Nomenclature

Following my discussion in the past two days, you may come to the conclusion that studying new diagnostic test or prognostic score is the most inferior type of medical research.

But no.

Many of the university academics do serious medical research to advance our knowledge and patient care. Just that the activity - alas, I mean publication - generated from serious research alone would not be sufficient to fulfill the appetite of whatever software that their faculty uses. To secure their own job (and the opportunity to continue with their own serious work), they need a steady source of publication.

The sobering truth is, even if we take aside this consideration, my answer remains no - there are things of even lower a class.

Imagine: If you are working on a disease that no new treatment exists, and there even lacks a new diagnostic test or prognostic scoring, what could you do ?

Let's give a new name to the disease.

Well, I'd better not to give specific examples to hurt your feeling.

PS. The usual circumstance that a new name is put up for an existing disease is during international summit or those so-called expert panel meetings. A conference report is published to announce the new name, and all experts get their names on a paper.

The homework is done.