I hope that there is no need for me to argue the general case for research in psychiatry, or indeed in any branch of medicine where our knowledge is incomplete—which, of course, means every branch. I do not, of course, imply that research is a necessary component of individual careers in psychiatry; but for the health of the discipline as a whole it is quite essential. The greatest enemies of progress in any branch of science are dogmatically held beliefs; and I believe—not I hope too dogmatically—that the best protection from a dogmatic cast of mind comes from some experience or research. Research is sometimes portrayed as something which may inhibit the taking of necessary decisions—but in my experience indecision has not been peculiar to research-workers, who are, however, less likely to take decisions lightly and on insufficient evidence.

For the past 24 years during which time I have been concerned with the management and financing of medical research, either at the MRC headquarters or the Wellcome Trust, I have heard it said that psychiatric research is backward and something ought to be done to improve the situation. My earliest memory of something being done was in 1959 when Professor (now Sir) Denis Hill, as a member of the Medical Research Council, wrote a report making the recommendation that the Council should set up research units, and the universities should establish more academic departments in medical schools. The reasons for these recommendations were fairly obvious. Unless established posts are available one cannot expect to recruit potential research workers to the field. The proposition accepted that even if the perfect head of department was not initially available, the next generation would have the right experience. Professor Hill's recommendations were, I think, very largely implemented. Between 1957 and 1962 the Medical Research Council set up five new units and one new research group. Only two of these units still exist but others have been established since. A number of university departments were also created.

The Medical Research Council's formal responsibility for research in psychiatry dates from 1921 when it took over from the Boards of Control. To meet this additional responsibility its budget was increased by £5,000 to a total of £130,000 per annum.

Right from the beginning, and that is not a very long time, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has been concerned with research. In the Charter, the Research Committee is set up as a Standing Committee of Council, of the College. Our membership is entitled to know what the Research Committee has been doing for the last four years. What are the concerns of the College for research?

I hope that this somewhat obscure title will assume some meaning over the next ten minutes or so. The aim of this talk is to examine the trainee's view of research. Trainees have a variety of reasons for not embarking on research at registrar or senior registrar level. The most commonly stated are the following.

I take it as axiomatic that we want more and better research in psychiatry and in the cognate disciplines, but I have the strong impression that in Great Britain, and especially among younger colleagues, the desire and the ability to contribute to the realization of this aim are tenuous. Why so? Is it the people; the training they have received; the value-systems and ideologies they take on board; the milieu in which they work, or the intrinsic nature of psychiatry which militate against fruitful developments?

At the Quarterly Meeting of the College in November 1980, a session was devoted to the subject of research in psychiatry and its inadequacies. The papers are published in full on pages 38 to 50; the following is a summary of the sessions, with some personal comments.