The expression aquatic animal medicine gives little hint about the very diverse and sometimes discordant field it covers. The single unifying factor which joins its many interests is the medium -- water. Beyond that, the type of animal studied ranges from the lower invertebrates through the higher mammals. Aquatic medicine encompasses more than just the preventing and curing of disease. Unlike most terrestrial animal medicine, it generally involves the manipulation of the entire medium, as well as the diseased organism. Such inherent diversity in application and background makes it difficult to establish a consensus of thinking among aquatic health-oriented professionals. However, several trends may be identified based on the comments in these proceedings. These trends do not reflect all of the attitudes or ideas contained herein, nor do they necessarily reflect the editors' opinions.

Historically, there have been few or no formal avenues open for individuals pursuing a career in aquatic animal medicine. Rather than having formal academic curricula to follow, the trend has been to follow a more informal piece-meal program or gain knowledge through on the job training. Individuals educated in this manner often have fixed attitudes reflecting the facility in which they were trained and may lack depth in their experience. Presently, the primary disease person in aquatic animal facilities appears to be more corollary or paramedic in nature than veterinary. Traditionally there has been a lack in appeal for individuals to enter this field. University curricula, both in veterinary and graduate programs, have often neglected the inclusion of the aquatic animal health field. In addition, financial aspects are often cited as a primary problem since remuneration in this field does not compare to other areas of animal medicine. It has been estimated that in the coming years there will be an overage of graduate veterinarians; hence, there will be greater pressure for them to enter other specialized fields, such as aquatic mammals. However, little growth involving veterinarians is anticipated in the marine mammal area, so there is now a growing interest in entering aquaculture and other fish related fields. This has, however, created some disharmony between veterinarians and the biologists who have traditionally serviced the fish oriented industries. These biologists involved in husbandry or research often perceive veterinary involvement as potentially threatening to acceptance of their expertise. Whether or not such fears are valid, the union between the biologist and the veterinarian, both specialists, will help to provide a greater overall understanding into the animal's needs, be it wild or captive. The industry needs to be educated about the vast potential that this union holds for the future of aquatic animal medicine.

The major factor adversely affecting aquatic animal industries is that their problems have not been adequately identified so as to provide for their solutions. The managers and administrators of these industries should help establish research priorities in concert with the biologist and veterinarian. The more complex problems can be identified and solved, as more and better educated professionals are encouraged to enter the field of aquatic animal health. It is therefore necessary for these industries to play a greater role in encouraging such involvement. Communication, cooperation, and coordination between the industries would greatly resolve common problem areas. For example, new drugs (antibiotics, vaccines, etc.) are needed for all aquatic animals, especially in the area of aquaculture aimed at human food production. Unfortunately, legal restrictions may be too restrictive and could be stifling to growth. Legalities, then, can have a profound effect on aquatic animal industries and aquatic animal medicine practices.

One bureaucrat has said "…if the government perceives a vacuum, it will move to fill that vacuum": that businesses and professions are being more controlled by government. This has serious connotations, since there is a trend to pass less definitive legislation and pass the interpretation and regulation to the courts and bureaucrats. At times, such problems in the legislative process appear to be more limiting to aquatic animal health than the biological problems. Admittedly, legislation is designed to satisfy the majority, thus creating pressures on those persons responsible for its interpretation and enforcement. It is therefore important for the aquatic animal health field to enter and work in the legislative system affecting it. The government also needs good, worthwhile input from qualified persons to help it function better in its regulatory capacity. Hence, closer coordination between the various groups in aquatic animal health is necessary so that they can address the legal problems in a more effective manner.

A special area of concern here is that of the states' Veterinary Practices Acts, which define the medical activities of veterinarians and non-veterinarians. While veterinarians have been given the legal franchise to practice medicine, they often do not in several areas because of background, financial aspects, or disinterest. These areas often involve aquatic animal health and are typically serviced by non-veterinarians due to the need for such services. As the veterinarians may be entering these areas as discussed earlier, the legal status of many qualified aquatic animal health specialists will have to be clearly defined.

Another example would be the need for the development of new drugs mentioned above. New drugs are difficult to get approved for use, especially since the courts have ruled that studies (i.e., research) rather than expert opinion are necessary for their approval. Such restrictions have driven up the cost of drug development to the point where it may not be lucrative to develop them. Legislation and regulation conceivably can hinder the development of industries as aquaculture and may even hinder research as well.

The existing legal framework appears to limit research in two ways. it requires one to follow many regulations regarding items as specimen acquisition, holding facility quality and professional ethics. It also inherently carries burdensome financial loads, which are usually in the form of administrative overhead, paperwork, and frequent progress reports. These all require large amounts of those two things precious to most researchers -- time and money. Simplification and avoidance of duplication in the legal and regulative process were often cited as the most pressing needs in aquatic animal medicine today.

Several other areas of concern to research can be identified in spite of the general lack of agreement regarding research priorities. (Needs or priorities oftentimes reflected the individual's own particular interest -- few individuals offered an overview for the entire field.) There was agreement that research should be concerned with establishing baseline data, clearly defining the norm for an individual animal. It was also generally felt that more research in disease diagnosis and preventive medicine was necessary. Such work would be greatly assisted by developing single source textual materials regarding health problems, and through the compiling of such resources. However, due to the many legal problems encountered earlier, such individualized research investigations can be severely hampered. The establishment of research centers housing groups of animals difficult to maintain due to costs and legal restrictions is strongly recommended. Such centers could be the focal point of cooperative national and international studies, and replace the more restricted and costlier methods.

Finally, the aquatic animal health professionals need to fulfill the necessity of applying preventive medicine to the formation of a well and correctly informed public. They have a further obligation to advise and share technical knowledge with their peers for the betterment of all.

It is desirable that an attempt be made by the aquatic health professionals to reach a consensus of opinion regarding the research, education, legislative and industry needs for aquatic animal health care. Some formal method for communicating this consensus of thinking should be established so as to affect the future of the field in a positive and progressive way.

As Dr. Hammond stated," it is not enough to do good, we must be seen to be working in tandem toward the good of all."