Not "loving" science and becoming a doctor.

[Near]

Don't get me wrong, I'm strong in science and I like it...

However, my innate passion for science is not what got me interested in the field. If it did, then I would have wanted to major in biology instead of history.

Medicine is both an art and a science.

Is it more of an art, or a science to you?

EDIT: Perhaps I'll shift gears with this thread a bit.

Can a someone be a good doctor without loving science? I'm just asking, because I keep hearing quite a lot of people saying "I went into medicine because I love science so much". But this isn't true with me.


EDIT: okay, guys, the gear has been shifted already.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Bromoney]

Don't get me wrong, I'm strong in science and I like it...

However, my innate passion for science is not what got me interested in the field. If it did, then I would have wanted to major in biology instead of history.

Medicine is both an art and a science.

Is it more of an art, or a science to you?

a science, I think most people would agree as well. In fact I don't see any way that it's an art at all, what do you mean by it being an art?

 

[Disinence2]

Now its all about evidence based medicine. So if you absolutely despise reading a ton of journal articles then it might not be as fun for you.

 

[BigBeefNCheddar]

a science, I think most people would agree as well. In fact I don't see any way that it's an art at all, what do you mean by it being an art?

I can see how medicine could be viewed as a profession similar to the artist in that both are purely meritocratic.

 

[alehar]

I understand the idea of medicine as an art. Having all of the knowledge to make decisions will only get you so far - there's something that transcends the basic knowledge in the doctor-patient communication side and the advanced use of your smarts (more complex diagnoses, those that don't follow specific scaffolds for the diagnosis, etc).

I think there's an art to most professions, exhibited by those who excel at it over what, say, a robot would do.

 

[Bearferret]

I can see how medicine could be viewed as a profession similar to the artist in that both are purely meritocratic.

I'm not sure this is true in either medicine OR art, but I think I see where you're going with it.

My feeling is that the "art" of medicine probably is most evident in the interactions that doctors have with patients, and in performing procedures.

As for the real issue, I don't think not loving science will prevent you from becoming an excellent doctor. You said you like it and you're good at it, and that's probably enough, as long as you've got the work ethic to learn and use all that science and the passion for the less scientific aspects of medicine to keep you going.

Then again, what do I know? I'm a premed.

 

[Lokhtar]

Doctors aren't scientists generally. You need scientific knowledge obviously, but you don't do science, unless you're an academic physician involved in research. The methods and goals of graduate school in a science, vs. medical school are vastly different.

So yes, you can do it.

 

[jtimmer1]

from my experience, medicine can be both an art and a science. However, it is more so a science.

 

[PremedIowa]

The study of medicine is without a doubt more science that art, so during med school your life will consist almost entirely of scientific learning.

The practice of medicine has a significantly larger artistic component, but is still strongly based in the science of medicine.

 

[Stixman28]

If all you love in science, get a PhD. If all you love is helping people, get an MSW.

Medicine falls in between. Why else would medical schools take students that do not have strictly science backgrounds.

Taking biology does not teach you to interact empathetically with another human being.

Reading literature doesn't teach you to diagnose.

It will be a combination. I have strong desires to bring other aspects of life into the practice of medicine, maybe we can work together?

Don't worry, become a doctor. Others are going to have to suck it up when real life catches up with them, and medicine turns out not just being good at taking the mcat.

 

[seelee]

If all you love in science, get a PhD. If all you love is helping people, get an MSW.

Medicine falls in between. Why else would medical schools take students that do not have strictly science backgrounds.

Taking biology does not teach you to interact empathetically with another human being.

Reading literature doesn't teach you to diagnose.

It will be a combination. I have strong desires to bring other aspects of life into the practice of medicine, maybe we can work together?

Don't worry, become a doctor. Others are going to have to suck it up when real life catches up with them, and medicine turns out not just being good at taking the mcat.

I pretty much agree with the above opinion. I would only add that the benefit of science courses is to be able to:

1. Understand the scientific principles on which medicine is based
2. Develop the critical thinking skills associated with "thinking scientifically".

Could Crit. Think. skills be developed in another major, can't say (as I am a chemistry major). I can say that science is very good at cultivating those skills.

When you say that you don't like science, do you mean that the areas that you have studied don't interest you particularly, or you don't appreciate the scientific process?

