NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/sci/research/1005

Internet Message Format | 1992-08-31 | 3.9 KB

Xref: sparky sci.research:1005 sci.med:16652
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!warwick!csuah
From: [e-mail] (~WISP at CU~)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.med
Subject: Re: Medics as scientists ?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:44:23 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Network news)
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Lines: 72
Nntp-Posting-Host: lily

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (~WISP at CU~) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Do you find that good doctors (medical doctors) make good researchers,
>>>>>or is it the case that good doctors and good researchers are mutually
>>>>>exclusive groups?
>>
>>[my stuff about the death of good minds...]
>>>This is a tired old canard. I suppose the best argument against
>>>this is the innumerable stellar scientists who happen to be MDs,
>>>including people like Dan Nathans, Harold Varmus, Hamilton Smith,
>>>Mike Bishop, etc, etc (if you don't know who these people
>>>are, check recent editions of Who's Who, or the roster of
>>>Nobel Prize winners).
>>
>>Come on! Even if you multiply that list by a hundred, you're still not talking
>>about 1% of the number of doctors, in the UK alone. You're trying to draw
>>conclusions from an insignificant sample. The *best* minds will out, no matter
>>what, but the vast majority of doctors, along with researchers are not the
>>best of minds. We can't all be in the top 1% of the top 1%...
>
>Eh? I don't believe I claimed that a sizable fraction of all
>physicians went on to be top scientists. I simply was making
>the point that medical training does not preclude a productive
>scientific career.
>
>If all physicians were scrambling to be scientists, who would
>take care of sick people?
>
>>>What always amazes me is the notion that the rote memorization
>>>required for medical school somehow robs one of the ability to
>>>have original thought.
>>
>>True, but when you use that mode of thought for several years of clinical
>>practise, it does damage. I hear this from other doctors, BTW, not from
>>outsiders...
>
>Yes, I would agree. If one wishes to be a funded and productive
>scientist, one should refrain from prolonged, full-time medical
>practice. There are only so many hours in the day, and you will
>definitely fall behind in scientific knowledge.
>
>>BTW, why does my post bother you so much?
>>
>It doesn't bother me at all. Why does  *any*  disagreement, however
>mild, from your party line seem to bother you so much?

OK. Apologies for replaying the whole thing, but what I have to say doesn't
make any sese, otherwise.

I took your post (about a tired old canard) to mean that it is not true (IYHO)
that the rote memorization and reasoning procedures adopted in med school
and used in practice reduce the capacity for original thought. I never
mentioned exclusivity: the first thing you learn in med school is that
there are no such things as 'always' and 'never'. I even provided a
counter-example in my post. Nevertheless, you appear to deny my contention
in its entirety by calling a tiny sample...

As for bothering, your original rebuttal is in absolute and uncompromising
terms. Not the sort of reaction I'd expect from an interested but
unbothered observer. Hence my comment. The rebound was only to be expected,
unfortunately, but as you have no basis for that question I'll ignore it...

Later,

The Wisp. [who's said his piece...]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Chris Williams <[e-mail]> aka <[e-mail]>
"Tony Greig in the slips, legs apart, waiting for a tickle"
                                      Brian Johnson (thanks to A. Simha 8^>)