536 ■ III: ROLE FUNCTIONS OF DOCTORAL ADVANCED NURSING PRACTICE
(BSN)- to- DNP or post- master’s student. The BSN- to- DNP student does not have this
basic advanced science background; the post- master’s DNP student does, having
had this content in required courses in their previous master’s degree. Therefore, the
predominant post- master’s DNP programs do not build on this science content with
rare exceptions. The Columbia University School of Nursing program has a course
on incorporating genetics and genomics in advanced practice nursing (N9290), as
does the University of Utah post- master’s DNP (NURS 6240, Clinical Genetics)
(Columbia University School of Nursing, 2016; University of Utah, 2016). However,
this author could not find any other post- master’s DNP program that required a doc-
toral level course in genetics/ genomics. Certainly, it is not unusual that programs are
uniquely different or have different requirements, even if they have common nursing
accreditors that want to ensure that specific content is included in some format in a
respective curriculum or degree. However, it is still widely not recognized that post-
master’s DNP programs are not required to be accredited, but is required of BSN- to-
DNP programs that lead to certification and licensure (i.e., a BSN- to- DNP student
that is preparing a new family NP or nurse anesthetist).^2
The question raised here is why is there no specific additional science- specific
content included in the DNP curricula? At Drexel, a focus group of newly graduated
family nurse practitioner (FNP) students (from the MSN program) years ago indicated
they thought they could have benefited from more advanced anatomy and new FNPs
reported that during medical rounds, medical residents were far more proficient at
identifying anatomical landmarks and at integrating this content in discussions with
interdisciplinary colleagues than they were. In addition, while there were initial discus-
sions about including an advanced human cadaver anatomy course/ lab in the DrNP
program, it never materialized. Why are there not additional pharmacology courses
even available in post- master’s DNP curricula? For whatever reason, advanced science-
specific content is largely absent in post- master’s DNP programs and this needs more
discussion, particularly for DNP programs that are clinically focused.
The second area of this domain appears to more specifically related to scientific
underpinnings in the discipline of nursing itself. In Philosophy of Science for Nursing
Practice: Concepts and Application s (Dahnke & Dreher, 2016), the authors present a
strong case for the inclusion of basic philosophy of science content for not just PhD
in nursing/ nursing science programs, but DNP programs as well. For a degree with
such an emphasis on evidence- based practice, it is unclear whether there is enough
content in DNP programs that includes substantive coursework on the nature of sci-
ence, evidence, observation, explanation, and even the historical basis for the evolu-
tion of nursing thought and science. Dahnke and Dreher identify some of the DNP
programs where there is an explicit inclusion of this content, and Vanderbilt’s (NUR
N410: Evidence- Based Practice I: The Nature of Evidence; 2016) and Oklahoma City
University’s (2016) DNP programs are examples of this implicit focus (NURS 7103
Philosophy of Science). The author recalls a DNP plenary speaker at an annual AACN
Doctoral Education Conference being asked once why they included a philosophy of
science course in their DNP curriculum (it was in there PhD program too— students
took the course together)? She clearly understood the hidden context, which with the
question was posed, being, “why do DNPs need this?” In a very explanatory way,
she replied that no such course (with its emphasis on scientific concepts that often
explored abstract, developmental theoretical philosophic content that supported prac-
tice inquiry too), created such an obvious shift in the student to “doctoral thinking,”
and beyond the kind of thinking required in very didactic, concrete- oriented mas-
ter’s courses. It was a reassuring concept, rightly addressed, and confirmed my own
belief that this content was more than critical to any discussions of evidence- based or