuclear Medicine by quoting: "The economist JM Keynes said: "the difficult lies not in new ideas but in escaping from the old ones". Many changes have taken place in the actual term describing our specialty during the last 15 years. Cardiologists have adopted an important chapter of nuclear medicine and to describe that they use the term of "nuclear cardiology". Radiologists have proposed the term "radionuclide radiology". "Nuclear endocrinology", "nuclear oncology", "nuclear nephrology" may be considered as terms describing chapters of nuclear medicine related to other specialties. Will that indicate that our specialty will be divided into smaller chapters and be offered to colleagues working in other specialties leaving to us the role of the supervisor or perhaps the radioprotection officer for in vivo studies? Of course this role is now being exercised by our colleagues in medical physics. It is suggested to use the word " nucleology", instead of "nuclear medicine" where "nuclear" is used as an adjective. Thus, we will avoid being part of another specialty and cardiologists would use the term cardiac nucleology where "cardiac" is the adjective. The proposed term "nucleology" as compared to the existing term "nuclear medicine" has the advantage of being simpler, correct from the grammar point of view and not related to combined terms that may seem to offer part of our specialty to other specialties. At present our specialty faces many problems. The term "nucleology" supports our specialty from the point of view of terminology. During the 3rd International Meeting of Nuclear Medicine of N. Greece which was held in Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece on 4-6 November 2005, a discussion arose among participants as to whether the name of "nucleology" could replace the existing name of "nuclear medicine". Finally, a vote (between "yes" and "no") for the new proposed term showed that the "yes" votes were 72 and the "no" votes were 49.