This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Smith, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, A. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Time to Think

School of Dentistry, University of Birmingham, St Chad’s Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK; a.j.smith{at}bham.ac.uk

A couple of months have now passed since the death of Francis Crick, who with James Watson was responsible for the discovery of the structure of DNA in the early 1950s. Francis Crick was one of the most influential biologists of the twentieth century. His work with James Watson laid the foundations for modern medicine and genetics. What is notable, however, is that Crick was more of a theoretician than an experimentalist. His discovery was largely based on the experimental work of others, including Maurice Wilkins, Rosalind Franklin, and E. Chargaff. These were all familiar names to me as a young scientist in the 1960s. Although some of our younger researchers now may not recognize these names, they will certainly appreciate the legacy they have bestowed upon us.

I wonder, though, whether such insight into biological systems could emerge so readily in the research environment in which we find ourselves today? The foundations laid by Watson and Crick have paved the way for significant advances, such as the Human Genome Project, and a technological explosion in the area of molecular biology. High-throughput techniques, such as gene microarrays, now allow for the screening and analysis of the expression of tens of thousands of genes from microgram quantities of nucleic acid in days. This in itself provides us with significant new challenges in bio-informatics.

However, the capacity to generate huge amounts of data sometimes diverts us from our primary goal of thinking about what it all means. Collection of data alone has limited value unless it is harnessed to provide the explanation for hypothesis-driven research. Descriptive and observational research adds to our bank of knowledge, but it provides understanding only when used to explain the mechanistic basis of processes.

The pursuit of hypothesis-driven research is a rewarding exercise, but to achieve this requires time to think. Many of those in the research community are based in academic institutions, and the pressures on these researchers from a variety of sources can limit their opportunities for time to think and encourage the treadmill of the publication factory. How many times have we been to a conference and come back feeling shell-shocked from the information overload and wishing there was greater opportunity for scientific debate and discussion? It is this debate which allows ideas to generate and our thinking to develop cogently on a subject. While we may lament the constraints on opportunities to think and debate when we meet with other researchers, the situation is often worse when we return to our laboratories and research centers. Other academic pressures and the drive for data generation can obscure the need to stand back and thoughtfully consider what we are trying to prove. Time carefully spent in the planning stage of a research project or program provides much greater focus to the topic under study, and time spent on the subsequent interpretation of the data collected can transform it from knowledge to understanding.

There have been few really seminal discoveries in science, but it is the novel research reports of high quality that stand the test of time and provide the foundation for the future of a research field. The ISI publishes a variety of metrics, the best-known of which is the Impact Factor of a journal. However, some of the other metrics can be very revealing, including the Cited Half-life, which provides a measure of how long an article continues to have an impact within its field. For the Journal of Dental Research, this is > 10 years and reflects our aim to publish definitive research which will have significant impact. Research reports of this caliber require considerable thought at all stages, from planning to final interpretation of data, but the rewards are significant in terms of allowing for mechanistic understanding of processes and allowing a pivotal stance to be adopted on a topic.

Perhaps we should reflect a little on our quest for knowledge and place greater focus on understanding. This will require more thought and, as a consequence, investment of time. However, the original ideas emerging from this investment will prove invaluable in their contributions to the future science in our field. We have much to learn from men like Francis Crick.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 83, No. 10, 743 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910408301001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Smith, A. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Smith, A. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?