Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letters to the Editor
  • Published:

Clinical research, or classical clinical research?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Bell, J.I. Clinical research is dead; long live clinical research. Nature Med. 5, 477–478 ( 1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Crooke, S.T. New drugs and changing disease paradigms. Nature Biotechnol. 14, 238–241 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Persson, C.G.A. Centennial notions of asthma as an eosinophilic, desquamative, exudative, and steroid-sensitive disease. Lancet 349, 1021–1024 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wurtman, R.J. & Bettiker, R.L. The slowing of treatment discovery, 1965–1995. Nature Med. 1, 1122– 1125 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Gutterman, J.U. Clinical investigators: The driving force behind drug discovery. Nature Biotechnol. 15, 598–599 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Persson, C. Clinical research, or classical clinical research?. Nat Med 5, 714–715 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/10419

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/10419

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing