Osteology: Further Debate

Abstract

In January 1999, we published a letter from Dr. Carlos Mautalen discussing the use of osteology to define the study. We requested comments from our readers and are pleased to offer representative responses. Drezner,1 Mautalen,2 and others 3-6 have been interested in the question of describing our daily activities in one simple and descriptive term. Some years ago, after friendly debate between Argentinian colleagues, we concluded that the term osteology alone probably is not appropriate, at least in our clinical practice, because it does not include other important endocrine and metabolic aspects of clinical practice. For this reason we currently employ the term “Osteology and Mineral Metabolism.” For instance, we obtained from the Argentine government the recognition and approval of our Masters degree in “Osteology and Mineral Metabolism,”3 and we organized the Masters program in “Osteology and Mineral Metabolism” in the School of Medicine of Del Salvador University, Buenos Aires.4 The graduates receive the title “Masters in Osteology and Mineral Metabolism,” and we registered at the National Office of Authors5 and at the ISSN Office6 the journal named Osteologia/Osteology: for the clinical aspects on the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of bone and mineral metabolism. We assume that his theoretical concerns and our practical facts will contribute to answer, at least in Argentina, part of the questions formulated by Dr. Drezner to the Bone and Mineral Metabolism International Community.