Re: Introductory Undergraduate Physics Sequence (diatribe)

[brian whatcott <inet@INTELLISYS.NET>]

At 06:44 6/16/99 -0500, Karl wrote:
> ...
> The pre-meds have GPA's averaging well above 3.0 and generally above 3.5 on
> a 4.0 scale.  They take calculus because most medical schools expect it....
> Pre-meds are among the very brightest students in college.
> Generally, they are much brighter than most engineering students and
> frequently they are motivated to outperform our majors. The medical
> profession uses more scientific technology every day.  To not encourage
> them to engage in a deeper understanding of physics is to short-change
> them.  To discover they hated physics as you enter the operating room is
> downright frightening...Karl

Following so closely on Karl's post which cautions us to look for
evidential support for science reportage concerning media violence
and children, I am moved to examine Karl's fear of meeting a
physics-impaired physician on the way in to the operating room.

He supposes that physics is good for a profession whose average pay is
now over $250 thousand p.a because they use 'more scientific technology
every day.'
   A cynic might offer instead a short course in asset management,
investment counselling etc....

  Of the documented medical improvements in the operating room, the most
staggering improvement in patient mortality of the last 20 years has been
associated with rational design and procedure for anethesiological gases
and their administration.

   Such extraordinary changes as arranging mixer valves so that an oxygen
mix cannot be completely turned off; arranging that all gas mixers operate
 in the same sense (clockwise vs. counterclockwise to increase flow), and
arranging that oxygen and anesthetic gas connectors cannot be interchanged!

 This is possibly THE most basic engineering requirement which had been
 ignored by these intellectually gifted folks: recall that
"if it can be hooked up wrong, it will be" (Eng 101.)

 The hundred fold U.S decrease in anesthetic-related mortality was
achieved by the efforts of an engineer (apparently).
On this account, should the financially savvy med student be required
 to excel in engineering?  The financial carrot is so attractive, one
could undoubtedly turn out such a product.

As it happens, my own predelection is for people with a sense of public
 service, and those who care about people. Surgery was historically
associated with people who were good with a sharp blade, in particular
barbers so for me, the manual skills also count for a lot.
(Operating through a keyhole is an acquired skill of dexterity)

Perhaps then, the national life expectancy in the U.S would approach the
European level, and our medical expenditure in terms of national gross
product would subside by one half to their levels (See  Abstract of US
Statistics, any year)

 As Karl says, "...If we draw conclusions
based on the personal experience of one individual, without checking the
" [] science" literature, are we much better than the pseudoscientists
who offer the same caliber of interesting reporting in our own field?"
brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>
Altus OK