[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
November 16, 1963


JAMA. 1963;186(7):720. doi:10.1001/jama.1963.03710070122015

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Is medicine's debt to Waksman, Pauling, Curie, or Leonardo da Vinci diminished by the fact that they were active in nonmedical fields primarily? The genius makes his contribution to many disciplines. Does the Doctor of Philosophy in biochemistry, biology, or related fields not make major contribution to medicine? While the vitality of the medical profession must depend upon the depth and quality of its rank and file, we must have the contributions of many basic scientists as well as many kinds of physicians. It is folly to consider the student who goes into a basic science as lost to medicine. He, like the student in hospital administration, public health, or any other allied profession, must be considered as an addition to medicine.

It is difficult to find enough competent people to satisfy the demand for them in medicine and all related areas. In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview