A few years ago, the American Association of Anatomists (AAA) became the American Association for Anatomy (AAA). The intent was to move behind the person and be more inclusive to the entire discipline. But which discipline? Anatomy? Anatomical Sciences? I wish we could have adopted the American Association for Anatomical Sciences because I view our collective work under this name. Still, AAAS was an abbreviation already well known to all of us (American Association for the Advancement of Science) and therefore, not an option.
Let me reflect for a second on the evolution of the discipline. In the XIV and XV centuries, “anatomists” were not just anatomists; they were artists, intellectuals, and philosophers who were as curious about the human body as they were about its representation. Think about Vesalius or Leonardo Da Vinci and their work. Later, the advancement in microscopic technologies allowed insight views into tissues and cells, and at the same time, beautiful rendering of cellular structures like the ones from Ramón y Cajal. It was at about this time that anatomy was considered a grouping of macroscopic anatomy (or gross anatomy), microscopic anatomy (or histology), neuroanatomy, and embryology (commonly called development). In other words, anatomy was an anatomical science.
As anatomy teachers had the privilege to observe the living organisms, they started asking questions and eventually became researchers in their respective fields, along with their teaching exercise. However, our education and research system has changed in the last quarter century. With research becoming more and more specialized, we have seen the teacher of the anatomical sciences become a skilled educator and the researcher focused primarily on research. This means that many of our members today are educators or bench researchers, but fewer and fewer do both.
My personal journey started in healthcare (PharmD), then focused on skin research (PhD) with never any knowledge of anatomy. My learning of the anatomy of the human body and my role as an educator of the anatomical sciences came 25 years after the beginning of my scientific career. And I can tell you one thing: they have made me a better scientist. I can anticipate changes in morphology following gene ablation in a mouse. I can interpret structures on histological slides I had ignored, and I am better prepared to connect the dots of incidental findings.
So, Anatomy or Anatomical Sciences, does it really matter? I think it may because of the cliché associated with anatomy. For most scientists, anatomy is the study of the human body in a cadaver lab. Although this is true, the anatomical sciences are much more than that. It includes understanding how organs form (embryology) and how tissues are organized (histology) to inform our understanding of diseases. In fact, it is the foundation of many biological research projects. Yet most scientists executing that research do not think about their work as based in anatomy. If you talk to someone investigating cystic fibrosis or diabetes, they do not view themselves as an anatomical scientist, yet they would be ill-prepared for their research if they did not know the anatomy of the lung or recognize an islet cell.
“Inspiring scientific curiosity and discovery” is AAA’s vision. Anatomy educators, voice your appreciation for bench science and bring it into your lectures. To all the scientists who talk in bench research terms, help them appreciate how much anatomy is already in their work. Tell the person researching cystic fibrosis how much he, she or they benefit from understanding the development of the lung. And then tell them that AAA is their scientific home.