This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Janse, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Janse, M. J.

(Circulation Research. 2003;93:94.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorials

The Rear Mirror

Michiel J. Janse

From the Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Correspondence to Dr Michiel J. Janse, Department of Pharmacology, Columbia University, 630 W 168 St, 7 West 318, New York, NY 10032. E-mail mjj2102@columbia.edu

Key Words: fiftieth anniversary • molecular biology • integrative physiology • impact factor

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

I vividly remember how pleased I was when Circulation Research published my first papers, one on the ventricular refractory period following changes in heart rate and another on the dual inputs into the atrioventricular node, in 1969. I thought then that Circulation Research was the top journal for basic research in the cardiovascular field, and I still think so today.

Many things have changed since then, and much progress has been made. Still, it is wise to remember the words of the Austrian writer Robert Musil: "Progress could be wonderful, if only it would stop." I often felt like that when trying to follow the explosive developments in molecular biology, and I am very happy that Circulation Research now has a section on Integrative Physiology. I feel at home there.

Browsing through the 1969 volumes, I came across an Editorial by Julius H. Comroe, Jr, in the October issue: "Answers to a Congressman’s Questions." After reading it, I realized that in some areas things have not changed much. The issue at hand was a reduction in NIH funding for medical research, and some questions had emerged: "Can’t we fire the 16% who receive ALL their salary from research grants without influencing the teaching function of the medical school?" and "Wouldn’t the country be better off if half of our medical researchers went into the practice of medicine and delivered health care?" Does this sound familiar? I know it is difficult nowadays to get hold of issues of journals published before . . . [Full Text of this Article]