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 viewed by surgical residents and their chairpersons. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: There is a general perception that a productive experience in a basic science laboratory is an important prerequisite for a successful career in academic surgery.
METHODS: An anonymous mail survey of 189 surgical residents entering the laboratory and their chairpersons (n=81) was done. Questions included how a laboratory was chosen by the resident, the importance of a basic science laboratory experience as a prerequisite to an academic career, and the perceived goal or goals of the laboratory experience. Data were analyzed by chi square analysis.
RESULTS: 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 clinical training and 34% after 3 years; 84% did their research at their 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 Science as the top basic science journal. Twenty-four percent of the residents felt their peers offered the best advice in choosing a laboratory compared to 0% of the chairpersons (p<0.01); chairpersons felt they themselves or the program director were better advisors (chairpersons, 44%, vs. residents, 27%; p<0.01). Chairpersons believed that the principal investigators' previous success with residents was the major factor in determining in which laboratory to work; the residents placed more value on their interest in the project. Eighty-nine percent of women requested to go into the laboratory versus 66% of men (p<0.05). Half of the chairpersons and residents believed the faculty felt pressure on them to get grants; however, 71% of postgraduate year (PGY) residents who were PGY3 sensed this pressure compared to 44% of the PGY2 residents (p<0.01). Being in debt did not adversely influence the decision of 77% of these residents to do research. The residents felt more so than did their chairpersons that basic science research was necessary to be a successful academic surgeon (p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Although there are some differences in opinions between surgical residents and surgical chairpersons about the value and purpose of basic science research, these differences should be embraced and serve to enhance openness and discussion. Overall, surgical residents viewed the research experience away from clinical surgery as a positive one. The main reason for going into the laboratory was because of a genuine interest in the scientific method and the academic mission.