The whole world at times seems like it is on a “quality” kick. How many times a day do we see manufacturers’ statements about “ISO 9000 registration, ” which imply that their product somehow has a higher quality because it carries this designation. I am personally unaware of anyone who has ever documented that products with such registrations are either more reliable or last longer than those that are not so registered. But marketing people from one corner of the world to the other think it is important.

This means that all microscopy laboratories in such ISO registered firms must also be accredited to the standard of ISO 17025, And this means that the laboratory must be inspected by an outside inspector to satisfy some laboratory accreditation agency. And this also means that the laboratory uses, on a regular basis, “certified” standard. The startling fact: a “certified”standard can cost up to ten or more times additional than the “traceable” version of the same thing.

So just what is the difference?

Take the case of a stage micrometer for a light microscope calibration. For years, light microscopists have purchased stage micrometers to calibrate their light microscopes. The manufacturer checks the “markings” against some other standard that has been checked against a standard measured at NIST or some other national metrology laboratory. But if one wants a “certified” standard, that means that some many different measurements are made with a microscope, in an accredited metrology laboratory, and then the many measurements are analyzed and a standard deviation calculated and reported in a “report” that accompanies the “certified” item. It is the very same item that could have been purchased without the papers for perhaps $100. But with the papers, the cost skyrockets to $1000 or more.

I just don’t believe many of the standards being purchased in “certified” form are really needed. Unfortunately I see too many customers with limited budgets paying outrageous amounts for the “papers” when the standard in its uncertified form would be more than sufficient. Putting it another way, how many times might a laboratory be better off with a variety of different standards or calibration aids but in “traceable” instead of “certified” form?