PerspectivesAre you interested in submitting a Perspective Article? Be sure to read The Science Advisory Board's Editorial Guides for Perspective Articles. Click here. The Role of the Ph.D. in Improving Medical Education by Dhastagir Sheriff, Ph.D. The expansion of Ph.D. is Doctor of Philosophy. It is the highest degree conferred by the university on a person specialized in any field of study. In other words, a person with a Ph.D. degree has acquired sufficient knowledge of a subject to successfully teach or pursue a research career in it. Historically, it was thought that Ph.D.’s have been trained to become university professors. The United States is reported to be the greatest producer of Ph.D.’s, generating about twice as many as the next leading country, Germany. Countries with small populations, such as Canada and Switzerland, produce relatively few Ph.D.’s. But many other countries that have huge populations, such as India and China, also produce relatively small numbers. A country makes an enormous investment of its resources to produce its own Ph.D.’s. The goal of producing Ph.D.’s in different fields of specialization is to develop the country in all spheres of education and research whether academic, industrial or military. Consequently, Ph.D.’s do play a vital role in medical education as well as in developing and promoting research and teaching. From my own experience as a Ph.D. and teacher of biochemistry in medical education, I thought it appropriate to highlight the role of Ph.D.’s in medical education in India. I received my Ph.D. in biochemistry from the Faculty of Medicine in 1977. I had completed my masters in biochemistry from a medical school after finishing undergraduate studies in chemistry. I did postgraduate training for three years. The training program encompassed different branches of specialization like anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, microbiology and pharmacology. All the first year students took human anatomy, physiology and biochemistry. At the end of the first year, we were required to successfully complete examinations in all the three subjects mentioned. In the following two years, we went to our respective departments to receive training in our subject of specialization. We were called the non-clinical professional postgraduates, who were specially trained to teach medical students the respective subjects mentioned above. The first year of our study was designed to train us to integrate the basic science subjects taught to us. Those who went on to complete their doctoral studies were considered qualified to teach basic sciences in medical schools. The production of such non-clinical postgraduates was mainly to produce a tribe of basic science professors to teach in medical schools. This concept was the brainchild of the late Vice Chancellor, Dr. A.L. Mudaliar, a doyen of Indian medical education. He had the vision to produce teachers who were trained in preclinical subjects and as specialists in their respective fields, to integrate and teach basic sciences to medical students. At that time there was a dearth of qualified teachers to teach these subjects in the medical departments of Indian universities much less integrate these preclinical subjects into clinical-basic science education. These Ph.D.’s were considered to be the torchbearers of not only teaching these subjects but also developing basic biological science research programmes in medical schools. In this context, the Ph.Ds on the medical faculty with knowledge of clinical subjects were considered scientist cum teachers. The postgraduate medical training did not suffer because these doctorates specialized in teaching preclinical subjects. The non-clinical postgraduates trained in one particular state became the feeding center of such teachers in different medical schools all over India. As the number of medical schools increased to match the increasing enrollment of students, schools started producing more medical teachers. As the “number game” started to influence the careers of these teachers, short-sighted non-medical postgraduates elected to forgo completing their doctoral studies and instead enrolled in compressed Bachelor of Medicine/Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) programmes to stay competitive in the field. These individuals had to face the competition from M.D.’s who after doing their MBBS degree completed their masters in their respective field. Now the role of Ph.D.s as well as non-medical postgraduates became blurred and the governing body of medical education, the Medical Council of India, came out with norms to satisfy the majority as well as safeguard the interests of Ph.D.’s produced by Faculties of Medicine. I think the specialized group of teachers produced under the vision of Dr. A.L. Mudaliar to teach basic sciences in medical schools was one of its kind and unique to India. I had not seen such teachers in any other universities specifically trained to teach and develop basic sciences in medical schools. Unfortunately that vision has become the pages of past history and the role of such teachers has become very limited. The rule of the majority dominates and stifles the growth of such teachers. Who is a Ph.D.? The answer: a person with highly qualified knowledge in a particular field who has been trained to have the knowledge by theory as well as through analytical skills. A Ph.D. has to integrate the basic knowledge into applied aspects. The doctoral student is trained to master techniques, methodologies and adopt such learned knowledge to test the hypotheses or verify a concept he or she is pursuing. Another basic fact to remember is that now in India if a student has done work to earn a Masters of Science (MSc) degree in a life science field such as zoology, he or she can go on to earn a Ph.D. only in that field, regardless of whether his or her doctoral studies were conducted in a science or medical institute. For example when a student with an MSc degree in zoology successfully completes a Ph.D. in the physiology department of a medical school, he or she will be awarded a Ph.D. in zoology, not in physiology. In contrast, those students who have earned an MSc in a clinical field such as medical physiology will automatically obtain their Ph.D. in physiology from the same department. This distinction—in fact—limits where a Ph.D. in the life sciences can teach and conduct research. Unlike Ph.D.’s in clinical fields, Ph.D.’s in the life sciences can only teach and conduct research in science, not medical, departments. I believe that this current situation should be rectified by the governing bodies of medical education that decide who will teach what subject under what cadre. Therefore, the role of Ph.D.s from the Faculty of Medicine is clear-cut. They teach as well as develop research in medical institutes. Short sightedness on the part of the majority community or over-enthusiasm on the part of Ph.D.s must not weaken the role of Ph.D.’s in medical education. It will be appropriate to have a separate research wing of a particular institute where Ph.D.’s from premier institutions will act as role models to develop research programmes, which is a basic necessity of outstanding medical education. It is true that we produce physicians to treat illness and maintain our community’s health. Ph.D.’s with their knowledge and experience will help train students to become the best physicians to treat and take care of their patients. ### Discuss this Perspective with fellow SAB members in the Discussion Forum ### Dr. Dhastagir Sheriff has been a member of The Science Advisory Board since April 2002 and is a professor at the VMKV Medical University in India. ### << Previous Next >> [ View All Perspectives ] |
|
