Godless Dave

They don't really look at high school, because you need a four year undergraduate degree before you go to medical school. You have to take quite a bit of biology in college to qualify for medical school, but I don't think it has to be your major.

Dr Rick

In the US, requirements for medical school matriculation are fulfilled at the undergraduate college level. Each school has its own prerequisties, but entry almost always requires a bachelor's degree. While the major can be of one's own choosing, courses required at the college level when I entered in the early 1980's typically included a minimum of 2 years of Zoology/Biology, one year of Chemistry, one year of Physics, and one year of Organic Chemistry. Many schools including mine also required a year of Calculus.

MrDarwin

Kinda makes you wonder why the med schools think it's important for their students to know something about biology or the anatomy and physiology of any animals other than humans.

In medical school, did you ever dissect any creatures other than humans? If so, what do you suppose the justification for that was?

And since you actually know a thing or two about the study of medicine, for the benefit of DNAUnion can you give any examples of how evolution had any relevance to your own medical career? Or is it, as he claims, utterly irrelevant to your own personal knowledge and practice of medicine?

MrDarwin

I agree with you in principle but I'm not sure the case is as clear-cut as you make it out to be. If the doctor had used a chimpanzee heart instead, would it have been successful? Has such a transplant been done with a chimpanzee heart? Until it has, and proves successful, I think it's a moot point.

Kevin Dorner

Sorry about that... I deleted my original posting as Oolon had already mentioned Baby Fae on page 1... not soon enough for it to be replied to.

However, all other things being equal: if you had to accept one of two hearts in a transplant on yourself, either a more closely related chimp or a more distantly related baboon, which would you pick?

Also, even if Baby Fae died of something else, which is certainly likely given that survival after transplant of animal organs is not likely to succeed, the surgeon's comment as to why the baboon heart was chosen throws the decision and his professional credentials into doubt and will be focussed on, perhaps even to the detriment of other causes.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Dr Rick

We had "dog labs" in physiology as a medical student to experiment on the cardiovascular effects of various drugs, and years later as a fellow to practice new endoscopic surgical techniques. Animals that were scheduled to be killed by the local pound were used and were fully aneshetized before we did our work.

I'm a dog lover (I'm owned by four of them right now), as were many of my collegues, but we consoled ourselves with the knowledge that these dogs were to die that day one way or the other, and killing by the pound often was very painful (many pounds at the time would place a group of condemned animals into a large tank and then suck-out the atmosphere).

One cannot practice medicine competently without a basic understanding of physiology and the disease states that disrupt it, which in turn requires an understanding of biology and its underlying principles including random mutation and natural selection. There is no way to completely understand sickle cell anemia, non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus, hemochromatosis, or a host of other common heritable diseases without understanding RM & NS. A doctor cannot properly utilize antibiotics without a thorough understanding of antibiotic resistance and how it evolves. Christian fundamentalist physicians must recognize the priciples of evolution and utilize their understanding of it to treat infections and study heritable diseases even as they deny "Darwinism."

Understanding the scientific method including the principles of objective verification of an idea, hypothesis, theory, or belief is also essential if one is to keep up with the rapid advancements of medicine. One cannot comprehend medical literature and research or evaluate the validity of a new finding by relying upon god-belief for confirmation.

Dr. Rick

MrDarwin

Thanks, Dr. Rick. What I was getting at was, why a dog? Why not a frog or a fish? Is there any kind of underlying assumption by the powers that be who assign these dissections that, since dogs are more closely related to humans than are non-mammalian vertebrates, they would therefore be more similar to humans in both their anatomy and physiology? Some differences are to be expected of course, but in general one would not expect a dog to have 2 hearts, or to lack a backbone, or to have an egg-laying reproductive system, or blood that lacks hemoglobin, because of their evolutionary history, which includes a more recent common ancestor with humans. And, since primates share an even more recent common ancestor, we can count on them to be even more similar to us.

Dr Rick

We use dogs as a concession to practicality and "relatedness."

Mammals are more appropiate than reptiles or fish as they more closely approximate human physiology than non-mammals. Because they are not as closely related to us, reptiles and fish are less likely to respond as humans would to experimental interventions than mammals. The "best" specimens would be humans, but legal and ethical considerations preclude their use. Other primates would be the next best, but their use is cost-prohibitive for teaching purposes and would be argueably unethical because they are not abandoned on city streets in great numbers and destined to die even if we don't use them.

There are computer models that are partially supplanting the use of animals for teaching purposes. Some of these are in use now to help doctors in training "practice" on humans.

Dr. Rick

Dr.GH

One night I was playing cards with Dr. Malcom PAge, who taught cardiac surgery. He ask me who I thought was the best heart surgeon in Georgia. I smelled a trick question, and tried to duck by saying that I hoped he was. His point was that that local vet was the best heart surgeon he had ever seen, and that when he got the chance Malcom would assist this guy.

There is a famous cardiac surgical technique named after three guys (no I can't recall their names, but I remember they were all fron Texas). One of the three was the high school educated, afro-american janitor promoted to lab assistant who worked in the lab. He was the one who developed the suture technique for the surgery. They also originally worked on dogs for the reasons that Dr. Rick as explained.

This is part of the experiential "practice" part of medicine that is not very theoretical. What does a beating heart feel and sound like? How do you stick a needle in a vein? Med students think that they learn every thing in their clinical work - totally forgeting that they are only learning to apply what they learned in their preclinical work.

Used to drive me up the wall.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]</p>

The Lone Ranger

katerina:


Good afternoon, katerina. Actually, the fact that teachers seldom take the time to explain to students why creationism fails as science is precisely what I’m complaining about. It would be illogical and hypocritical of me not to practice what I preach.

As a matter of fact, I always try to explain issues when we discuss them, since I feel that the ex cathedra approach to teaching is wrong. Accordingly, I also make a point of trying to encourage discussion in the classroom. As it happens, I have spent some time discussing scientific methodology with them, and how to evaluate such claims as those of the creationists’. It’s no good if I just tell them creationism is wrong when they don’t understand why.

In this particular instance, the subject came up in reference to the fact that the local newspaper has been printing letters from local creationists during the past few weeks – it’s the standard stuff: evolution is “only a theory,” there’s no “proof,” etc., etc. As the class was ending, one of the students asked me, more or less off the cuff, what I thought of this. After I made my statement, none of the students disagreed with me at all – quite the opposite, actually – nor did any of the seem to feel that any further discussion of the matter was needed. In any event, they all seemed to feel that this was a matter which had been adequately discussed before and resolved to their satisfaction.

That is one of the biggest reasons why it was so distressing to hear my co-TA clearly demonstrate that she didn’t grasp the relevant issues at all.

The sad fact of the matter is that even if I devote an hour or two of valuable class time to a discussion of the issues, I can’t undo years of misinformation and indoctrination all by myself. Unfortunately, few other instructors make the effort at all. That’s why I really think that we need to make a serious effort to reform the way science is taught in our high schools, colleges, and universities.

Cheers,

Michael

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>