BMJ  2005;331:695 (24 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7518.695-a

Letter

Five futures for academic medicine

Specialised professional research system of "pure" medical science is needed

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

EDITOR—Clark's discussion of the future of academic medicine is stimulating but misdirected.¹ Medical science policy should aim primarily to enhance therapeutic progress and reverse the decline in major, clinically relevant "breakthroughs'" over recent decades.^{2 3}

Current medical research mostly constitutes an "applied" science aiming at steady, predictable advance by an accumulation of small improvements.⁴ But more radical and risky strategies are required to solve problems which are not yielding to established methods.^{2 3}

We need a specialised research system of '"pure" medical science, whose role would be to generate and critically evaluate ambitious and potentially important theories, techniques, treatments, and technologies.⁴ Pure science units might evolve from existing world class applied medical research institutions, but such units must have distinctive objectives, evaluation procedures, organisation, career paths, and funding arrangements.

Will it happen? Perhaps: imaginative patrons in the funding foundations might be attracted by the prestige of helping to establish an . . . [Full text of this article]

University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU Bruce.Charlton@newcastle.ac.uk

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

Relevant Articles

Academic medicine scenarios: final votes
BMJ 2005 331: 672. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Five futures for academic medicine: the ICRAM scenarios

Jocalyn Clark for the International Campaign to Revitalise Academic Medicine
BMJ 2005 331: 101-104. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>