.

[deleted922305]

---

Members do not see this ad.

.

 

[chaim123]

Currently have ~100 hours, 1st author pub in peer-reviewed clinical journal.
My advisors say that their main suggestion is to add on wet lab type of research, and I just don't want to since I don't like wet lab lol

In terms of research experience, am I set as is even though the hours are low? I'm taking a gap year so I do have a lot of time but I'd rather spend it just on clinical and volunteer experience

Really depends on what you're looking for. If your dream is WashU, they're going to expect many more hours of research, specifically wet lab research, then other similarly ranked schools, which will want more research than schools more centered on community service.

 

[Catalystik]

Currently have ~100 hours, 1st author pub in peer-reviewed clinical journal.
My advisors say that their main suggestion is to add on wet lab type of research, and I just don't want to since I don't like wet lab lol

In terms of research experience, am I set as is even though the hours are low? I'm taking a gap year so I do have a lot of time but I'd rather spend it just on clinical and volunteer experience

If you aren't aiming for research-oriented med schools and have gained an understanding of the scientific method through the clinically-focused research you've completed, then you're fine as you are.

 

[deleted688779]

Is it typical to have a first author pub after 100 hours in clinical research? Been in wet lab for 3 years and still no pubs 🙁

 

[jarednogeek]

it's plenty. keep in mind stuff you do after you apply wont really count. unless you have to reapply.

 

[aldol16]

Is it typical to have a first author pub after 100 hours in clinical research? Been in wet lab for 3 years and still no pubs 🙁

Both are very typical - 100 hours in clinical research leading to publication and 3 years in wet lab without publications. A lot of clinical research (except the large clinical trials commonly found in cancer) is just a lot of data crunching and statistics on data that already exists. For example, you get as much out of a chart review as you put in. You could do a chart review of 100 patients over one hard week then run the numbers and write the paper. In wet lab, you actually don't know if things will work and even the best hypotheses often don't pan out to much because science is hard. Honestly, 3 years is probably getting onto the longer side of things without having anything to show for it - are you making any progress on your project(s)?

 

[Isoval]

Both are very typical - 100 hours in clinical research leading to publication and 3 years in wet lab without publications. A lot of clinical research (except the large clinical trials commonly found in cancer) is just a lot of data crunching and statistics on data that already exists. For example, you get as much out of a chart review as you put in. You could do a chart review of 100 patients over one hard week then run the numbers and write the paper. In wet lab, you actually don't know if things will work and even the best hypotheses often don't pan out to much because science is hard. Honestly, 3 years is probably getting onto the longer side of things without having anything to show for it - are you making any progress on your project(s)?

This. Clinical research churns out publications as fast as you can crunch and relate data sets. If you relate one data set to another data set, bingo, another publication. Conversely, wet lab research requires months or years of rigorous experimentation, failures and successes abound. It isn't uncommon for experiments to fail for several months in a row before you begin to get reliable data in a wet lab, and even then, you need to do many, many more in order to have a publishable project.

In (over?) 1400 hours of wet lab research, I managed to get one third-author pub, a first-author poster, and presented an oral presentation.

 

[deleted688779]

Both are very typical - 100 hours in clinical research leading to publication and 3 years in wet lab without publications. A lot of clinical research (except the large clinical trials commonly found in cancer) is just a lot of data crunching and statistics on data that already exists. For example, you get as much out of a chart review as you put in. You could do a chart review of 100 patients over one hard week then run the numbers and write the paper. In wet lab, you actually don't know if things will work and even the best hypotheses often don't pan out to much because science is hard. Honestly, 3 years is probably getting onto the longer side of things without having anything to show for it - are you making any progress on your project(s)?

It was back in undergrad. I worked on Project A towards the end for a year, which was when I first started so I didn't contribute enough for my name to be on a pub. Project B was mine, I worked on it for two years and got a poster but no pub. I left the lab a term before graduation and the project was handed to someone else. I'm currently in another lab as a post-grad employee, working on a "hand me down" project and the PI said to not expect a pub for at least 18 months.