08/26/2026
Dr. Pullen recently led a 3+ year study on immunology taught in US medical schools for the American Association of Immunologists Education Committee with Aimee Pugh-Bernard (CU Anschutz) Their task force of medical educators from 8 collaborating institutions represented both MD and DO programs. What did they find? Read on. . .
* Why we did this: There was no prior systematic effort to establish immunology content guidelines for medical school. Immunology is a distributed system that affects all physiology & pathology; most of the successful breakthrough medical advances in the past 20-years directly involve manipulating the immune system. Many physicians who did not specialize in immunology reported difficulty describing the mechanisms of how such medical advances work and independently determining when to prescribe them. Additionally, the diversity of how immunology is taught has never been researched – this was motivated by assessing the time pressures on immunology.
* What we did: We surveyed all accredited and pre-accredited medical schools (MD and DO) as of August 2023 – 209 institutions at the time. We asked faculty basic questions of how, who, what, and when immunology is taught. We also developed content recommendations from their responses, sent these out for survey again for feedback and editing, and then we had live feedback sessions and presentations at the annual immunology conference over two year cycles (2025 and 2026).
* What we found/recommend: A lot of institutions are under intense time pressure that has significantly reduced the time available to teach immunology. Instructors were not sure how to parse content other than relying on board exam prep. The research recommends 15 foundational topics with aligned content learning objectives and conditions for case studies. These were workshopped and edited by the community of medical immunology educators.
* What future use of impact will this have: Immunology educators in medical schools will now have a rigorous, evidence-based study to turn to when revising their curricula. Additionally, the study also provides key demographic data that can be used to leverage curricular and pedagogical reforms attached to regular re-accreditation cycles (e.g., justifying an amount of time to dedicate to immunology didactics in pre-clinical years).