Hybrid Academic/Private/Industry/etc. Practice

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

helloxkittyador

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
11
Reaction score
1
Hello Everyone,

Long time reader and have appreciated this forum very much. As I'm getting close to the end of my PhD, I'm starting to think about all the possible career styles that allows one to be a physician scientist. Careers are pretty much categorized as private practice, academics and industry, but sometimes I hear of these "hybrid" practices but haven't really seen any definition or examples of these. It would be great to split some time in either roles to generate a decent income while not burning out from research, or serving as a part-time consultant role in industry, or even having a non-tenure track academic position to keep up research collaborations at the university without having to constantly fight for grants to keep your job, etc. Just wanted to get insight on what career possibilities are on how to combine them all. What do you guys think?

Members don't see this ad.
 
Balance is in the eyes of the beholder... You can have different stages in your career, and when you pursued each, push it to the limit aiming excellence.

It seems that this is somewhat dependent on your success in each respective stage, e.g. it's much easier to get yourself elected to the board of directors of a major pharma if you were regularly publishing important work or if you had made yourself into a world-renowned clinician in your field.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It's nice to know that you can go through different phases. I really enjoy the university setting and the collaborative research atmosphere. I don't want to spend most of my time writing grants and would love be co-PI on a few projects and teach students as well. Is there such a way to be part-time at a university (i.e. 2 days a week) and the remaining days be in community practice? That would be a really great financially and research-wise in my opinion. Have you guys seen anything like this? I wish our programs had seminars about this sort of thing...(or maybe it comes in residency I dunno)
 
Sure, you can be a clinician-educator at an academic institution. Whether you can do that 2 days a week depends on your institution. Some chairs try hard to discourage their clinician-educators from running private practices on the side, others are more tolerant. You can certainly collaborate on other people's research projects but you won't have much of a say in what you do, so it will depend on whether you have some particular skill or expertise the PI may want. A lot of this is dumb luck as well as whatever connections you may be able to make with people at your institution who have research funding.

Also you'll be expected to produce clinically oriented research papers without funding or dedicated research time, so between that and the disproportionately low compensation it ends up being rather more time-intensive than private practice for much less money. I have seen a lot of young clinical faculty bail out to private practice or salaried jobs outside the academy because the effort/compensation ratio in academics is so out of proportion they can't justify it for the intangible benefit of liking to teach.

Caveat that some of this may be specific to psychiatry; I've heard from clinicians in some other specialties that the compensation isn't as wildly different inside and outside academia as it is in psych.

You probably will hear more about these options during residency.
 
Many things are specialty specific. In general however, this is a lot of talking about pipe dreams.

It would be great to split some time in either roles to generate a decent income while not burning out from research, or serving as a part-time consultant role in industry, or even having a non-tenure track academic position to keep up research collaborations at the university without having to constantly fight for grants to keep your job, etc. Just wanted to get insight on what career possibilities are on how to combine them all. What do you guys think?

Research is a 100% of the time endeavor. You don't get paid a "decent income" for doing a small amount of clinical work on top of research most of the time. You get paid a "decent income" for bringing in grants, and maybe something supplemental for the clinical effort. But you still have to be grant supported if you're doing serious research. That 1 day a week or 2 months a year of clinic is enough to keep you employed in academic medicine and keep your clinical skills up (in a pretty limited way), but not enough to make you decent money or keep the pressure off you for grants and thus keep you from "burning out". Any more clinical time than that and you're not doing serious research or you're totally burned out trying to keep up a serious lab and serious clinical practice.

Part-time consultant roles in industry are generally not well paid. You might do it to help get funding out of them for trying out their drugs/devices (with all those caveats) or get some small supplemental income. But "consulting" in pharma is not some big shot, high paying, part-time gig. i.e. you're not going to work 1 day a week at it and magically make $100k+/year for it.

If you're not bringing in the grants, you don't get the time to do research. So you either keep your job by working mostly clinically or by bringing in grants. You don't get to be clinical 50% of the time and research 50% of the time without grants. Maybe for a short period of time (like a startup phase), but that's not sustainable.

