Editorial
pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
The Role of Chemistry Education for Medical Preprofessionals
Norbert J. Pienta*
Department of Chemistry, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-2556, United States
ABSTRACT: The importance of robust chemistry education to the preparation of preprofessional students in medically related
fields is discussed.
KEYWORDS: First-Year Undergraduate/General, Second-Year Undergraduate, Curriculum, Textbooks/Reference Books
See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
T he recent opportunity to attend a medical school
graduation at a large midwestern university and the social
events for M.D. (medical doctor) graduates gave me pause for
thought. It was a joyous celebration for a family member, but
Downloaded via 180.94.73.170 on May 17, 2020 at 12:31:37 (UTC).
also an opportunity to interact with the graduate’s classmates. A
few years ago, a pharmacy technician at my neighborhood
drugstore was preoccupied when your Editor reached the front
of the line, and started to ask my name before looking up. She
recovered and blurted out, “Oh. I know your name. You’re the
person who almost kept me from going to pharmacy school!”
An attentive pharmacist heard the declaration and spoke to the
tech, presumably about decorum and perhaps HIPAA rules.1 A
few years prior to that a student of organic pointed out to me
that his father was an M.D. and told him that you do not need
to know any chemistry to be a doctor. Despite this feedback,
most of my student evaluations have been positive enough for
me to garner a few teaching awards; it was not clear who would
wish to chat at the medical school graduates’ reception, the
disgruntled or the satisfied. Being mentally prepared for any
eventuality seemed prudent.
The entire experience was quite positive and uplifting. Just
being introduced as a chemistry professor often gets people in
the group reminiscing about their “special” and unique
experiences. A few conversations started there, but quickly
moved to more substantive matters. Chemistry concepts are
useful and important to these new M.D.s who could relate
many examples from their own experiences: biochemistry,
physiology, and pharmacology were the ones that were brought
up most often. Many aspects of medicine rely on basic
conceptual knowledge of chemistry, or perhaps come closer to
depending on it. A recent visit by your Editor to a new
cardiologist, who earned her M.D. a decade ago, made
abundantly clear the necessity of chemistry knowledge. New
and old drugs, their physiological effects, and the mechanism of
action spoke to chemistry skill on her part. This reassured an
old physical−organic chemist, who understood the implications
without knowing the details. Plenty of organic students and
their instructors have learned the value of a good mechanism
and the deductive reasoning that helps formulate it, understand
it, and then transfer it to the next application.
At the same time, the programmatic demands on chemistry
education by the medical education community point to several
actionable items for chemistry educators.2−5 Medical schools
are shortening the basic science experience for medical
students. Many medical schools start clinical activities during
© 2017 American Chemical Society and
Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
the second year, less time to reinforce the big ideas and a
resulting need for better preparation in basic science. In fact,
the Association of American Medical Colleges organization
changed the chemistry prerequisite requirements and guidelines
a few years ago.6 The new suggestions are for one semester of
organic chemistry conceptual knowledge, followed by a
potential second bio-organic semester. The pushback from
the chemistry community was expected: “How can you teach all
of the traditional organic content in one semester if most
course sequences struggle to do so in two terms?” At this point,
some course redesign seems appropriate: “backward design”
principles require us to start at the expected goals and learning
outcomes.7,8 Does a functional group approach make sense
anymore?9−11 (I do not want to offend the synthetic organic
chemists, whose potential pharmaceutical discoveries lead to
drugs that literally keep me alive!) General chemistry is
certainly not without its faults. How does one best teach
molecular structure and concomitant properties, forces, and
energetics, and the principles that guide dynamic change in
reactions and equilibrium? The “modern” general chemistry
textbook last saw massive changes in the curriculum with the
introduction of the Sienko and Plane textbook.12,13 In the
meantime, discipline-based education research and the resulting
evidence support the need for change.14
The plan for curricular changes in general and organic
chemistry need to support our constituencies: science majors,
engineers, agriculture students, and medical preprofessionals. It
makes little or no sense for the instructors and those instructed
to operate by two widely divergent strategies. We can do this,
and previous editorials spoke to some of these issues and to
some potential interventions. It seems to me that everyone
benefits.
Congratulations to John and other newly minted M.D.s.
Keep using those chemical concepts. The chemistry education
community will continue to work on better approaches for the
teaching and learning of chemistry for the upcoming and future
generation.
■ AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail: norbert-pienta@jce.acs.org.
Published: August 8, 2017
981 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00527
J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 981−982
Journal of Chemical Education Editorial

