Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
The critique appears also to be directed at the creation and funding of the right blend of clinical and biochemical talents to study such complex questions. Perhaps the programme did not emphasise enough this difficulty. An interdisciplinary team is probably the best instrument by which to hold a principal clinical question in constant perspective so that the eventual solution is clinically justified, ethically acceptable, and scientifically valid. By even appearing to argue against use of funds in this way WFW does a grave disservice to investigators and to the Medical Research Council, Department of Health, independent grant-awarding bodies, and pharmaceutical companies who supported studies mentioned in the programme. Further consequences of the implementation of such an uninformed constraint would be the strangulation of some of the best sources of future clinical, teaching, and research staff and the lowering of morale of present workers.