It's nice to know that you can go through different phases. I really enjoy the university setting and the collaborative research atmosphere. I don't want to spend most of my time writing grants and would love be co-PI on a few projects and teach students as well. Is there such a way to be part-time at a university (i.e. 2 days a week) and the remaining days be in community practice? That would be a really great financially and research-wise in my opinion. Have you guys seen anything like this? I wish our programs had seminars about this sort of thing...(or maybe it comes in residency I dunno)

To some limited extent you can go through different phases and transition around academics, private practice, industry. But you don't get to do it often.

In my line of work, industry opportunities for MDs are very limited and it doesn't pay well at all. In general, the opportunities for MDs in industry are very limited, hence why you hear little about it. You also have to give up the clinics if you go seriously into industry. Nobody is willing to do that because if you give up practice and your company or position goes away, then you have nothing to fall back on. So the MDs in industry tend to be from other countries and ineligible to practice in the USA, were booted out of medicine (unwilling/unable to practice clinically), or are older and financially secure enough that they have given up the clinics and are okay with that. This is a very, very small percentage of physicians overall. I have seen people work in industry and academics or private practice part-time, but not for any sustained period of time. It doesn't really help your academic portfolio and you don't make good money at it. Industry is used to paying PhD salaries except to the big business types at the top and academics doesn't want to pay you much (if anything) if you're clinical part-time.

Almost nobody is going to let you go out and practice in a private setting while you do research in academics. Some psychiatrists have done this. I doubt there are any other specialties that do it.

Co-PIs are either PIs with their own grants that contribute skills to another project or work mostly clinically and contribute something clinical like patients or samples. You don't get to latch onto someone else's grant and get time to do research funded by that other person who is doing all the writing. It doesn't work that way. If you want to do basic science research, you have to write the grants. You can do some clinical research after hours or on weekends without funding and teach for a reduced salary (which is what most of academics really is). That isn't what the MD/PhD training was for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
If you're not bringing in the grants, you don't get the time to do research. So you either keep your job by working mostly clinically or by bringing in grants. You don't get to be clinical 50% of the time and research 50% of the time without grants. Maybe for a short period of time (like a startup phase), but that's not sustainable.

I didn't get the idea that the OP wanted to have 50% research time. She said she wanted to teach, do clinical work, and be coinvestigator on a few projects. Clinician-educators do this. No, you do not need a PhD for it (although if you have one, it's possible this would contribute to your having expertise that might be wanted by PIs). You couldn't do laboratory-based work this way because you'd be too expensive (compared to a grad student, postdoc or technician who could do the same thing). You would have to offer something that justifies your price tag, so typically some area of clinical expertise.

The percentage of time that you can work on other people's grants is a function of your individual situation, research area, and relationships with senior PIs. You could not guarantee a standing % time under this arrangement; you might have 20% research time some years and none in others. I'm actually looking for a clinician-educator right now who would be able to do a kind of patient assessment that I don't have the expertise to do. If I can find the right person I will write them into the budget and if the project were to get funded (long shot as always) that person would have 10% salary paid for by the research study. (If I can't find the right person I will leave that particular outcome out of the proposal.) Also there's a study going on in our group that involves PET scans which the PI does not know how to do; therefore there is another physician who is being paid to oversee the scanning.

I know at least one young clinician-educator who has majority research time but does not have any of his own money. He formed a close collaboration with a senior PI during residency and fellowship and his research time is supported by that person's grants. Presumably this isn't sustainable in the long term, I would not say it is common and I'm not sure it could be conjured up by force of will, but it does occur. A grants administrator also mentioned this option to me as one of the ways that young faculty who have not managed to get their own funding yet have remained in research (at least temporarily).

This probably is specialty-specific to a degree. I can only speak from my own experience and observations.
 
Last edited:
Clinician-educators do this. No, you do not need a PhD for it

You just described the typical starting academic pathways where either you get very little research time or you get a start-up package where someone else supports you for a time.

You also basically said what I said with regards to academics -- that you can have some minority research time if you stay in academics but don't earn your own grants. You get 10% funding on 5 proposals, and maybe one is accepted, and maybe you get to be a 10% co-PI. Whoop. You will probably put more work into it than the protected time you're given anyway. Then you stay 90-100% clinical. It's something of a waste of a PhD, but I don't blame people for doing it. Without your own funding, you don't get to sustain major activities outside of clinical medicine unless you become a senior administrator.

