I would argue against Neuronix et al. above and venture that it is possible to be a surgeon and a good scientist... provided you have a narrow clinical focus. I don't know any general surgeons doing good basic research. However, I know some that have subspecialized following general surgery, or that began in a subspecialty (ENT/Plastics/Ophtho) that found a good balance of research and clinic, and are successful in both. For example, some of the docs that trained under Michael Harrison at UCSF (Father of Fetal Surgery) have gone on to be successful researchers. Mike Longaker (Plastics) and Tim Crombleholme (Peds/Fetal Surg) both churn out a stream of basic and translational papers that have moved their fields forward. As an MSIII I've seen both sides of Dr. Crombleholme's work - last month I helped with a cervical teratoma resection, and observed him perform Selective Fetoscopic Laser Coagulation for twin-twin transfusion syndrome, both very specialized surgical cases, and a few weeks later visited with one of his research fellows modeling congenital diaphragmatic hernia in mice to study basic pathways of that disorder. This is a brief example, but there are a few like this at most large academic medical centers. By operating within a narrow patient population, you can maintain your skills, and by whittling down the number of 'bread and butter' cases you have more time for other pursuits. I also think it helps to surround yourself with a good research team, and collaborate with basic scientists as much as possible.
I think that in some instances surgeons have a leg up on dedicated basic researchers because they have the initial access to rare patient samples and are able to observe the broad effects that a disease process has on the patient directly. Congenital malformations of infancy, and malignancy requiring surgical intervention are both excellent examples of this. The problem is that surgeons need to be familiar with not just the basic science known to be involved with a malformation, but they must know how to ask the right questions and design experiments to expand upon that knowledge. This is what we're being trained for as MD/PhDs. Additionally, in some of these cases it is the surgeon that is best positioned to translate the basic findings back to the clinic (eg. tissue engineering). I don't want to start a debate about the future role of MD/PhDs, however it can be argued that we are in an excellent position to conduct translational (bench to bedside) research.
I'm obviously biased, and will disclose that I am pursuing a surgical specialty for residency. I fully intend to narrow my focus via fellowship(s) and continue research then. I would also add, that prior to rotating through surgery I hoped I wouldn't like it so, because I also thought that it was not feasible to be a surgeon and a productive scientist. I've seen it done, though, so now I'm going for it.
!
