Editorial: ‘The giant’s shoulders’: understanding Michael Rutter’s impact on science and society

The recent death of our colleague and friend Professor Sir Michael Rutter has quite rightly been greeted by an outpouring of gratitude and respect from distinguished commentators across the globe working in diverse fields of the basic, social and clinical sciences as well as from clinicians and policy makers. These have without exception highlighted his seminal role as a pioneer, perhaps The Pioneer, of the application of the scientific method to the study of child and adolescent mental health and disorder – the father of evidence-based Child Psychiatry and the most influential voice in the new field of Developmental Psychopathology (Stevenson, 2022). In this editorial, we will attempt to build on these commentaries. We will parse Mike’s scientific contributions to our field, in order to identify the personal characteristics and intellectual modus operandi that made him such a uniquely important figure, whose influence will resonate through the many fields he influenced for decades to come. We will also attempt something of a reframing of that contribution. Our thesis being that, although he never agitated for it politically or even stated it as a goal explicitly, Mike’s work was motivated by a desire for social reform and created the scientific catalyst for such reform to occur.     

A Very Long-term Longitudinal Study on the Evolution and Clinical Outcomes of Persistent Iatrogenic Atrial Septal Defect After Cryoballoon Ablation

Background

Persistent iatrogenic atrial septal defect (iASD) is a common but poorly characterized complication after cryoballoon (CB) pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) procedures. We therefore investigate its prevalence, evolution, risk factors, and clinical outcomes in a prospective longitudinal study.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Organ Donation in Hong Kong: A Single-Center Observational Study

IntroductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was expected to have a negative impact on organ donation. With the differences in health care systems and lockdown policies in various regions, the pandemic's effect on organ donation and transplant service may vary. Most of the deceased donor organ referrals in our hospital came from non–intensive care units (ICUs). The objective of this study is to report our experience and quantify the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on deceased donor organ donation in our center.MethodsThis was a retrospective observational study comparing the deceased donor organ donation activity during the period January 23 to November 30, 2020 with the same period in 2018 in Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Hong Kong.ResultsThere was a 26.9% reduction in deceased donor organ donor referral in 2020 compared with 2018. No significant difference in the proportion of referrals from ICU or non-ICU areas between the 2 time periods was observed. The brain death confirmation rate was significantly higher in 2020 (40.8% vs 20.2%, P = .003). Nine patients had family consent for organ donation in 2020 (vs 7 patients in the same period in 2018). There were no significant differences in consent rate and number of recovered organs between the 2 periods.ConclusionsWith effective measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 in a community, it is possible to support the needs of both patients with COVID-19 and deceased donor organ donation services.     

Predicting human inhibitory control from brain structural MRI

Brain Imaging and Behavior - The anatomical structure of the human brain varies widely, as does individual cognitive behavior. It is important and interesting to study the relationship between...     

Editorial: ‘People get ready’: Are mental disorder diagnostics ripe for a Kuhnian revolution?

How is practical progress possible in child psychology and psychiatry? How does science advance to promote therapeutic innovation? The importance of the exciting stuff – new insights and ideas, studied using cutting edge and innovative technologies – is self-evident. However, the philosophy of science has shown us that less obvious and more mundane elements are also essential. This is because scientific progress is only possible where attempts to break new ground are solidly anchored in a stable shared framework of assumptions – a metatheory – about the general nature of the phenomenon being studied. This framework defines what questions are considered ‘scientific’ – questions that it ‘makes sense’ to ask from a scientific point of view and those that are considered out of bounds (scientists with less subtle minds even considering such to be nonquestions rather than different sorts of questions). Kuhn called this framework a paradigm and the research activity that originates from it, normal science (Kuhn, 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions; Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). These frameworks also serve a vital regulatory function because they contain common concepts that embody shared points of reference that allow scientists to communicate with each other to share their ideas, hypotheses and findings (Habermas, 1979, Communication and the evolution of society; Boston: Beacon Press).