|
|
||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Editorial |
1 Academic Neurology Unit, Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
2 Department of Neurology, Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr D Blackburn
Academic Neurology Unit, E-Floor Medical School, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield S10 2RX, UK; d.blackburn@shef.ac.uk
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
|
Doctor or scientist? Many if not most neurologists, at least in the UK, do some research, publish a few papers and obtain a postgraduate degree such as a PhD. The academic neurologist, usually working in a University Hospital, can clearly make a vital contribution to the advancement of clinical and basic sciences. But should non-academic neurologists, working in non-teaching hospitals or outpatient settings, also do some research—at least during their neurology training? Does a period of research make you a better clinical neurologist, and, if so, how and when should this research be incorporated into training? Research during training is time-consuming, liable to failure, costly, and potentially a waste of time if academia is not the intention. Now that UK doctors are undergoing a major shake-up of their postgraduate training (Modernising Medical Careers (MMC)),1 it is important that we ask for evidence to support a period of research for trainees
Read all eLetters
eLetters:
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |