This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Medical Education  • Otolaryngology/ Head & Neck Surgery, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

I read with interest the Commentary by Wolf and Weymuller,¹ "Research Training in Otolaryngology," published in the November 2002 issue of the ARCHIVES.

I know the problem of recruitment, training, and career support of clinician scientists exists and I fully support everything written by the authors. There is, however, another aspect that needs to be addressed. Twenty to 40 years ago, it was substantially easier for an academic clinician to participate in research. Clinical loads were lighter and less time-consuming; administrative support was readily available; faculty salaries were not directly tied to clinic productivity; and clinic support staff and resident support staff were generally available to assist in clinical research. In addition, the research that was conducted and published was simpler and easier to perform.

The National Institutes of Health and other research funding sources are primarily focused on molecular biology and have little interest and support for the simple, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Terence M. Davidson, MD
University of California San Diego, School of Medicine
Department of Otolaryngology
9500 Gilman Dr
San Diego, CA 92093-0617
(e-mail: tdavidson@ucsd.edu)