Joining two research labs

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Hi everybody,

Currently I am working in a basic science lab doing an experiment and a meta-analysis. However, lately I’ve been thinking that it might be worthwhile to take on a clinical project with another PI given that

1. I’m not sure that the experiment will lead to publication
2. If it leads to publication, not sure if I’d be an author (there are like 3 students/residents working on it). I keep asking to write sections and do the data analysis (I’ve been told I could do some of this) but I feel like the others are also aiming to do this

I have enough time (doing well in classes/exams) to take on another project but am unsure if the PI in the first lab would get mad if I took on another project at the same time. This could possibly jeopardize authorship.

Finally, I’m stressing out because I’m just not sure how I will be able to get 5+ publications in 2.7ish years when it’s time for ERAS applications.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lawpy]

Why are you in a basic science lab? Ditch it and focus exclusively on clinical research.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

The basic science labs are a bit more prolific here so I figured that it might be good to at least try to start on a project and see where it goes. The PI is also good about breaking one experiment into multiple papers

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Basic science lab is always a bad idea for MD only students if you are doing it to aim for pub…

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

Should I still do the review though? Is there any merit in review papers?

 

[Lawpy]

Should I still do the review though? Is there any merit in review papers?

Not worth it. It’s too much time doing heavy literature search and writeups when that time can be used to churn out clinical papers

 

[srirachamayonnaise]

Should I still do the review though? Is there any merit in review papers?

I would only do a review paper if it’s an invited pub.

 

[aldol16]

The politics on this are tough. If you're talking about basic science labs, it's really hard to fully be able to commit to 2 labs because of the sheer time required for experiments. If you're talking about clinical projects or taking on a clinical project in addition to a basic science one, then this is more manageable. The politics are going to be a major consideration though. You have to get a feeling of whether your PI is okay with this. Don't want to burn any bridges early on.

 

[mvenus929]

I would only do a review paper if it’s an invited pub.

It's a meta-analysis--that's a step above a regular review paper because there is actual analysis that goes into it. Meta-analyses are also more likely to be cited.

I'd say keep up with the meta-analysis. But I agree with the above that you also have to navigate the politics of the situation.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

It's a meta-analysis--that's a step above a regular review paper because there is actual analysis that goes into it. Meta-analyses are also more likely to be cited.

I'd say keep up with the meta-analysis. But I agree with the above that you also have to navigate the politics of the situation.

Maybe just finish up these projects and then bail? I would feel bad about leaving early mid project especially since I’m helping in designing the protocol for the experiment. I would say projects could be completed by January at the latest. If I switched to clinical projects in January would it be possible to get 4+ publications by 2025? Not sure how long these usually take. Thinking about radiology, neurology, general surgery, IM

 

[mvenus929]

Maybe just finish up these projects and then bail? I would feel bad about leaving early mid project especially since I’m helping in designing the protocol for the experiment. I would say projects could be completed by January at the latest. If I switched to clinical projects in January would it be possible to get 4+ publications by 2025? Not sure how long these usually take. Thinking about radiology, neurology, general surgery, IM

It's reasonable to finish up your current projects.

Depending on what type of clinical project you get involved in, you can certainly get a few publications by 2025. All depends on how motivated you are and how much you actually help the team. From start to finish, my first major research project took about 4 years, but half of that time was me trying to convince my mentor that yes, we could publish it, and then trying to get feedback on the manuscript. The data collection itself took about a year. My second research project took a total of about 1 year--I collected the data over a few months, then quickly analyzed it and wrote the manuscript over about 4-5 months, and it was published about 6 months after that (accepted about 3 months before it was published). My third project was submitted to 2 journals and rejected at both and we're trying to figure out how to revise; my fourth project similarly has been submitted to 3 journals and rejected and is currently being revised. I'm working on a project with a resident that we started about 9 months ago and I have no idea where we are in it because the resident has been focused on one of his other projects (which is fine, but I also don't have the energy to move it forward right now). Another project I jumped into halfway through took about 2 years of my time, with probably another 6-9 months before I joined, before we got it published.

If you have a good PI, you can turn out papers relatively quickly, but different projects have different timelines.

 

[GoSpursGo]

A few things to unpack here.

