Dear Editor-in-Chief
Although in Italy any School of Medicine is prompted to introduce students into the
highly structured system of scheduled courses and trainings with equipped tutorials
(1), undergraduate medical students are quite never introduced into the scientific
debate of the expert community, i.e. how to read and write a scientific paper (2),
and therefore they are poorly educated to use the scientific literature for their
job and progress training. Usually, only graduated students are invited to read specialistic
literature, despite for some exception during the medical course, when skilled aged
students, approaching to the degree, are recommended to read scientific reports for
their thesis. However, these students are rarely trained to address a scientific manuscript,
so often they are not used to manage a scientific paper for their specific purposes
and to perform a useful synopsis of the main focuses or draw a bullet point of the
major issues.
A first concern is the full and thorough comprehension of what a scientific debate
is and how to expand it. Controversy and discussion in medical sciences are fundamental
attempts to enhance the impact of science on professionals and common people. “Criticism”
in science fulfils its fundamental target when it enables peer discussion to expand
the debate on the addressed issue and contributes to a renewal in the state of art
of the topic. Experts are exposed in this controversy, as it is of public domain,
but they arrange their debate within a defined ring, which is fundamentally represented
by their publications. Yet, particularly in Italy, discussion may create a journalistic
rather than a scientific debate (3,4). Actually, some physician or clinician prefers
to address the debate out of the community arena, such as press, wide diffused media,
or more often personal websites or disciplinary courts, rather than simply reply to
raised comments within peer reviewed journals. In this respect, some professors are
reluctant to address a reply to raised comments in the journal and prefer to solicit
Editors to prevent publication or even to forward a complaint simply for having been
discussed.
Questions are formidable weapons to fight against a routinary and barren academic
life and surely educated students should give their fundamental contribution. The
research community is composed of manifold talents and is much more complex and dynamic
than expected, as science changes very rapidly, collecting novelties that continuosly
reappraise its state of art and expertise. In this sense, it involves the overall
community, rather than single individuals.
In addition, students should be educated to the concept of an “expert in the field”.
Experts should be represented by people actively working in a scientific and/or academic
context on one or more interrelated fields who have extensively published on reference
journals. Editors of specialized scientific journals in the biomedical area may consider
an author as an “expert in the field” on the basis of the bulk of reports shown on
public databases such as Pubmed. Very rarely journals welcome Letters to the Editor
or Commentaries or other Correspondence, as unsolicited contributions, if the corresponding
author is not considered an expert, as space constraints hamper the possibility to
publish a comment on the journal if the latter does not come from an authority in
the field, particularly if the comment is reported by a single author.
The way how a debate should be addressed by members performing the discussion is a
fundamental hallmark or a hot topic of the educational training performed with students.
However, in Italy this may generate a certain misleading attitude and preference in
addressing scientific argumentations with the disciplinary language of courts, rather
than the fair policy of a democratic peers discussion. Debate may be endowed with
terms such as “personal attacks”, “offense”, “defamation”, particularly for high disputable
topic, such as alternative medicine, or when the expert feels that he cannot arrange
any good reply to raised comments, so reporting terms such as weak minded, narcissist,
pathologic, too much autonomously conceived, and so on. Tutorials of students must
teach attendants the proper and more polite way to address a scientific debate and
how manage the latter within the scientific community.
If a need in educated students to the polite and democratic debate should appear of
utmost importance, High Education Indexes (HEIs) should be revised by taking into
account the contribution of a crowded and renewing parley in the scientific and research
field, rather than “static” metrics such as amount of results, students, researchers,
funds, awards and publications. HEIs are not fitted to evaluate properly any “intellectual
fuel” for scientific novelties and technological patents. Any School of Medicine should
create new algorythms to verify students’ skills in a sort of proficiency test for
scientific reading and writing, the ability to participate to the scientific debate,
to address problem solving and reporting in a possible scientific communication and
so forth (5). This dynamics should be tested for tutors and teaching members, i.e.
how and how much they are able to create and manage a debate on a scientific ground
with undergraduate attending students. HEIs needs to be reappraised, therefore, by
“dynamics tools” provided to investigate the contribution of parleys and conference
occasion to the excellence of the School of Medicine.
The proposal should deal with the invitation to experimental research language and
scientific publication just in the first years of the academic degree, in order to
educate students to medical research and its meaning for the commonest people. They
should be fully involved in the renewal of the scientific debate within any School
of Medicine and encouraged to attend as early as possible the practical activity performed
within research laboratories and clinical units, a concern particularly felt in the
Italian health system (6).