First two years a waste of time?

Discussion in 'Pre-Medical - MD' started by Cerberus, Mar 15, 2002.

  1. Cerberus

    Cerberus Heroic Necromancer
    Physician 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    15,128
    Likes Received:
    124
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    Happened across this at The-Scientist.com

    In one of my pathology lab courses for second-year medical students, we were reviewing the gross and microscopic findings from the autopsy of a patient who had died following acute pulmonary embolism. As I was going through the features that help one distinguish an ante-mortem thrombus vs. a postmortem clot, one of my more outspoken students said sardonically, "This will help me take better care of my patients!"
    That comment raised, at least in my mind, a question that I've been wrestling with over the last several years: Why do we teach what we do?

    It is interesting how much my own attitude toward this question has changed over the years. There was a time when I felt that a thorough grounding in basic biological knowledge is absolutely critical to being an adequate physician. This premise, that understanding the basic vocabulary of biology is critical to a physician's education, underlay my attitude toward the basic biomedical curriculum for many years. I was convinced, for instance, that genetic information would have such a major impact on understanding pathology, predicting prognosis, and designing therapy that a thorough grounding in molecular genetics was critical to be a well-informed physician in the 21st century.

    It is ironic that even as I thought this, I was not paying heed to the fact that much of what had been taught to me during my medical school training as the "cutting age" of biological research has, by and large, turned out not to have a major impact on the practice of medicine. For instance, during the first two years of medical school, I was taught about protein synthesis in great detail. I was told about the structure of messenger RNA, the structure and processing of the ribosomal RNA, the A and P sites in the ribosome, the mechanism of protein synthesis and how antibiotics act to terminate protein synthesis in prokaryotes—all those wonderful details that almost no one remembers today. The rationale then is very much like the rationale of today—we were told that antibiotics that worked against bacteria did so by inhibiting discrete steps in protein synthesis, and therefore it was critical for us nascent physicians to understand the mechanism of protein synthesis in detail. I am willing to take a bet that even the infectious disease specialists, who use antibacterial agents most often, do not remember (and have no need to remember) where the P site is on a ribosome. Physicians slightly removed from infectious disease have even little reason to understand the structure of the ribosome.

    In retrospect, I am led to conclude that much of what we teach today as the latest and greatest and most current in research in biology, as facts that physicians must know to be good doctors tomorrow is based on specious logic. I would be surprised if the details in molecular genetics is more relevant to the practice of medicine tomorrow than details of protein synthesis has turned out to be for my generation of doctors.

    Does this mean that everything that we teach medical students during the first two years is by and large superfluous? I suspect the answer is yes, even though many of my basic science colleagues will probably be outraged by my saying so. However, there are reasons that compel me to think that some exposure to basic science is indispensable for medical education.

    One can visualize medicine as the purely technical craft, one that can be taught in a vocational school not unlike those that turn out plumbers or electricians. It is possible that one can be a perfectly adequate physician simply through apprenticeship. This model would be sufficient if medicine were as mature a craft as plumbing or electrical wiring. One has to face the reality that many of the therapeutic strategies in "modern medicine" are appalling and primitive. We look back on the practice of medicine 100 years ago and are amused or dismayed (depending on our temperament) by treatments that were "state of the art" 100 years ago. Thus, how else would we react to the use of leeches for the treatment of gout? Or evaluating the course of illness by tasting the urine of patients? Or strapping patients with emotional illnesses in straight jackets and incarcerating them in insane asylums? These and other remedies seem outrageous to us today, but I suspect physicians of 100 years from now will probably look upon our treatment of malignancies as no less barbaric. Is it really reasonable to kill every dividing cell in the body to rid someone of a malignancy? Is it noble to subject patients to the horrendous graft vs. host reactions that occur following myeloablative therapy and MHC-mismatched transplantation? Medicine is forever changing, and progress can only be made by our willingness to confront the extent of our ignorance.

    Almost any craft, however interesting it might seem initially, becomes progressively boring if every day is the repetitive administration of known nostrums. Medicine has the unique opportunity to provide its practitioners a chance for poetry. All human beings need some expression of their own creative juices, whether carving images on the walls of caves or composing songs even in the middle of a war zone.

    For those of us who lack the artistic ability to paint or compose, this artistic drive comes from those rare moments of epiphany, when we really understand something. When confronted with a patient who reacts to a standard regimen of erythromycin with vomiting, it would be easy to accept it as a known side effect. But when one realizes that this is because erythromycin has a specific gastrointestinal motility promoting aspect to its pharmacology, then one has a moment of understanding that makes the craft worthwhile.

    The real question is whether all medical students really need this knowledge base to make the practice of medicine worthwhile. It is my suspicion that a vast majority of our students really do not. Today the mechanics of being a physician is so time-consuming and tiring that most physicians do not have time to enjoy these moments of epiphany, and those who do need these creative moments probably get it elsewhere. In every medical school class there is probably a small cohort of people who are genuinely driven by the need to know. I suspect that this group of people will work out any avenue through which to exercise this need to know, this overpowering curiosity to find out how things really work. It is difficult, if not impossible, to inculcate in those who do not want to know, the curiosity to know; I think it is also impossible to kill this need in those who really want to know. I suspect that this group does not exceed a small handful in any medical school class.

    The problem seems to be that basic biomedical curricula are designed largely for the sake of this minority. Even if you never had this training, that handful would drift into academia. So, after having wrestled with this problem for years, I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter what we teach. Most medical students will promptly forget the P site of the ribosome, or heterotrimeric G proteins, or microsatellite polymorphisms—or whatever the current rage is in biomedical circles. And the small percentage of people want to find out about the things will find a way to learn even with the most attenuated basic biomedical curriculum.

