Going back a little, when we merged, I thought there wasn’t any choice. I thought the School had to become part of the larger Faculty.

Ann Westmore: What issues triggered the amalgamation of the Dental and Medical Faculties?

Henry Atkinson: Research was one. We had to front up for research [funding] and medicine didn’t know what we were talking about. So we put the word, physiology, into one of our programs, and cleft palate into another, and these were words they seemed to understand. Peter had the advantage of a background in pathology and medicine. Otherwise it was difficult to get a dental subject across between gynaecology and ophthalmology and so on. We got our share.

Figure 14 Reception for guests at Physiology Conference c.1958. (l-r) Prof. Anderson, Alan Docking OS, Prof. H.F. Atkinson - courtesy H.F. Atkinson Dental Museum.

Peter Reade: I think we were really pushed into it, weren’t we? Some of us, at the time, hoped it would bring advantages, both in funding and in a general understanding of what we were trying to do.

Mike Morgan: There were advantages perceived in terms of protection. I don’t think there were advantages in an academic or managerial sense.

Hector Orams: Is there much sharing of staff between medicine and dentistry, for example do some dentists demonstrate in anatomy and pathology?

Mike Morgan: No there’s not, Hec. It used to happen far more than it does now. Again, the Melbourne Model may provide a greater opportunity for improved mixing of staff.

Pat Storey: Tony was involved in [teaching] calcium metabolism [to medical students].

John Harcourt: The medical students don’t do anatomy any more. (laughter)

Witness to the History of Australian Medicine