WHILE recognizing that the common purpose of all clinical investigation is the benefit of the patient through the advancement of medical knowledge, there are other justifications and sources of inspiration which may be more immediately gained objectives. This is true whether the investigator is a professor of pediatrics or his country cousin. It is the purpose of this paper to compare the natures of those immediate objectives as they apply to clinical investigation carried on in a teaching center with clinical investigation performed in pediatric practice. In making this comparison, I do not intend to imply that the professor of pediatrics or a member of his staff has at his beck and call large crews of laboratory technicians, roomtuis of pretty secretaries and efficient stenographers, tabulators and computers in frightening array, scads of money neatly tagged for research and all the time in the worldand that none of these is possessed by the practitioner. Instead, I will point out that in spite of a seemingly vast gulf of separation in facilities and resources, there are similarities of purpose which serve to give reflected dignity to any reasonable and seriously pursued clinical study even though it be attempted under primitive conditions by academic standards.
The professor, gazing from the porticoed façade of a teaching hospital and contemplating his next venture into publication [SEE FIG. 1., FIG. 2. IN SOURCE PDF] (Fig. 1), looks in 1 of 3 possible directions for stimulation. Each of these corresponds with 1 of 3 responsibilities: (1) instruction of students; (2) scientific stimulation of pediatric confreres; (3) the recognition of academic superiors.