We should encourage browsing
BMJ 2011; 342 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d2182 (Published 06 April 2011) Cite this as: BMJ 2011;342:d2182
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The inevitable consequences of a wiki and an inquiring mind are best summarized in an xkcd cartoon here. Overall, I therefore suggest the problem lies more with the format of current electronic textbooks rather than an inherent limitation of the system.
Competing interests: No competing interests
I share Kassirer's anxieties about the current abilities of
electronic textbooks and other solutions eg the web to deliver what junior
doctors and medical students actually need as part of their wider ongoing
education and indeed to answer the immediate point-of-care questions posed
by the patient in front of them - compared say to a physical textbook or
handbook.
My ipad has over thirty established texts - mainly the Oxford
Handbook Series, McGraw Hill and Lange titles - plus the British National
Formularies for Adults and Children. The searching facilities offered by
these electronic texts offer a degree of efficiency but the search results
are fragmented disconnected and existing in isolation compared to the
original paper texts. Similar problems exist using internet searches even
when limiting oneself to specific high quality sources such as the Uk's GP
-notebook - the information is presented as isolated factoids with limited
opportunity to browse the next section
M-publishing is an evolving and developing area. Many established
publishing houses have rushed to convert their titles to mobile Apps or
ebooks. The process demonstrates an understandable anxiety to ride a wave
but betrays their own heritage as publishers of books and it's execution
leaves much to be desired.
my own evolving primitive attempt at creating an ebook - readable
like a book with opportunities for serendipity and linking of knowledge
can be found at www.250textbooks.co.uk
Competing interests: No competing interests
Does the internet limit or extend the human mind? - Probably both
Sir,
We read with interest Jerome Kassirer's article on the way readily
accessible information from the internet might affect medical practice.[1]
Essentially his point was that homing in directly on the required
information reduces the chances of serendipitous intellectual discoveries,
which may subsequently turn out to be very useful. Personally we found the
article rather unconvincing, albeit at a purely anecdotal level, since we
frequently find ourselves browsing on the internet.
Two recent articles contribute further to this debate - firstly, an
article in Scientific American compared the human brain with those of
other mammals and found that by having thinner neurons we are able to pack
more cells into a given volume of brain.[2] However, the paper argued that
we are approaching the theoretical limit to further reductions in cell
diameter and hence the theoretical limit on human memory. More recently
still an article in Science produced empirical evidence from four studies,
showing that information retrieved by internet searches was less likely to
be retrieved in the memory than information retrieved by more traditional
means.[3] So perhaps Prof. Kassirer is right after all, albeit for the
wrong reason. However, these articles also showed that the mind did tend
to remember where the information was stored, meaning that it could be
retrieved more easily on subsequent occasions.
Given the physical limits on the memory capacity of our brains it
seems that the internet is truly becoming a working extension of the human
mind. Perhaps rather than going back to the old-fashioned browsing of
paper articles, we should work out how best to make cyberspace an
extension of our limited mind-space.
References:
[1] Kassirer JP. We should encourage browsing. BMJ 2011;342:d2182.
[2] Fox D. The limits of intelligence. Sci Am 2011;305(1):36-43.
[3] Sparrow B, Liu J, Wegner DM. Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive
Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips. Science
2011;333(6043):776-8.
Competing interests: No competing interests