This is very tangential to the op's questions, and says nothing about private practice or industry. You could do the above with industry as 10% of your salary (maybe) or locum tenens (maybe) within private practice for a small salary boost.
 
You also basically said what I said with regards to academics -- that you can have some minority research time if you stay in academics but don't earn your own grants. You get 10% funding on 5 proposals, and maybe one is accepted, and maybe you get to be a 10% co-PI. Whoop.

I mean, yeah. Perhaps you're not interested in this career but it corresponds pretty closely to what the OP was asking about. She said,
"It would be great to split some time in either roles to generate a decent income while not burning out from research, or serving as a part-time consultant role in industry, or even having a non-tenure track academic position to keep up research collaborations at the university without having to constantly fight for grants to keep your job."

This would correspond to a clinician-educator who works less than 100% time within the university, runs a small private practice on the outside, and participates to some degree in ongoing research studies. Lots of people do this. (Consultancy to industry can also be combined with the above, although it seems to be easier to come by for majority researchers than for majority clinicians.) It's not what you want to do, that's fine, but it's an option that corresponds to what the OP described.
 
Hello Everyone,
Long time reader and have appreciated this forum very much. As I'm getting close to the end of my PhD, I'm starting to think about all the possible career styles that allows one to be a physician scientist. Careers are pretty much categorized as private practice, academics and industry, but sometimes I hear of these "hybrid" practices but haven't really seen any definition or examples of these. It would be great to split some time in either roles to generate a decent income while not burning out from research, or serving as a part-time consultant role in industry, or even having a non-tenure track academic position to keep up research collaborations at the university without having to constantly fight for grants to keep your job, etc. Just wanted to get insight on what career possibilities are on how to combine them all. What do you guys think?

It's very hard to sustain a research career of ANY kind without actively bringing in funding. I hope this point is made clear by posters above and me. The only scenario where you can continue to do research without applying for grants is where you are either 1) a statistician/study physician working for a group of clinical trialists 2) similarly, in basic science, a postdoc/research scientist who works under a PI for an extended period of time. In both of these cases, you ability to independently execute your research ideas are very limited, but you can usually contribute by writing papers. These midlevel jobs have an associated salary level which is often quite a bit lower (let's say 30-40%). If you think you'll be happy doing that these jobs do exist and usually some kind of "scheduling" split (i.e. 50/50) can be achieved. Although this is contingent on your boss being flexible about timing and deadlines of the project being executed by you. These things generally don't last long, as you can imagine, because clinical jobs pay a lot more, and working for a boss to do whatever he thinks is worth doing on a deadline (and not get much credit when a big discovery is made) can take that last bit of fun of doing science out of you.

A separate issue is this: a lot of people "don't like to write grants." I think you should think about what exactly is it that you don't like about writing grants. If I can have my way I'll just write grants all day for a living. What I "don't like" about writing grants is being REJECTED all the time. I would love a low salary hard money position where I get to file grant applications for new ideas all the time, but I hate to have my entire existence dependent on things I have no control. So I think the confusing part isn't about the quality or content of the job itself, but the associated uncertainty. So then you might ask, is it possible to pitch 20%-50% of the time and do clinical 50%...it's possible, but given how low the funding rates are, if you write 2 grants a year, you're not as likely to get funded as someone who writes 5...or 20...So if all your pitches fail, you are more likely to go into a funding gap.

Things are more similar in industry as well. You don't get paid well for day to day stuff. You get paid well for completing a product and add value (i.e. either getting trials done, bring things through the regulatory pipeline or other even more business-oriented activities like sourcing for new companies to buy...) I was shocked by how low some of the fixed salaries are in pharma jobs I've got quotes on. Definitely lower than starting salaries in cog specialties. But how they make money is they promise equity distribution when products go from point A to point D, which is fraught with risks and uncertainties, and the structure is more pyramidal, which means even when you win, a lot of others also win, and who eventually get the promotion depends on office politics. I can't imagine you'd enjoy that aspect.

There is no easy way to make a lot of money by doing a fixed body of day to day work in our society. The best way to do this is probably dermatology and retinal surgery. Almost everything from Hollywood to politics to sports in our society is driven by sales and commission (and performance contingent on risk), and science is not an exemption to that.

Do you see how this works now?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Top