The section on research, which has always been my role in the School, skates around some fundamental issues: 1) The underlying motives of students entering the course; unlike a Science or Humanities course very few students, now or in the past, starts dentistry because they see themselves as future research workers. This was even more the case earlier in the history of the School. My late father-in-law graduated from Spring Street in the ’30s and his cohort most certainly didn’t see research as part of their future - what they experienced was a high-level trade training.

2) The tension between what might be seen as the “trade” or training component of the course and the “education” or science component has, in my opinion, never been resolved. Clearly there is a set of technical skills that a newly qualified dentist must have to be safe and effective in treating patients and many students have always see acquiring these as the main aim of the course. The requirement for a professional to understand the underlying science, human issues and ethics has been more difficult to get across to school leavers. I note in your transcript that the change to the Melbourne Model is cited several times as a driver of change, the added maturity and experience of students with a three year degree may make a big difference but we’ll have to wait to see the actual effects. This issue is common to some other vocational (I'm sure the University would prefer the term “professional”) faculties - I've watched/guided three (very successful) children through Melbourne University courses in Veterinary Science, Engineering and Commerce.

3) The Masters level courses (now clinical Doctorates) that were intended as training for specialist practice have always included a research component. In my 27+ years in the School I have played a significant role in a large number of these and very, very few have led on to careers in research. The large disparity between the incomes of private practitioners and academics is mentioned in the transcript and has been one issue. Another has been the nature of the self-selection of students into the course - personality type is an issue for successful research.

4) Most “dental” research can be subsumed into other areas of study; e.g. cellular biology, bone and hard-tissue biology, materials science, mechanical engineering and so on. Very few purely dentally qualified people can compete for research funding against specialists in fields such as these. The development of the very strong research culture in the School has, to a significant extent, relied on the importation of non-dental specialists.

To finish: one memorable quote from the very start of my time in the then Department of Dental Prosthetics “David, I hope you have some good books to read - there's not a lot happening”.

Witness to the History of Australian Medicine