What Is Research? — A Clinician’s Perspective on Cancer Research (Part 1)
Reflecting on the Meaning of Research at the Start of a New Academic Year
April marks the beginning of a new academic year in Japan. New students join university laboratories, bringing fresh perspectives and aspirations. Although our laboratory belongs to a basic medical science department, many of our graduate students are licensed physicians pursuing research after completing their clinical training in various specialties. Guiding these doctors as they take their first steps into research is one of my primary responsibilities.
At this time of year, I always find myself returning to a fundamental question: What is research? After all, I must help new researchers identify and develop their research topics.
Research Is Not Just About Great Ideas
Many people say that research is all about ideas. Certainly, there are moments when bold hypotheses and unconventional insights lead to major breakthroughs. However, very few people can honestly claim to possess that kind of extraordinary imagination.
When I was younger, a senior colleague once told me:
“You don’t have the same kind of creativity that I do, so you’d be better suited to serving as a hub for research projects and acting as a negotiator.”
Looking back, perhaps it was half advice and half criticism. At the time, however, I could not accept those words so easily.
Turning Hypotheses into Testable Questions
Yet that experience ultimately led me to redefine what it means to be a researcher. In my view, researchers are not simply people who come up with brilliant ideas. They are people who can formulate hypotheses, design ways to test them, evaluate the results, and refine those hypotheses accordingly—repeating this process patiently and consistently.
A hypothesis does not need to be grand. In fact, there is great value in framing questions that can realistically be tested within the constraints of available data and resources. In other words, research is not merely a competition of creativity; it is also a competition of translating ideas into testable forms. Of course, those who develop entirely new methodologies or challenge established concepts are exceptional researchers. Yet I still see myself as someone who serves as a hub, working alongside such individuals and helping to examine our hypotheses from every possible angle.
From Clinical Practice to Cancer Research
My interest in cancer research dates back to my days as a medical student. I believed that working in a clinical setting where I could care for many cancer patients would provide an important foundation for research, which is why I chose gastroenterology as my specialty.
The more patients I encountered in clinical practice, the more I realized that individuals with the same diagnosis and even the same treatment could experience remarkably different outcomes. Rather than attributing those differences to experience or intuition alone, I became convinced that they should be explained through verifiable evidence. Gradually, I devoted a greater portion of my career to becoming a physician-scientist.
Looking back even further, my father was also a researcher in the sciences, specializing in radioisotopes. He worked at a university and often emphasized that research may not always offer significant financial rewards, but it provides immense intellectual satisfaction. Influenced by that perspective, I believe that I approach medical research—which is often expected to deliver practical and societal benefits—with a rather simple motivation: intellectual curiosity.
The Importance of Reproducibility in Complex Cancer Research
Naturally, I cannot expect students from diverse backgrounds to approach research in exactly the same way that I do. Nevertheless, as a mentor and a hub connecting different researchers, one principle I emphasize above all is reproducibility. Reality is filled with noise, and therefore any new phenomenon or relationship we discover should be presented in a way that allows others to replicate and verify it. This, I believe, is the essence of scientific research.
Cancer, the focus of our work, is an extraordinarily complex disease. Variability between individuals is immense, and even within a single patient, significant heterogeneity exists. There is a Japanese proverb that warns against seeing the trees but not the forest. In cancer research, however, we must not only see both the trees and the forest, but also understand the landscape in which that forest exists. Only then can we begin to approach a true understanding of the disease.
How, then, can we ensure reproducibility when studying such a complex biological system as cancer? In the next installment, I would like to discuss the specific questions I hope to answer through my own research, while also exploring the ongoing challenges of achieving reproducibility in cancer research.