 

[kanoe]

Is it more of an art, or a science to you?

plastic surgery is art. go to newport beach or beverly hills, and you'll see what i'm talking about 😀.

 

[Near]

plastic surgery is art. go to newport beach or beverly hills, and you'll see what i'm talking about 😀.

 

[andrewnwi]

Don't get me wrong, I'm strong in science and I like it...

However, my innate passion for science is not what got me interested in the field. If it did, then I would have wanted to major in biology instead of history.

Medicine is both an art and a science.

Is it more of an art, or a science to you?

EDIT: Perhaps I'll shift gears with this thread a bit.
Can a someone be a good doctor without loving science? I'm just asking, because I keep hearing quite a lot of people saying "I went into medicine because I love science so much". But this isn't true with me.

Definitely as science. I mean, suturing isn't the same thing a knitting. Or is it? There is nothing artistic about medicine; art is usually a form of expression that leads a person to create/modify something to what the perceive. I don't see medicine falling into that "genre." I get what you mean though, how you feel your passion for science and medicine can be a strong sense of expression; however, medicine is a science, and always will be.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

The study of medicine is without a doubt more science that art, so during med school your life will consist almost entirely of scientific learning.

The practice of medicine has a significantly larger artistic component, but is still strongly based in the science of medicine.

Half of my medical education (so far) has been hard science. The other half has been how to deal with people: elicit private information from patients, tell patients necessary but unpleasant findings, being an effective physician with people from drastically different cultural, social, and economic backgrounds to my own, and function as the leader of the healthcare team.

I just had my standardized patient experience where I told the patient he had pancreatic cancer mets to everywhere. Definitely an art to that (and one I have not yet mastered, if mastering is even possible with that topic).

The art of medicine is not lost on medical schools and gets fair play alongside the hard biological science we're learning. It's called the biopsychosocial model, and is the modus operandi these days (as opposed to the biomedical model).

 

[smq123]

a science, I think most people would agree as well. In fact I don't see any way that it's an art at all, what do you mean by it being an art?

There is nothing artistic about medicine; art is usually a form of expression that leads a person to create/modify something to what the perceive. I don't see medicine falling into that "genre." I get what you mean though, how you feel your passion for science and medicine can be a strong sense of expression; however, medicine is a science, and always will be.

No - when they say that "medicine is an art," they mean that it's imprecise, and often based just as much on intuition and experience as it is on scientific fact.

A lot of experienced physicians have many stories that they have about patients that, on the surface, look pretty healthy and normal...but there is something not right about the picture. It's nothing you can put your finger on right away, but they just get the sense that there is something more serious. After digging around, they found a small problem that would have easily developed into a life-threatening condition. There are stories like that all over the specialty forums on SDN, too.

Plus, even though everyone thinks that medicine is all about "science," a LOT of it depends on your personal judgement - something that isn't true for most sciences. For instance, watching radiology residents reading MRIs or ultrasounds can be kind of difficult - what one resident thinks is significant, another one looks at and thinks is trivial. You can look at the same grey, blurry spot on an ultrasound, and have a completely different "clinical opinion" than the resident next to you.

There is definitely an "art" of medicine.

Definitely as science. I mean, suturing isn't the same thing a knitting.

Suturing isn't a science either. It's just a skill, but there's not much that is scientific about it.

 

[Aladdin]

a science, I think most people would agree as well. In fact I don't see any way that it's an art at all, what do you mean by it being an art?

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "art."

OP, I think that it is a mix of the two. I actually wrote a couple of secondary essays about this exact topic. In the last 10-15 years, I think that the focus has absolutely shifted to being more of a science. However, before then it was definitely more of an art. I think that if you are going to practice CLINICAL medicine, the best combination is using the "science of medicine" as a tool in practicing the "art of medicine" (if that makes any sense?).

Just to add something: for any of you who think that there is no "art" to medicine, I would be willing to bet you will end up being in a specialty with limited patient contact. I would suggest you spend some more time in a primary care physician's office and really pay attention to his/her interaction with patients.

 

[andrewnwi]

Suturing isn't a science either. It's just a skill, but there's not much that is scientific about it.

I know, I was making an attempt at a joke. Failure.

