Marked changes are occurring within both the medical and dental curricula and new ways of teaching the basic sciences have been devised and traditional methods (e.g., dissection for gross anatomy and of bench-based animal preparations for physiology) are increasingly no longer the norm. Although there is much anecdotal evidence that students are not in favor of such changes, there is little evidence for this based on quantitative analyses of students' attitudes. Using Thurstone and Chave attitude analyses, we assessed the attitudes of first year medical and dental students at Cardiff University toward gross anatomy and physiology in terms of their perceived clinical importance. In addition, we investigated the appropriateness ("fitness for purpose") of teaching methodologies used for anatomy and physiology. The hypotheses tested recognized the possibility that medical and dental students differed in their opinions, but that they had a preference to being taught gross anatomy through the use of dissection and had no preference for physiology teaching. It was found that both medical and dental students displayed positive attitudes toward the clinical relevance of gross anatomy and that they preferred to be taught by means of dissection. Although both medical and dental students displayed positives attitudes toward the clinical relevance of physiology, this was greater for the medical students. Both medical and dental students showed a preference for being taught physiology through didactic teaching in small groups but the medical students also appreciated being taught by means of practicals. Overall, this study highlights the expectations that students have for the basic science foundation teaching within their professional training and signals a preference for being taught experientially/practically. Differences were discerned between medical and dental students that might reflect the direct association between systems physiology and pathophysiology and the application of this knowledge within the medical field in comparison to the dental field, which is heavily skillbased. Clin. Anat. 27:976-987,