A doctor's relationship to science

[JAK2-STAT3]

---

Members don't see this ad.

About me: graduated in 2018 from a small liberal arts college, cGPA 3.85. I currently work as a research assistant in the Neurology department at one of the Harvard-affiliated hospitals in Boston. I was not a premed in college but I have most of the prerequisites. I volunteer at the hospital where I work and have another non-clinical volunteer position.

In college and at work I've been groomed to get a PhD, but I find myself leaning towards an MD. I enjoy research, but I've increasingly been aware of my strong desire to know EVERYTHING about biology and physiology and neuroscience, as opposed to becoming a specialist in one neurodegenerative disease. I've become a bit disillusioned with research and what a PhD could give me: I have no interest in teaching and I can't see myself as a PI. However, I could see myself using extensive scientific knowledge to interact with and treat people.

Basically, I am trying to figure out what my relationship to science is, and whether I would rather do science or know science and apply that knowledge to helping others.

Doctors and med students: what is a doctor's relationship to science? How much of being a doctor is science and how much is the people aspect? Am I leaning towards being a doctor for the "right" reasons? Any wisdom would be appreciated. Thank you.

Edit: I am in the "become a doctor as long as it's convenient" phase, and am trying to figure out whether to take the premed process to the next level, i.e. shadow, tell my professors that never mind I'm premed now, etc. Also edited for clarity.

 

[getdown]

By definition medicine is applied science. In order to know how to treat a disease, one must know the science of normal physiology, why the disease is causing the problem, and which medications to give in order to treat the disease (which also means you need to understand the pharmacology and mechanism of action of the medication).

Bottom line is you need to go shadown doctors if this is where your level of understanding of what doctors do. And I'm not talking about shadowing an MD researcher, I mean go follow a IM/FM doc in the clinic and see how they evaluate patients.

 

[JAK2-STAT3]

Thank you for the response. I know I will need to shadow. I am somewhat intimidated because I work full time, and even though I work in a hospital, the doctors seem oh so close and yet so far. But I will get over that and reach out. I was trying to figure out whether I had enough reason to shadow in the first place, since my impression is that one only shadows once they're fairly certain about becoming a doctor.

 

[aharr157]

You don't have to be certain about being a doctor before shadowing... in fact it's the easiest way with the least commitment to see if medicine is something you want to consider doing. Simply being interested and just thinking about becoming a doctor is plenty enough reason to shadow! Definitely ask a few of the docs you work with in the hospital

 

[Lucca]

Thank you for the response. I know I will need to shadow. I am somewhat intimidated because I work full time, and even though I work in a hospital, the doctors seem oh so close and yet so far. But I will get over that and reach out. I was trying to figure out whether I had enough reason to shadow in the first place, since my impression is that one only shadows once they're fairly certain about becoming a doctor.

Shadowing is one way in which one becomes certain. Volunteering and working in the clinical setting is another.

A physicians relationship to science depends on the physician and what you mean by science. Is the EM resident caring for their 1,500th GSW pt connected to the developmental biology lab upstairs by anything other than the stairwell? At the same time, the NICU attending might be collaborating with that same lab on a translational project involving their pts. There are likely physicians in that same building running labs who haven’t touched a pt in years. Similarly, there might be other physicians who are considered scientists but never step into the lab, but work on clinical trials, protocol design, publish papers, and contribute to the knowledge in their field. Medicine is a big world and so is science and they overlap everywhere but how deeply and in what ways depends on where you fit in. There’s no doubt one must learn a great deal of science to understand modern medicine, and one can’t be a good biomedical scientist without knowing something about the current issues in medicine.

 

[JAK2-STAT3]

Thank you for the responses. It is reassuring to hear that I can shadow without being certain. I'll try and find a Nocturnist or ER doctor who will let me shadow after business hours.

