ATTITUDES AND OPINIONS TOWARD SURGICAL RESEARCH - A SURVEY OF SURGICAL RESIDENTS AND THEIR CHAIRPERSONS

Objective To learn more about how research in academic surgery is view ed by surgical residents and their chairpersons. Summary Background Da ta There is a general perception that a productive experience in a bas ic science laboratory is an important prerequisite for a successful ca reer in academic surgery. Methods An anonymous mail survey of 189 surg ical residents entering the laboratory and their chairpersons (n = 81) was done. Questions included how a laboratory was chosen by the resid ent, the importance of a basic science laboratory experience as a prer equisite to an academic career, and the perceived goal or goals of the laboratory experience: Data were analyzed by chi square analysis.Resu lts The response rate from each group was excellent (80% response for residents, 90% from chairpersons). Of the residents surveyed, 78% were men and 22% were women; 51% entered the laboratory after 2 years of c linical training and 34% after 3 years; 84% did their research at thei r home institution and 91% worked in a surgeon's laboratory; 51% were scheduled to be in the laboratory for 1 year, 41% for 2 years, and 7% for 3 years. Two thirds of the residents were salaried by the surgery department. Both residents (70%) and chairpersons (86%) felt that the best surgical journal was Annals of Surgery. Both groups ranked Scienc e as the top basic science journal. Twenty-four percent of the residen ts felt their peers offered the best advice in choosing a laboratory c ompared to 0% of the chairpersons (p < 0.01); chairpersons felt they t hemselves or the program director were better advisors (chairpersons, 44%, vs. residents, 27%; p < 0.01). Chairpersons believed that the pri ncipal investigators' previous success with residents was the major fa ctor in determining in which laboratory to work; the residents placed more value on their interest in the project. Eighty-nine percent of wo men requested to go into the laboratory versus 66% of men (p < 0.05). Half of the chairpersons and residents believed the faculty felt press ure on them to get grants; however, 71% of postgraduate year (PGY) res idents who were PGY3 sensed this pressure compared to 44% of the PGY2 residents (p < 0.01). Being in debt did not adversely influence the de cision of 77% of these residents to do research. The residents felt mo re so than did their chairpersons that basic science research was nece ssary to be a successful academic surgeon (p < 0.01). Conclusions Alth ough there are some differences in opinions between surgical residents and surgical chairpersons about the value and purpose of basic scienc e research, these differences should be embraced and serve to enhance openness and discussion. Overall, surgical residents viewed the resear ch experience away from clinical surgery as a positive one. The main r eason for going into the laboratory was because of a genuine interest in the scientific method and the academic mission.