A bit torn between service and research...

[Lifeblood_20]

---

Members don't see this ad.

For the past year I have been serving on the exec board of a non-profit that works directly with a group of underserved members of our community, and it has easily been the most fulfilling experience I've ever had. We are very hands-on and it's just so rewarding to see tangible progress/actual difference made. I can see myself doing this sort of hands-on service as a social worker, or doing action-based research on social policy/advocacy. I also love science and scientific research. I am fascinated all the time by what I learn in my science classes, and I have been working rather productively in a research lab -- a fellowship, an oral presentation, a poster, a paper in the making, and starting an honors thesis project. I am considering applying to MD/PhD programs because I can definitely see myself doing research for a career.

However, if I do decide to go for the MD/PhD and become a physician scientist... I doubt I would have much space in my life to do the kind of service that makes me feel so fulfilled now. On the other hand I wouldn't want to stop pursuing science either.

Does being a doc really fit that well in between science and helping people as we tend to say?

 

[AnatomyGrey12]

Does being a doc really fit that well in between science and helping people as we tend to say?

Well you see, in medicine we have these things called "patients." They tend to need us to apply our scientific knowledge to help them pretty often.

 

[Carbon_Martian]

Well, let's take a pragmatic approach to this. Suppose you're a practicing physician, at least 50% of your productive time is going to be dedicated to patient care - I don't see any way around that. Suppose you have few other responsibilities - no significant other, no familial obligations, etc... such that the remainder of your time is fully yours. Even under such conditions, you'd be hard-pressed to conduct meaningful fundamental (i.e. benchtop; not statistical) medical and public health research simultaneously. The caveat is that an M.D./PhD can at any time decide to transition into public health research, the opposite by comparison is extremely rare. If you're looking for maximum flexibility M.D./PhD seems to be the way to go. Then there's the matter of opportunity cost and workload. It goes without saying that with an M.D./PhD you'll be committing more years of your life and it's a fairly rigid path - in short you better be sure you love doing research because you're locked into that path for a very long time.

TLDR; if you want maximum post-graduate career flexibility M.D./PhD is the way to go. If you want any semblance of personal agency within the next 6-8 years a regular M.D. is preferable and it certainly carries the possibility of getting involved with public health post-graduation. Personally, I believe M.D./PhD is a waste of time (not unlike other PhDs) unless you're truly passionate about some narrow field of research - you should go in knowing what you want to get out of it; it's not something you should do just because the idea kinda sounds appealing.