title: Required vs. elective research and in-depth scholarship programs in the medical student curriculum.
abstract: The ability to understand and integrate new knowledge into clinical practice is a necessary quality of good physicians. Student participation in in-depth scholarship could enhance this skill in physicians while also creating a larger cadre of physician-scientists prepared to advance the field of medicine. However, because no definitive data exist demonstrating that in-depth scholarship in medical school leads to improved patient care or to productive academic careers, whether such scholarship should be required as part of the medical school curriculum is unclear. In this article, the authors present both sides of this debate. Theoretical benefits to students of a required scholarly program include closer mentorship by individual faculty, enhanced capabilities in critical interpretation of research findings, and increased confidence to investigate conundrums encountered in clinical care. Society may also benefit by having physicians available to create and apply new knowledge related to biomedicine. These theoretical benefits must be balanced, however, by pragmatic considerations of required scholarly projects including their impact on medical school applications, their effect on the medical curriculum, their costs, the availability of mentors, and their effects on the school's educational culture.
authors.affiliation: Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305-5107, USA. parsonnt@stanford.edu
authors.forename: Julie
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Parsonnet
authors.forename: Philip A
authors.initials: PA
authors.lastname: Gruppuso
authors.forename: Steven L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Kanter
authors.forename: Michael
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Boninger
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000193:education*; D003479:Curriculum; D004501:Education, Medical / Q000592:standards*; D014481:United States