Eclecticism in a passionate profession.

ONE OF THE CHALLENGES of planning scientific programs and editing journals is to remain eclectic. Eclecticism is defined as the process of choosing what appears to be the best from diverse sources. In attempting to do this, abstract graders, meeting planners and editors often offend certain persons who believe that their work is more important than that of others and deserves prominent display. Dissatisfaction with the eclecticism of critics is a healthy sign in our profession. Cardiovascular specialists are a uniquely passionate group of scientists and clinicians. This passion is expressed in many ways: by righteous defense of one's own diagnostic or therapeutic method; by remarkable creative energy in the development of new techniques; by quick application of new developments into the management of patients with cardiovascular disorders; and by our perception that we hold in our hands the power of life and death for many of our patients. This passion fired the creation of over 4500 abstracts that were submitted for presentation at the 1982 Scientific Sessions of the American Heart Association. It also stimulates the submission of thousands of manuscripts for publication each year. In planning the structured portion of the American Heart Association meeting, the program committee also is dedicated to eclecticism. When considering state-of-the-art subjects suitable for clinical application the committee often is inclined to reject passionate topics on which advocacy has yet to be thoroughly challenged. When passionate topics are selected for presentation, a speaker often is chosen who is presumed to have an eclectic view, or two speakers are chosen who may represent opposite views of a controversial subject. This process either provides an eclectic synthesis for the audience or provides them the raw material from which their own eclectic synthesis should be possible. Indeed, the practice of medicine usually requires the applications of approaches gathered from multiple sources. Our patients are probably better served by eclecticism than by passion. But if too much passion can lead to adverse effects, then the opposite may be even worse. There are at least two diametrically opposite behavior patterns. Apathy is a destructive force in a profession, but apathy fortunately is a rarity in this professional organization. The things we do are too important and our involvement with the process too great for apathy to be encountered very often. But cynicism frequently creeps into our profession and into the scientific sessions. Cynicism probably is a natural response …