Research Should-Knows for Undergraduates

Students at my university are planning to put together a pre-med guide for undergraduates. My part is to write about getting research experience. Please comment on the outline I have so far. Thanks!

Research Overview

I. Why do research?
a. Avenue for making a real impact in the professional world as an undergrad
b. Learn critical thinking skills
c. Work on real-world questions
d. Network with professional students and faculty
e. RECOMMENDATION LETTERS!!
f. Show med schools you can dedicate time and patience

II. Your role in the lab
a. Inquisitive student. Ask questions. It's your own fault if you don't learn anything.
b. Raise suggestions. It doesn't matter if your ideas suck. They'll get better.
c. Careful and slow. No one expects you to do everything.
d. Do as you're told. If they don't like your suggestions, keep suggesting but don't feel dejected that you're not taken seriously.
e. Bring some cheer. This is one reason labs like to hire undergrads… fresh minds that are active and excited.

III. Clinical Vs. Basic Science Research
a. Clinical (must go to Baylor)
i. Possible patient interaction and network with doctors
ii. Direct application of research to healthcare
iii. Very low potential for independent experimental design
iv. Watch out for only data-sifting without patient contact, if that's what you're looking for
b. Basic Science
i. Independence!!
ii. More abstract and critical thinking needed
iii. May also have clinical relevance (ie. Research on mouse models of disease or cell culture of disease cell line). I recommend cells. Cheap materials=more independence.
iv. Possible failure to get any worthy results at all

IV. How to find a lab?
a. If you've never done research before..
i. Ask professors at Rice to work for free or for class credit
ii. DO NOT ENTER TO WASH OTHERS' DISHES
iii. After you've gotten the hang of things, ask if you can have an independent project…
1. if yes, yay!
2. if no, decide if an independent project is important to you (do you have time, passion, motivation?). If it is, read on now that you've "done research before"
b. If you've done research before…
1. Talk to SEVERAL professors to see what projects are available.
a. Is there thought associated with this project?
i. Are you just chugging someone else's data?
ii. Does the project have 0.001% chance of success (i.e. forming a protein crystal is your sole job)
2. Possible independent project?
3. Possible publication if good results?
ii. Finding a lab at Rice
1. Easy. Rice profs love students, and you probably won't have to worry about them giving you the grunt work. Our profs are awesome. Some labs have more undergrads than others, and you have to see how you like that. With more postdocs, you have more knowledgeable people to ask. With more undergrads, you'll have buddies.
2. Little chance of getting paid. Take class credit, and ask again after you've been working there for a while and are no longer expendable
iii. Finding a lab elsewhere. (MD Anderson = #2 Cancer Research Center; Baylor = #10 Medical school for research)
1. Email profs individually, many of them, and set up time to meet, again with several to discuss the potential as above
2. Ask about payment…there should be many labs that want a student and can pay for it. However, be wary if the paid position starts including things like the dishes..
3. Make sure it is a lab where you will at least see the PI weekly (this is not a problem at Rice, but more so in larger labs with 20+ people) so that you can get wise advice and a good rec letter

V. Summer Internships and Study Abroad
a. If you are biochem, go to GRB W100 and ask to get on the biochemistry undergrad listserv. They email events and opportunities
b. Biosciences Career Fair—job in biotech, just remember, no publications here!
c. Summer – deadlines generally in Feb.
i. Other Universities. If you want to go somewhere to do research, try applying to research programs at med schools you're interested in. When you apply to med school, many find it appealing to see that you have actually gotten to know their school. Not to mention, you can get a rec letter from that school's faculty. Baylor has SMART program
ii. HHMI research scholarship. Prestigious summer thing at certain universities (you may not know, but HHMI is good stuff..)
iii. Abroad.. This is tricky. Talk to professors you know about their contacts abroad. There is some program of the biochem department affiliated with Germany
iv. Or just follow instructions as above and find a paid position in Houston or your hometown. Start your search early, so perhaps you can talk to professors during spring break.

anyone? anyone?

Looks quite comprehensive and very good. I say go for it! And just wondering, doing you go to a Texas UG because I noticed references to Baylor and Rice.

