Premium
Myths and realities in clinical research
Author(s) -
WARD M.
Publication year - 1996
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1111/j.1440-1746.1996.tb00101.x
Subject(s) - medicine , certainty , economic shortage , obligation , mythology , compensation (psychology) , personality psychology , social psychology , epistemology , law , psychology , philosophy , linguistics , theology , personality , government (linguistics) , political science
It is often argued that clinicians should be more actively involved in research and that this inactivity is due to shortage of time and funds. This may be so, but more important and less obvious constraints are the differences in the philosophical foundations of clincial practice and research. Researchers must strive to abolish uncertainty, to be unwaveringly committed to truth and to rid themselves of all bias. Clincians, in contrast, must frequently manage patients in the absence of certainty, handle truth creatively and be willing to be biased on their patients’ behalf as part of a professional obligation. These differences constitute powerful selection pressures for individuals with particular skills, personalities and sources of job satisfaction. Clinical practice and research are instrinsically different activities and it is probably unreasonable to expect an individual talented in one to be similarly expert in the other.