Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-03T18:27:01.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Feasibility of a Dual Neurosurgeon-Scientist Career in Canada: A Survey Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 September 2014

Fady Girgis
Fady Girgis*
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosurgery, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
*
12th Floor, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 29 Street NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 2T9, Canada, Email: fadygirgis@yahoo.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

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.
Objectives:

Performing ‘good work’ in either neurosurgery or neuroscience alone is a challenge. Despite this, a large number of neurosurgeons divide their careers between the two fields, and attempt to excel in both arenas simultaneously. The purpose of this study is to explore perceptions on whether it is possible to do good work in both neurosurgery and research simultaneously, or whether one field suffers at the expense of the other.

Methods:

This question was put to practicing neurosurgeons via an electronic survey that was distributed to resident and staff neurosurgeons in Canada.

Results:

54 surgeons completed the survey, 32 of whom were current or intended neurosurgeon-scientists. Themes explored through the survey included motives behind the pursuit or absence of research in one's neurosurgical career, the quality and feasibility of a dual career, and alternatives to one individual assuming a dual role.

Conclusions:

The opinions obtained revealed that it is possible to do good work in both neurosurgery and neuroscience simultaneously, but in reality it is very difficult to do. Alternatives to this dual career, such as collaboration between clinical neurosurgeons and pure scientists for example, may help bridge the gap between clinical and research arenas.

Résumé:

RÉsumÉ:Objectifs:

Faire du « bon travail » en neurochirurgie ou en neurosciences présente un défi. en dépit de ce fait, un grand nombre de neurochirurgiens partagent leur carrière entre ces deux champs d'expertise et tentent d'exceller dans les deux champs simultanément. le but de cette étude était d'explorer les perceptions au sujet de la possibilité de faire du bon travail simultanément en neurochirurgie et en recherche ou si l'un en souffre aux dépens de l'autre.

Méthode:

Nous avons posé la question à des neurochirurgiens en pratique active lors d'une enquête par voie électronique distribuée aux résidents et aux neurochirurgiens en pratique active au Canada.

Résultats:

Cinquante-quatre chirurgiens ont complété l'enquête, dont 32 étaient ou avaient l'intention d'être des neurochirurgiens-chercheurs. les thèmes explorés au moyen de l'enquête couvraient les motifs qui incitaient les neurochirurgiens à poursuivre une carrière en recherche ou au contraire à ne pas le faire, la qualité et la faisabilité d'une double carrière et les alternatives à ce qu'un même individu assume les deux rôles.

Conclusions:

Les opinions exprimées ont révélé qu'il est possible de faire du bon travail simultanément en neurochirurgie et en neurosciences, mais qu'en réalité il s'avère très difficile de la faire. les alternatives à cette double carrière, telle la collaboration entre les neurochirurgiens cliniques et les chercheurs en sciences fondamentales par exemple, peuvent aider à combler l'écart entre le domaine de la clinique et celui de la recherche.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , July 2013 , pp. 504 - 511
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2013

