The manuscript by D r. Sarah E arle ( 2001 ) raises important points regarding the inclusion of sociology in the education of health professionals. The topic is relevant to training speech and language therapists, as she argues, and is pertinent to all health professions education.A s D r. E arle correctly points out, sociology ( and social sciences as a whole ) suffers as health professions education adopts a semantic conjunction approach. In this approach, content areas directly related to a chosen profession are the primary ( even exclusive ) focus. This specialty ( and sub-specialty ) approach to health professional education is problematic for two reasons. First, it tends to keep the curriculum static because faculty who are focused primarily on their own disciplines tend to advocate traditional content and instructional methodologies. Second, it excludes content areas such as sociology that have not traditionally been included in the curriculum, thus impeding the growth of scienti® c knowledge ( Leighton, 1994 ).The exclusion of sociology and the social sciences as a whole seems quizzical. Most professional schools have divisions and/or departments of behavioral science. The behavioral science divisions are usually staffed by counselors and social workers as well as by clinical psychologists. Such professionals' training is clinical. If the purposes of behavioral science divisions or departments are the study of human behavior and helping health professionals gain enhanced insight into the people for whom they are providing care, then the exclusion of sociologists, cultural anthropologists, economists, cultural geographers, and other social scientists seems inappropriate. It appears that the inclusion criteria for entry into such divisions or A ddress for correspondence: Clint W. Snyder, PhD , A ssistan t Professo r and A ssociat e R esidency D irector, D epartment of Family Medicine, Case Western R eserve U niversity, 10900 E uclid A venue, Cleveland , O H 44106-4950 , U SA.