MDs less likely than PhDs to obtain NIH-funded research grants

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

foo

Junior Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
74
Reaction score
5
A common discussion topic in this forum is "why pursue MD/PhD vs. PhD only vs. MD only?". An interesting article in JAMA, and referenced in AuntMinnie, provides some statistical data for your consideration.

Quoting from AuntMinnie:

"NEW YORK (Reuters Health), Jun 14 - Despite physicians' unique skills, experience, motivation, and perspective, physician-investigators with only an MD degree are significantly underrepresented among researchers who receive grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), new research findings suggest."

Please read: http://www.auntminnie.com/index.asp?Sec=sup&Sub=res&Pag=dis&ItemId=76259

"...As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association for June 13, imbalances in successful applicants favoring PhDs and MD/PhDs over MDs-only persisted despite the fact that "the pace of scientific discovery and its increasing applicability to human disease were unparalleled, and the medical research frontier truly seemed endless," the authors write."

This is a link to the JAMA article: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/297/22/2496

quoting the results from the JAMA article:

"The annual number of first-time investigators with an MD only as NIH R01 grant applicants remained remarkably stable over 4 decades (41-year mean of 707 [range, 537-983] applicants). Among first-time applicants, those with an MD consistently had less success in obtaining funding (mean annual percentage [MAP], 28%) than either investigators with a PhD (MAP, 31%; P = .03 vs MD only) or both an MD and a PhD (MAP, 34%; P<.001 vs MD only and P = .002 vs PhD only). Among investigators who obtained a first R01 grant, those with an MD were consistently less likely (MAP, 70%) than those with a PhD (MAP, 73%; P = .04 vs MD only) or those with an MD and a PhD (MAP, 78%; P<.001 vs MD only and P = .007 vs PhD only) to obtain a subsequent R01 grant. First-time applicants with an MD were much more likely to propose clinical research (MAP, 67%) than applicants with an MD and a PhD (MAP, 43%) and applicants with a PhD only (39%). First-time applicants with an MD only who proposed clinical research were funded at lower rates than their MD-only counterparts proposing nonclinical research (23% vs 29%, respectively; P<.001)."
 
I think one needs to be very careful with how tointerpret this. There are a lot of factors that go into how grants are funded and to suggest that the letters at the end of the name of the PI on the grant application independently affect whether or not the grant is funded may be a bit of a stretch.
 
How about DO's do they get grants? or is that like 1/1000
 
Letters after ones name is indeed a general indicator and not indicative of individual performance. Which is why abbreviated CVs of the PI are submitted along with the proposal. For instance, the PI I work with is MD only, however, his CV demonstrates his extensive research experience at NCI, amongst many other academic accomplishments.

Its the whole picture of the person. Coming back to generalities, your average MD who applies for funding is not rigorously trained in the scientific method, outside clinical differential diagnoses. (For those that have been through the PhD and MD phases of training, you know the world of difference I'm referring to). The bodies that review the applications easily rip apart flawed reasoning, deduction and research methodology. I think it purely comes down to experience in applying for grants and reviewing grants that will make you a successful applicant. It also doesn't hurt if you help write a grant with a PI that can guide your thoughts and focus your hypotheses.

Comments?

Regards,

-Salty
 
...your average MD who applies for funding is not rigorously trained in the scientific method, outside clinical differential diagnoses. (For those that have been through the PhD and MD phases of training, you know the world of difference I'm referring to). The bodies that review the applications easily rip apart flawed reasoning, deduction and research methodology. I think it purely comes down to experience in applying for grants and reviewing grants that will make you a successful applicant. It also doesn't hurt if you help write a grant with a PI that can guide your thoughts and focus your hypotheses...
I agree. I can't think of many MD/residency curricula where formal education in grant-writing is an option. A MD will have to supplement their education with things like grant writing, how to design a experiment, lab/testing techniques, getting IRB approval, etc. But just because you have a PhD doesn't necessarily guarantee you have all of these skills either.
 
But just because you have a PhD doesn't necessarily guarantee you have all of these skills either.

Exactly. And these kind of studies don't differentiate by postdoctoral training which is what really matters. An MD with 7 years of a very successful postdoc will be far more likely to be funded than a PhD or and Md/Phd with only a year or two of a mediocre postdoc for example. No matter what your degree is, you have to develop the skills that are needed for research.
 
Just to clarify - I'm not getting down on PhDs. Rather, anyone wanting to play the research game has to take control of their own education to ensure that they have the skills to get money, get published, and so on.
 
actually, if you read the numbers carefully
it's 28% vs. 31%

and

70% versus 73%

now if you want to suffer through a PhD for that 3 percent points, be my guest.

Though, it does seem to say that MD/PhD has a whopping 8% advantage!
 
Top