A preliminary analysis of research into general practice.

In any field of enquiry, there is a need from time to time to take stock and to have a cool, objective look at what has been done: the methods used, the facts accumulated and appealed to, and the conclusions reached. That need is urgent with regard to research into general practice. Before 1939 general practice was a comparatively unexplored field. The pioneering work of Mackenzie and Pickles emphasized the vast area that remained to be investigated. Since 1945, by contrast, investigation of general practice has proceeded apace and a growing body of evidence is being built up. The recent and valuable bibliographical study by Eimerl1 reveals how extensive the work has become and, already, further publications have been made. But there is little sign that individual studies are proceeding from, or are even closely related to, what has already been done. As yet, this is no cause for reproach; as much as anything else, it reflects the fact that social medicine, as a distinct discipline, is still in its infancy and that no social science can get off the ground without the prior accumulation of empirical evidence. But nor can a social science progress unless the activity of its students is in some way " scientific ". The general requirements of scientific activity have been well described in the following terms: The taking over of the apparatus, results and solutions of his [the scientist's] predecessors, the testing and, if necessary, the rejecting of them according to agreed criteria, when possible their improvement or development, and the taking up of new problems-which he, in his turn, passes on to his successors. It is reasonable to speak of the " advancement " of science owing to the possibility of taking some results as, at any rate temporarily, agreed upon and settled, and of then proceeding to new problems and solutions.2