BMJ  2005;330:360 (12 February), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7487.360-a

Letter

Academic medicine: who is it for?

Wider discussions are needed

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Wright and Wedge contend that the academic freedom of clinical academics is constrained by the primacy of patients' welfare, putting them in a different position to non-clinical academics.¹ However, they may be more similar to other academics than they think.

Academic freedom has two aspects: the freedom to research whatever the academic wishes, and the freedom to interpret data free from outside influence. The first freedom was lost by all academics because of the research assessment exercise.

The second freedom is arguably more important. Patients' safety may be compromised by inappropriate conclusions being drawn, but this is part of the scientific debate central to all research. Patients' safety can be compromised by non-academic clinicians whose practice is affected by other interests—for example, links with the drug industry.

All researchers have a duty not to harm research participants or place the public at risk while carrying out their research. . . . [Full text of this article]

Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8RZ j.m.atkinson@clinmed.gla.ac.uk

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Four pillars of academic medicine need to be restored

Somnath Mukhopadhyay
BMJ 2005 330: 732. [Extract] [Full Text]

Clinicians and patients' welfare: where does academic freedom fit in?

James G Wright and John H Wedge
BMJ 2004 329: 795-796. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Sparrow, J M (2006). British academic ophthalmology in crisis.. Br J Ophthalmol 90: 404-405 [Full text]  
• Mukhopadhyay, S. (2005). Four pillars of academic medicine need to be restored. BMJ 330: 732-732 [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more >>