The future of cardiovascular research / N. Williams & J. Anderson.

  • Nigel Williams
Date:
1993
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Credit: The future of cardiovascular research / N. Williams & J. Anderson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    23/40 page 19
    Opinion was gloomy on the prospects for public health or dietary measures to reduce risks of coronary heart disease but the feasibility of developing effective screening of an individual's cardiovascular disease risk were scored as good by more than 40 per cent of respondents. 3.5 Anticipated skills needs Respondents were asked for their views on the future contribution of the different biomedical disciplines to cardiovascular research. Reflecting molecular and cellular developments within cardiovascular research, around two thirds of respondents expected the strongest contributions from molecular biology, cell biology, and pharmacology. More than half saw genetics as featuring strongly. More than two thirds (68 per cent) saw molecular biology as making a key contribution to the future of the field but, as noted earlier, only 10 per cent of respondents said that they had expertise in this area. 3.6 Strengthening the field View on current UK strengths Respondents were asked for their view on the international standing of UK cardiovascular research. Both UK clinical and basic research was compared favourably with the world's best but basic research was seen as slightly weaker than clinical research. Analysis of the response by subgroup revealed that clinical cardiologists scored basic research significantly weaker whereas non-clinical researchers scored it significantly stronger than the group as a whole (p <0.05). But in answer to the open questions many respondents wrote that there was insufficient basic high-quality cardiovascular research being done in the UK. Options for strengthening the Three options which emerged from the pre-survey interviews for infrastructure providing additional infrastructural support for the field were included in the questionnaire (fig 6). There was strong support - more than 65 per cent agreeing or agreeing strongly - with the suggested establishment of a small number of multidisciplinary cardiovascular research centres. There was also majority support for the funding of topic-oriented projects among existing research groups, although the number opposed to this (25 per cent) was higher. But the suggestion of establishing a new national centre for cardiovascular research drew an overall negative response. Responses to two open questions on how UK cardiovascular research could best be improved and how an additional £10 million could best be spent were dominated by infrastructural issues. The key concern was interdisciplinarity. It was seen, almost without exception, as a desirable goal and in need of developing or strengthening. Related to this there was also widespread concern about the perceived divide between basic and clinical research and clinically and non-clinically qualified staff, and the need for more good quality basic research.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3