© 2007 European Society for Medical Oncology
editorials |
Now the New Year reviving old desires
University of Oxford, Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Oxford, UK
So then, another year, but the same old desires revived indeed. Rather than take a Latin text as a point of departure for this editorial, as has been my past habit [1], I have chosen to consider the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam, here in its most famous English translation, that of Edward Fitzgerald.
The 11th century Persian scholar, Omar Khayyam, who we today remember mostly as the poet author of the quatrains, was during his own life best known as a mathematician and astronomer. He made significant contributions to the development of algebra, the mapping of the stars and the calculation of accurate calendars. But consider this:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Poetry!
Legend has it that when Omar Khayyam's schoolmate Nizam-ul-Mulk became Vizier to the Persian Empire, Omar Khayyam and fellow schoolfriend Hassan-i-Sabah went to the Vizier to request a share in his good fortune, as they had agreed years before they would when one of the three achieved some degree of success. Hassan-i-Sabah requested and was granted a place in government, in intelligence, but his ambition led him to attempt to overthrow the Vizier and he was banished, but only after Omar Khayyam pleaded for the life sentence against him to be commuted. For his share of the Vizier's good fortune, Omar Khayyam requested a pension and place to live where he might study science and pray. He lived on the pension the Vizier granted for the rest of his life. Hassan-i-Sabah, of course, is best known to us today as the leader of the Hashshashin, the Assassins. Perhaps it is after all only a legend, but it illustrates the choice we must make between peace, science and contemplation on the one hand, and ambition and militancy on the other. How many of us would not choose to have the money and space simply to pursue our research?
I was reminded of all this forcibly during last year's ESMO Congress in Istanbul and during a recent trip to Dubai. For all that we may think of the civilization of ‘the West’, do not forget that scientists and scholars outside its confines have for centuries been pursuing paths of peace, research and knowledge. We should do well to remember that the East–West dichotomy is a relatively recent invention, and that for nearly a 1000 years before the renaissance science came from the East.
So what of Annals of Oncology and the new year and old desires? Well, it has become customary in these annual commencement editorials for me to recap the previous year's achievements and trail those of the coming year. I will be brief: last year Annals of Oncology received over 1200 manuscripts, a record, served the best part of 1.25 million full-text articles from its website, another record, and posted an impact factor of 4.319. Routine online publication ahead of print now sees accepted articles published online within 5 weeks of acceptance. Last year also saw the awarding of the biennial Annals of Oncology prizes [2] which has over the years consistently proved to be a worthwhile experience, thanks to the support of authors who chose Annals of Oncology as the place they wanted to publish their research. And while I am thanking people, I would want to thank here Volker Diehl and Thierry Le Chevalier whose work as Associate Editors has done so much to develop the reputation of Annals of Oncology as a journal publishing first-rate research. Volker and Thierry step down now as editors, but I am pleased to announce that they will be succeeded by Karim Fizazi and Vinod Raina (Welcome!). I am also delighted to welcome Christian Dittrich, Andrew Hughes, Peter Jacobs, Hussein Khaled and Harry Schouten to the Editorial Board.
All of the editors of Annals of Oncology, old and new, share my desire to publish science of the highest quality with the greatest impact on cancer care delivery. I believe, the Annals of Oncology prizes illustrate the workings of that desire, but I should also acknowledge the authors of reviews (see for examples [3–5]) and editorials (for examples see [6–8]) who are not eligible for the prizes, but who add so much value to the journal.
The Bird of Time has but a little wayTo fly—and Lo! the Bird is on the Wing.
So I will not detain you further. Let us temper our science with poetry and move on.
References
1. Kerr DJ. (2006) Concordia res parvae crescent. Ann Oncol 17:3–4.
2. Kerr DJ. (2006) KISS: the 2006 Annals of Oncology prizes. Ann Oncol 17:1341–1342.
3. Woods LM, Rachet B, Coleman MP. (2006) Origins of socio-economic inequalities in cancer survival: a review. Ann Oncol 17:5–19.
4. Farrell AT, Papadouli I, Hori A, et al. (2006) The advisory process for anticancer drug regulation: a global perspective. Ann Oncol 17:889–896.
5. Roila F, Hesketh PJ, Herrsstedt J, et al. (2006) Prevention of chemotherapy- and radiotherapy-induced emesis: results of the 2004 Perugia International Antiemetic Consensus Conference. Ann Oncol 17:20–28.
6. Pritchard KI. (2006) Fenretinide in the prevention of breast cancer in premenopausal women: fluke or fact? Ann Oncol 17:1035–1036.
7. Gianni L. (2006) The cost of life: should it matter to doctors? Ann Oncol 17:357–358.
8. Hupperets PS and Tjan-Heijnan VC. (2006) Primary or secondary G-CSF prophylaxis to support TAC chemotherapy in breast cancer? Ann Oncol 17:1181–1183.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||