The (continued) importance of the hypothesis in surgical oncology research

Abstract

There remains much to be learned about the biology and therapy of human solid tumours, despite remarkable progress in science, medicine and technology in the past century. The well-formulated, explicit and testable hypothesis remains the key to progress in scientific medicine. It should precede experiment and provide landmarks by which experimental results may be judged. Primary clinical research takes three common forms) Experimentation in surgical oncology often reports the measurement of a biological moiety in a laboratory model or series of clinical samples, and correlates it with actual or surrogate measures of outcome. Clinical trials in surgical oncology assess the value of an intervention, such as a modification in surgical technique, a new drug, or a new form of adjuvent therapy, on outcome. Surveys measure a parameter in a cohort of patients. Each form of research mandates a hypothesis. The scientific problem which underpins the scientific hypothesis may be a general or global issue, or it may be a subsidiary issue within a field of study. Unfortunately, many studies in surgical oncology lack a clear foundation hypothesis. This devalues much research effort, is scientifically inadequate and leads to a waste of human, clinical, laboratory and fiscal resources. This paper addresses the centrality of the hypothesis in the context of modern research processes and technologies.