medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2014, Number s3

<< Back Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2014; 150 (s3)

Challenges of basical sciences in medical education

Rodríguez CR

Language: Spanish
References: 28
Page: 358-360
PDF size: 220.20 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The relevance of basic sciences in medical education has been recognized for centuries, and the importance of exposing medical students to science was acknowledged and reinforced by the recommendations of Flexner in 1910. Since then, traditional medical education has been divided into preclinical and clinical subjects; within this scheme, the first terms of undergraduate medical education usually concentrate on basic sciences, while subsequent ones focus on clinical sciences and clinical training. Since 1956, this educational scheme has been questioned and, in some schools, the medical curriculum has undergone significant structural changes; some of these reforms, especially integrated curricula, are associated with important reductions in the time allotted to individual basic science courses or even with their removal. The removal of basic science subjects from the medical curriculum is paradoxical because nowadays the value of biomedical knowledge and the scientific reasoning to make medical decisions is more appreciated than ever. To maintain its relevance in medical education, basic sciences have to confront three challenges: a) increasing its presence in clinical education; b) developing nuclear programs; and c) renewing laboratory instruction.


REFERENCES

  1. Flexner A. Medical education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No. 4. Nueva York: Carnegie Foundation; 1910.

  2. Aréchiga H. [The scientific components of the education of the physician]. Gac Med Mex. 1976;111(5):351-9.

  3. Dienstag JL. Relevance and rigor in premedical education. New Engl J Med. 2008;359(3):221-4.

  4. Rosen KR, McBride JM, Drake RL. The use of simulation in medical education to enhance students understanding of basic sciences. Med Teach. 2009;31(9):842-6.

  5. Halperin EC. Abraham Flexner and the revolution of modern medical school. Med Educ. 2010;45(1):10-2.

  6. Ham TH. The approach of the faculty to medical education at Western Reserve University. J Med Educ. 1959;34:1163-74.

  7. Barrows HS. The taxonomy of problema-based learning methods. Med Educ. 1986;20(6):481-6.

  8. Dahle LO, Brynhildsen J, Behrbohm Fallsberg M, Rundquist I, Hammar M. Pros and cons of vertical integration between clinical medicine and basic science within a problem-based undergraduate medical curriculum: examples and experiences from Linkoping, Sweden. Med Teach. 2002;24(3):280-5.

  9. Irby D. Educating physicians for the future: Carnegies´s calls for reform. Med Teach. 2011;33(7):547-50.

  10. Vander AJ. The Claude Bernard Distinguished Lecture. The excitement and challenge of teaching physiology: shaping ourselves and the future. Adv Physiol Educ. 1994;267(6 Pt 3):S3-15.

  11. Faingold CL, Dunaway GA. Teaching pharmacology within a muldisciplinary organ system-based medical curriculum. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2002;366(1):18-25.

  12. Prince KJAH, Mameren H, Hylkema N, Drukker J, Scherpbier AJJA, van der Vleuten CPM. Does problem-based learning lead deficiencies in basic science knowledge? An empirical case on anatomy. Med Educ. 2003;37(1):15-21.

  13. Hoffman K, Hosokawas M, Blake R, Headrick L, Johnson G. Problem- based learning outcomes. Ten years of experience at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2006;81(7):617-25.

  14. Albanese MA. Problem-based learning: why curricula are likey to show little effect on knowledge and clinical skills. Med Educ. 2000;34(9):729-38.

  15. Woods NN. Science is fundamental: the role of biomedical knowledge in clinical reasoning. Med Educ. 2007;41(12):1173-7.

  16. Jacobs EA, Kalet A. Defining medical basic science: general internist’s special role in the reformation on medical school education. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(11):1261-2.

  17. Bligh J. Learning about science is still important. Med Educ. 2003;37(11):944-5.

  18. Sweeney G, MacLeod S. The role of basic science in medical education. Clin Invest Med. 1999;22:25.

  19. Weatherall DJ. Science in the undergraduate curriculum during the 20th century. Med Educ. 2006;40(3):195-201.

  20. Rodríguez R, Vidrio H, Campos-Sepúlveda E. [The teaching of pharmacology in medical schools: current status and future perspectives]. Gac Med Mex. 2008;144(6):463-72.

  21. Rodríguez R, Vidrio H, Campos-Sepúlveda E. Medicalization of pharmacology teaching: an urgent need in the medical curriculum. Proc West Pharmacol Soc. 2009;52:120-8.

  22. Brass EP. Basic biomedical sciences and the future of medical education: implications for internal medicine. J Gen Int Med. 2009;24(11):1251-4.

  23. Rodríguez R, Fortoul T, Moreno-Altamirano L, Izazola-Conde C, Rodríguez- Suárez J. La enseñanza de laboratorio en las escuelas de medicina: Hacia una orientación formativa. Rev Fac Med UNAM. 1985;28:70-8.

  24. Rodríguez R. El laboratorio de ciencias básicas. En: De la Fuente JR, Rodríguez-Carranza R, editores. La educación médica y la salud en México. México; Siglo Veintiuno Editores; 1996.

  25. Association of American Medical Colleges. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (AAMC-HHMI), 2009. Report of the Scientific Foundation for Future Physicians (SFFP) Committee. Washington, D.C. [Internet] Disponible en: http://www.hhmi.org/grants/pdf/08-209_AAMC-HHMI_report. pdf (revisado, noviembre de 2011).

  26. Hotez PJ. Loss of laboratory instruction in American medical schools: erosion of Flexner’s view of «scientific medical education». Am J Med Sci. 2003;325(1):10-4.

  27. Alcocer Cuarón C. [Role of the laboratory in the scientific education of the physician]. Gac Med Mex.1976;111(5):362-67.

  28. Russ JB, McKenney AS, Patel AB. An identity crisis: the need for core competencies in undergraduate medical education. Med Educ Online. 2013;18:1-2.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com