My brother and I were having a discussion the other day. He was asking me about a resource that might help him understand biology better. Condensing his words, a list of symptoms and treatments did not help him much understand what was happening; he wanted to understand the context of what was happening in the body to better understand a condition.
I currently had my pathophysiology textbook in front of me, which was exactly the right resource at the time. Pathophysiology is the study of how a disease process works within the body, what it does, what it effects, what processes it interferes with, what symptoms this ultimately drives, all in one place. For this course, it's also paired with pharmacotherapeutics, looking at how these are treated with medicine and, again, how that medication is working to restore what processes, etc.
I picked an example: the pathophysiology book chapter assigned that day was a review about the gastrointestinal system (discussing normal anatomy and physiology functions) and then a chapter about a number of specific conditions that affect this system. We talked about the stomach, how a process of ions creating a particular flow of ions are referred to as the proton pump which then triggers the secretion of hydrochloric acid in the stomach. Too much of this could cause heartburn if it is regurgitated into the esophagus, ulceration on any exposed areas, indigestion, etc. So if we take a proton pump inhibitor (e.g. Prilosec), this interferes with this pathway which means less HCl in the stomach, which means a higher pH/less acidity, which can then mean less symptoms.
It all fits together. There's a logical flow in how these pieces create the symptoms that they do, how they effect different systems. The body is an ecosystem--everything effects everything else. Nothing exists in a vacuum. There's a narrative that unites these pieces, between the body as its designed to function and the disease process how it's altered that function, all still in the context of what is "normal" for that person.
It made me think of how I think about history. My brother greatly enjoys literature and history, finding that an understanding of one greatly enhances the other, seeing things in the context of the time and noting their different effects on one another. Neither literature nor history exist in a vacuum: there is something that connected those pieces together. There is a greater weight to the context of what is happening in the story based on what history is happening around them; there is greater weight in the historical context in understanding what thoughts and ideas were prevalent in the time. I have reflected more than once that history is better when it is told in the context of people, a round story of X led to Y which led to Z and effected these people in these ways at each step, seen through the lens of humanity and which led us to this next point--that sticks with me far better than regurgitating a series of trivia questions.
Sterilizing pathophysiology into a list of symptoms is convenient, but it is also robbing us of an understanding of the wider ramifications and decreases our overall scientific literacy. Reducing history to trivia bullet points takes less time to digest but robs us of the rich context of how we got there and where we're going.
The narrative matters. The story is what sticks with us. Connecting to what we know is what builds our knowledge base. I just hadn't thought of it in my own context before.
This matters when trying to understand people and politics, too. The story matters. The context matters. How we got here and how it leads to the next thing matters. That gives the subject in question a richer meaning, a fuller depth that sticks with you, remembering the drive and connection if not all the minutia.
No comments:
Post a Comment