HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zallen, R. D. Articles by Zoller, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zallen, R. D. Articles by Zoller, L.

How Much Basic Science Should Be Taught? The Discussion Continues

Dear Dr. Alvares:

I read with horror Dr. Zoller’s Perspectives article, "Deconstruction of the Curriculum: A Modest Proposal," in the December 2005 issue (J Dent Educ 2005;69[12]:1305-6).

What this kind of curriculum cutback in the basic sciences will produce is a "dentist" who will not understand the complexities of medical and surgical diseases with which their patients will present. In my opinion, this will endanger patients as they seek dental care. It is bad enough now that many recent graduates of standard curriculum dental schools have a poor knowledge and hardly any clinical experience in treating patients with diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, pulmonary diseases, and many other medical issues. If dental school graduates want a working knowledge of these issues, they almost have to do a general practice residency.

No, what is needed is that the core curriculum in dental subjects be deconstructed and more time spent in teaching students more about the human body and more about the evaluation of medical issues, not less.

Footnotes

Director of Dentistry and Oral Maxillofacial Surgery, Denver Health Medical Center, 777 Bannock Street, MC0242, Denver, CO 80204, 303-436-6444 phone; 303-436-5975 fax, rzallen{at}dhha.org

The author responds

I thank Dr. Zallen for this response to my article and others who sent responses directly to me. However, I must say that many, including Dr. Zallen, did not understand the tenor or intent of the piece. To make it clear I must begin with a definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.

Satire:

1. a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
   
2. trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
   

There have been many great satirists over the years. One of the best of all times was Jonathan Swift, who is known for writing Gulliver’s Travels. He also wrote a scathing piece, A Modest Proposal, in reaction to those in power who looked upon people as mere statistics. In A Modest Proposal, Swift produced a detailed thesis on how to solve the problem of poverty in Ireland at the same time there were many orphans on the street. His solution was that the children be collected and killed, with the resulting meat being provided to the wealthy to be eaten.

Swift wrote the article because he was outraged at the callousness of those in power. I wrote my modest proposal because I was outraged at the thought of even more basic science instruction being removed from the curriculum. I could expound on this in detail, but I will leave that to a more scholarly article that I will be submitting to this journal shortly.

My main thesis is that I see dental education and dentistry itself being at a crossroads. The pivotal questions are these:

1. Are we training dental clinicians who know medicine, or are we to train dental technicians?
   
2. Should a dentist know medicine? Does the term "medicine" involve more than the oral cavity? And, if the dentist need not know medicine, why are many dental schools including the term in their name?
   

It is certainly fair to question the content of any curriculum. This should always be done. But when a meeting is convened with the term "deconstruction" in its stem, the intent of the meeting is clear, in spite of those who claim otherwise.

There are those who declare that there is so much to learn that students cannot possibly learn everything. In essence, they are saying that in the attempt to teach everything, the students basically learn nothing. I would counter that if we teach the students nothing, they will learn everything that they are taught.

I end this speaking as a patient rather than as an educator. It has been well documented that patients increasingly find it difficult to identify with their health providers. One reason is that many health providers, over their lives, have been extremely narrow in their pursuits. With this in mind I would suggest that those who read my article and did not understand it might take some time to read Gulliver’s Travels and A Modest Proposal. They are both wonderful pieces of literature. It never hurts to expand our horizons, both professionally and personally.

Footnotes

Professor of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Dental Medicine, Shadow Lane Campus, 1001 Shadow Lane, MS 7410, Las Vegas, NV 89106, 702-774-2629 phone; 702-774-2721 fax, Lawrence.Zoller{at}unlv.edu

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Geissberger, P. Jain, G. T. Kluemper, D. W. Paquette, L. B. Roeder, W. C. Scarfe, and B. J. Potter Realigning Biomedical Science Instruction in Predoctoral Curricula: A Proposal for Change J Dent Educ., February 1, 2008; 72(2): 135 - 141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zallen, R. D. Articles by Zoller, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zallen, R. D. Articles by Zoller, L.