ORCID
Norbert J. Pienta: 0000-0002-1197-6151
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not
necessarily the views of the ACS.
Norbert J. Pienta is Professor and Director of General
Chemistry at the University of Georgia, where he teaches and
conducts research and scholarship about the teaching and
learning of chemistry, devising methods, instruments, and
analytics to characterize student learning and increase student
success. He currently also serves as the editor-in-chief for the
Journal of Chemical Education.

■ REFERENCES
(1) For a discussion of HIPAA privacy rules, see: https://www.hhs.
gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html (accessed Jul 2017).
(2) For a discussion of providing and measuring quality in chemistry
education, see: Pienta, N. J. How Do We Measure Success in
Introductory College Chemistry? J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94 (3), 265−
266.
(3) For a discussion about improving general chemistry education
through active learning, see: Pienta, N. J. Understanding Our Students
in General Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2015, 92 (6), 963−964.
(4) For a discussion of student expectations to meet their
programmic needs, see: Pienta, N. J. Teaching General Chemistry
and Making a Difference. J. Chem. Educ. 2014, 91 (3), 305−306.
(5) For a previous discussion about chemistry education serving “pre-
meds”, see: Pienta, N. J. Defining a Playing Field: Where Does “Pre-
Med” Fit? J. Chem. Educ. 2013, 90 (7), 805−806.
(6) For a summary of AMCAS science requirements for admission to
medical school, see: https://students-residents.aamc.org/applying-
medical-school/applying-medical-school-process/deciding-where-
apply/medical-school-admission-requirements/ (accessed Jul 2017).
(7) McTighe, J.; Thomas, R. S. Backward Design for Forward Action.
Educational Leadership 2003, 60 (5), 52−55.
(8) Wiggins, G.; McTighe, J. What Is Backward Design? In
Understanding by Design; Merrill/Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River,
NJ, 2001; pp 7−19.
(9) For a discussion about a mechanistic approach in organic
chemistry, see: Flynn, A. B.; Ogilvie, W. W. Mechanisms before
Reactions: A Mechanistic Approach to the Organic Chemistry
Curriculum Based on Patterns of Electron Flow. J. Chem. Educ.
2015, 92 (5), 803−810.
(10) For a discussion of using a classic mechanistic textbook to teach
organic chemistry, see: Bowman, B. G.; Karty, J. M.; Gooch, G.
Teaching a Modified Hendrickson, Cram, and Hammond Curriculum
in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ. 2007, 84 (7), 1209−1215.
(11) For a discussion about the organic chemistry curriculum from
40 years ago, see: Wheeler, D. M. S.; Wheeler, M. M. The
Undergraduate Curriculum in Organic Chemistry. J. Chem. Educ.
1979, 56 (7), 462−464.
(12) Smith, G. W. Book Review of Chemistry (Sienko, Michell J.;
Plane, Robert A.). J. Chem. Educ. 1961, 38 (11), 585.
(13) Taylor, T. E. Book Review of Chemistry: Principles and Properties
(Sienko, Michell J.; Plane, Robert A.). J. Chem. Educ. 1967, 44 (6),
373.
(14) Discipline-Based Education Research: Understanding and Improv-
ing Learning in Undergraduate Science and Engineering; Singer, S. R.,
Nielsen, N. R., Schweingruber, H. A., Eds.; The National Academies
Press: Washington, DC, 2012.

■ EDITOR'S NOTE
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not
necessarily the views of the ACS.

982 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00527

J. Chem. Educ. 2017, 94, 981−982