Arts, Science, and Medicine

[Alchemist_Happiness]

One thing I've noticed about a lot of pre-meds is that there is a general disregard or contempt for students in the arts. You'll hear comments like, "Oh, take sociology, it's really easy," or "Biochemistry is much harder than political science." Since my brother is in political science, I've had a decent amount of exposure to what he has to do, and let me tell you, it's anything but easy.

 

In a sense, what students in poli sci, philosophy, and economics are doing is of far more importance than what a single doctor can do. (Please, remember that I chose to go into medicine, so obviously I think that medicine is a worthy and noble profession). I wonder why there is this attitude among many students aiming for medicine, and how we can start to train future doctors to think in a more holistic way. I know that there has been an effort here at the U of A to start to put arts in the curriculum, but there has to be more than a simple token nod towards doctors who were also artists.

 

I think we need to start examining the discourse of medicine. For example, why is it that alternative medicine (like acupuncture) is not really considered part of the canon of modern medicine, despite the fact that it has helped many people in society? It's not good enough to say that it's not modern because we can't come up with a theory for why it works-if that was the case, we would have to wait to understand every treatment before we used it, and that's not the way we deal with various pharmaceutical products, especially drugs for psychiatric illness. What I'm arguing here is that there is a very specific discourse that decides what doctors should or should not be doing, and I think that if we are to solve the many problems that face modern medicine, we need to start carefully rethinking this discourse.

 

Anyways, here's the question: why is it that "pre-meds" often look down on students in other disciplines, despite the fact that modern medicine is in major need of cross-field dialogue and interdisciplinary studies?

[seeking1]

Nice, first post on feeding the troll.

 

Seriously, if you think anyone here disrespects the arts, then you clearly don't read much and, thus, have a misunderstanding of the arts. Also, your post is not concise and wanders, which would not be problematic if you didn't start off sounding like you were trying to make a point.

 

Hows about that for an artistic critical analysis? No science necessary. Never mind that science is like an art in and of itself.

[estairella]

In a sense, what students in poli sci, philosophy, and economics are doing is of far more importance than what a single doctor can do.

 

1) You're talking about people who pursue graduate degrees in those fields, not undergraduate degrees. Name me a job where "B.A. Philosophy" is a requirement and I'll sell you a tower in Paris.

 

2) In another sense, what sewer workers and garbage collectors are doing is much more important than what doctors are doing, and therefore, more important than the degrees you mentioned too. I'm not even sh*tting you (get it?): it's a well-known fact that improving sanitation in the 20th century was the key factor in reducing disease rates.

 

So in conclusion, your brother should've gone into sh*t-collecting if he truly wanted to make an impact. QED.

 

(Also, you're a dumbass)

[loodogg]

1) You're talking about people who pursue graduate degrees in those fields, not undergraduate degrees. Name me a job where "B.A. Philosophy" is a requirement and I'll sell you a tower in Paris.

 

2) In another sense, what sewer workers and garbage collectors are doing is much more important than what doctors are doing, and therefore, more important than the degrees you mentioned too. I'm not even sh*tting you (get it?): it's a well-known fact that improving sanitation in the 20th century was the key factor in reducing disease rates.

 

So in conclusion, your brother should've gone into sh*t-collecting if he truly wanted to make an impact. QED.

 

(Also, you're a dumbass)

 

hahaha i love you

[Starling]

So in conclusion, your brother should've gone into sh*t-collecting if he truly wanted to make an impact. QED.

 

Greatest post ever.

[raketemensch]

 

I think we need to start examining the discourse of medicine. For example, why is it that alternative medicine (like acupuncture) is not really considered part of the canon of modern medicine, despite the fact that it has helped many people in society? It's not good enough to say that it's not modern because we can't come up with a theory for why it works-if that was the case, we would have to wait to understand every treatment before we used it, and that's not the way we deal with various pharmaceutical products, especially drugs for psychiatric illness. What I'm arguing here is that there is a very specific discourse that decides what doctors should or should not be doing, and I think that if we are to solve the many problems that face modern medicine, we need to start carefully rethinking this discourse.

 

Anyways, here's the question: why is it that "pre-meds" often look down on

 

The 'discourse of medicine' is called science, and it works very, very well. Alternative medicine is not part of the canon of modern medicine because it does not work. Not only are their mechanisms of action implausible or nonsensical, numerous studies have shown no more effectiveness than placebo for things like acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, etc. The only people in society who have been helped by CAM are the unethical practitioners who line their pockets providing bogus interventions to sick, gullible people. You idiot.

