Abstract
Jeffrey Aronson has described the habitat in which a prospective clinical research worker might be expected to flourish. 1 The features of such a person need similar consideration. But the experience of those who have been successful in the past may not be a reliable guide because circumstances are changing. Enduring requirements probably include an independent, even slightly rebellious outlook, an ongoing interest in science, integrity and a preoccupation with the topic under consideration that leads to it being near the top of the researcher's mind several times each day. In our household such thoughts are banned from consideration over the morning cup of tea. In addition, while a clinical research worker needs a concern for and empathy with people, in my view this should not lead to job satisfaction being linked to clinical responsibility. The personal commitment to achieve a good clinical result can be in conflict with that needed for research, so in a joint appointment the research component is often the less productive partner.
In my own experience, features that were helpful included early interest, inspirational pre-clinical teaching, liberating advice to make a career that differed from those of my peers and an early decision to ‘have a go’. This led to a logical sequence of jobs (including choice of a clinical school) based on pursuit of an ideal. Several of the resulting decisions surprised my colleagues, but due to chance, luck and a supportive environment I survived and even flourished. However, my professional career did not include the groundbreaking discovery we all aspire to. I like to think this came 15 years into my ‘retirement’, though now, seven years later only a few people think I am correct. If the concept endures, it will be used for the benefit of patients. Thus, research is a process; it has a variable timescale and the outcome cannot always be predicted.
Footnotes