Lucca, regarding where I fit in, I used to subconsciously assume that doing science as a bench researcher was synonymous with knowing science. Now I think I might fit better with knowing science as opposed to being a bench researcher. Our lab's grants are all 5 year grants, and realistically I won't be around to analyze the data for the stuff I'm working on now because I can't stand living in Boston and will likely leave in 2ish years. So most of what I do now is follow protocols (because I'm a research assistant) that I won't see the outcome of, when I'd rather just know a whole lot of things about a whole lot of science. I have enjoyed the patient interaction I've gotten from volunteering

The reason I'm concerned about motivation is that if said that I wanted to be a doctor for the money and prestige, I'd be rightly told that those are not good reasons to be a doctor. In that vein, I'm trying to figure out if my thoughts about what I get (or don't get) out of research are legit reasons to become a full-fledged premed.

 

[puahate]

The reason I'm concerned about motivation is that if said that I wanted to be a doctor for the money and prestige, I'd be rightly told that those are not good reasons to be a doctor. In that vein, I'm trying to figure out if my thoughts about what I get (or don't get) out of research are legit reasons to become a full-fledged premed.

I think your reasons are legitimate. You echo a lot of frustration I had with science as well. I was previously in a lab that focused on a particular gene and everything surrounded it. Before that, I was researching more global issues in biomedicine in particular cancer.

I was much happier investigating cancer in a global context and investigating treatment modalities than trying to elucidate a single signal pathway through this one gene. Then I came to realize I rather use science to make a broader impact on several individuals in a shorter time span. Medicine seems perfect for that.

One thing to note is in your reasoning or realization, you do not want to put down biomedical researchers. This is akin to previous nurses turned doctors bashing nurses. You should respect what they do but also try to indicate what specifically you learned from research that pushed you into this new realization. Your narrative should look like evolution and not an escape.

 

[getdown]

Thank you for the responses. It is reassuring to hear that I can shadow without being certain. I'll try and find a Nocturnist or ER doctor who will let me shadow after business hours.

Lucca, regarding where I fit in, I used to subconsciously assume that doing science as a bench researcher was synonymous with knowing science. Now I think I might fit better with knowing science as opposed to being a bench researcher. Our lab's grants are all 5 year grants, and realistically I won't be around to analyze the data for the stuff I'm working on now because I can't stand living in Boston and will likely leave in 2ish years. So most of what I do now is follow protocols (because I'm a research assistant) that I won't see the outcome of, when I'd rather just know a whole lot of things about a whole lot of science. I have enjoyed the patient interaction I've gotten from volunteering

The reason I'm concerned about motivation is that if said that I wanted to be a doctor for the money and prestige, I'd be rightly told that those are not good reasons to be a doctor. In that vein, I'm trying to figure out if my thoughts about what I get (or don't get) out of research are legit reasons to become a full-fledged premed.

Do not let the holier-than-thou crowd brow beat you over this statement. Money is absolutely A consideration in choosing medicine. It should NEVER BE THE ONLY consideration but knowing that it provides a stable and guaranteed 6 figure income is as valid a reason as any to choose medicine. Of course you have to have other passions that supplement it because you sure as hell will not be making that kind of money in medical school or residency. It won't get you through your 24-36 hour calls, it won't get you through difficult patients.

 

[JAK2-STAT3]

Thank you Getdown. Yes, a guaranteed 6 figure income sounds nice. I think I can genuinely say (not trying to sound holier than thou) that my main reason is that I love learning and knowing science, and want to be challenged to maintain that knowledge, apply it, and explain it to people as necessary.

In the short term, a PhD program would be better financially. I wouldn't have to take any extra classes before applying and I would make a modest stipend instead of taking out loans.

Thank you Puahate. In any future personal statements/interviews I would be very careful to not sound like bashing researchers. I also have to keep in mind that my experience in my current lab (which is a wonderful lab to work in) is not representative of all bench research.