Plus, even though everyone thinks that medicine is all about "science," a LOT of it depends on your personal judgement - something that isn't true for most sciences. For instance, watching radiology residents reading MRIs or ultrasounds can be kind of difficult - what one resident thinks is significant, another one looks at and thinks is trivial. You can look at the same grey, blurry spot on an ultrasound, and have a completely different "clinical opinion" than the resident next to you.

Personal judgement can also be led by scientific reasoning and analytical thinking. Something thought to be irrelevant, or having a different "clinical opinion" is not not made by there own common sense; therefore, the scientific judgement made by one doctor is based on their experience and knowledge they have gained.

 

[andrewnwi]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "art."

OP, I think that it is a mix of the two. I actually wrote a couple of secondary essays about this exact topic. In the last 10-15 years, I think that the focus has absolutely shifted to being more of a science. However, before then it was definitely more of an art. I think that if you are going to practice CLINICAL medicine, the best combination is using the "science of medicine" as a tool in practicing the "art of medicine" (if that makes any sense?).

Just to add something: for any of you who think that there is no "art" to medicine, I would be willing to bet you will end up being in a specialty with limited patient contact. I would suggest you spend some more time in a primary care physician's office and really pay attention to his/her interaction with patients.

You make a pretty good point about patient interaction and how to deal with certain situations. I just that studying medicine is a science, but preforming medicine is both.

 

[THX]

In regards to the question of the OP, I think those who don't love the science of medicine can still be great doctors. However, I absolutely believe that there has to be certain things that make you go 'wow' or 'that's really cool' for a person to be successful and enjoy their work.

Regarding the Art vs. Science debate. I don't know how anyone can argue that medicine is anything but mostly a scientific endeavor - when people say medicine is an art, they probably mean that knowing what approach to undertake is a bit of an art (ie. when to operate and when not to).

 

[andrewnwi]

In regards to the question of the OP, I think those who don't love the science of medicine can still be great doctors. However, I absolutely believe that there has to be certain things that make you go 'wow' or 'that's really cool' for a person to be successful and enjoy their work.

Regarding the Art vs. Science debate. I don't know how anyone can argue that medicine is anything but mostly a scientific endeavor - when people say medicine is an art, they probably mean that knowing what approach to undertake is a bit of an art (ie. when to operate and when not to).

Perfect point! That's what I was trying to convey, but totally sucked it up.

 

[jason3278]

Read "Why Medicine Cannot Be a Science" by Ronald Munson for a good philosophical argument as to why medicine is not a science.

He basically argues that although the cognitive content of medicine can be reduced to science, the aims, criteria for success, and regulating principles of science and of medicine are fundamentally different. Medicine aims to promote health, through the prevention and treatment of disease. Science, by contrast, aims to acquire knowledge by evaluating theories. Munson also argues that medicine cannot become a science - and to identify medicine as such poses a danger to the field and those it benefits. If physicians valued theoretical knowledge of disease over prevention and treatment, the field of medicine would be lost altogether.

Munson argues that medicine, rather than being a science, is an enterprise, operating under pressures of time and immediate need. The standards medicine uses for pursuing therapies or diagnoses are not the same as the standards that science uses in rigorous scientific testing of hypotheses.

FWIW, I like science and have always been interested in and fascinated by it, but I could never count myself among the hardcore science lovers at my school.

 

[smq123]

Personal judgement can also be led by scientific reasoning and analytical thinking. Something thought to be irrelevant, or having a different "clinical opinion" is not not made by there own common sense; therefore, the scientific judgement made by one doctor is based on their experience and knowledge they have gained.

Personal judgement can be led by scientific reasoning, but it isn't always.

I think there was a story posted in the anesthesiology forum a while back by an attending. He wrote about a patient that had come out of surgery - looked good, was awake, talking, minimal pain, heart and lung exam sounded fine. Coughing once in a while, but that's normal.

But a little voice in the back of his mind kept saying that there was something wrong with this picture. So, for no particular reason, he ordered a chest x-ray....which showed a complete pneumothorax of one lung. Despite a totally normal-looking patient and a completely benign exam!

