Psychiatrists, who in their treatment of mental disorder apply theories, concepts and method drawn from many branches of knowledge, have shown remarkably little interest in the humanities. Distinct from the natural and social sciences, these are concerned with human behaviour and culture. Their neglect contrasts with the keen interest in psychopathology shown in many humanities departments in universities, from which flows a stream of publications on the psychopathology of the famous, writers and artists, and the characters they create. The data on which such studies are based are similar to those making up case-histories, as Jaspers (1913–46; English translation 1963) pointed out, although the selection of the latter tends to be more focussed by a theory.

Among reports from committees and working parties, some are crisp and stimulating, while others, the majority unfortunately, are dull and sedative. The Nodder Report falls into the latter category which is a pity because some parts of it are worth reading. It is neither as good nor as useful as it should be because it fails to tackle the problem as fully and as vigorously as required. The working party have avoided difficult but essential problems such as the difficult patient, the patient concerned in criminal proceedings, the role of the consultant psychiatrist, the role of other doctors and the role of the nursing officer. They have grasped the tulips and tiptoed through the nettles.

‘Prominent among the obligations of those who provide postgraduate education’, wrote Aubrey Lewis in 1961, ‘is the duty to recognize and further whatever talents for research their students possess’. He was largely responsible for introducing a system whereby those who wished to train at the Maudsley were expected to carry a modest research project as part of their DPM examination, although he was aware that ‘it is profitless, and can be unkind, to encourage competent clincians to attempt scientific investigations beyond their powers’. In the 14 years since his retirement, research by trainees has gone into a decline, so that even at the Maudsley only a minority are actively engaged in research. Crammer (1979) writes ‘People thought (research) would help them to a consultant post. Now they know it is not necessary. Training has become more formalized, with day-release courses and rotation schemes …’ Creed and Murray (1981) have made a detailed study of the views of Maudsley trainees about the way they were taught clinical skills; they have shown that between 1974 and 1977 there was a decline in the number of units which encouraged the trainee to undertake research, and that over the whole period only 27 per cent of the units gave trainees such encouragement. These investigators found that encouragement to do research was transmitted quite independently of other clinical teaching, so that it bore no relationship to variables such as the excellence of the academic instruction, feedback from the consultant, or workload.

Staff groups of various kinds are an important part of the life of a psychiatric hospital, yet there have been few attempts to document and assess their functioning. This would seem particularly important at present when the ‘multidisciplinary approach’ is regarded as an ideal in the treatment of the psychiatrically ill. Yet, many who have had experience of multidisciplinary groups are aware that they sometimes create as many problems as they solve. In this project, three multidisciplinary groups were formed from within the staff of a psychiatric hospital, cutting across the usual boundaries of ward and administrative teams, with the aim of studying the groups as representations of the institution and attempting to facilitate participants' functioning in the wider interdisciplinary setting.

The aim of this article is to inform College members about the role and function of this important committee which has been in existence since July 1978. It is of interest to appreciate the events which led to its establishment.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists was asked in November 1976 to consider the question of the appropriateness of recognizing psychiatric wards for nurse training by the General Nursing Council for England and Wales where it was the practice on such wards to isolate patients in old-style padded cells. This request led to considerable discussion concerning the management of disturbed, violent and dangerous patients, and the following comments were produced to define the issues raised.