Abstract
As I mentioned in my editorial in the February issue, there appears to be a disconcerting dearth of new recruits to psychiatric research. Obviously, no accurate data are at hand but several prominent research figures have concurred and expressed their concerns. The Editorial Board has deliberated about the matter on many occasions and wondered what role the Journal could play in encouraging new Fellows to ‘dip their oar in’. With the imminent demise of the College dissertation, senior researchers in Australasia have a distinct need to confront the ‘crisis’. Fortunately, the Editorial Board has found a more than sympathetic ear in the guise of the Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research and the Board of Research within the College: a constructive interchange between Professor Tony Jorm, Associate Professor Andrew McKinnon, Associate Professor Roger Mulder and myself has led to the aforementioned ‘notable development’. We are indebted to them for their enthusiastic support.
Assen Jablensky's meticulous overview on research methodology in the area of psychiatric epidemiology is the inaugural contribution to a series during 2002–03. Experts in various spheres of psychiatric research have been commissioned, and are currently beavering away, to produce informative and stimulating overviews. The aims are to enhance the quality of research in Australasia (and beyond) and to inspire novices to commit themselves to a research career or to raise research questions as an inherent feature of their professional pursuit (whatever that may be).
You will also find in this issue two other relevant articles on research. Peter Joyce has prepared a fascinating account of the development and philosophy of the highly productive clinical research unit in Christchurch, while a team from the Centre for Mental Health Research at the Australian National University has usefully identified priorities in psychiatric research in terms of contemporary work and disease burden.
Derrick Silove's point of view on the mental health consequences of current policies in Australia on asylum seekers may at first sight be regarded as sociopolitical in character. What is noteworthy however, about the role for psychiatrists he delineates is his careful setting out of the research evidence of the mental health needs of asylum seekers. Thus, instead of a strident polemic we encounter a well-grounded argument calling on our profession to assume a range of important clinical and advocacy functions. As an illustration of the marriage between research data and attention to a vital social issue, Professor Silove's contribution is exemplary.
Finally, it is salutary to note in the article on the level of interest in psychiatry among medical students by Malhi et al. that an unattractive feature of our profession is its ‘perceived absence of a scientific foundation’. This is clearly not an accurate portrayal but it remains disconcerting nonetheless. We cannot lull ourselves into complacency that our research endeavour is satisfactory. Au contraire, we have a responsibility to promote curiosity in the next generation of psychiatrists about the subject in all its aspects.