[UTPEOPLE]

1) You're talking about people who pursue graduate degrees in those fields, not undergraduate degrees. Name me a job where "B.A. Philosophy" is a requirement and I'll sell you a tower in Paris.

 

2) In another sense, what sewer workers and garbage collectors are doing is much more important than what doctors are doing, and therefore, more important than the degrees you mentioned too. I'm not even sh*tting you (get it?): it's a well-known fact that improving sanitation in the 20th century was the key factor in reducing disease rates.

 

So in conclusion, your brother should've gone into sh*t-collecting if he truly wanted to make an impact. QED.

 

(Also, you're a dumbass)

 

lol'd very, very hard at this

[DXO]

This totally seems like you're trying to be as politically correct as possible. Please don't do it at the expense of others. lol

[Leon]

In a sense, what students in poli sci, philosophy, and economics are doing is of far more importance than what a single doctor can do.

 

Comparing occupations this way is meaningless. In a way, the vast majority of the jobs out there are very important. Salary and the level of required education doesn't determine the "value" or importance of a job.

 

 

but there has to be more than a simple token nod towards doctors who were also artists.

 

why?

 

 

So in conclusion, your brother should've gone into sh*t-collecting if he truly wanted to make an impact. QED.

 

Did he mention that his bro wanted to make an impact anywhere? I don't see it.

[rskhan29@hotmail.com]

It seems to me that you're trying to relate the dismissive attitude pre-meds hold towards other fields of study and the dismissive attitude doctors holds towards alternative medicine. I'm not buying it.

 

The pre-med attitude you're describing stems from personal pride and arrogance. Its a type of attitude that is hardly unique to pre-meds- you'll find it amongst engineering majors, other science majors, and even humanity and social science majors.

 

The medical attitude you're describing exists because of facts and data. I'm not sure about acupuncture specifically, but from the alternative medicines I do know about (homeopathy, chiropractic, and naturopathy-all of which are fraudulent, though naturopathy is a sort of amalgam of several things that don't work) I can speculate that the the reason acupuncture is not incorporated into standard medical practice is because it simply has not been shown to work.

 

Do I think its a good idea for medicine to collaborate with other legitimate fields of study, such as sociology or political science? Sure. Thats why we have doctors with public health and economics degrees (amongst many others). Do I believe there should be collaboration with alternative forms of medicine? Thats a completely different question to which I'd give a completely different answer (hell no).

[Alchemist_Happiness]

Nice, first post on feeding the troll.

 

Seriously, if you think anyone here disrespects the arts, then you clearly don't read much and, thus, have a misunderstanding of the arts. Also, your post is not concise and wanders, which would not be problematic if you didn't start off sounding like you were trying to make a point.

 

Hows about that for an artistic critical analysis? No science necessary. Never mind that science is like an art in and of itself.

 

I agree that my post was a little wandering, and I will try to be more succinct in the future. and not everyone looks down on the arts, just many premeds do not respect the arts, as indicated by the replies to this thread.

[Alchemist_Happiness]

It seems to me that you're trying to relate the dismissive attitude pre-meds hold towards other fields of study and the dismissive attitude doctors holds towards alternative medicine. I'm not buying it.

 

The pre-med attitude you're describing stems from personal pride and arrogance. Its a type of attitude that is hardly unique to pre-meds- you'll find it amongst engineering majors, other science majors, and even humanity and social science majors.

 

The medical attitude you're describing exists because of facts and data. I'm not sure about acupuncture specifically, but from the alternative medicines I do know about (homeopathy, chiropractic, and naturopathy-all of which are fraudulent, though naturopathy is a sort of amalgam of several things that don't work) I can speculate that the the reason acupuncture is not incorporated into standard medical practice is because it simply has not been shown to work.

 

Do I think its a good idea for medicine to collaborate with other legitimate fields of study, such as sociology or political science? Sure. Thats why we have doctors with public health and economics degrees (amongst many others). Do I believe there should be collaboration with alternative forms of medicine? Thats a completely different question to which I'd give a completely different answer (hell no).

 

I think part of the problem with my post is that it really should have been two posts: one regarding the attitude premeds have towards the arts, and another about the discourse of medicine.

 

I never said that this attitude is unique to premeds, only that many of them have this attitude (and I think I have been more than vindicated by the reply of m'learned friend estairella).

 

In terms of acupuncture, I think the jury is still out. If you search on pubmed for example, you'll find a variety of studies, some of which at least show that there are some short term benefits in terms of pain reduction. The fact that there are a lot of studies being done on acupuncture also indicate that there needs to be research done on it. I don't know anything about homeopathy, naturopathy, or chiropractors, and I haven't said anything about them.

