• Ruth-Marie E Fincher, Paul M Wallach, and W Scott Richardson.
• Education Discovery Institute, Medical College of Georgia School of Medicine, Augusta, GA 30912, USA. rfincher@mail.mcg.edu
• J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Nov 1; 24 (11): 125512581255-8.

AbstractThis 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.

12 keywords...

hide…