Schizophreniu Reseurch. 7 (1992) 20 I-202 c 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

SCHIZO

0920-9964:92/$05.00

00238

Guest Editorial

Contemporary

professional John

Dqmrtmmt

of’ Clinid

issues in research L. Waddington

Phurn~cccology. ROJYI~Collqy

(Received

on schizophrenia

23 March

1992; accepted

Late in 199 1, an American schizophrenia researcher of considerable (and justified) eminence enquired of me, in casual private conversation, whom I thought to be the most innovative and creative investigators currently active in the field. Flattered to be asked, I settled for, and ultimately offered, three names to my colleague; the response to these was not what I had expected. One name met with at best reluctant part-agreement, the others being dismissed by my distinguished inquisitor. These matters were then the topic of some vigorous yet enjoyable discussion between us, the outcome of which might be summarised as follows: firstly, those whom my colleague regarded as innovative and creative were regarded by me more as elaborating (importantly) on an established approach by adapting a procedure to its full technical potential; secondly, one of those whom I regarded as innovative and creative was regarded by my colleague more as promulgating what we would describe as ‘crackpot’ (or what I believe our trans-atlantic colleagues in general describe as ‘offthe-wall’) ideas. What does it really mean to be innovative and creative? To my colleague, it encompassed exploiting an existing technology to new heights of sophistication; conversely, to me, the term was predicated on challenging our assumptions and dogmas with new, heuristic (and, ideally, though not always, testable) schemas. Clearly, these terms meant different things to at least us two individuals. Does that matter? In one sense, it doesn’t; we can amicably agree to disagree over our own entirely personal (or cultural?) opinions, and it can be Corrr.vpondence 10: J.L. Waddington, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin 2, Ireland.

of Surgeons in Irelund, Dublin, Irclrtnd 26 March

1992)

fascinating to discuss in such terms the perceived merits and dismerits of one’s contemporaries in the field. In another sense, it certainly does matter; that colleague and myself are involved in peer reviewing grant applications and journal submissions, and our differing perceptions of innovation and creativity will surely influence our respective attitudes to, for example, sophisticated elaborations on established approaches vs. speculative studies based on radical theoretical positions. This is not a matter of right and wrong; there is no oracle that can be consulted for the definitive adjudication, only the opinions of a cross-section of ones peers. However, for the individual submitting a grant application or journal manuscript, and thus potentially for the field in general, it can be of considerable significance. Clearly, these issues are worthy of renewed discussion, and they do not stand alone. Early in 1992, two British researchers on schizophrenia crossed swords as speaker and questioner at a major international meeting. In reply, the speaker told the questioner that the comments and criticisms offered were familiar, being recognised from previous critiques (by the questioner) of the speaker’s related grant applications and journal submissions; now, as then, exception was taken to those criticisms, which, it was argued by the speaker, reflected the alternative theoretical stance of the questioner. It was unusual to hear such a robust and forthright exchange, yet it was, to my mind, a refreshing exercise in openness. The rights and wrongs of these contretemps are not known to me. and are not relevant here. However, the issue raised was one that is fundamental to research on schizophrenia, yet it is scarcely acknowledged, never mind discussed, openly. What should our

202

frame of mind be as scientists when reviewing each others’ grant applications or journal submissions, particularly when they are contrary to, or else preemptive of, our own data or theories? No study. whether proposed or reported, is so perfect that it cannot be faulted in some manner, but does our threshold of tolerance to perceived imperfection shift according to whether our own data or theory are challenged or pre-empted by what we are invited to review? So sensitive and delicate are these issues that they remain largely suppressed, generating a subculture of gossip and often highly personalised innuendo that do us no credit as scientists. Why should anyone seek to bring matters of such sensitivity into the open? Surely the motives of anyone who does so must themselves be suspect. Might this article constitute the repressed bile and vituperation of someone who feels a deep sense of

injustice following receipt of reviews that were perceived to be biased and malicious; alternatively, might it reflect a naive sense of altruism, offering oneself in a sacrificial manner so as to improve the lot of others? Nevertheless, such conjecture remains an inevitable aspect of science, just as schizophrenia remains a profound public health problem. We willingly debate empirical research or theoretical models thereon, whether at meetings or in journals, yet we shy away from those fundamental issues that concern the mechanisms and proprieties by which finance is secured to allow such research studies, and by which access to journal pages is gained so as to disburse the intellectual yield of those studies. Research on schizophrenia would be well served by an open debate on these issues, and the Letters pages of Schizophrenia Research seem an ideal forum for that debate.

Contemporary professional issues in research on schizophrenia.

Schizophreniu Reseurch. 7 (1992) 20 I-202 c 1992 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved SCHIZO 0920-9964:92/$05.00 00238 Guest Edito...
150KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views