 

It's a separate story that acupuncture doesn't fit well into our modern "scientific" discourse because we don't yet really understand how it works (or whether it does work, for that matter). The real problem arises when we are not even really ready to consider the possibility that it might provide benefit to people.

[Alchemist_Happiness]

The 'discourse of medicine' is called science, and it works very, very well. Alternative medicine is not part of the canon of modern medicine because it does not work. Not only are their mechanisms of action implausible or nonsensical, numerous studies have shown no more effectiveness than placebo for things like acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, etc. The only people in society who have been helped by CAM are the unethical practitioners who line their pockets providing bogus interventions to sick, gullible people. You idiot.

 

I agree, modern medicine and science have worked very well: hence the reason I have decided to pursue medicine. If I didn't think it was worth while, maybe I would go into garbage collecting, as estairella so astutely suggested.

 

But unless we're willing to acknowledge that there might be problems with modern medicine, how will we be able to improve it? Isn't that in fact how the "scientific" method really works? I'm not saying that acupuncture is the answer, or even that it really works. All I'm saying is that we ought to be open enough and respectful enough to be able to examine other intellectual traditions and methodologies, and see what may be gained.

 

The problem with many of us who have trained in the sciences is that we are Whig historians. Whig historians view history as a single long march of progress, from the unenlightened past to the enlightened, rational future. It views history as the acts of "Great Men", and looks at certain people as reactionaries and foolish, while others as enlightened and visionary. Thus, when you look at something like acupuncture, someone who ascribes to whig history stops and says, "This is useless because it's in the past, and it will go the way of the dinosaurs." The very fact that it is still around is noteworthy, even if we ultimately decide that acupuncture is useless.

 

And Bruno Latour says it much better:

 

http://www.bruno-latour.fr/presse/presse_art/GB-DOMUS%2012-04.html

[nosuperman]

You're drawing a false comparison between courses being regarded as easy and fields being undervalued and disrespected, and then making an extrapolation of your own regarding the qualities of premeds.

 

In my own experience, courses like psychology, political science, sociology and philosophy have been easy A's. For me, its way easier to chug through a book, or an essay in one of the above fields than sift through an equivalent amount of molecular cell or genetics papers. That isn't indicative of my respect or appreciation for the material, it only means the course is easy relative to what I'm used to.

 

Accordingly, when my friend is looking for something to balance out a difficult course with an intensive lab component, yes, I'll sometimes recommend they take a non-science. What I don't say is "Hey take sociology... and by the way those guys contribute very little to society and medical doctors certainly make greater contributions than sociologist!"

 

Its interesting how you're making a sweeping generalization and opening your argument with an example thats basically a false generalization on its own. Disregard? Contempt? Why would anyone have contempt towards fellow academic colleagues? This is at best a massive exaggeration.

[estairella]

I never said that this attitude is unique to premeds, only that many of them have this attitude (and I think I have been more than vindicated by the reply of m'learned friend estairella).

 

1) I haven't been a premed for 2 years now.

 

2) My bachelor's was in psychology.

 

What was yours in? Something generic like physiology or biomedical sciences I'm sure, like 90% of people out there. So yea, go ahead and lecture me, as if you'd know what you're talking about.

[seeking1]

OP, funny you should mention acupuncture, because a scientific and chemical explanation of acupuncture's effects is coming to fruition.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/05/30/a-biological-basis-for-acupuncture-or-more-evidence-for-a-placebo-effect/

 

The short of it: its all about adenosine.

[raketemensch]

 

 

The problem with many of us who have trained in the sciences is that we are Whig historians. Whig historians view history as a single long march of progress, from the unenlightened past to the enlightened, rational future. It views history as the acts of "Great Men", and looks at certain people as reactionaries and foolish, while others as enlightened and visionary. Thus, when you look at something like acupuncture, someone who ascribes to whig history stops and says, "This is useless because it's in the past, and it will go the way of the dinosaurs." The very fact that it is still around is noteworthy, even if we ultimately decide that acupuncture is useless.

 

By any reasonable measure, the last 500 years have indeed been characterized by a long march of progress, at least in the Western World. This is not 'Whig History,' it's a simple fact. I'm not sure that the future is any more rational, but we have certainly progressed immensely in terms of life expectancy, quality of life, opportunity, and oh yeah... we've put humans in ****ing space. A few great men have been extremely important to science and humanity- guys like Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Planck, Bohr, Darwin, Heisenberg, etc. In many cases, these men had profound insights that were vastly beyond the understanding of their times (watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson describe just how brilliant Newton's insights were for a good illustration-

, about 4 minutes in), and most of our vital technologies would not function without their contributions. It's unfortunate that the history of science was for so long characterized only by the contributions of a few white, male, European geniuses. Hopefully that will change in the future.

