Comment Re:Winston Churchill (Score 1) 505
Try, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something which I will not tolerate."
I'm fairly certain ol' Winnie's waiting on your insight with bated breath.
Literally, in fact.
Try, "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something which I will not tolerate."
I'm fairly certain ol' Winnie's waiting on your insight with bated breath.
Literally, in fact.
Why sue everyone with an internet connection when you could just surcharge the connection? There are surcharges on blank discs and burners in various places on this planet, so why not start nickeling and diming at the source here?
Eeurgh. I'm not so sure if it's more revolting that it's plausible or that there have been approximations of this already done successfully.
That's a false duality. There is no reason that regulators can't listen to the industries they regulate as long as the industries aren't buying them trips, cars, vacations, etc...
In terms of avoiding legal messes of the bribery kind, sure. In terms of objectively judging whether or not an industrial operation should or should not be doing something? Um... no. Industry does not tend to be more ethical with its information than it is with its money.
Why on earth would you want a doctor to do that, instead of a materials engineer who's actually going to design the implant? The engineer does this every day. The doctor does not.
I want them both to have that knowledge -- the engineer, who's designing to specs based on the literature and on what's feasible for use in the OR, and the doctor, who's going to be installing it and following up to make sure it's working as it should.
At the absolute least, if they're not talking at all to begin with, I don't want that implant.
The students aren't interested in the derivation anyway, I suppose; why bother giving it to them? For that matter, why bother teaching physics to med students?
I could work up quite a list here, but instead I'll send you to Steve Vogel. Read Prime Mover: a Natural History of Muscle and Vital Circuits. Vogel wrote the latter to describe circulatory systems largely in terms of physics, and he cites his (then) recent heart surgery as a guiding animus.
The truth is, physics counts. Yes, there are idiot doctors out there who got by with memorizing all kinds of stuff and who, by extension, can handle the overwhelming majority of "simple" complaints. For my money, I want a doctor who has had some education to let him think beyond Gray's Anatomy and the PDR if and when I present with something outside of that overwhelming majority. If it's a biomechanical problem, that doc had damn well better have had physics.
What I think is most odd about this is that no-one in his peer review group noticed that this is actually relatively trivial calculus. My nephew has recently applied to study medicine in the university and I was more than a little surprised that he wasn't required during his undergraduate studies to obtain a classical scientific education. In fact, the only non-chemistry oriented science he was required to take was "Physics 1" and he wasn't required to take calculus at all. I'm not even sure how you can teach a physics course without calculus, but they appeared to be happy with nothing more than "pre-calc" style topics covering basic derivatives.
I would indicate to you that your nephew's situation is not typical. Programs tend to vary widely in how they approach requirements and prerequisites. I would question their approach, myself -- especially if your nephew has any interest in moving on to research.
Granted, I don't work in medicine. Still, I work in biology, and I came to this work with both calculus and calculus-based physics. I may not have the same mathematical toolbox someone working in physics has, but my field doesn't let me be ignorant of calculus to be deemed acceptable as a scientist, either.
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.