Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-8mjnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T14:55:45.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Who owns research?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

M. R. Eastwood*
Affiliation:
The Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, 250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1R8, Canada
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Once upon a time there were clear-cut career pathways for ambitious doctors, what are now called ‘inside tracks’. Forward-looking people in the UK, for example, realised early that in order to become a consultant or professor in a teaching hospital, it was essential to be well qualified and published. In psychiatry, this meant proof of being truly renaissance with qualifications in medicine, psychiatry and research. How this was achieved was up to the individual. At places like the Maudsley Hospital people often arrived bristling with degrees. About half the entrants had passed College exams or had research doctorates. During psychiatric training the others went for the extra qualifications. They had to; otherwise they would not make it to senior registrar. Some characters practised brinkmanship and passed the MRCP on the umpteenth occasion. Thereafter things varied, with some moving into personal analysis (no degree) and others into wet and dry laboratory research. Many eschewed both and headed for clinical work. There was a period, perhaps between 1945 and 1975, although the limits are arguable, which was halcyon. Medical trainees were actually committed to research. There were twin pathways; the scholarly going to the MRC unit or the Chair and the entrepreneurial to the teaching hospital consultant job and Harley Street practice. The teaching hospital wallahs needed about ten papers to be acceptable. An engaging feature of the system was that the pay was not particularly discrepant between researchers and clinicians. The somewhat subfusc role of researchers was, in any case, redressed in the mid 1960s and parity achieved. Amazingly, then, it was possible to have a career in research without losing money. To what did it all add up? In modern parlance, was it cost-effective and efficient? Did the clinicians with their ten papers or the MRC medical scientists give value for money? After all, with what can they be compared?

Type
The Times
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1991

References

Medawar, Peter Sir (1988) Memoirs of a Thinking Radish. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Browning, R. (1855) in Andre del Sarto. Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.