 |
|
Clinician-Scientists in Ophthalmology
Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119:277-279.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
IT HAS BEEN ALMOST 10 years since the viability of the clinician-scientist
in ophthalmology was considered in an ARCHIVES editorial.1
At that time, Epstein opined that many departments of ophthalmology had turned
away from supporting clinician-scientists. The economic imperative of increasing
patient care activities to compensate for shrinking clinical reimbursements
was a central reason, among the several, that he identified as contributing
to this emerging phenomenon. Even though it was likely that health care economics
would be increasingly fractious, he concluded by advising the aspiring clinician-scientist
to pursue this choice of careers as it was not only needed, but would provide
opportunities for personal satisfaction and achievement.
Since the publication of his editorial, there continue to be questions
about the survival of the clinician-scientist in ophthalmology and whether
this is still a viable career path. The past several years have been marked
by financial instability of academic medical centers and . . . [Full Text of this Article] WHO ARE THE CLINICIAN-SCIENTISTS IN OPHTHALMOLOGY?
ARE CLINICIAN-SCIENTISTS NEEDED IN OPHTHALMOLOGY?
THE DILEMMA FOR THE CLINICIAN-SCIENTIST
ARE THERE FEWER CLINICIAN-SCIENTISTS IN OPHTHALMOLOGY?
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
CONCLUSIONS
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The SERI-ARVO Meeting and future challenges of ophthalmic research in Asia
Wong and Tan
Br. J. Ophthalmol. 2003;87:379-380.
FULL TEXT
Translational Research in Ophthalmology
Ryan et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:389-390.
FULL TEXT
|
