Skip to main content
Log in

The Biomedical Disciplines and the Structure of Biomedical and Clinical Knowledge

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relation between biomedical knowledge and clinicalknowledge is discussed by comparing their respectivestructures. The knowledge of a disease as a biologicalphenomenon is constructed by the interaction of factsand theories from the main biomedical disciplines:epidemiology, diagnostics, clinical trial, therapydevelopment and pathogenesis. Although these facts andtheories are based on probabilities andextrapolations, the interaction provides a reliableand coherent structure, comparable to a Kuhnianparadigma. In the structure of clinical knowledge,i.e. knowledge of the patient with the disease, notonly biomedical knowledge contributes to the structurebut also economic and social relations, ethics andpersonal experience. However, the interaction betweeneach of the participating ``knowledges'' in clinicalknowledge is not based on mutual dependency andaccumulation of different arguments from each, as inbiomedical knowledge, but on competition and partialexclusion. Therefore, the structure of biomedicalknowledge is different from that of clinicalknowledge. This difference is used as the basis for adiscussion in which the place of technology,evidence-based medicine and the gap between scientificand clinical knowledge are evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Bench RJ. Health science, natural science and clinical knowledge. J. Med. Philos. 1989; 14: 147-164.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nordin I. The role of science in medicine. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 1999; 20: 229-244.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ahlbom A, Norell S. Introduction to Modern Epidemiology. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiology Resources, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Massoud TF, Hademenos GJ, Young WL, Gao E, Pile-Spellman J, Vinuela F. Principles and philosophy of modeling in biomedical research. FASEB J. 1998; 12: 275-225.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sutter MC. Assigning causation in disease: Beyond Koch's postulates. Persp. Biol. Med. 1996; 39: 581-592.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Walker RC. Oestrogen receptor and its potential role in breast cancer development. J. Pathol. 1999; 188: 229-230.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Engelhardt HT. Clinical problems and the concept of disease. In Nordenfelt L, Lindahl BIB, eds. Health, Disease and Causal Explanations in Medicine. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1984: 27.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Van Leeuwen E, Kimsma GK. Philosophy of medical practice: a discursive approach. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 1997; 18: 99-112.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hucklenbroich P. Steps towards a theory of medical practice. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 1998; 19: 215-228.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tonelli MR. The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine. Acad. Med. 1998; 73: 1234-1240.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes BR, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Greenhalgh T. Narrative based evidence in an evidence based world. BMJ 1999; 318: 323-325.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Paul N. Incurable suffering from the “Hiatus theoreticus”? Some epistemological problems in modern medicine and the clinical relevance of philosophy of medicine. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 1998; 19: 229-251.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wulff HR. The two cultures of medicine. Objective facts versus subjectivity and values. J. Roy. Soc. Med. 1999; 92: 549-552.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nederbragt, H. The Biomedical Disciplines and the Structure of Biomedical and Clinical Knowledge. Theor Med Bioeth 21, 553–566 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026510723597

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026510723597

Navigation