Why the conception of the doctor as applied scientist is inadequate

摘要

In his response, 'Doctors, science and society',1 to Christopher Martin's article, 'Reconstructing a lost tradition: the philosophy of medical education in an age of reform',2 Tim Swanwick inadvertently illustrates why the conception of the doctor as an 'applied scientist', which he advocates, is incomplete. Swanwick1 argues that doctors do not need preparation in the kind of philosophical thinking Martin promotes, but that, rather, they should be prepared to be 'applied scientists' or 'scientist-doctors'. Swanwick explains: '...the scientist-doctor brings the patient and bio-medical science into apposition in an attempt to maximise health benefit, and acts as an intermediary between the human and the increasingly complex, and arguably autonomous, universe of technology