1983 NIH Consensus Development Conference: "Dysplastic nevus."

1992 NIH Consensus Development Conference: "Atypical mole" clinically and "nevus with architectural disorder" histopathologically.

1983 NIH Consensus Development Conference: DN usually are larger than common nevi and measure 5 to 12 mm in size, have irregular borders, and are variegate in color.

1992 NIH Consensus Development Conference: Atypical moles vary in size, are often larger than common nevi, have irregular, ill-defined borders, and are variegate in color.

1983 NIH Consensus Development Conference: Basilar melanocytic hyperplasia, cytologic atypia (often present but not essential for the diagnosis), spindle and occasionally epithelioid melanocytes in nests, lamellar and concentric fibroplasia, lymphocytic infiltrate in the dermis.

1992 NIH Consensus Development Conference: Architectural disorder with asymmetry, concentric and lamellar fibroplasia, lentiginous melanocytic hyperplasia with spindle or epithelioid melanocytes in nests, "shouldering" phenomenon. Atypical melanocytes may be absent, scant, or extensive.

1983 NIH Consensus Development Conference: DNS is defined by the presence of multiple dysplastic nevi in two or more family members.

1992 NIH Consensus Development Conference: FAM-M syndrome is defined by (1) occurrence of melanoma in one or more first-or second-degree relatives, (2) large numbers of moles (often .50) and (3) moles that demonstrate certain distinct histological features.

Despite the failure of the Panels of the NIH Consensus Development Conferences of 1983 and 1992 to define melanocytic dysplasia, DN, and DNS in a consistent intelligible fashion, the Panels nonetheless propagated those notions. A sop was tossed to those who dissented, namely, acknowledgment that the term (not the concept) DN was confusing and therefore should be avoided. The Panel of 1992 proposed as substitutes for DN "atypical mole" clinically and "nevus with architectural disorder" histopathologically, both of which are as inadequate and inept as DN. In sum, the Panel achieved consensus among the members of it, but that attainment calls into question the worth of the quest; better no consensus with contrary opinions set forth in logical, incisive, thoughtful, reflective, critical, and intelligent fashion, than consensus that is unenlightened, unilluminating, and uninstructive.

Readers may be interested to learn the extent to which the NIH, between 1976 and 1996, funded research about dysplastic nevi by Clark and co-workers and by other students of the subject. The data that follow were derived from two sources: citations in publications and information through the Internet. The actual sum of money that goes directly from the NIH to scientists employed there full-time (intramural grants) are not made public through the Internet. For that reason, no number in dollars is listed next to the names of those who are beneficiaries of such grants. In addition to this limitation, the total amount awarded doubtlessly is an under-representation for two reasons: (1) we did not include grants other than those bestowed by the NIH, and (2) we excluded huge grants from the NIH that were shared by several investigators because it was impossible to determine how much money was allotted specifically for research about dysplastic nevi. It must be noted that some grants that were included in the total were awarded for study of melanomas as well as for dysplastic nevi (Table 1).

It should be noted that several NIH grant numbers, such as CA-1650, CA-522345, CA-1366, and CA-525874, acknowledged in various articles as being sources of funds from the NIH, do not match existing grant information provided by the data system of the NIH. Although the reason for this is not apparent, the possibility of a mechanical error cannot be excluded.