| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Letters to the Editor
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Cellular and Integrative Physiology Indiana University School of Medicine 635 Barnhill Dr. Indianapolis IN 46202 E-mail: crothe{at}iupui.edu
Abstract
The following is the abstract of the article discussed in the subsequent letters:
The National Research Council-sponsored report, BIO 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists, describes a number of significant changes that should be made to the undergraduate biology curriculum if we are to adequately train students to become the researchers of the 21st century. What should be of concern to the physiology community is the lack of identifiable physiology in the proposed revisions. This article describes the report and suggests some steps that physiologists can take to enhance our discipline in the undergraduate biology curriculum.
To the Editor:
Yes, indeed, "Physiology" is losing its luster. The call to action by Prof. Dee Silverthorn to restore physiology to the undergraduate curriculum is timely and relevant. Her examples of the lack of understanding of basic physiology by many, if not most, molecular and cellular biologists provides reason for alarm for those interested in physiology at all academic levels, medical and graduate as well as undergraduate.
Unfortunately, most academics in the current biological milieu consider physiology, like anatomy, to be a "mature" discipline in which little new is to be expected, other than in topics related to cellular and molecular physiology. Dr. Silverthorn outlines a cure for the undergraduate program by stating: "Physiology is the integrative discipline in biology." (Ref. 2, Fig. 1, p. 93) She further states, "Biomedical research is shifting back to whole animal studies. Proteomics and functional genomics are simple sexy buzzwords for physiology." (p. 96). This might seem reasonable, but there is a large conceptual and functional difference between "integrated" (another buzzword) physiology at the molecular, gene, protein, and cell levels, and whole animal studies, in which interactions between and within organs are studied. Furthermore, I doubt whether the biochemists will easily relinquish their own discipline in discovering "the role and interactions of proteins coded by the genome" (p. 93).
A scholarly discipline is largely defined by the tools used in its creative research. Molecular biologists primarily use the tools of chemistry. Organ and system physiologists use the tools of physics to measure, for example, flow of electrons, ions, air, and blood and to measure force of muscle contraction, or pressure. The tools of mathematics and engineering help analyze complex interactions. Organ physiology research often requires surgical skills as well as training for using complex instruments. System physiologists must clearly understand the limitations of the instrumentation and techniques used and be able to apply appropriately complex statistical analyses. Typically, the experiments require the simultaneous and accurate measurement of many variables, a task not easily performed on small animals. Many contemporary physiologists indeed use "modern research techniques developed by molecular and cellular biologist" (p. 96), but then they tend to become cellular biologists!
What does "integrative" or "integrated" mean in operational terms? What makes physiology a distinct and recognizable discipline? Fred Grodins provided one answer: "The essence of physiology is regulation. It is this concern with ‘purposeful’ system responses which distinguish physiology from biophysics and biochemistry" (Ref. 1, p. 283). Regulation beyond "simple" molecule-to-molecule interaction requires an understanding of systems with feedback and complex interaction. "Biological systems maintain homeostasis by the action of complex regulatory systems" (Ref. 2, p. 91). is another. Does "integrative" mean using the molecules, enzymes, genes, and proteins isolated by the molecular and cellular biologists to discover their possible function in the organs and systems of whole animals? If so, this means having appropriately trained and experienced scientists available to do this integration. Creative physiologists are not technicians at the disposal of molecular biologists. Furthermore, cellular and integrative (at the cellular level) physiologists are barely distinguishable from molecular biologists, biochemists, and immunologists. They usually do not have the training, the skills, the interest, or the time to do effective organ and system physiology research—or teaching.
Physiology is the disciple related to biological function (in contrast to structure) at all levels, but especially at the organ and whole animal levels, as Dr. Silverthorn notes. Doing molecular and cellular research and describing it as integrative will not be enough to maintain the identity of physiology as a vital and distinctive discipline. Currently, molecular biology in all its branches is exciting and well funded. Relatively little research funding is currently available for "system physiology," and most of the system physiologists of the past are retired or soon will be. The competition for funding is deadly. Who will train the "integrative organ physiologists" of the future? Who will teach physiology to undergraduate, medical, and graduate students? Physicians must understand physiology beyond the cellular level if they are to understand and effectively treat complex disease states not directly caused by microorganisms or genetic weakness.
The members of the American Physiological Society (APS) and its leadership should carefully study and define a discipline that will be recognizable as "physiology" at the end of this decade. APS should lobby for funding for organ and system physiology research using intact, live animals. More explanatory materials must be developed and then delivered to undergraduate science majors (in biology, physics, chemistry, and engineering) so that the excitement and pleasure of understanding physiology as a discipline can be understood and appreciated.
At the graduate and medical school level, APS must actively work to reduce the tendency to merge all basic science departments. Tenure is now rarely granted unless the faculty member has a large external grant, and funding for such grants seems to be primarily related to understanding the role of genes and proteins—molecular biology. These trends must be resisted if physiology is to survive as a discipline.
The APS membership and leadership are mostly in medical schools. The faculties of these schools must provide the breadth and depth of basic physiology understanding and the research skills needed to produce effective "physiology" scientists and teachers for tomorrow. The challenge is real, and it is now.
REFERENCES
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Visit Other APS Journals Online |
