EDUCATION Advancing research transdisciplinarity within our discipline Yoel Sadovsky, MD; M. Sean Esplin, MD; Thomas J. Garite, MD; D. Michael Nelson, MD, PhD; Samuel I. Parry, MD; George R. Saade, MD; Michael L. Socol, MD; Catherine Y. Spong, MD; Michael W. Varner, MD; Mary E. D’Alton, MD A dvancement in biomedical knowl- edge is crucial to the under- standing of disease pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and the mainte- nance of health. As is the case in all areas of medicine, the field of obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) requires the ongoing input of new information that can shed light on issues affecting women’ s health—such as pregnancy, fertility, gynecologic cancer, female pel- vic floor health, contraception, and gender-specific medicine. Although our specialty has been somewhat fragmented by the well-justified need for sub- specialties, synergistic ties among scien- tists who use basic and translational (transbasic) methods and those taking clinical research approaches should bolster pursuits and advance knowledge in each subspecialty. Furthermore, the researcher-physician dialog should be bidirectional, commonly known as bench to bedside and back, with laboratory-based observations or new technologies translated into improved care and wellness, and clinical questions stemming from patient-physician en- counters answered by transbasic or clinical investigation. While the benefits of synergy between transbasic and clinical researchers may seem obvious, the gap between the 2 camps has not meaningfully narrowed. Clinical subspecialists within OBGYN departments, who play a key role in clinical research, have limited opportu- nities to interact with transbasic in- vestigators. The rift is heightened as these opportunities for interaction must compete with clinical, teaching, and administrative demands, and the increasing pressure of revenue genera- tion imposed on OBGYN clinical spe- cialists. Some OBGYN-related national meetings are relatively segregated by investigative approaches rather than by shared biologic questions. In addition, exposure to meaningful research training during OBGYN residency pro- grams remains very limited. Most aca- demic fellowship programs have not expanded their research training op- portunities in recent years, and others (eg, maternal-fetal medicine) recently reduced the minimum required time for research. Physician-scientists, who are greatly sought after as they play a pivotal role in bridging biologic and clinical disciplines, are under escalating pressure for funding and the attainment of ajog.org Clinical Opinion From the Magee-Womens Research Institute, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences (Dr Sadovsky), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr Esplin), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Obstetrix Medical Group (Dr Garite), Littleton, CO; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr Nelson), Washington University, St. Louis, MO; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr Parry), University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr Saade), University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr Socol), Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; Division of Extramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Dr Spong); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr Varner), University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr D’Alton), Columbia University, New York, NY. Received Dec. 18, 2013; revised Feb. 3, 2014; accepted Feb. 9, 2014. Comments and views of the author do not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, or National Institutes of Health. The authors report no conflict of interest. Reprints will not be available from the authors. 0002-9378/$36.00  ª 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.  http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.02.006 Advancing biomedical knowledge is crucial to the understanding of disease patho- physiology, diagnosis, treatment, and the maintenance of health. Whereas collaborative pursuits among basic and translational scientists, clinical researchers, and clinicians should advance biomedical progress and its translation to better medicine. The field of obstetrics and gynecology and its subspecialties has not escaped this problem. Ob- stetrics and gynecology specialists and subspecialists have limited opportunities to interact with translational or basic investigators, and cross-fertilization and collaborations are further challenged by the current healthcare and funding climate. This opinion manuscript focuses on the field of maternal-fetal medicine, serving as an example that illustrates the risks and opportunities that might exist within our obstetrics and gyne- cology academic community. A Pregnancy Task Force recently sought to identify ways to overcome hurdles related to research training, and ensure a sufficient pool of physician- scientists pursuing pertinent questions in the field. The group discussed strategies to promote a culture of intellectual curiosity and research excellence, securing additional resources for trainees, and attracting current and next generation basic, translational, and clinical scholars to our field. Recommendations encompassed activities within annual academic meetings, training initiatives, and additional funding opportunities. Inferences from these discussions can be made to all obstetrics and gynecology sub- specialty areas. Key words: maternal-fetal medicine, scholars, reproductive sciences, transdisciplinarity SEPTEMBER 2014 American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 205