Mind, Brain, Body, and Behavior

232 GUTH

endeavor in which the outcome cannot be predicted, the concept of a

“mission” was considered inappropriate. As viewed by junior and senior

scientists alike, we had a “responsibility” to do good research by adher­

ing to the principles of scientific investigation, and the only goal was to

increase our understanding of the anatomy, physiology, and biochemis­

try of the nervous system.

At that time, a fundamental tenet of the institute directors was that

clinical advances depended on basic research. This view seems to be widely

proclaimed today, but one caveat has unfortunately been added, viz., that

basic research must justify its existence by leading to clinical advances.

The founders of the NINDB, on the other hand, recognized that basic

science was essential because our understanding of basic neuroscience

was insufficient to guide us to more effective treatments for neurologi­

cal disorders. Since clinical advances are dependent on a fuller under­

standing of nervous system structure and function, it is self-destructive

to require basic science to validate its existence in terms of future clini­

cal applications.^6

Organization

When the NINDB was initiated, there were few precedents for such a

government-funded biomedical research institute. Since most of the

senior appointees had previously held university positions in academic

departments, it is not surprising that Pearce Bailey (the NINDB’s first

director) and Seymour S. Kety (the first scientific director for the joint

NIMH-NINDB intramural basic research program) utilized the aca­

demic prototype in structuring the intramural program.

They established a basic research division that focused on neuro­

anatomy, neurophysiology, neuropathology, and neurochemistry, and

clinical research divisions centered around medical, surgical, and radi­

ological neurology. This organization reflected a structure analogous to

that of a medical school, where both the teaching and research responsibil­

ities are carried out within autonomous and independent departments.

Despite this structure, however, a great deal of multidisciplinary research

was done by collaboration between individual investigators (within as

well as between laboratories). One might say that the independence

granted to the research scientist actually facilitated interactions between