    T.V. Rajan, MD-PhD ([email protected]), is chairman, department of pathology, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Conn.
     
  2. Note: SDN Members do not see this ad.

  3. SMW

    SMW Grand Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,760
    Likes Received:
    1
    Most intriguing. Thank-you for posting that.
     
  4. PelicanMan

    PelicanMan Senior Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Messages:
    417
    Likes Received:
    5
    I am glad that I am in that minority but I see what he is saying.

    bumputy bump
     
  5. med student

    med student Senior Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2001
    Messages:
    322
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think some parts of the first two years are useless but I suspect that other parts are useful. In a way I think they are trying to provide a broad base of info that way you could go into any field of medicine.
     
  6. Cerberus

    Cerberus Heroic Necromancer
    Physician 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    15,128
    Likes Received:
    124
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by PelicanMan:
    <strong>I am glad that I am in that minority but I see what he is saying.

    bumputy bump</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I also feel that I will probably be in that minority. I love learning and can't stand to not know how something works.
     
  7. Vader

    Vader Dark Lord of the Sith
    Moderator Emeritus 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2001
    Messages:
    1,066
    Likes Received:
    14
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    Well, to explain what it is like at a school that has adopted the philosophy of the above author, at UCSF we have an integrated curriculum that focuses on the clinically relevant components of education. Of course what constitutes "clinical relevance" is highly debateable and perhaps beyond anyone's capacity for foresight. We have a much greater focus on behavior, culture, and ethics in medicine, at the expense of the traditional focus on basic sciences. While it is true that not everyone needs to remember the fine details in the basic sciences, I still feel that people should have a basic understanding of certain concepts. Not studying something at all is not equivalent to learning and then forgetting. This might seem counter-intuitive, but let me explain. When you learn something in detail and are able to grasp the basic concepts, what happens is that eventually you lose the details, but what is most often retained are the concepts or, at the very least, familiarity that you have once been presented with the material. This is a difficult thing to quantify and I really have no evidence other than my own personal experience and that of others. Being a person who loves learning and seeking out answers, it is often difficult to see some of my questions be relegated to the "not clinically relevant" category. Who is to say whether what we are learning will or will not be clinically relevant in the future? For me, I would rather have the complete basic groundwork, with material that I could always go back and consult, rather than simply leave things out and never knew they existed. Does this make any sense? It's very difficult to explain, but I think the recent trend in medical school education, while a noble effort, has truly represented a full swing of the pendulum in educational theory, one that will no doubt eventually swing the other way in years to come. These things tend to come in cycles. Anyway, just my 2 cents (or maybe 5 dollars) on the issue... :D
     
  8. none

    none 1K Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    5
    If plumbing and electrical wiring have reached some sort of eternal plateau in learning, we're in big trouble.
     
  9. jdub

    jdub Senior Member
    10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2001
    Messages:
    377
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Resident [Any Field]
    hey guys,

    just another thought on this, all of that biochem, physics, etc are the base to the medicine and technology that we will be using and that is currently being used.

    should we have a profound appreciation and general understanding of where treatments come from?

    wouldn't we be in a somewhat vicarioius situation if we lost our roots?
     
  10. jmejia1

    jmejia1 Senior Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2001
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    0
    We had a doctor come to speak to us, and he said he never used much of his basic science training. also, he mentioned that classes like O-chem are basically hurdles that students must past because that's the way its traditionally has been, not because it's something anyone will ever come close to needing aside from understanding a little more in detail classes like biochem and so forth.
     
  11. Sevo

    Sevo Senior Member
    Lifetime Donor Classifieds Approved 10+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Messages:
    167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Status:
    Attending Physician
    </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by jmejia1:
    <strong>We had a doctor come to speak to us, and he said he never used much of his basic science training. also, he mentioned that classes like O-chem are basically hurdles that students must past because that's the way its traditionally has been, not because it's something anyone will ever come close to needing aside from understanding a little more in detail classes like biochem and so forth.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It's true. Looking back on my four years of med school, I've used very little of what I've learned during your first two years of medical school for my last two years. In fact, all you really need for your clerkships can be found in any good review book for the USMLE Step I. There's no need for much more detail beyond that and certainly no need to understand the minute.

    Unfortunately, the first two years of my medical school were not tailored towards the practical medical applications and salient clinical points of basic pathology and basic molecular biology. Instead, we were thrown reams of information to memorize for our in-house exams, not knowing then what items would be critical to know during our clinical rotations and what items would only be important if we were trapped in a lab.

    You use even less of what you are required to learn during your undergraduate years. The reading and writing skills that I sharpened in my various lit classes have turned out to be far more valuable than the pearls picked up during my organic chem labs and calculus classes.
     
  12. SMW

    SMW Grand Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2001
    Messages:
    3,760
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was in my advisor's office one day, and met a doc who had somehow managed to go to medschool without ever taking organic. Anyway, he said, it was never a problem.
     
  13. Doctora Foxy

    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2002
    Messages:
    5,368
    Likes Received:
    2
    Status:
    Medical Student
    Sevo has an excellent point. At my most recent interview, I asked a 3rd year what she doesn't like about the school, and she said that they are taught so much during the first 2 years and should be told which info is the most important clinically.
     
  14. Barin

    Barin Member
    7+ Year Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Crap. It's like why bother to take math at high school if you going to use calculators anyway...
     
  15. The Man, the myth, the legend,

    Your first post sounded like a damn good verbal reasoning passage. Well written. I just hope that whatever school i end at, links the basic sciences to clinical aspect.

    I hate verbal passages <img border="0" alt="[Pissy]" title="" src="graemlins/pissy.gif" />
     

Share This Page