Surgeon-scientists and Peer Review Boards

A BSTRACT The post-operative convalescence pathways, have given a Surgeon-Scientist, biomolecular understanding of diverse domains including, epidemiology, microbiology, immunology, & inflammation metabolomics/ proteomics etc. Nobel laureates in surgery have earned the laurels in fields outside surgical skills. Marriage of technology to surgical practice has made the surgeon-scientist a true polymath, adept at optics, lasers, digital technology, information technology, movie editing, nanotechnology & robotics etc. besides above biological domains. The multifaceted qualities of commitment, determination, focus, and innovation (CDFI) have placed surgeon-scientist at frontiers of translational research to facilitate application of basic sciences & technology advances, to improve surgical outcomes. Surgeon-scientists face numerous institutional and societal barriers. These challenges include declining success rates for grants, and restrictive, often biased, peer review processes that hinder surgical innovation. This review discusses current research proposal’s appraisal structures, ideally designed for ethical compliance, often create delays, demonstrate a lack of expertise in surgical nuances, and foster an environment of professional envy and inconsistency. This stifles translational research and discourages surgeon-scientists from pursuing study applications, discouraging the future generation of these critical researchers. The peer review boards, need to encourage scientist-surgeons, rather than being intimidating to younger surgeon-scientists. Their attitude demands a change from making them feel inferior to that of one being an equal. It wont be asking for more, if they imbibe a Mark Twain’s dictum of ‘in some ways he was my equal and in others superior’. Peer groups should encourage those under their tutelage as young researchers, for as Einstein said, “Education is not the learning of facts, but the training of the mind to think.”