 

Since you seem so mired in a bizarre anti-Whig interpretation of history, it is worth mentioning again that acupuncture is not rejected because it is from the past of from Asia or whatever. We reject acupuncture because it does not work and all scientific understanding tells us that it cannot work. Numerous studies have shown this, I don't think you have been very skeptical or careful reading your Pubmed abstracts. The fact that there has been any research at all into this ridiculous practice shows that scientists are unwilling to reject anything out-of-hand, we rely on evidence before we make judgments. The evidence is in, and it does not bode well for acupuncture or any other 'alternative' practice.

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5112#more-5112

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4065#more-4065

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3314#more-3314

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2945

 

Everyone acknowledges that there are problems with modern medicine, but the sole reliance on science and naturalism as methods of inquiry is not one of them. Medicine is constantly improving itself... this is tracked scientifically in things like decreases in hospital-borne infections, increasing life expectancy, new treatments, and expanded understanding of disease.

[Alchemist_Happiness]

OP, funny you should mention acupuncture, because a scientific and chemical explanation of acupuncture's effects is coming to fruition.

 

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/05/30/a-biological-basis-for-acupuncture-or-more-evidence-for-a-placebo-effect/

 

The short of it: its all about adenosine.

 

Thanks for posting this article. I'm not an advocate for or against acupuncture, I'm just merely interested in trying to explore the assumptions that we as (future) doctors make, and I'm happy that this thread has generated discussion.

[Alchemist_Happiness]

By any reasonable measure, the last 500 years have indeed been characterized by a long march of progress, at least in the Western World. This is not 'Whig History,' it's a simple fact. I'm not sure that the future is any more rational, but we have certainly progressed immensely in terms of life expectancy, quality of life, opportunity, and oh yeah... we've put humans in ****ing space. A few great men have been extremely important to science and humanity- guys like Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Planck, Bohr, Darwin, Heisenberg, etc. In many cases, these men had profound insights that were vastly beyond the understanding of their times (watch Neil DeGrasse Tyson describe just how brilliant Newton's insights were for a good illustration-

, about 4 minutes in), and most of our vital technologies would not function without their contributions. It's unfortunate that the history of science was for so long characterized only by the contributions of a few white, male, European geniuses. Hopefully that will change in the future.

 

Since you seem so mired in a bizarre anti-Whig interpretation of history, it is worth mentioning again that acupuncture is not rejected because it is from the past of from Asia or whatever. We reject acupuncture because it does not work and all scientific understanding tells us that it cannot work. Numerous studies have shown this, I don't think you have been very skeptical or careful reading when your Pubmed abstracts. The fact that there has been any research at all into this ridiculous practice shows that scientists are unwilling to reject anything out-of-hand, we rely on evidence before we make judgments. The evidence is in, and it does not bode well for acupuncture or any other 'alternative' practice.

 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5112#more-5112

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4065#more-4065

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3314#more-3314

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2945

 

Everyone acknowledges that there are problems with modern medicine, but the sole reliance on science and naturalism as methods of inquiry is not one of them. Medicine is constantly improving itself... this is tracked scientifically in things like decreases in hospital-borne infections, increasing life expectancy, new treatments, and expanded understanding of disease.

 

If we only rejected acupuncture because it doesn't work, I would have no problem with that. And it seems from the various articles posted that the evidence does seem to be against acupuncture. I guess the question is then: why is acupuncture still so popular? and why has it lasted for so long? If you think that regular people are stupid, and that 100 years ago everyone was stupid, and now we are all smart, then you can say that the reason acupuncture still exists is because it is the last fading vestiges of an unenlightened past. I happen to think that just because we have greater technology that doesn't make us smarter, and I think it's worth at least trying to understand what motivates people to seek acupuncture treatment instead of maintaining a paternalistic attitude towards the people who perhaps will be our patients.

 

I'm not 100% sure that we everyone has progressed in terms of "life expectancy, quality of life, and opportunity" either. In fact, the majority of the world is starving and has no opportunity for advancement whatsoever. Even in the Western world (such as the United States), there are millions of people living in abject poverty. In the past, however, there have been periods in history where there has been absolutely no hunger-everyone had enough to eat. Again, I'm not saying that those times were better, only that it is a fallacy to see the march of history as an unbroken march towards a greater and more glorious future.

 

Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, talks exactly about this "great scientist" hypothesis. Although no one would deny that Isaac Newton and Einstein were great thinkers, you also have to realize that the conditions had to be right in order for their ideas to be widely accepted. In other words, scientific discovery is not a linear progression, but rather progresses through periods of intense discovery and insight.

