Modern medicine faces a growing paradox: while scientific publications are at an all-time high, real-world surgical experience is becoming dangerously undervalued.

Research drives innovation — no question. But when metrics like citation counts and impact factors begin to define a surgeon’s worth, we risk losing sight of what truly matters: patient outcomes.

Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of performing thousands of spine surgeries. Each case taught me something no textbook ever could — from the subtle nuances of tissue handling to the weight of making decisions in critical moments. That kind of learning cannot be downloaded, data-mined, or dictated.

Yet I’ve watched young surgeons feel pressured to prioritize publishing over practicing — even writing about procedures they haven’t yet performed. While academic productivity has its place, it must not come at the cost of technical proficiency. We must ask: Are we training scholars of surgery, or surgeons who happen to publish?

The rise of AI makes this challenge even more urgent. Tools that assist in drafting papers and analyzing data are impressive — but they also make it easier to produce research that’s increasingly disconnected from lived clinical experience.

Science and surgery are not rivals — they are partners. But in the OR, theory without skill doesn’t just fall short — it fails patients.

My journey as a surgeon has taught me that excellence is forged not in the number of papers written, but in the lives touched, the complications managed, and the quiet confidence that comes from years of hands-on healing.

So here’s my reflection: celebrate research, yes. But never let it eclipse the sacred discipline of doing. Because when the lights come on in the operating room, it is not our publication record that will guide us — it’s our hands, our judgment, and our experience.