Directions for Future Research on the Growth and Development of the Face, Teeth, and Jaws: Panel and Open Discussion

¹ American Dental Association, Council on Dental Research, Chicago, Illinois

During the entire course of the forum, a number of interesting points were made from the floor. Dr. Witkop, for example, mentioned and discussed the activity of the Interdepartmental Committee on Nutrition for National Defense (ICNND), which is now under the auspices of the World Health Organization and has a secretariat at the National Institutes of Health. He noted that dentists can actually help greatly in such work and that when, in one instance, a dentist was added to one such team, the diagnosis of some nutritional signs in the mouth was much improved. Witkop said that we need definitive information on oral nutrition, tooth size, and jaw growth and that more individuals with special competence in the oral field might well be attached to ICNND studies.

Regarding unexplored areas, Witkop suggested study of the very important question of maternal-fetal incompatibility, about which relatively little is known. He suggested that many congenital malformations may be related to immunological incompatibility between mother and fetus.

Witkop applauded the efforts of Dr. Robert Gorlin to screen the state of Minnesota for oral and facial deformities, and he advocated the establishment of similar programs elsewhere.

Witkop also pointed out that most of the genetic problems of man can be seen in plants. Botanical genetics is rich in cytogenetic data, chromosomal aberrations, biochemical errors of metabolism, and other information; much of this material probably is relevant to human genetics.

Regarding systematic co-ordination of research effort, Dr. Pearlman reminded the audience that while brilliant advances originate in individual minds, teamwork on various levels of organization and scope unquestionably has enhanced research progress in many fields-basic, developmental, and applied. Moreover, the close working contacts between scientists of many disciplines frequently generate important new ideas that might otherwise be delayed in conception.

He called attention to the imbalance, in this symposium, between the strong representation of the morphological disciplines and the meager participation of biochemists, physiologists, and pharmacologists, for example.

He noted also that, as individuals, scientists comprise a wide spectrum, from those who, like poets and artists, work best alone but usually provide much of the imaginative thinking, through those who enjoy and seek the satisfaction of participating in a large collaborative activity at least part of the time, to those scientists who are not suited to do independent research but work with high proficiency under close supervision or direction. He called for consideration of studies that would more fully utilize the potential of investigators from all parts of this spectrum.

Dr. Garn, with reference to the remarks of Krogman and Hunt, said that before we can do effective work on growth either in this country or overseas, we must have an idea to test. Zealous, thoughtless anthropometry may be soul-satisfying to the staff member of a growth study but is often exceedingly unproductive. Existing growth studies are choked with such data. Until ideas are brought to bear on this kind of evidence, it is likely to become completely sterile.

In summarizing the forum, Dr. Moyers said that one of the practical problems in this field undoubtedly will be developing a dialogue between biological and behavioral scientists. For most biologists, communication is not too difficult; as an orthodontist, for example, he has no difficulty in exchanging information with anatomists and physiologists. But the main barriers seem to exist between bioclinical scientists and educationists and psychologists; few can do the necessary translating between spheres.

He noted that many of the speakers mentioned how useful it is to do research on unusual human populations; some of these populations need redefining as work goes on, since they may not be as stable as one might wish. He concurred with Krogman in the idea that the laboratory-school complex is an ideal situation for productive work on child development at every level. He closed with reiteration of Garn's thought, that productive work in growth and development, as in all fields, must be a harvesting of testable ideas. Without these, much of our effort will be in vain.