To be honest, if medicine were ONLY about the science, it'd get too boring for most of us after a while. It's the crazy stories, the unexpected discoveries, and the equally bizarre patients that keep us going. 🙂

 

[andrewnwi]

To be honest, if medicine were ONLY about the science, it'd get too boring for most of us after a while. It's the crazy stories, the unexpected discoveries, and the equally bizarre patients that keep us going. 🙂

Well, again I never said it was COMPLETELY science. I just feel it is more a science than art. I do not see how a coincidental miracle call is considered "art" though. There is an art form I will agree to that, in caring for a patient, communication, the overall personality of the job; however, it will always tie back to science.

 

[Stixman28]

I am so happy to see that we have isolated the small group on SDN willing and open to discussing a philosophical topic.

My favorite point to make on this topic revolves around a fundamental belief that even though we can break everything down into its component parts, there are higher level interactions that occur which are equally as important.

A great example of this is thoughts in the brain. When we look at the Ca2+ flux, and the induction of an action potential, we are not seeing a human thought. We are seeing an amazing interaction of components that are real, and very very important, especially with the amount of neurological disorders that can be broken down channel disorders.

BUT, we are not seeing the thoughts. There are tons of these situations we will see every day as a physician. A situation that can be seen from breaking systems down into their components, as well as looking at it when the parts work together as a higher order whole of its own.

As was said above, so much of medicine is working with intuition, understanding the psychological place of your patient so that you might understand why they have said what they have said.

Inherently, because we are forced to use language to describe our complaints, our pains, we have to use metaphors. That pain is sharp, that pain is dull. Understanding other human's use of language is an art, and this is much of the work a good physician.

Luckily, we do not have to wholly rely upon our patients descriptions of their problems, and there are objective means to observe patient problems, like blood tests, EEG's, genetic screening. This is the science, and the breaking down of an entire human to its component parts. This reductionistic approach is what has allowed 20th and 21st century medicine to make such astounding leaps.

But clearly, in order to be a healer of a whole patient, mastering communication will involve opening yourself to the art that is medicine.

 

[smq123]

Well, again I never said it was COMPLETELY science. I just feel it is more a science than art. I do not see how a coincidental miracle call is considered "art" though. There is an art form I will agree to that, in caring for a patient, communication, the overall personality of the job; however, it will always tie back to science.

By "art" I was referring more to the reliance on intuition and experience, rather than just on scientific evidence.

A lot of the attendings and residents will do things based on experience, even though it's not what the textbooks will tell you to do. When you ask them why they do it, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "It works, so why not?"

 

[andrewnwi]

By "art" I was referring more to the reliance on intuition and experience, rather than just on scientific evidence.

A lot of the attendings and residents will do things based on experience, even though it's not what the textbooks will tell you to do. When you ask them why they do it, they just shrug their shoulders and say, "It works, so why not?"

You know, I am not disagreeing with anything you say. Actually, I am trying to learn from it. I see that you are already a med-student, and I am just a sophomore in college. I can see I was not looking at this from every perspective possible. I guess what I still consider "art", can be taken many ways. Good talking, you opened up things a little more for me, and thank you for that.

 

[niranjan162]

Don't get me wrong, I'm strong in science and I like it...

However, my innate passion for science is not what got me interested in the field. If it did, then I would have wanted to major in biology instead of history.

Medicine is both an art and a science.

Is it more of an art, or a science to you?

EDIT: Perhaps I'll shift gears with this thread a bit.

Can a someone be a good doctor without loving science? I'm just asking, because I keep hearing quite a lot of people saying "I went into medicine because I love science so much". But this isn't true with me.


EDIT: okay, guys, the gear has been shifted already.

It sounds like your trying to convince yourself that you wont hate medicine even though you dont like science.

I think you can certainly become a competent physician without liking science. However, the learning doesnt stop when residency is done. Your gonna spend the rest of your life learning new science as medicine evolves (one of the reasons i like medicine).

People can do anything regardless of whether they like it or not. But I really cant see how you can go into a field so heavily entrenched in science without liking it and not end up wanting to shoot yourself.

 

[smq123]

Can a someone be a good doctor without loving science? I'm just asking, because I keep hearing quite a lot of people saying "I went into medicine because I love science so much". But this isn't true with me.

Sure, you can. There are lots of doctors who go into medicine because they like science, but, more than that, enjoy applying that science to something practical.

If you like science (but don't necessarily love it), but want to use that science-based knowledge in real life situations, you could definitely very well succeed in medicine.

 

[jason3278]

It sounds like your trying to convince yourself that you wont hate medicine even though you dont like science.

