Is There a Future for Behavioral Scientists in Academic Family Medicine? Johanna Shapiro, Ph.D.f Yves Talbot, M.D.t This article examines the issue of whether nonphysician teachers of behavioral sci- ence have a long-term future in academic family medicine. While the question is answered in the affirmative, several sources of threat to the special relationship between family medicine and behavioral scientists are investigated. Various formulations of this working relationship are considered, and a trilateral clinical model is proposed, which emphasizes collaboration regarding multiproblem patients; the establishment of interdisciplinary research endeavors; and the integration of the role of therapist/ consultant to the system, which will pro- vide a counterpoint perspective to the traditional medical world view through ongoing commentary and dialogue. The article concludes with a recommendation that opportunities for participation and influence be available to behavioral scien- tists within the system of academic family medicine. Fam SystMed 10:247-256, 1992 D O we need a second generation of behavioral scientists? In the life cycle of family medicine, we are reaching a point f Department of Family Medicine, University of California Irvine Medical Center, P.O. Box 14091, Orange CA 92613-4091. $ Department of Family Medicine, Mt. Sinai Hospi- tal, Toronto, Canada. where, as behavioral scientists, we must ask: Who will come after us, and what will be their role in family medicine? It is presumptuous to attempt to answer these questions completely; in part, the answers will emerge from the ongoing interaction of this next generation of aspiring behav- ioral scientists with the future realities of family medicine. But unless we, in our generation at least, seriously contemplate the question and make preparations for a partial groundwork from which answers can arise, it is a real possibility that no one may follow, and that the special relation- ship that has existed between the family physician and the behavioral scientist may become nothing more than a historical aberration. The "Special Relationship" Before considering the reasons for this pessimistic assessment, a brief review of this special relationship is in order. Train- ing in family medicine traditionally has included a strong, formal interdisciplinary component (13). Family medicine is the only medical specialty that currently ex- pects the in-house presence of a nonphysi- cian as part of every department's educa- tional unit. Because of this, family medicine training has chosen to define itself offi- cially as containing an interdisciplinary dimension. In part, the emergence of this interdisci- plinary, pedagogical approach was influ- 247 Family Systems Medicine, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1992 © FP, Inc. This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.