 

[Goro]

About me: graduated in 2018 from a small liberal arts college, cGPA 3.85. I currently work as a research assistant in the Neurology department at one of the Harvard-affiliated hospitals in Boston. I was not a premed in college but I have most of the prerequisites. I volunteer at the hospital where I work and have another non-clinical volunteer position.

In college and at work I've been groomed to get a PhD, but I find myself leaning towards an MD. I enjoy research, but I've increasingly been aware of my strong desire to know EVERYTHING about biology and physiology and neuroscience, as opposed to becoming a specialist in one neurodegenerative disease. I've become a bit disillusioned with research and what a PhD could give me: I have no interest in teaching and I can't see myself as a PI. However, I could see myself using extensive scientific knowledge to interact with and treat people.

Basically, I am trying to figure out what my relationship to science is, and whether I would rather do science or know science and apply that knowledge to helping others.

Doctors and med students: what is a doctor's relationship to science? How much of being a doctor is science and how much is the people aspect? Am I leaning towards being a doctor for the "right" reasons? Any wisdom would be appreciated. Thank you.

Edit: I am in the "become a doctor as long as it's convenient" phase, and am trying to figure out whether to take the premed process to the next level, i.e. shadow, tell my professors that never mind I'm premed now, etc. Also edited for clarity.

The wise DrMidlife on research: “you've preferably had some exposure to research so you can be convinced that Wakefield used malicious dirtbag methods and is not the savior of the world's children.”

The wise Crayola227 on research: So tired about the whining over the foundation of knowledge that is expected in a physician. We're applied scientists ffs. Own that. If you can't own it and take pride in it, gtfo.

 

[deleted480308]

You won’t know everything, get comfortable with that

 

[JAK2-STAT3]

Thank you @Goro--the quotes help. I'm slightly confused on Crayola227's quote: is it implying that the "foundation of knowledge" comes from research? Or from the classroom? Or both? I enjoy the research I currently participate in and try to be well-versed in why we do what we do, but I'm questioning whether I want it to be my entire life. Thank you for putting up with my existencial ramblings.

sb247 I should have been more careful with my language. What I meant by "know everything" is to have a very broad knowledge base as opposed to researching a single thing. I like to know what things are and what they mean. I know that I am responsible for my own learning and can google anything I want if I don't understand. But that is different from being required utilize a vast body of knowledge minute by minute.

I really appreciate the responses. I probably sound quite naive and I appreciate the time y'all have taken to clarify things that I've spent far too much time stuck in my head about. I would not be applying for another 3ish years at the earliest, and will continue to putter around volunteering in accordance with my passions, shadowing, and taking a couple of classes I didn't take in undergrad.

 

[Goro]

Thank you @Goro--the quotes help. I'm slightly confused on Crayola227's quote: is it implying that the "foundation of knowledge" comes from research? Or from the classroom? Or both? I enjoy the research I currently participate in and try to be well-versed in why we do what we do, but I'm questioning whether I want it to be my entire life. Thank you for putting up with my existencial ramblings.

sb247 I should have been more careful with my language. What I meant by "know everything" is to have a very broad knowledge base as opposed to researching a single thing. I like to know what things are and what they mean. I know that I am responsible for my own learning and can google anything I want if I don't understand. But that is different from being required utilize a vast body of knowledge minute by minute.

I really appreciate the responses. I probably sound quite naive and I appreciate the time y'all have taken to clarify things that I've spent far too much time stuck in my head about. I would not be applying for another 3ish years at the earliest, and will continue to putter around volunteering in accordance with my passions, shadowing, and taking a couple of classes I didn't take in undergrad.

The foundation comes from understanding the scientific principle. Doctors do need to be able to test a hypothesis and sift data.

What's unique about doctors is that they apply the basic knowledge

 

[NITRAS]

Medicine is more art than science.
Much of we do is based on practice standards than scientific basis. How much stuff costs, what’s on formulary. Efficiency. Ability to communicate to staff and patients. All more relevant than pure science.