Re: Do MDs need to know physics?

["Ed Schweber" <edschweb@ix.netcom.com>]

Ed Schweber (edschweb@ix.netcom.com)
Physics Teacher at The Solomon Schechter Day School, West Orange, NJ
To obtain free resources for creative physics teachers visit:
http://www.physicsweb.com

John Caneron wrote (in part)

> I urge everyone to read Peter K. Schoch's letter in the March
> 1998 Physics today, exposing the almost total lack of understanding >of
> physics exhibited in a textbook for medical students. If doctors >really
*needed* physics, they surely aren't getting it from such books >(and most
are that bad, in my experience). .... Fortunately in most
> cases your doctor doesn't *need* to know physics, except for a very
> few specialists in certain fields.

Hi:

   I wonder if a physician needs to know much of any basic science. Does a
radiologist interpreting an MRI picture need to know the quantum mechanics
of nuclear spin? How much optics does an ophthamologist use in his daily
work? And does he really need to know the theory behind the laser that is
seems to be replacing his scalpel as his most used surgical instruments?

   But for that matter how much organic chemistry must a doctor know. She
must know what the possible drug interactions are, but really need not know
the mechanism through which they occur.

   And does a doctor even really need to know that much biology. Would a
typical doctor be much hampered in her trade if he didn't know that DNA was
a double helix or the details of the Krebs cycle?

   In part physics is used as a filter for undergraduate pre-meds. But that
is hardly a cause for enthusiasm among physics teachers.

   The more basic question is whether the thinking styles learned in a
physics class are transformed into more generalized thinking skills. I have
seen people on this list vehemently argue that they are not, but I believe
that they are. Its not that many people need to use the kinematic equations
outside of physics, but that the more basic ability of being able to
distinguish between a quantity, the rate at which that quantity changes and
the rate at which that rate of change changes can be important.

    Or look at it this way. Most people believe that a stimulating childhood
environment is important in developing intelligence (even Murray and
Heurstein in "The Bell Curve" said that environment still accounted for
40%). But how much does playing with an attractive mobile or hearing "The
Cat in the Hat" transfer directly to adult survival skills? Apparently it is
something more basuc that is learned in one situation that is applied to
another. I would submit that at a higher level the same thing happens with
physics.

  Of course the skills learned in physics would be more useful in more
abstract occupations and ultimately the practice of medicine is much more a
seat of the pants thing in which past practical experience and temperament
are the most important determinants of success.

  But this is just the opinion of someone who has been seeing too many
doctors lately.

Ed Schweber