Recently , clinical microbiology and immunology techniques used were mostly automated, and the conventional methods are almost left behind . Do think these new technology produces a well-trained and understood graduates that really understand what are microorganisms and immune components and their activities and mechanisms ?
Think it certainly risks education re.depth of scientific understanding. The basic phenomena and its significance may fall victim to focus on the technology,operation and maintenance of the automated equipment. Consider those academic departments that refer to themselves as "Molecular Biology" - that section of biology that uses the molecular techniques.
Conventional methods were the base for the automation.I feel one should have skill in convention methods to interpret the results of automation.
Why should they be mutually exclusive. The automated methods are generally based on classic methods, so understanding the old methods is important, but knowing how to apply modern technology is equally important.
Michael J. Benedik
But they are. They learn the method not the theory. And what automated techniques do we mean? Think of all the requests for help in microbial ID on researchgate - the most common response it to sequence and blast. Those experienced in molecular are challenged to conduct a Gram stain and we hope they can get a pure culture.
Merely look at what we considered "conventional" methods. They're taught in context of specific applications - e.g. give a student a TSI slant with any inoculum and they'll shoehorn their ID into an enteric bacterium. Recall a practical with staph aureus on TSI (recall A/A no gas or H2S signaled) with a Gram stain next to it - ~80% suggested an enteric.
To the point, consider the recent question on researchgate
"How can gram positive Clostridium tetani grow on MacConkey agar when it is selective for gram negatives?"
Phil Geis
We are not actually in disagreement at all. I think you do need to teach the classical methods as a prelude to modern technology, that was really my point is that it should be both and not one or the other. You need to teach both the method and the theory.
I completely agree that much of the history and rationale as to why things are done a certain way is frequently lost, nonetheless you also need to teach how things are done currently. Teaching a microbiology student only the old approaches and not how to use modern equipment and interpret the results would be doing a disservice to them.
The automated methods are easily, short time results also I think Conventional methods were more reliable and visual. I usually use conventional methods in rutin but for clarify or in ICU and other emergincy case I use automated mrthod.
I agree with you in some points, automated teqnuques should be applied after complet learning of classical methods.
Mohemid Maddallah Al-Jebouri
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Microbiology
- Virology
- Virus