Earlier this year, we invited readers to submit editorials on subjects relevant to pediatrics. We were gratified to receive a number of well-written, heartfelt commentaries.The first place winner is Daniel E. Roth, MD, a pediatric resident at The University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. His cogent consideration of the relation between evidence-based medicine and the art of medicine was the unanimous choice of all the editors and is presented here.Winner of second place is Julie Kardos, MD, a pediatric practitioner in Newtown, Pa., whose commentary is entitled “The Changing Nature of Doctor-Patient Relationships and How it Affects Us.” Third place is awarded to Hugo Scornik, a pediatric practitioner in Monroe, Ga., who discussed fast food as a major contributor to obesity. We will be publishing these two editorials in future issues.Honorable mention is awarded to seven editorials, some of which may appear in PIR as space allows. The authors are: Elizabeth Berger, MD, Toronto, Calif.; Angelika Mohn, MD, Chieti, Italy; Michael Ozaki, MD, Huntington Beach, Calif; Habib Rathle, MD, Yuma, Ariz.; Roberto Santos, MD, Syracuse, NY; Joni St. John, MD, Manville, Ill.; and Thomas Wilson, MD, Salem, Ore.—LFNThe dawning of the age of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been simultaneously praised and resented by pediatricians. Supporters feel that EBM brings a long-awaited injection of science into the pediatric office, while detractors complain that our reliance on the venerated “evidence” undermines the experience and expertise—the personal touch—of the individual physician. Is this a classic tug-of-war between the art and science of medicine?As a pediatric resident, I sometimes find my colleagues railing against the invocation of EBM on the wards, viewing it as dispassionate number-crunching, the tyranny of medical researchers who are disconnected from the realities of patient care, or a blunt instrument that is insensitive to the subtleties of the illness experience. “Have we lost the art of medicine?,” a pediatrician once tersely replied when I asked her about the evidence to support her use of percussive chest physiotherapy for a patient who had bronchiolitis. Her rhetorical question seemed to be an overly melodramatic response to a fairly conventional prompt. However, if her emotion was genuine, then I believe her frustration was misplaced.The art is not the content of what we do, but the process by which we do it. In my observations of respected senior pediatricians, the art of medicine is the way one approaches the patient and family, the reassuring facial expressions, the careful words chosen, and the comforting laying on of the hands. Their art is their passion for deciphering protean illness, their energy toward advocating for patient rights and opportunities, their human connections to their patients, and their love for passing knowledge on to the next generation of physicians.The art is not in the choice of therapy, but the manner in which the decision is enacted. There need not be art in selecting the best chemotherapeutic regimen, but there is in the skillful breaking of bad news to parents of a child diagnosed with cancer. There is no art in knowing the benefit of surfactant for the preterm infant in respiratory distress, but there is in knowing how to maneuver compassionately through ethical dilemmas in neonatal intensive care.Any apparent conflict between the art of pediatrics and EBM is, at best, an unfortunate illusion. At worst, it is a subterfuge that draws our attention away from the true detractors of the art of medicine, including time pressures, cultural incompetence, the commercialization of medical practice, and conflicts of interest (eg, physician relationships with the pharmaceutical industry).EBM addresses the content of pediatrics. If the solution to a clinical conundrum is practically measurable, then study designs such as the randomized, controlled trial are the best tools we have that allow us to prioritize diagnostic and therapeutic choices. Undoubtedly, there are limitations to their applicability, but epidemiologic tools answer questions that we as individual physicians cannot reasonably resolve on our own. Relying on the best available medical evidence to guide decision-making should be considered a responsibility of the pediatrician, not a burden.The art of medicine addresses the process of pediatrics. For all that is real but essentially unmeasurable in the patient-physician relationship, our guidance comes from our teachers; our patients; the community; and our own values, ethics, and experience. We need to tackle the true challenges to the art by examining the state of professionalism and integrity among physicians and the health systems with whom we work, not by attacking the application of modern science.EBM and the art of medicine are mutually supportive pursuits. We can use the science to count the measurable systematically, but by all means, we can feel the rest.