| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Editorials |
1 Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3808, Hospital North, Rm 1508D, Erwin Rd, Durham, NC 27710.
Index terms: Editorials • Radiology and radiologists, history • Radiology (journal)
"Since the rays had this great penetrative power, it seemed natural that they should penetrate flesh, and so it proved in photographing the hand, I showed you."
[To Professor Roentgen]: "What of the future?" Excerpts from an interview of W. C. Roentgen (1)
Late in 1895, Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen observed a phenomenon of luminescence due to the x ray that came to be known to the world in an article simply titled "On a New Kind of Rays" (2). Although he eventually published only one three-part article related to this observation, his work provided the basis for seeing inside the living body—and for the specialty of radiology.
The field of radiology is remarkably close to its infancy, and it has the capacity to recollect and record, through both literary and pictorial means, its entire life. Given this, there is no greater opportunity and enduring obligation to provide a forum for its legacy. The Radiology Centennial was celebrated with a look at a variety of individuals, institutions, inventions, and innovations. As important as they were, why was the centennial element necessary to underscore their value to the medical community? Do we want to wait another 100 years to acknowledge the great works, individuals, and events of radiology?
We all recognize the importance of the creative process, the well-designed investigation, and the eventual presentation. It is, however, difficult to appreciate the effect this science has on the evolution of the field, because recognition of this effect often takes time. It is even more difficult to convey a sense of continuity and perspective as the technical generations (and the pioneers and practitioners) pass. Discovery, innovation, and the scientific process do not quietly respect the boundaries of the calendar; nor should we. If historical material truly is of interest, it is always of interest.
Once the premise is established that certain events and individuals in the field of radiology are really timeless, the next steps are more challenging: to determine the form and forum for archiving such events and the acts of such individuals.
The forum is, perhaps, the easier of the two. Radiology is a widely read and respected journal. For 75 years, nearly three-quarters of the life of the specialty, the journal has served to document the tremendous growth of the field and its effect on the practice of medicine. It seems fitting that Radiology take on a new function and provide material of historical interest. This material could take a variety of forms. Categories could include reprinting of articles that substantially influenced the course of radiology, including commentary by current experts in the field (3,4). Historical material could also be based on the development of radiologic applications, such as for a specific disease process, or techniques. Highly regarded and accomplished individuals could prepare articles that provide insight forged from some aspect of their career. Finally, the history of various groups and organizations within the field of radiology could be addressed.
The discussion of which categories are to be considered presents a more difficult challenge to the journalistic archiving of the history of radiology. How will it be determined what will constitute the journal's historical literature? Obviously, the content should be of merit, as well as of interest to the reader. Although it seems that both of these objectives are difficult to reconcile into a single process, it may be that the best method for determining the content of the historical material is to solicit input from the readership. This participation would range from suggestions for topics to submission of completed manuscripts.
The importance of providing historical literature finds precedence in other medical specialties. For example, regular historical topics are provided in surgical journals such as the Annals of Thoracic Surgery and the American Journal of Surgery (eg, "Our Surgical Heritage") and medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (eg, "100 Years Ago") and the Annals of Internal Medicine, which features the periodic "History of Medicine" and the historically relevant "Medical Writing" sections. The call to such writing for radiology is clear, as well.
More than 100 years after the discovery of x rays, it is as important to ask, "What of the past?" as it was in 1896 to ask, "What of the future?" We can provide the answer to both of these questions.
Footnotes
Address reprint requests to the author.
Received October 9, 1998; accepted October 12, 1999. References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
