Basic science right, not basic science lite: Medical education at a crossroad

Ruth Marie E. Fincher, Paul M. Wallach, W. Scott Richardson

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

24 Scopus citations

Abstract

This perspective is a counterpoint to Dr. Brass' article, Basic biomedical sciences and the future of medical education: implications for internal medicine. The authors review development of the US medical education system as an introduction to a discussion of Dr. Brass' perspectives. The authors agree that sound scientific foundations and skill in critical thinking are important and that effective educational strategies to improve foundational science education should be implemented. Unfortunately, many students do not perceive the relevance of basic science education to clinical practice. The authors cite areas of disagreement. They believe it is unlikely that the importance of basic sciences will be diminished by contemporary directions in medical education and planned modifications of USMLE. Graduates' diminished interest in internal medicine is unlikely from changes in basic science education. Thoughtful changes in education provide the opportunity to improve understanding of fundamental sciences, the process of scientific inquiry, and translation of that knowledge to clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1255-1258
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume24
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2009

Keywords

  • Clinical care
  • Educational models
  • Medical education
  • Research
  • Teaching

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Basic science right, not basic science lite: Medical education at a crossroad'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this