A study was done in 1987 to find out the attitudes and perceptions of patients toward treatment in the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM). A similar study was repeated five years later covering both patients and relatives of patients. In 1987, 17% of patients were not satisfied with the treatment mainly because of poor patient-staff relationship. In 1991, 5% of the patients were dissatisfied. The reasons attributed for their dissatisfaction were rudeness of staff, the presence of medical students and attitude of the patients and public of the nurses. There was a positive change of attitude of the aptients and public towards the hospital services after five years. Factors that lead to this improvement like education and better public relations is discussed.
If we were given a questionnaire of “How do we measure a researcher as a true scientist? with optional answers like (a) Having a good number of publications, (b) having attending numerous conferences, (c) with a high popularity as always appeared in mass media, and (d) good international networking and good public relations. Options (c) and (d) always come later after option (a) has been achieved, while option (b) can be simply achieved or abstract be accepted for presentation in any conference. Hitherto, publishing in any peer-reviewed journals carry a certain quality since they are highly subjected to peer review evaluation before the paper can be accepted for publication in a journal. Needless to say, those constructive comments given by the reviewers are very crucial in shaping our scientific understanding in our subject area rather than rejection experience (Yap, 2009). Having said so, option (a) will definitely be the best answer. The fact is that option (a) should not be argued whatsoever as the best answer [since publications speaks louder than anything else] and options (a), (b) and (c) are supplementary criteria to option (a) but they are not as vital as option (a). When we are asked ‘What is your scientific research performance or research output?’, the answer could always be ‘Having a good number of publications.’ Then, the next question forwarded is that ‘What is the quality and impact of your published papers to the scientific community?’ Of course, good and high impact factor journals always accept papers with high novelty in the subject area. Therefore, papers published in good journals are always highly cited and subsequently resulting in high impact (or citations) of the research done to the scientific community. However, the last question is sometimes very subjective and difficult to answer until h-index is introduced and discussed among the researchers. This paper aimed to discuss the h-index based on Elsevier’s Scopus database as an indicator of research achievement for young Malaysian scientists.
On December 21, 2010, 6000 genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes were released in an uninhabited forest in Malaysia. The purpose of the deliberate release was a limited “marked release and recapture” (MRR) experiment, a standard ecological method in entomology, to evaluate under field conditions, the flight distance and longevity of the sterile male Aedes aegypti strain OX513A(My1), a GM strain. As with any other GM technologies, the release was received with mixed responses. As the scientific community debate over the public engagement strategies for similar GM releases, dengue incidence continues to rise with a heavy toll on morbidity, mortality and healthcare budgets. Meanwhile the wild female Aedes aegypti continues to breed offspring, surviving and evading conventional interventions for vector control.