Two Cultures in Modern Science and Technology: For Safety and Validity Does Medicine Have to Update?

R. Becker
{"title":"Two Cultures in Modern Science and Technology: For Safety and Validity Does Medicine Have to Update?","authors":"R. Becker","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000000260","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Two different scientific cultures go unreconciled in modern medicine. Each culture accepts that scientific knowledge and technologies are vulnerable to and easily invalidated by methods and conditions of acquisition, interpretation, and application. How these vulnerabilities are addressed separates the 2 cultures and potentially explains medicine's difficulties eradicating errors. A traditional culture, dominant in medicine, leaves error control in the hands of individual and group investigators and practitioners. A competing modern scientific culture accepts errors as inevitable, pernicious, and pervasive sources of adverse events throughout medical research and patient care too malignant for individuals or groups to control. Error risks to the validity of scientific knowledge and safety in patient care require systemwide programming able to support a culture in medicine grounded in tested, continually updated, widely promulgated, and uniformly implemented standards of practice for research and patient care. Experiences from successes in other sciences and industries strongly support the need for leadership from the Institute of Medicine's recommended Center for Patient Safely within the Federal Executive branch of government.","PeriodicalId":206245,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Patient Safety","volume":"201 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000260","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Two different scientific cultures go unreconciled in modern medicine. Each culture accepts that scientific knowledge and technologies are vulnerable to and easily invalidated by methods and conditions of acquisition, interpretation, and application. How these vulnerabilities are addressed separates the 2 cultures and potentially explains medicine's difficulties eradicating errors. A traditional culture, dominant in medicine, leaves error control in the hands of individual and group investigators and practitioners. A competing modern scientific culture accepts errors as inevitable, pernicious, and pervasive sources of adverse events throughout medical research and patient care too malignant for individuals or groups to control. Error risks to the validity of scientific knowledge and safety in patient care require systemwide programming able to support a culture in medicine grounded in tested, continually updated, widely promulgated, and uniformly implemented standards of practice for research and patient care. Experiences from successes in other sciences and industries strongly support the need for leadership from the Institute of Medicine's recommended Center for Patient Safely within the Federal Executive branch of government.
现代科技中的两种文化:为了安全与有效性,医学必须更新吗?
两种不同的科学文化在现代医学中无法调和。每种文化都承认,科学知识和技术容易受到获取、解释和应用的方法和条件的影响,而且很容易失效。如何解决这些漏洞是两种文化的不同之处,也可能解释了医学在消除错误方面的困难。在医学中占主导地位的传统文化将错误控制留给了个人和团体调查人员和从业者。一个相互竞争的现代科学文化认为错误是不可避免的、有害的和普遍的不良事件的来源,它贯穿于医学研究和病人护理中,恶性到个人或团体无法控制。科学知识有效性和患者护理安全的错误风险需要系统范围的编程,能够支持基于经过测试、不断更新、广泛颁布和统一实施的研究和患者护理实践标准的医学文化。其他科学和行业的成功经验有力地支持了由医学研究所推荐的联邦政府行政部门内的患者安全中心领导的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信