References

1. Wilkins, RH. Science in neurosurgery: the importance of the scientific method. Neurosurgery. 1998 Apr;42(4):687–91.Google Scholar
2. Davis, RA, Cunningham, PS. Creative thought in neurosurgical research: the value of citation analysis. Neurosurgery. 1990 Feb;26(2):345–53.Google Scholar
3. Hurwitz, SR, Buckwalter, JA. The orthopaedic surgeon scientist: an endangered species? J Orthop Res. 1999 Mar;17(2):155–6.Google Scholar
4. Kreider, T. Medical training versus scientific training [Internet]. Science-Based Medicine: Medical Academia, Science and Medicine; 2009 [cited 2013 Feb 14]. Available from: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/medical-training-versus-scientific-training/ Google Scholar
5. Vates, GE, Kim, DH, Day, AL. The neurosurgeon as clinician-scientist: the fundamentals. Clin Neurosurg. 2004;51:53–8.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Schrier, RW. Ensuring the survival of the clinician-scientist. Kidney Blood Press Res. 1998;21(2-4):211–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Skenderis, BS, 2nd, Rustum, YM, Petrelli, NJ. Basic science research in postgraduate surgical training: difficulties encountered by clinical scientists. J Cancer Educ. 1997;12(4):245–8.Google ScholarPubMed
8. Black, PM. Challenges in contemporary academic neurosurgery. Neurosurgery. 2006 Mar;58(3):419–25; discussion -25.Google Scholar
9. McLone, DG. A boutique practice or specialist to the world. Childs Nerv Syst. 1998 Nov;14(11):630–5.Google Scholar
10. Bergland, RM. Neurosurgery may die. N Engl J Med. 1973 May 17;288(20):1043–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Friedlander, R. The perfect storm: current status of research in neurosurgery. Congress Qrtly. 2008;9(1):38–41.Google Scholar
12. Wagner, P, Hendrich, J, Moseley, G, Hudson, V. Defining medical professionalism: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2007 Mar;41(3):288–94.Google Scholar
13. Leahy, M, Cullen, W, Bury, G. “What makes a good doctor?” A cross sectional survey of public opinion. Ir Med J. 2003 Feb;96(2):38–41.Google Scholar
14. Patel, G. What makes a good doctor? Br J Gen Pract. 2007 Mar;57(536):244–5.Google Scholar
15. Eva, KW, Lohfeld, L, Dhaliwal, G, Mylopoulos, M, Cook, D, Norman, G. Modern conceptions of elite medical practice among internal medicine faculty members. Acad Med. 2011;86(10):S50–4.Google Scholar
16. Sonnert, G. What makes a good scientist?: Determinants of peer evaluation among biologists. Soc Stud Sci. 1995;25(1):35–55.Google Scholar
17. Gardner, HC, M.; Damon, W. Good work: when excellence and ethics meet. New York: Basic Books; 2001.Google Scholar
18. Rutka, JT, Wallace, C. Excellence in neurosurgery program building: enhancing the academic mission. Clin Neurosurg. 2010;57:100–11.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Langfitt, TW. Research and training in the neurosurgical sciences. With comments on some key issues that confront neurosurgery. J Neurosurg. 1982 Dec;57(6):733–8.Google Scholar
20. Guelich, JM, Singer, BH, Castro, MC, Rosenberg, LE. A gender gap in the next generation of physician-scientists: medical student interest and participation in research. J Investig Med. 2002 Nov;50(6):412–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Rosenberg, LE. The physician-scientist: an essential-and fragile-link in the medical research chain. J Clin Invest. 1999 Jun;103(12):1621–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Zemlo, TR, Garrison, HH, Partridge, NC, Ley, TJ. The physician-scientist: career issues and challenges at the year 2000. Faseb J. 2000 Feb;14(2):221–30.Google Scholar
23. Ley, TJ, Rosenberg, LE. The physician-scientist career pipeline in 2005: build it, and they will come. JAMA. 2005 Sep 21;294(11):1343–51.Google Scholar
24. Zusman, EE. Key factors contributing to the success of clinician investigators: converting K08 and K23 to R01 awards. Neurosurgery. 2010 Apr;66(4):N14–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Abele, J. The collaboration paradox: why collaborations seem so common but are actually very rare. Xconomy [internet]. 2008 Jul [cited 2013 Feb 14]:[about 9 p.]. Available from: http://www.xconomy.com/boston/2008/07/07/the-collaboration-paradox-why-so-many-leaders-sabotage-their-own-collaborations-and-some-tactics-for-getting-things-right/?single_page=true Google Scholar
26. Moore, FD. Ethical problems special to surgery: surgical teaching, surgical innovation, and the surgeon in managed care. Arch Surg. 2000 Jan;135(1):14–6.Google Scholar
27. Howell, LP, Servis, G, Bonham, A. Multigenerational challenges in academic medicine: UCDavis’s responses. Acad Med. 2005 Jun;80(6):527–32.Google Scholar