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.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bench RJ. Health science, natural science and clinical knowledge. J. Med. Philos. 1989; 14: 147-164.
Nordin I. The role of science in medicine. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 1999; 20: 229-244.
Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970.
Ahlbom A, Norell S. Introduction to Modern Epidemiology. Chestnut Hill, MA: Epidemiology Resources, 1990.
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.
Sutter MC. Assigning causation in disease: Beyond Koch's postulates. Persp. Biol. Med. 1996; 39: 581-592.
Walker RC. Oestrogen receptor and its potential role in breast cancer development. J. Pathol. 1999; 188: 229-230.
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.
Van Leeuwen E, Kimsma GK. Philosophy of medical practice: a discursive approach. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 1997; 18: 99-112.
Hucklenbroich P. Steps towards a theory of medical practice. Theor. Med. Bioeth. 1998; 19: 215-228.
Tonelli MR. The philosophical limits of evidence-based medicine. Acad. Med. 1998; 73: 1234-1240.
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.
Greenhalgh T. Narrative based evidence in an evidence based world. BMJ 1999; 318: 323-325.
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.
Wulff HR. The two cultures of medicine. Objective facts versus subjectivity and values. J. Roy. Soc. Med. 1999; 92: 549-552.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026510723597