 

Oh, and one last thing: is it really true that hospital-borne infections are decreasing? I seem to remember something about MRSA...

[Alchemist_Happiness]

You're drawing a false comparison between courses being regarded as easy and fields being undervalued and disrespected, and then making an extrapolation of your own regarding the qualities of premeds.

...

Its interesting how you're making a sweeping generalization and opening your argument with an example thats basically a false generalization on its own. Disregard? Contempt? Why would anyone have contempt towards fellow academic colleagues? This is at best a massive exaggeration.

 

If I have made a generalization, it's only because it's something that I've noticed, and I'm very sorry if I have hurt your feelings I certainly wish people wouldn't have contempt towards their academic colleagues, and if you don't hold this attitude, that's great.

 

It seems to me, though, that people like m'learned friend estairella feel that political scientists are equivalent to garbage collectors (who by the way, are very important, and I am in no way disrespecting people who earn their living in an honest way).

 

If you also found sociology etc to be easy, then that is great for you. To view the entire discipline as being somehow inferior would be silly, and you are obviously not doing that. I myself tried to take a variety of different subject in undergrad, not because they were easy, but because I feel that exposing myself to a variety of subjects and disciplines could only help to broaden my perspective on the world.

[UTPEOPLE]

If I have made a generalization, it's only because it's something that I've noticed, and I'm very sorry if I have hurt your feelings I certainly wish people wouldn't have contempt towards their academic colleagues, and if you don't hold this attitude, that's great.

 

It seems to me, though, that people like m'learned friend estairella feel that political scientists are equivalent to garbage collectors (who by the way, are very important, and I am in no way disrespecting people who earn their living in an honest way).

 

If you also found sociology etc to be easy, then that is great for you. To view the entire discipline as being somehow inferior would be silly, and you are obviously not doing that. I myself tried to take a variety of different subject in undergrad, not because they were easy, but because I feel that exposing myself to a variety of subjects and disciplines could only help to broaden my perspective on the world.

 

Im supporting estairella here... She had no malicious intent. Her post was simply pointing out that in some way, most professions are important. By insisting that politicians have greater impact than doctors, the OP is demonstrating a utilitarian point of view, which some understandingly do not agree with. Personally, if I was the patient whose keister was just saved by a brilliant surgeon, the person who is the most important to me would be the surgeon, not the politician.

 

I do agree that there is a place for some arts and philosophy within med. however, I think that overfocusing on the arts (and potentially neglecting the basic science behind med) might not be the best way to go

[A-Stark]

Im supporting estairella here... She had no malicious intent. Her post was simply pointing out that in some way, most professions are important. By insisting that politicians have greater impact than doctors, the OP is demonstrating a utilitarian point of view, which some understandingly do not agree with. Personally, if I was the patient whose keister was just saved by a brilliant surgeon, the person who is the most important to me would be the surgeon, not the politician.

 

Actually, the problem goes further than that - most people doing undergraduate degrees in social sciences and humanities are not going to be working in those fields, much less obtaining further education in those areas. I have an honours BA in political science concurrent with my math degree. I don't know which of my classmates are having the most "impact", though in my experience most poli sci students are thinking of law school, journalism, or - and this is the opposite of "helping people" - becoming political staffers and hangers-on of some sort, i.e. future political hacks who will never have a real job in their life.

 

I do agree that there is a place for some arts and philosophy within med. however, I think that overfocusing on the arts (and potentially neglecting the basic science behind med) might not be the best way to go

 

I'm not aware that this has anything to do with eliminating portions of the curriculum. In fact, that's a ridiculous straw man in light of things like Dal's Humanities in Medicine Program.

[AdamP]

I don't think in general pre-meds have contempt for the arts, I definitely don't suspect very many of them think it's easier.

 

I have never seen someone suggest taking an essay course in sociology to boost GPA.

[DOC_Ma]

Hey

 

Just wanna let you know there are a lot of ignorant people NOT JUST in premed (i.e. my high school math teacher always made fun of art students for some reason).

 

What I think is

 

1) A lot of premeds on this forum are talking about a single easy art course or philosophy course not the program. From my own experience, I know there are easy courses in the faculty of arts but overall the program is just as challenging as any science program.

 

2) Regarding alternative medicine, I think that is a problem. A lot of family physicians totally disrespect acupuncture but it has worked for the Chinese for thousands of years (isnt that enough to prove its effectiveness?) Ofc I think they should tighten up the regulations so only the properly trained acupuncturists get to practice.

[A-Stark]

What is a properly trained acupuncturist? There's no evidence that the actual placement of needles makes any difference, notwithstanding nonsense about "meridians" and Qi.