Yeah I'm at Rice. We're writing for Rice undergrads, but is applicable in general, I think.

bumping. Those of you future physician scientists who haven't contributed ideas yet, please feel free to do so. 🙂

b. Basic Science
i. Independence!!
ii. More abstract and critical thinking needed
iii. May also have clinical relevance (ie. Research on mouse models of disease or cell culture of disease cell line). I recommend cells. Cheap materials=more independence.
iv. Possible failure to get any worthy results at all

i think your description of the basic science research is a bit skewed (favors one over the other). it could be argued that there is as much independence, abstract and critical thinking (i certainly hope so), and possibility of failure.

i might discuss more the differences in the person's interest (bench work vs patient stuff) that may make them choose one over the other.

sciencewonk said:

b. Basic Science
i. Independence!!
ii. More abstract and critical thinking needed
iii. May also have clinical relevance (ie. Research on mouse models of disease or cell culture of disease cell line). I recommend cells. Cheap materials=more independence.
iv. Possible failure to get any worthy results at all

i think your description of the basic science research is a bit skewed (favors one over the other). it could be argued that there is as much independence, abstract and critical thinking (i certainly hope so), and possibility of failure.

i might discuss more the differences in the person's interest (bench work vs patient stuff) that may make them choose one over the other.

Click to expand...

By saying independence, I mean to contrast with all the logistical and legal hurdles that prevent students from being the ones that get to design the projects. I feel that undergraduate clinical research does not allow as much abstract and critical thought because the trial generally goes for a long period before analysis at the end, especially since you cannot easily change any procedural step during a clinical experiment. Possibility of failure is probably true... although I sense (i.e. I am making this up) that because of the many hurdles the drug or whatever test came through to get to a clinical test step, it should come with a lot more certainty of success than looking for "unknown unknowns" at the basic science level.

But I don't think I can present it as "bench work vs patient stuff" because in this light, who in their right mind wants to sit on a bench all day. It's not because I like pipettes more than patients that I prefer basic science. haha. I choose basic science because it has the tools that allow me the freedom to test the ideas and concepts that I choose, with few limits from legality, morality, and pre-designed experiments by clinicians where my best work means carrying out their instructions. Data analysis is the only independent, critical thinking step that is left, in my opinion.

Do you agree with these clarifications? They are just hearsay, and I am certainly seeking input on these thoughts (Thanks). Can you elaborate more a bit on your perception of the difference between clinical research and basic science research?

Have you ever done any research work ?
I am afraid most of what you wrote is naive and useless to anyone who is about to embark on his first study.
Research is tedious work. Most mentors don't take enough time to guide you and you find yourself waisting time on nonsense.

Here are some practical recommendations:

1) Always consult a statistician before you start a project. It is important to know exactly what data you need to collect and how to organize it. It is also important to know what size of study is necessary to get meaningful result.

2) When you calculate to yourself the amount of work needed - double it. Cases will be excluded, consents will be refused, files and specimens will be lost.

3) When reviewing the relevant literature - print every document you find relevant, number it, highlight and number every paragraph you choose to quote and state the # as a remark in your document. Add short notes to any study you read for quick reference in the future.

4) Don't try to fool with bureaucracy - Helsinki papers should be handed almost for everything. Consent is needed almost always as well. It will always be faster to do everything their way than to find shortcuts. IE. I had to get consent to use old specimens from the patho-lab from women post CA of breast. Trying to catch each and everyone of them in followup clinics would have taken 6 months. So instead I had phoned each one, asked for her consent, and sent the forms by mail. It took a year. Forms where lost or never sent, women would not listen over the phone etc. etc.

5) Don't be afraid to press your superiors - you are a student, They handle studies in a much bigger scope than the small study you are conducting. If you want something done IE. proposal reviewed, Helsinki submitted, contacts contacted etc. you must nag and nag and nag. Otherwise it won't be done and you'll end up looking worse than you would have after nagging.

6) Don't be tempted to collect enormous piles of data. Before, starting a study you must think what is the useful data that might be interesting when presented in a paper and gather only that. To much data, apart from being irrelevant, will tire you to the point of abandoning the study. It will also make the database and statistical analysis more difficult to handle.

And last but not least... A very wise doc has once told me the way to success is by doing many small studies.
I would suggest you start with something retrospective like a data gathering project of no more than a 100 cases (you'll have to collect about 300 to get a 100 relevant ones). This way you can slowly learn the business.

Good luck to you all

ejoffe said:

Have you ever done any research work ?
I am afraid most of what you wrote is naive and useless to anyone who is about to embark on his first study...

Click to expand...

I'd say that most insults are naive and useless.

Please be positive in your critisims. Much of what you wrote is very good, especially for a medical student or resident doing an independent clinical project or a lit review, but is outside of the OP's stated scope.

Thanks, RxnMan 😳

ejoffe, I'm not sure what kind of mentors you've had, but perhaps it would be beneficial to seek out the other kind..

Perhaps you mean "have you done any CLINICAL research work?" which, in fact, I have not. Hence I am asking for opinions.

