Social science research is often criticized for not being as rigorous as "real" scientific research and there is a strong call, particularly in education, for "scientific-based" decisions and programs. The general perception is that practitioners in fields like medicine make decisions driven by scientific evidence while practitioners in fields like education make decisions driven by personal and anecdotal experience.
So when I heard my brother's medical school graduating class recite the Hippocratic oath a few weeks back I was somewhat surprised. The oath contains multiple references to practicing the "art" of medicine but no reference to the "science."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Having taken the Hippo oath, myself, I still struggle with medicine's dependence on evidence-based therapy. In the hospital I can't go 30 minutes without some one asking "well what does the evidence show?" I'm sure you are familiar with all the pitfalls of rigorous scientific testing, but the ones that especially bug me are: 1)Testing is expensive so only therapies (namely drugs) that you can make a profit on get tested... regular exercise, diet, and alternative therapies do not get tested...so I guess that means they are still "art".
2) Most tests are performed on healthy men less than 65 years old in order to eliminate confounding, but most drugs and therapies are actually used on men and women over 65 with multiple chronic health problems on 12 other drugs.
Scientific evidence is good, but sometimes I think devout worship of it is unwarranted.
Post a Comment