Abstract
David Copolov's paper raises many interesting issues about the process of schizophrenia research. His entertaining keynote address contains much that we agree with. For example:
We have vast and striking gaps in our current knowledge base about schizophrenia. This is why we need more focused and productive schizophrenia research. Research provides hope to consumers, care-givers and health providers. We need to remind ourselves that advances in research will improve outcomes for these groups. Schizophrenia research is intriguing, engaging and challenging. If the researcher is not engaged with the topic, he or she should move to another field. Schizophrenia researchers benefit from a nonspecific intellectual curiosity; schizophrenia research is a very broad church.
We believe that certain themes related to schizophrenia research that are woven into Professor Copolov's lecture warrant reflection. We provide this commentary in good faith not to criticise the target article or its author, but in order to encourage the research community to take a dispassionate look at ourselves.
The romance of schizophrenia research
What is it about schizophrenia researchers that they take perverse pride in the complexity and opaqueness of their field? The Icarus analogy in the target article is an example of this. It is as if the researchers, cowered and helpless after decades of work, wear their defeat as if it was a badge of courage. Then, in order to defend against the feelings of failure and impotence, accord schizophrenia ‘never-to-be-known’ status. This romantic, semi-religious view has no heuristic value.
Is schizophrenia research so different from many other challenging disorders (e.g. cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS)? Schizophrenia is not the only complex, poorly understood disorder, but do we hear our researcher colleagues from other fields loudly and proudly flagellating themselves for their failures? Could it be that our attitudes and beliefs about the difficulties facing schizophrenia research have themselves become a stumbling block to progress? Thinking that the problems are insoluble is a psychological ‘blinker’ that we have to reject.
In order to cope with fear and ignorance, society has often developed myths around certain illnesses. It seems that scientists need to build their own set of myths around their disciplines in order to sustain commitment. Some parts of the target article seem to perpetuate the cult that schizophrenia is a mysterious ‘poltergeist’. Like the crew of a science fiction series, the task for the schizophrenia researcher is to ‘boldly seek to play a role in understanding schizophrenia, attracted by its profound, almost palpable manifestations and opaque mystery’. We argue that schizophrenia researchers need to develop a culture characterised by a sanguine and pragmatic determination rather than perpetuate a cult characterised by romance and noble defeatism.
Old notions hinder schizophrenia research
Copolov is correct in reminding the researcher about the dangers in prematurely raising the hope of consumers and caregivers about breakthroughs and cures. However, our experience is that these groups have a healthy and more pragmatic approach to schizophrenia research. They are tired of hearing about romantic notions about what is clearly a decidedly unromantic disorder. They would be much more interested in Professor Copolov's fascinating details about the role of chance and determination in science.
We disagree that humility should be a defining feature of schizophrenia researchers. We commend other virtues such as a mature acceptance of our skills and a quiet self-confidence and determination to get on with the task. These attributes need to be balanced (but not swamped) by insightful awareness that we deal in an area with a poor knowledge base. Schizophrenia should no longer be cast as an ethereal ‘poltergeist’ and researchers should reject nihilistic and romantic notions of the disorder.
Core skills for the schizophrenia researcher
In conclusion, we would like to emphasise certain qualities that all apprentice schizophrenia researchers should strive for:
A high threshold for boredom: research can be tedious. A thick skin: to cope with irritable and hypercritical reviewers. Sheer bloody-mindedness: to push on with new ideas in the face of opposition. The ability to collaborate with a broad range of disciplines: good research is about interacting with people with different skills and different ways of looking at a problem. Problem-solving skills: translating ideas into daily research is more about problem-solving ability and basic nous than intellect. Creativity: we need new ideas. The ability to acknowledge mistakes: the hardest task for a researcher is to know when to abandon their favourite idea. A respect for people with schizophrenia: one has to understand the person behind the disorder.
Finally, we wonder if Icarus had the ‘right stuff’ to be a schizophrenia researcher. One needs the intellectual curiosity of Icarus, tempered by the wisdom of his father, Daedalus, the legendary Athenian craftsman who made the wings and warned his son not to fly too high or too low. People interested in pursuing careers as schizophrenia researchers, or pilots, be warned.