ABIM Research Track in Heme/Onc?

[blondemed]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So, here's the deal, I'm a 4th year medical student at a well-respected program in the NE. I decided to take time off after my 3rd year to pursue clinical research in heme/onc. I chose this because A) I'm planning on entering the specialty and thought it would be good to gain exposure, make some connections in the department and B) possibly get a publication or two, which would boost my competitiveness when applying to internal medicine programs.

I didn't know much about ABIM and did an extensive search on the forums to educate myself. While it seems very appealing as a "fast track" I also realize that it will take longer (6-7 years if I want to do heme/onc) and I have to commit to 3 years of research and won't get board certified till I complete it. I also would prefer to do clinical research vs. basic although it seems that this is possible.

It is ideal in the sense that I would be guaranteed fellowship but I also am concerned about abbreviating my clinical training and potentially removing myself from the clinical arena (I see myself as physician first, then possibly physician-scientist).My preceptor seems to do a mix of clinical and research (probably 60:40) which would be ideal for me. I do not have any advanced degrees , and it seems from my research that that most of the candidates who seek out these positions do (MD/PhD mostly).

I would appreciate any thoughts, opinions especially from those who are familiar or are pursuing ABIM research tracks.

 

[Sulfinator]

You can definitely pursue this kind of training without being an MD/PhD holder. Although these tracks are "enriched" in MD/PhD'ers, there are several MD-only folks who do it too. The main thing, as I think you already appreciate, is that you demonstrate a definite interest in scientific research. By taking time off of medical school to focus on this and possibly garner some publications, you are taking a big step in the right direction.

I'm an MD/PhD'er who chose pathology, but a friend of mine (also a recent MD/PhD grad) interviewed almost exclusively at Physician-Scientist "fast track" programs in IM. He ended up matching at his #1 rank. He said that he ran into many of the same fellow interviewees at several of the places he interviewed; and he mentioned that, while many candidates were MD/PhD people, there were a few that were MD-only. He was of the opinion that having the PhD didn't matter per se, but, rather, what mattered was the demonstrable interest in and/or dedication to a career steeped in scientific medical research.

I don't think the fact that you feel drawn to clinical research more than basic research will hurt you (although, you want to make sure that you don't come across as being anti-basic research). And, although I know that some people would disagree with me, I don't think the abbreviated clinical training will, in the long run, negatively affect your ability to be a solid clinician.

 

[gbwillner]

You will be at a disadvantage applying for the "fast-track" IM residencies compared to MD/PhDs. Those programs are designed more to attract basic science researchers, from my experience.

My advice is to check out individual programs in heme/onc fellowships- most will have at least 1 yr dedicated research time. This will give you plenty of time to get clinical research done. You need to think about the kind of career you want- do you want to see patients? if you go this route you could easily have a 80/20 clinical/research career in academics (starting). from there, if you are successful you can continue your research and think about grants,etc. The nice thing is there may not be so much pressure on you to be successful early in your career.