Another research question...

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

TurkSurg

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
471
Reaction score
0
Hello 🙂

2 questions..

1) I see people on MDapplicants saying that they have been doing research for 3+ years. Are they completing bunch of long-term experiments or are they doing 1 or 2 experiments that takes a long time (for ex. 1-2 years) to finish?

2) i kno that some top med schools put more weight on research. does it look good to finish like 5 experiments in 3 years or just 1,2 experiments in 3 years? or do they just look at how long you have done the research, besides the number of experiments?
 
I can only really comment on my experience (and the experiences of the people who work with me in lab).

I work in a lab entirely composed of undergraduates. We are at a liberal arts school with no graduate schools in the sciences. We do tend to have one full time lab technician (usually someone who just graduated). My PI is also considering taking on a post-doc but hasn't decided.

Our lab has a specific focus, a big "question" that has over the years developed into many questions. Generally speaking we studying how a particular specialized organelle is formed in C. elegans intestines, and what the organelle does. That is an amazingly big question (though it might not seem like it). The question has gone in many different directions leading to many different projects.

In my time in lab, which will be 3 full school years and 3 full summers when I graduate in May (and I work ~40 hours a week regardless of summer or during school) I have worked on maybe 4 "projects". I wouldn't call them experiments because they were composed of many experiments. If I were to list experiments I've done (Where I've had a question and answered it) it would probably be over 100. In terms of bigger "questions", it is around 4. As an example I spent about a year studying how one particular gene was involved in the formation the organelle (genetic studies with other genes we have previously studied, and characterizing the phenotype) as well as addressing whether other genes that encode similar proteins play a role (the gene encoded an ABC transporter, so I screened other ABC transporters and actually found another one that had a similar phenotype). That involved MANY experiments, but it was all around one project, which was itself just a piece of a much bigger project.


Most "big questions" aren't going to be answered in the four years you are in undergrad...you never really "finish" anything (very rarely). The best science is the kind where when you get your result that gives you an idea of the next 10 things to do and so on and so forth.

I don't know if that answered your first question but that's about what I could say. If you had any other questions I could try to answer.


As for number 2 I don't really think it is important. If you put the time in, and your PI can attest to your commitment to the research I don't think it is necessarily important to have one big project for your entire time, versus jumping from little thing to little thing. Though I think it is more PERSONALLY satisfying to have big things that you "complete".
 
It depends on the lab. In some medical research labs, various stages could take years depending on the study. In my med. research lab, we are working to verify the ability of a certain methodology to analyze forensic evidence. To do this appropriately, we need a statistically significant sample...which weve estimated to be around 200. This doesn't take a few months...it will probably take another year or so.
 
I can only really comment on my experience (and the experiences of the people who work with me in lab).

I work in a lab entirely composed of undergraduates. We are at a liberal arts school with no graduate schools in the sciences. We do tend to have one full time lab technician (usually someone who just graduated). My PI is also considering taking on a post-doc but hasn't decided.

Our lab has a specific focus, a big "question" that has over the years developed into many questions. Generally speaking we studying how a particular specialized organelle is formed in C. elegans intestines, and what the organelle does. That is an amazingly big question (though it might not seem like it). The question has gone in many different directions leading to many different projects.

In my time in lab, which will be 3 full school years and 3 full summers when I graduate in May (and I work ~40 hours a week regardless of summer or during school) I have worked on maybe 4 "projects". I wouldn't call them experiments because they were composed of many experiments. If I were to list experiments I've done (Where I've had a question and answered it) it would probably be over 100. In terms of bigger "questions", it is around 4. As an example I spent about a year studying how one particular gene was involved in the formation the organelle (genetic studies with other genes we have previously studied, and characterizing the phenotype) as well as addressing whether other genes that encode similar proteins play a role (the gene encoded an ABC transporter, so I screened other ABC transporters and actually found another one that had a similar phenotype). That involved MANY experiments, but it was all around one project, which was itself just a piece of a much bigger project.


Most "big questions" aren't going to be answered in the four years you are in undergrad...you never really "finish" anything (very rarely). The best science is the kind where when you get your result that gives you an idea of the next 10 things to do and so on and so forth.

I don't know if that answered your first question but that's about what I could say. If you had any other questions I could try to answer.


As for number 2 I don't really think it is important. If you put the time in, and your PI can attest to your commitment to the research I don't think it is necessarily important to have one big project for your entire time, versus jumping from little thing to little thing. Though I think it is more PERSONALLY satisfying to have big things that you "complete".

so lets say i've done 2 long projects and applied to a med school that puts a lot of weight on research.
will they look down on me by saying "these two projects could have been done in a year, but he did it in 3 years" .. ?
 
so lets say i've done 2 long projects and applied to a med school that puts a lot of weight on research.
will they look down on me by saying "these two projects could have been done in a year, but he did it in 3 years" .. ?

A couple things.

1. I don't think they would be in a position to completely judge how much time it should take. and I think they know that. Every project is different and they can't know what kind of hurdles were faced. Now if you had a letter from your PI saying something like "Well, he could have been a little more efficient" then maybe they would consider it.

2. The fact that you got 2 long projects done during undergrad is going to be impressive regardless. Undergrad isn't devoted to research, it is "on the side" unlike grad school and above.

3. I think two long projects, regardless of how long they took, shows dedication. Now if by "two long projects" you mean running two gels or something silly like that obviously people may question why that took 3 years. But two long projects that obviously involved multiple questions and multiple experiments is going to be impressive no matter how long you took. More impressive if you were quicker? Maybe but, as I said in point number 1 (I think i'm repeating myself a little), they really can't know without input from someone like your PI. I'd like to think they recognize they can't make assumptions so it wouldn't be a big deal. (Most interviewers I've had who bothered to look into my research were VERY positive and impressed with my work, regardless of how long it took)
 
A couple things.

1. I don't think they would be in a position to completely judge how much time it should take. and I think they know that. Every project is different and they can't know what kind of hurdles were faced. Now if you had a letter from your PI saying something like "Well, he could have been a little more efficient" then maybe they would consider it.

2. The fact that you got 2 long projects done during undergrad is going to be impressive regardless. Undergrad isn't devoted to research, it is "on the side" unlike grad school and above.

3. I think two long projects, regardless of how long they took, shows dedication. Now if by "two long projects" you mean running two gels or something silly like that obviously people may question why that took 3 years. But two long projects that obviously involved multiple questions and multiple experiments is going to be impressive no matter how long you took. More impressive if you were quicker? Maybe but, as I said in point number 1 (I think i'm repeating myself a little), they really can't know without input from someone like your PI. I'd like to think they recognize they can't make assumptions so it wouldn't be a big deal. (Most interviewers I've had who bothered to look into my research were VERY positive and impressed with my work, regardless of how long it took)

oh ok i see.
back to your point 1,
"Well, he could have been a little more efficient"

if something like this happened, adcoms will only know this if i get a recommendation from my PI right? or do the call them
 
Top