TY - JOUR T1 - Author's response JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 691 LP - 692 DO - 10.3399/bjgp09X454160 VL - 59 IS - 566 AU - J Campbell Murdoch Y1 - 2009/09/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/59/566/691.2.abstract N2 - The letter by Seamark and Seamark1 is typical of the response from practice-based researchers on this subject. Privately, I have received several letters with the same themes — pride in the quality and publication of practice-based research, and disappointment and frustration that these efforts have not been adequately recognised. The Honiton Practice has an academic record that would be the envy of many Departments of General Practice, but Mathers et al2 seems to have made them uncomfortable as to what their future role might be. The fact that it has taken 6 months for such a prestigious group of general practice researchers to ‘calm down’ indicates the level of offence that their statements have aroused.The statements that Mathers et al made about practice-based research were short if not sweet. The message seemed to be that research is too important to leave to ‘gentleman amateurs’ and should be done by professionals working through university departments, Schools of Primary Care, MRC networks, NIHR, and the like. The reason for this was that … ER -