[PDF][PDF] The clinical investigator: bewitched, bothered, and bewildered--but still beloved.

JL Goldstein, MS Brown - The Journal of clinical …, 1997 - Am Soc Clin Investig
JL Goldstein, MS Brown
The Journal of clinical investigation, 1997Am Soc Clin Investig
Editor's note: It is a difficult time for “physician-scientists.” The increasing specialization of
science on one hand and the financial demands of managed care on the other are forcing a
reconsideration of the role and importance of these individuals. Are they a dying breed? Or
are they merely being redefined? In this editorial, Joseph Goldstein and Michael Brown of
the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas describe their reading of the
plight of the physician-scientist, and offer a suggestion how this beleaguered species might …
Editor’s note: It is a difficult time for “physician-scientists.” The increasing specialization of science on one hand and the financial demands of managed care on the other are forcing a reconsideration of the role and importance of these individuals. Are they a dying breed? Or are they merely being redefined? In this editorial, Joseph Goldstein and Michael Brown of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas describe their reading of the plight of the physician-scientist, and offer a suggestion how this beleaguered species might be saved. We plan to continue this discussion in the pages of JCI in the future, because of its interest to our readers and its critical importance to the future of the American Society for Clinical Investigation. We welcome your responses and observations, some of which we will publish in a new section of “Letters to the Editor.” Send your written thoughts to: Letters to the Editor, Journal of Clinical Investigation, PO Box 131220, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-1220.
For the past 50 years, clinical departments in American medical schools have maintained a vision of the physician-scientist as a broad-based investigator who discovers fundamental biological mechanisms and applies these insights directly to the cure of disease. The success of this model can be traced to the vision of one man, James Shannon (1904–94), the father of the modern National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the creator of our nation’s biomedical research enterprise. As director of the NIH in the 1950s and 1960s, Shannon postulated that diseases will be cured only when science provides a fundamental understanding of physiology, both normal and deranged. He transmitted this world view to political leaders, thus triggering the enormous postwar growth of basic science departments at the NIH and at the nation’s medical schools. To apply this research to disease, Shannon envisioned a cadre of physician-scientists who would translate discoveries to the bedside. Shannon’s model produced a breathtaking revolution in biology, the clinical implications of which are just beginning to be tapped. Yet, paradoxically at the very height of its success, this
The Journal of Clinical Investigation