In your experience, who has the greatest command/use of current neuroSCIENCE?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Dyggvi

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2014
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
...vs strict bread/butter neuroANATOMY for practical clinic use? I'm talking as a general rule, not some anecdote about 'this one emergency room doc who became obsessed with the problem of consciousness and knew 10x more than most academic neurologists/neurosurgeons' haha

Neurologists, neurosurgeons, probably not psychiatrists or anybody else I would think, non-physician PhD's don't count please (or Veterinarians, just MD/DO please lol)

What's your experience w/why your choice knows more, more often?

Thanks for personal take!

Members don't see this ad.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Tomorrow when I am on call I am going to remind myself I am commanding neuroscience
 
I'm still waiting. Define neuroscience. And tell me why neurologists/neurosurgeons/physiatrists/SLP/occupational therapists/physical therapists would need to know anything about neuroscience to do their jobs effectively at the very forefront of their practice parameters on a daily basis.

I referee for Neuron. I'm pretty sure there are no practice guidelines that get published there, unless I've missed them. Perhaps you don't consider Neuron to be a hard-core neuroscience journal, or not representative of the field?

Are you asking whether neurologists or neurosurgeons are more likely to be clinician-scientists?
 
Come on people we all know the orthopaedic surgeons have the greatest command of neuroscience as well as every other aspect of medicine/surgery. Why only yesterday one was demanding to take an ICU patient involved in an MVA with traumatic brain injury, sepsis, and coagulopathy for surgery to fix the tibia.
 
How do neurosurgeons even do basic science? How do they have the time to do it?
 
How do neurosurgeons even do basic science? How do they have the time to do it?

Academics. Most don't go above 50% research, and the time requirements for NIH grants are lower for surgeons because they need more clinical exposure to keep up their skills.
 
I see. Why would the NIH give a grant to a Neurosurgeon vs a PhD that does it full time? Wouldn't the PhD inevitably do a better job? Can you explain how time requirements work with grants? They actually specify how many hours a week you should spend doing the research?
 
No, because PhDs also split their time between projects and teaching, etc. Most PhD PIs don't have all of their salary support coming from one grant alone. Also, some patient-oriented research can really only be done with the involvement of a surgeon as PI or co-PI, like lesional treatments or DBS as examples. When you write a grant proposal, you ask for salary support commensurate with the time required to oversee the research. If you ask for 30% effort on a particular grant, then you need to demonstrate you aren't spending more than 70% of your time on other things, be they clinical, research, administrative, or otherwise.

And it's not like these people are in residency anymore. Sure, if you're a 100% clinical vascular neurosurgeon on call 24/7, then it is hard to do research. But that's a choice. You can choose to have 1 OR day a week and two half-day clinics, and if that makes you happy then you're all set. Academic chiefs tend to hire a variety, with some people spending a lot of time on research, and others churning through patients in the OR all day. Different strokes.
 
Top