Should precious space be allocated for history of biochemistry?

With a 9 year old son in school I have come to realize that elementary school education in the United States of America is very good. It is probably one of the best publicly funded program accessible to everyone.

Every time I speak to an undergraduate aspiring to go to medical school or a medical school student attempting to gain some research experience I am surprisingly amazed by their lack of foundation in basic chemistry and physics. Individual students obviously differ but I find that a large number as would be under the curve in a Gaussian distribution belong to average students who lack basic foundation rather alarmingly.

This lack of foundation is serious issue becoming a well-rounded modern physician in later years. My personal take is also that this is an issue which necessitates prolonging medical education and training far beyond four years of medical school.

The Journal of Biological Chemistry has an account of Classic issues. These are a treasure for anyone intends to learn history of development of metabolic pathways and nuances. These are extremely important issues with respect to where the field of medicine will emerge in future.

My recent visit to Smithsonian museums made me aware of history of methods for reaching extremely high altitudes. I became refreshingly aware of history of problems of measurements of longitude for marine navigation. I became aware of history of difficulties and different approaches in making of chronometers. Importantly I became aware of Robert Goddard’s struggles in 1916 and that of the so called “Suicide Squads in California”, which were a very important group of dedicated scientists from Caltech. I am not a type to undertake voyage. However, all of this education at museums were so inspirational. I cherished the opportunity to learn and at least know the other area of science where my knowledge is rudimentary at best. Increasingly we are becoming sub specialists and not generalist scientist. I do not think there is anything wrong in that given the vastness. However, I strongly believe there should be opportunities to learn and imbibe the benefit that comes as generalist.

I was fortunate, in my formative years to be taught by 12 participating academic departments by experts from various disciplines. But importantly during my early student days I found surrounded by biochemists of various expertise and organic chemists who were encyclopedia in their knowledge and understanding. They were also deep seated “biochemistry” enthusiast. I see the parallel between members of “Suicide Squads in California”, and our former teachers and students in their enthusiasm to learn. Learning the minutiae’s of secrets of life require as much dedication as that for reaching extremely high altitudes. Enthusiasm is infectious. If all knowledge in books would be automatically gained then the chairs in library would be very knowledgeable too. So argument is an enthusiastic living environment is needed.

It will be difficult to create such environment for our budding undergraduates and medical students for various reasons. Many medical school curriculums now enable pre-recorded video viewing to learn basic sciences. Experimental learning need real experts in small group settings and is thus prohibitively expensive.

I wonder out loud if a corner of museums can be thoughtfully allocated to history of all sectors of experimental biochemistry to generate enthusiasm and interest in our budding students in biochemistry and its nuances?