Article Text
Abstract
As a jobbing neuroscientist with day-to-day responsibilities for teaching and research, I am about as far away from ‘practical neurology’ as any writer of an editorial in this journal is ever likely to be. I don’t see patients, I do not have to think about diagnosis, to treat, nor to pass on bad news. My subjects live in the animal rooms of the laboratory, turn up for their appointments on time, and have invasive licensed procedures in which the experimental conditions are precisely matched except for the one variable in which I am interested. It would seem that clinical neurology and neuroscience are two quite different cultures. However, we are not like the two cultures of Arts and Science that F.R. Levis and C.P. Snow argued about two generations ago (Snow 1993; see also: http://www.datasync.com/~/pwilz/snow1.htm). We have in common a shared interest in the organ of the human body from
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- One hundred years of shared interest
- Marco Polo of Australian neurology
- The realm of neurology—past, present and future
- Is clinical neurology really so difficult?
- Internet resources for neurologists
- Queen Square: a history of the National Hospital and its Institute of Neurology
- Practical Neurology
- The promise and predicament of cosmetic neurology
- Jewels in the crown: a century of achievement for the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
- Milestones