I think you can certainly become a competent physician without liking science. However, the learning doesnt stop when residency is done. Your gonna spend the rest of your life learning new science as medicine evolves (one of the reasons i like medicine).

People can do anything regardless of whether they like it or not. But I really cant see how you can go into a field so heavily entrenched in science without liking it and not end up wanting to shoot yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm strong in science and I like it...

However, my innate passion for science is not what got me interested in the field. If it did, then I would have wanted to major in biology instead of history.

Medicine is both an art and a science.

Is it more of an art, or a science to you?

EDIT: Perhaps I'll shift gears with this thread a bit.

Can a someone be a good doctor without loving science? I'm just asking, because I keep hearing quite a lot of people saying "I went into medicine because I love science so much". But this isn't true with me.


EDIT: okay, guys, the gear has been shifted already.

The OP does say he likes science.

 

[niranjan162]

The OP does say he likes science.

ehhh im not feeling it

 

[koffein]

OP,
I think the only way to get an answer is by speaking with a physician that does not feel passionately about the sciences relating to medicine. Try speaking with any physician you feel comfortable with and ask him or her if he or she knows any other physician like this and what his or her opinion is of being such a physician.

Personally, a huge motivation for me to pursuing medicine is that in a way I can always remain in an academic/student mindset - there will always be something new and interesting to learn that pertains to my field. This intellectual stimulation is probably 50% of the motivation. The other 50%: 30% is selfish interest, 20% is helping others. Saying it honestly. E.g. 20% of all the **** I'm putting up with to achieve this will be done for helping out others.

OP, What do you see substituting for the intellectual stimulation? reading of history books instead of academic journals? just wondering.

 

[Near]

It sounds like your trying to convince yourself that you wont hate medicine even though you dont like science.

I think you can certainly become a competent physician without liking science. However, the learning doesnt stop when residency is done. Your gonna spend the rest of your life learning new science as medicine evolves (one of the reasons i like medicine).

People can do anything regardless of whether they like it or not. But I really cant see how you can go into a field so heavily entrenched in science without liking it and not end up wanting to shoot yourself.

I like science though! What I've been trying to say is though, I just don't love it.

 

[Near]

OP,
I think the only way to get an answer is by speaking with a physician that does not feel passionately about the sciences relating to medicine. Try speaking with any physician you feel comfortable with and ask him or her if he or she knows any other physician like this and what his or her opinion is of being such a physician.

Personally, a huge motivation for me to pursuing medicine is that in a way I can always remain in an academic/student mindset - there will always be something new and interesting to learn that pertains to my field. This intellectual stimulation is probably 50% of the motivation. The other 50%: 30% is selfish interest, 20% is helping others. Saying it honestly. E.g. 20% of all the **** I'm putting up with to achieve this will be done for helping out others.

OP, What do you see substituting for the intellectual stimulation? reading of history books instead of academic journals? just wondering.

Actually, I'm intellectually motivated by it too. I would work with it, and I do well in it. But let's say hypothetically I couldn't get into medical school, no matter how many times I tried. I wouldn't want to be in another science-related field then. Maybe I'm a minority here, but that's just me.

 

[koffein]

I like science though! What I've been trying to say is though, I just don't love it.

If you do not enjoy reading literature on science relating to medicine, if yo do not enjoy learning about new discoveries or treatments relating to your field, or if you do not look forward to continually learning new scientific data throughout your life, then you do not like science. To "love" science would be closer to enjoying all the above that I've described + doing it on your own (enjoying the research process in itself). So, if you do not even "like" science in the way I've described, then my advice is to seriously reconsider your career path. Unless you think that the self-interest aspect of the career can make-up for your lack of intellectual interest in medicine.

 

[DrYoda]

Actually, I'm intellectually motivated by it too. I would work with it, and I do well in it. But let's say hypothetically I couldn't get into medical school, no matter how many times I tried. I wouldn't want to be in another science-related field then. Maybe I'm a minority here, but that's just me.

I'm the same way. In-fact there really isn't anything I "love", have an overwhelming "passion for", or <insert mushy word> in medicine. There's just some stuff that I like, or enjoy and in a balance where I think physician would be a decent career.


Edit: If I loved science I'd be getting a PhD, not a MD.