1
34 GastRointestinal e;ndOscoPY Editor WILLIAM S. HAUBRICH, M.D. Assistant Editor ELLEN C. SHANNON, M.A. Business Manager DONALD W. TRUMAN, A.B. Editor for Abstracts BERNARD M. SCHUMAN, M.D. Address all correspondence to the Editor Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation 476 Prospect Street La Jolla, California 92037 Editorial Consultants WILLIAM H. MAHOOD, M.D. Philadelphia C. GORDON McHARDY, M.D. New Orleans JOHN F. MORRISSEY, M.D. Madison VERNON M. SMITH, M.D. Baltimore BENJAMIN H. SULLIVAN, Jr, M.D. Cleveland FRANCISCO VILARDELL, M.D. Barcelona Advertising Committee J. ALFRED RIDER, M.D., Chairman 350 Parnassus Street San Francisco, California 94117 FRANCIS J. OWENS, M.D. Cleveland ARTHUR P. KLOTZ, M.D. Kansas City, Kansas FRANK B. McGLONE, M.D. Denver CECIL O. PATTERSON, M.D. Dallas MURREL H. KAPLAN, M.D. New Orleans JULIUS WENGER, M.D. Atlanta It was a nice day at Bethesda The Second National Conference on Digestive Diseases has come and gone. It came to Bethesda, Maryland, at the National Institutes of Health on 18 May, 1973, and where it will go remains to be seen. Surely the conference was representative of American gastroenterology. Most of the current leaders of the field, the pacesetters, were there. The teachers, the investigators, and-yes-the practitioners of gastroenterology were in attendance. The full day program was a series ofirreproach- able, if bland, statements by selected panelists relating to the prevalence and significance of digestive diseases, to the status of health care in the field, to investigative needs in digestive diseases, and finally to resources for research and patient care. There was a modicum of intrapanel discus- sion and a sprinkling of written questions collected from the gallery. The conference itself was really an audience to be presented with a distillation of data and opinions expressed at a series of workshops previously conducted at Airlie, Virginia, in late April. To this observer, the conference was a disappointment on 3 counts: First, with few exceptions, no concrete proposals were enunciated, debated, or enacted by the conference. Everyone seemed to agree that digestive diseases were important. Perhaps the utterances of the meeting were meant to be unassailably platitudinous. Perhaps there was no intent to debate the hard facts, to discuss controversial issues, or to seek new directions. If so, the conference cannot be said to have failed. Dr. Abraham Lilienfeld, pro- fessor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins, did suggest the establishment of a national center to collect and collate data relating to the prevalence and disposition of digestive diseases. Mention was made ofthe innovative Yale program for an integrated network of gastoenterologic teaching facilities. And, of course, the formation of ADDS (American Digestive Disease Society, a federation of interested professional and lay groups) was hailed as the savior of those who treat and those who are treated for digestive diseases. That was about it. Second, although there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the meager federal allotment to and by the NIH and other governmental agencies, no discussion and hardly a mention was made of any alternative means for education and research in the field. American gastroen- terology apparently is committed to a policy of federal sup- port. There will be more of the same fawning over congress- men and the same nervous waiting on the whim of bureau- crats-the very policies that have caused the current alarms. It appears that gastroenterology's best friend will be a hired lobbyist. Third, in pinning its hopes on ADDS, gastroenterology is entering a 3-ring circus with all the gaudy, garish entrap- ments that Madison Avenue has to offer. This way, the course of gastroenterology promises to be exciting if one thrills to the 4-color brochure and the to-second television blurb. But will the essential dignity of a learned profession be overshadowed in the process? -W.S.H. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
