A certain amount of tension, much of it unhealthy in my view, exists between laboratory-based (“basic”) medical scientists and epidemiologists. Some mistrust and misunderstanding may stem from the fact that both types of researchers often find themselves competing for the same limited pool of research dollars, although I believe the true source of the problem is much deeper. Regardless of its source, the mutual mistrust betrays an unnecessarily narrow vision. Moreover, such mistrust hinders the kind of collaboration that could speed scientific advances and benefit the society that we aim to serve.

In this article, I will attempt to trace some of the fundamental reasons behind the divisions that exist in these two different, but ultimately compatible, approaches to medical research. Being a pediatrician and pediatric investigator, I will focus my comments on issues related to health and disease in children. I strongly believe, however, that many of these issues are generalizable to other areas of medical research. Also, because my training and background in epidemiology clearly places me on one side of this divide, I cannot claim to be without bias in my views. Nonetheless, I believe that good scientists, regardless of their training and experience, are more persuaded by evidence than by anecdote. I have worked with laboratory-based scientists on numerous grant review committees, expert panels, and task forces. This experience convinces me that bridging the gap between the two approaches is not only feasible, but highly desirable.

Log in or create a free account to read this content

Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com

Access through your institution

or

Sign in or create an account
Continue with Google
Continue with ORCiD