It seems like most of the comments are relevant for clinical studies where you are designing your own study (which most undergraduates may or may not even get to do). Only certain projects in basic scientists can consult a statistician before their project, because it is not clear what they are looking for yet. Part of the process is about going where interest takes you. You're right about needing to plan and focus, but only after a certain point. I've been "playing around" in my lab collecting interesting data for 2 years, but finally my PI told me I should buckle down, stop looking for new things, and get a paper out. So now is the time for refinement and experiments targeted for the paper. I think I would be immensely bored if I had always known exactly what I should find. In the future, though, without necessarily a PI that will watch out and tell me these things, I will probably need to be more strict with myself in the planning.

Anyway, how do you suggest students get such independence in clinical design as you are suggesting? Your comments will not be useful unless they get to that point to begin with. What is a Helsinki?

From your comments, I think I am biased even more toward basic science... 🙄

SpeakLittleB said:

Thanks, RxnMan 😳

ejoffe, I'm not sure what kind of mentors you've had, but perhaps it would be beneficial to seek out the other kind..

Perhaps you mean "have you done any CLINICAL research work?" which, in fact, I have not. Hence I am asking for opinions.

It seems like most of the comments are relevant for clinical studies where you are designing your own study (which most undergraduates may or may not even get to do). Only certain projects in basic scientists can consult a statistician before their project, because it is not clear what they are looking for yet. Part of the process is about going where interest takes you. You're right about needing to plan and focus, but only after a certain point. I've been "playing around" in my lab collecting interesting data for 2 years, but finally my PI told me I should buckle down, stop looking for new things, and get a paper out. So now is the time for refinement and experiments targeted for the paper. I think I would be immensely bored if I had always known exactly what I should find. In the future, though, without necessarily a PI that will watch out and tell me these things, I will probably need to be more strict with myself in the planning.

Anyway, how do you suggest students get such independence in clinical design as you are suggesting? Your comments will not be useful unless they get to that point to begin with. What is a Helsinki?

From your comments, I think I am biased even more toward basic science... 🙄

Click to expand...

Look at his post history. He's a foreign intern trying to come to the US for residency, so he has no way to know what kind of research American pre-medical students should do to get into American MD or MD/PhD programs. I agree with RxnMan that his suggestions would be more appropriately targeted toward medical students or residents interested in clinical research, not pre-meds. It isn't realistic to expect college students to perform at this level, and college students probably are better off getting basic science experience if their goal is to get into an MD/PhD program.

Rereading my post it came out rather harsh.
It was by mistake. I apologize - no insult was meant.
As for my work - I have done both clinical and basic research and have been hurt by both. I had worked with both foreign and American educated doctors, and have also worked and learned side by side with American students.
If you put aside the offended feelings my advice I believe are relevant no matter where you are. what I meant in my posting was that the form of thinking you have presented about research is naive. When you are new to the field, research seems grand and full of opportunities and prospects. Such views pushes students to take projects beyond their scope and afterwards discourage. It is important to understand that research is tedious work and that the people you work with have their own agenda, many times, different than yours. I was trying, therefore, to supply some advice in order to save some of you the hardship I had been through. Please disregard my first comment and just take the advice published thereafter. I think this is the type of advice people will benefit from. Again I apologize for the way my posting came out.

SpeaklittleB,

I have just read your reply, which I appreciate, especially after the way my first posting came out.
You are right, I did not realize this is an undergrad forum.
All the same, the example you give of "playing around" in the lab for 2 years is just what I had meant.
You need a lot of knowledge and experience to know which ideas are worth pursuing and what scope of work it will take. The work is enjoyable, that's true, but wouldn't you be happier if after a two years time you've had your fun and your name on 2 papers (which is quite reasonable. Imagine how that would look on your application ?! When we are new to the field we feel everything is within our reach, but the result, more often than not, is that we spend a lot of time accomplishing very little. It is the PI's job to direct you and to put things into perspective for you. However, I am afraid most of them just let you fool around until they remember you.
I wish you guys good luck in getting into medical school.
EJ

I've mentioned some of these things in a different thread, but one thing you might want to mention under the student's role is EXPECT TO WORK HARD. It's important to put that right out there...just so people don't get the idea that one joins a lab just to hang out and hopefully get a letter (not saying you've implied that, but just so people don't get the wrong idea). If you work like crazy and get along with people, your letter will automatically reflect that.

