This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.
—I paused over the article by Robert W. Berliner, MD (Arch Intern Med125:509-511, 1970), and your associated editorial (Arch Intern Med125:548-549, 1970) both of which were published in the March issue. I fully agree with Dr. Berliner when he implies that medical science has recently enjoyed a period of carefree adolescence and exuberant growth, but that as we now enter adulthood, we must undertake the more difficult job of setting priorities and explaining in a rational and effective way to the public the indispensable need for basic research and "to make clear the many inseparable ties between medical research and adequate medical care." Unfortunately, Dr. Berliner interlaces these wise recommendations with some spurious assumptions. He implies that a full understanding of etiology and pathogenesis of a disease is a necessary condition for its control—a fallacy that Jenner exploded with the development of smallpox
Stokes J. The Medical Scientist and Medical Care. Arch Intern Med. 1970;126(1):166–167. doi:10.1001/archinte.1970.00310070168016
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: