The otolaryngology research paradox

Objective: To determine the attitude toward and the state of research withi n the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Design: A questionnaire was sent to the chairpersons of departments of otol aryngology where residency training is provided. Participants and Setting: Program directors of academic otolaryngology trai ning programs. Main Outcome Measure: Responses to questionnaire. Results: Questionnaires were sent to 95 programs from which 86 responses we re received. Respondents believed strongly that research was important to t he specialty. Only two thirds of the full-time clinical faculty, however, d o research, and on average they devote only 17% of their time to this activ ity. About a third of those doing research have funding, and the National I nstitutes of Health support only 12% of clinician-investigators. Although p rogram directors believe that clinicians should do research, three fourths stated that clinicians were too busy to accomplish this goal. Surprisingly, half of the respondents were unaware of residency programs that offered 2 years of research training, aimed to develop clinician-investigators, who c an become competitive for attainment of research funding. Conclusions: Although leaders within our specialty believe that research is important, clinicians are not provided with enough time to conduct researc h. Furthermore, pathways that would enhance their competitiveness to obtain research funding are not recommended to our future clinicians.