Volume 24 | Issue 11 | Page 36
Date: 2010-11-01
By Leonid Moroz
The Devolution of Evolution
Why evolution and biosystematics courses must be included in all biomedical curricula.
Nearly 40 years ago Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” How is it, then, that so few newly minted PhDs in the biological sciences have taken any formal graduate school courses in evolution or biodiversity? This fosters a knowledge gap that can become difficult to fill by “osmosis” later in a scientific career. Consider the two to five years of intense postdoctoral work, followed by the even more challenging process of earning tenure. Success requires complete dedication to a specialized field of knowledge for professors who then act as advisors for the next generation of scientists, judge hundreds of submitted papers and dozens of grants, and chart new research directions.
To some extent the problem appears to be hereditary: a generation of biologists without an adequate background in evolution gave rise to a second generation of biologists who came of age during the molecular biology boom of the 1980s and 1990s. These trends could now repeat with a third generation working in the current genomic era that began early in the 21st century.
Indeed, it appears that evolutionary biology and biosystematics courses, which deal with the most fundamental concepts in biology, have quietly lost their place of eminence within the biomedical curriculum—“outcompeted” by escalating specialization and the increasingly technical nature of many biological sciences. By failing to require or even offer such essential courses to graduate students, do we lose some strategic advantage as well as a long-term perspective? I think we do by sacrificing a deeper understanding of the fundamental laws of biology. Evolutionary theory, speciation, principles of biological classification, and biodiversity must be part of the required curricula not only for biologists but for medical students as well.
Students of engineering must learn the fundamentals of mathematics and physics. A PhD chemist cannot bypass learning the periodic table and its elements. In contrast, ask a young or even a senior biologist with an active research program to name 15 to 20 animal phyla. Most could correctly name 5 to 10 of the 35 currently known. I cannot image a chemist who is unable to refer to or actually recognize most of the chemical elements. It is unthinkable for the chemical curriculum to allow a student of organic chemistry to electively study the properties of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorus, or to ignore iron or molybdenum. Why have we accepted ignorance of evolutionary theory and knowledge of biodiversity in classrooms? What effectively distinguishes a biologist from a nonbiologist is the appreciation and understanding of the vast biodiversity of life. Yes, elective courses are essential for creative thinking; they reflect the dynamic nature of modern education, but only if the fundamental biological concepts such as natural selection are secured in the curriculum.
...
Read more here/Leia mais aqui: The Scientist
+++++
NOTA CAUSTICANTE DESTE BLOGGER:
Como historiador da ciência em formação não vejo o por que da obrigatoriedade do ensino da teoria da evolução através da seleção natural em cursos de medicina.
Razões? Poderia citar muitas. Primeiro, muito antes de Darwin a humanidade já praticava medicina. Em segundo lugar, a hipótese de seleção natural como mecanismo evolucionário não é corroborado no contexto de justificação teórica. Vidas humanas dependem de médicos que conheçam sua arte -- a ciência médica de curar, e não de alquimia. E a medicina mostra muito da complexidade anatômica que não pode ser explicada via gradualismo darwiniano, que os médicos vêem, e os biólogos evolucionistas não.