1) Most importantly, have you discussed authorship and your expectations as such with your PI? Some students try research just to "try it out" and get some experience, others are doing it explicitly because they need pubs. We can't read your mind--if you are doing it exclusively for authorship, then tell your PI that and ask what you need to do in order to qualify for authorship.
2) That said, it really would be poor form for you to commit to doing this experiment and then bail once you find out that you're not getting authorship. This is why it's crucial to have these authorship questions early on. Since you are working on a separate meta-analysis, I think that politics probably dictate that you need to finish the current experiment that you committed to, then reassess whether continuing in the lab makes sense for you.
3) Agree that a meta-analysis is a good paper to get involved in. It's a bit of a lift but probably worth it. This is in contrast to run-of-the-mill review papers.
4) IN GENERAL, basic science research is riskier because there is no guarantee that any given experiment will work within the period of time that you're in the lab, and in general it takes a lot longer to go from a concept to publication. That said, if you can actually get something from a basic science lab published in med school, that makes you stand out IMO in a good way as you clearly did something more substantial than a crappy chart review or case report. It's a risk/reward proposition, and whether it makes sense for you completely depends on the PI and your own level of comfort contributing to basic science.

 

[Lawpy]

The politics on this are tough. If you're talking about basic science labs, it's really hard to fully be able to commit to 2 labs because of the sheer time required for experiments. If you're talking about clinical projects or taking on a clinical project in addition to a basic science one, then this is more manageable. The politics are going to be a major consideration though. You have to get a feeling of whether your PI is okay with this. Don't want to burn any bridges early on.

I’m not sure about the politics unless the basic science PI is influential to sway residency applications

 

[ChocolateChipCookiez]

Typically it is very manageable to get 5+ pubs if you play the game right. Find a productive clinical PI, do a few larger retrospectives/meta-analyses with them and in between/during down time write a few lit reviews and case reports. You can get many pubs this way, especially if your PI is equally committed to publishing and/or you're working with a couple of other motivated classmates.

It is also manageable to be in multiple labs if they're all clinical research labs. Basic science is harder as others have mentioned. In very competitive specialties, it is almost expected for students to be in multiple labs because that's the only way they can get enough research output to be competitive by the time residency apps come around. I have classmates who are very active in 4+ research groups that all pump out tons of research. That being said, the faster your lab pumps out pubs the higher the likelyhood is that the work they do is lower quality/higher proportion of things like case reports. You just have to figure out whether your priority is purely quantity, quality, or a mixture of the two. Generally the advice on here is quality < quantity for competitive specialties but obviously if your app is just 10 case reports it will draw scrutiny at some programs.

 

[mistafab]

Whatever you decide, I recommend not biting off more than you can chew. You’re in MD school first and foremost to become a doctor, and enter a specialty. Doing poorly in order to get pubs is not worth it. If you can manage doing well, and 2 labs, more power to you.

 

[girlunobserved]

DONT DO IT. i was in 4ish research labs and got burnt out and wasnt able to publish anything from them, and my grades simultaneously slipped.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

DONT DO IT. i was in 4ish research labs and got burnt out and wasnt able to publish anything from them, and my grades simultaneously slipped.

Yes I think that I am going to just finish this basic project and the review so as to not burn any bridges and then focus on clinical projects only

 

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

I'm in two labs: a basic science and a clinical (and 3rd very low effort side project).

However, I'm also in a research year and the two are very unique and easy to balance.

If I was not taking a research year, this would be a very bad idea.

After doing some basic lab research, though, I do think it's wrong that people always **** all over bench work. It all comes down to the project and PI. You can have some fantastic and productive bench projects and you can have some lame, dead-end clinical projects. It's all about finding the right people.

 

[aldol16]

I’m not sure about the politics unless the basic science PI is influential to sway residency applications

The politics is between the PIs. Some PIs may take personal offense that the student is joining 2 labs, especially if they have not been informed about this. It's not just the match that matters here. The student also needs to be added onto other projects and for the PI to take an active role in mentorship so that the student can finish their project and publish it.

 

[voxveritatisetlucis]

I ended up joining a clinical project as well but it’s pretty light in terms of workload. Classes have been pretty easy so far (no brag) so I’m not worried about overextending myself at this point