HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Peter J. Gruber Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gruber, P. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gruber, P. J. Related Collections Education Related Article

---

Editorials

Idealism Versus Reality: The Modern Surgeon-Scientist

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

^_* Address correspondence to Dr Gruber, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, 34th St and Civic Center Blvd, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4399 (Email: gruber@email.chop.edu).

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

The goal of the surgeon-scientist is the discovery and application of new knowledge to problems that affect surgical populations. Is this goal best achieved by the surgeon or the scientist? Can there be a successful melding of the two disciplines in a synergistic fashion that gains knowledge otherwise untapped by other investigator paradigms without significant compromise of each? Are there in fact unique qualities that make protection of this endangered breed a worthwhile investment? The answer is unequivocally, "Yes."

One clear trait brought to the fore by the surgeon-scientist is perspective. There is a broad range of scientific talent scattered across multiple disciplines, ones that do not always correlate with traditional clinical boundaries. Thus, arguments that surgeons are required for translational research are often misfounded. For example, some first-rate thoracic surgical research comes from collaborative laboratories that are run by a surgeon and a scientist [1]. Despite the important clinical and scientific perspective provided by the surgeon, daily experiments can be performed or managed equally well by the scientist. In other such collaborative efforts, a surgeon’s unique contribution might be minimal. Similarly, in molecular cardiology, doctors of philosophy have made important contributions without any medical training. There is little lapse in clinical perspective since they are deeply immersed into the field, and as a result, their clinical perspective is sharp [2]. In developmental biology, the number of surgeons or cardiologists formally trained in . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Related Article

The Challenge of "Tending the Bridge"

Ray C.J. Chiu
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2008 85: 1149-1150. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]