Volume 181 - Issue 9
Medical education and hard science
Author: Martin B Van Der Weyden
Med J Aust 2004; 181 (9): 518-518. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb06423.x
Published online: 1 November 2004
Published online: 1 November 2004
Martin B Van Der Weyden
Editor, The Medical Journal of Australia, Locked Bag 3030, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012. medjaustATampco.com.au
In reply: McMenamin reiterates the importance of the educational components of current medical curricula: problem-based and self-directed learning, along with the enhancement of students’ capacities for communication and compassion. Forbes agrees and advances that these changes are to prepare future doctors for life-long learning.
There are two issues at the centre of this discourse — what do medical students think of the curricular changes, and are these changes informed by scientific evidence? Anecdotal reports suggest that some medical students in the United Kingdom1 and Australia2 have concerns “that basic science does not get the priority that it once did”. Similar concerns have been raised in the popular press.3 Furthermore, UK academics fear that the dilution of basic sciences in current curricula may, in the long term, adversely affect medical graduates entering into research.1
Forbes concedes that the evidence underpinning these changes to medical education is wanting. And herein lies the rub. Despite continued calls for educational research that matters4,5 (and perhaps in keeping with opinions as to how difficult performing such research might be),6,7 the medical education community has yet to report solid evidence to support the intentions of these resource-intensive changes.8 The profession, hardened by the evidence-based movement, expects no less. This, I believe, was an undercurrent of the audience disquiet at the plenary session of the meeting of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in May this year.
As to McMenamin’s robust defence of the pruning of anatomy in medical curricula, this debate is more than 2 centuries old. An 18th-century guide to the training of apothecaries (the forerunners of general practitioners) stated that “he” should be “tolerably well acquainted” with Latin, be competent in “his” own language and “acquainted with botany chemistry, and pharmacy; and have studied anatomy and physiology”. But “the minutiae of anatomy are not necessary”9 [my italics].
References
- Medical fears over basic sciences. BBC News. 10 April 2004. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/fr/-/1/hi/health/360i523.stm (accessed Sep 2004).
- Dean SJ, Barratt AL, Hendry GD, Lyon PM. Preparedness for hospital practice among graduates of a problem-based graduate entry program. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 163-166. i1085637
- Robotham J. What they are not teaching your doctors. The Sydney Morning Herald 2004 6–7 Mar: 35. i1085639
- Petersen S. Time for evidence based education [editorial]. BMJ 1999; 318: 1223-1224. i1085641
- Wass V, Richards T, Cantillon P. Monitoring the medical education revolution [editorial]. BMJ 2003; 327: 1362. i1085643
- Murray E. Challenges in educational research. Med Educ 2002; 36: 110-112. i1085645
- Prideaux D. Research in medical education. Med Educ 2002; 36: 114-115. i1085647
- Williams G, Lau A. Reform of undergraduate medical teaching in the United Kingdom: a triumph of evangelism over common sense. BMJ 2004; 329: 92-94. i1085649
- Makittrick J. Commentaries on the principles and practise of physic, being an attempt, on a new plan to connect the several branches of medicine, and to plan the practise of it on a rational and solid foundation. London: T Beckett, 1772: xvii- xxxv. i1085651