I've seen too many undergrads (both when I was an undergrad, and when I was in the PhD part of my MD-PhD) show up in the lab one or two hours each afternoon, do some minipreps while reading for class, go home, and then complain later that they didn't "learn anything." Basically, their attitude was "what are you going to teach me today?" In science, just like in medicine, you learn by doing. Everything else flows from and builds on that. To get a good experience, expect to work about half the evenings during the week (until 9 or 10), along with most weekend days (assuming one has class every morning). Sounds like a lot, but I've found that's what it takes to have a good experience.

ejoffe said:

SpeaklittleB,

I have just read your reply, which I appreciate, especially after the way my first posting came out.
You are right, I did not realize this is an undergrad forum.
All the same, the example you give of "playing around" in the lab for 2 years is just what I had meant.
You need a lot of knowledge and experience to know which ideas are worth pursuing and what scope of work it will take. The work is enjoyable, that's true, but wouldn't you be happier if after a two years time you've had your fun and your name on 2 papers (which is quite reasonable. Imagine how that would look on your application ?! When we are new to the field we feel everything is within our reach, but the result, more often than not, is that we spend a lot of time accomplishing very little. It is the PI's job to direct you and to put things into perspective for you. However, I am afraid most of them just let you fool around until they remember you.
I wish you guys good luck in getting into medical school.
EJ

Click to expand...

EJ, this forum is for people at all levels of training, from the occasional high school student to attendings. Most of us are medical students or MD/PhD students, and there are also several pre-meds who are still in college along with a few interns/residents like yourself. The OP is a college student who wants to advise other college students on how to get some research experience. Some, if not most, of her audience will just be trying out research for a semester or a summer, not for a couple of years, and certainly not for a career. Some will be more into it and may ultimately choose to be physician scientists. But most of them will probably join a lab for a few months, learn some techniques, and then move on. The kind of ideas you have might be appropriate for the ones who stick around, but a lot of pre-meds figure out pretty quickly that they don't really want to do research for a career.

On a related note, I actually don't think it's a bad thing for a college student to spend a year or two "fooling around" in the lab. This gets into a more philosophical issue of what exactly is the purpose of undergrad-level research? I would argue that it is NOT mainly to complete projects and churn out papers. Unlike grad students and PIs, undergrads are not under pressure to get grants funded or pass qualifiers or publish anything. Undergrads have not chosen their future careers. The point of them spending some time in a lab is for them to explore and see how they like being there. It is not easy to know what one's passion is, particularly at that age. So if all they take away from their time in the lab is the knowledge that they love science and research (or conversely, the knowledge that they detest it!), then I think their experience has been worthwhile. If they can publish their work, great, but that's a bonus, not the main goal.

QofQuimica said:

On a related note, I actually don't think it's a bad thing for a college student to spend a year or two "fooling around" in the lab. This gets into a more philosophical issue of what exactly is the purpose of undergrad-level research? I would argue that it is NOT mainly to complete projects and churn out papers. Unlike grad students and PIs, undergrads are not under pressure to get grants funded or pass qualifiers or publish anything. Undergrads have not chosen their future careers. The point of them spending some time in a lab is for them to explore and see how they like being there. It is not easy to know what one's passion is, particularly at that age. So if all they take away from their time in the lab is the knowledge that they love science and research (or conversely, the knowledge that they detest it!), then I think their experience has been worthwhile. If they can publish their work, great, but that's a bonus, not the main goal.

Click to expand...

I agree. I don't mind that I am just now putting together a paper, as it is quickly become the most boring part of my research experience. I don't look forward to those pressures in the future..

Hey guys,

Of course, the paper, is not the goal. The goal is to learn and develop and that you cannot do without the proper guidance. That is what I am trying to say. Many PI's, at least over here, just send you to "fool around" on your own and then people waste time and have the wrong impression of research. I think you make the best of your time if you have a defined and guided project where you review the relevant literature and then sit on the study design. And I think that if you know how to approach your PI and demand, even, the mentorship you require not only will you enjoy your work better, but you'll advance yourselves and earn a lot of respect as well.

Thank you, I have enjoyed this thread. All the best,
EJ

SpeakLittleB said:

I agree. I don't mind that I am just now putting together a paper, as it is quickly become the most boring part of my research experience. I don't look forward to those pressures in the future..

Click to expand...

Undergrad research is definitely the most fun, IMO, and it's because of that lack of pressure along with the newness of the whole experience. You can just go in the lab and have fun. I mean, even if your experiments all fail, so what? Your degree doesn't depend on it. You don't have to worry that you might flunk out of school or have to leave in ignominy with a terminal MS. It doesn't mean that your grant won't be renewed. You don't lie awake nights trying to figure out how to troubleshoot an experiment because you absolutely NEED results. It won't make you graduate a year (or three!) late if your experiments take longer than you planned. You usually don't need to think about assembling a publication record to move on to the next phase of your life. Although, I do think it's good for undergrads to present posters and write papers or theses if they do enough work to warrant that. It sounds like you have, and publishing a paper can definitely only help you. 🙂