Alun hits the nail on the head.
I could add that there is a huge difference between the local GP and the
people who work in a research and teaching hospital. Not only do the former
vastly outnumber the latter, they also spend next to no time reading the
research literature and keeping up to date with modern "medicine". They
simply do not have time. They are the "motor mechanics" of health.
I am not convinced that there really are all separate categories of writers
he mentions. This may be true of the "Fleet Street" pack. They may think
that they are the only true science writers, but they really are a minority.
Writers on magazines and trade papers often have to deal with the whole
spectrum.
There's nothing special about my career, but over the years I have written
about science, engineering, the environment, and even hairy biology. I can
think of a large number of people, many who have worked on New Scientist for
example, who have also covered several of these areas.
I am not sure that you will find many "medical" writers, not to be confused
with science writers who cover such topics as molecular biology and
genetics, who have covered the same spread of subjects.
Why keep on about journalism? Because it tells us things about the general
PEST caper. Medicine and science are not the same thing and need different
approaches. If nothing else, the market for medical stuff is much larger
because people are simply more interested in things that have an immediate
impact on their own lives.
MK
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Alun Roberts
Sent: 20 October 2000 15:12
To: psci-com
Subject: Re: Science vs medicine - ? miles apart?
In my days as a biology student at Birmingham I did a physiology course in
the medical school. Although the department was nominally part of the
Biological Sciences department, the style of teaching was markedly
different.
To put it simply, we were taught facts in much the same way you would be at
school. In the rest of my degree I was taught science as a process, with an
appreciation of the progression of knowledge and the philosophy of science.
Medics who took biology options were equally struck by the comparison,
This may not be typical (especially as we're going back 15 years), but I
think the different philosophies of medicine and biology teaching were clear
and I think this is manifested in the medical/clinical research.
I worry about clinical research in that I suspect that it is carried out in
many cases without a proper grounding in the process of science and much
aptitude of even enthusiasm among its practitioners (from what I can gather
clinical research is often carried out to enhance career prospects by
doctors).
Having said that, I'm not sure that this is the reason for the differences
between science and medical journalists. Environment and engineering also
covered by distinct groups of journalists.
Alun
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|