"Applied" vs. Basic Research

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

halcyonpage

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
135
Reaction score
58
I'm very curious about whether you or someone you know has been able to work in applied biomed research with an MDPhD -- or even an MD. I'm thinking stuff like gene therapy, stem cell therapy, neurorobotic prosthetics, or any other type of regenerative medicine.

Also, I'm not sure exactly where to draw the line between basic and applied research. Is clinical research the same as applied, or is it just observing the results? Am I right when I think:

Basic (discover protein) --> Applied (finagle protein to do what you want) --> Clinical (see who doesn't die from change in protein)

I know a lot of MDPhD's are pushed to do basic research, but how many get to use their discoveries in a treatment? Can one scientist work in a spectrum of research tasks?

Members don't see this ad.
 
The example that pops up first in my mind is Todd Kuiken who studies myoelectric prosthetic control:
 
Yep, that's basically the career I'd like to have (in my wildest fantasies)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
@MamaPhD Thank you! Using "translational research" as a search term helped me get a lot more relevant results on this forum =)

@VILLVGE That is nifty
 
There is always the option of Biomedical Engineering for you PhD as part of MSTP training. BME will typically focus on experimenting / designing a system with an intended application in mind. Some labs are more translational than others, but there is a place for physician engineers. Here is a great article in Science Translational Medicine about the importance of engineering to translation.

http://libna.mntl.illinois.edu/pdf/publications/193_Chien.pdf
 
Do you think it makes more sense to choose an "engineering heavy" lab for PhD and then a more "applied engineering" lab for PTSP/postdoc? My academic adviser suggested this order, because he thinks that it will be easier to transfer towards applications with a strong engineering background than to pick up engineering later on.
 
Last edited:
Do you think it makes more sense to choose an "engineering heavy" lab for PhD and then a more "applied engineering" lab for PTSP/postdoc? My academic adviser suggested this order, because he thinks that it will be easier to transfer towards applications with a strong engineering background than to pick up engineering later on.

That is a good question. There is probably some truth to that, but in my experience so far (half way through grad school), undergraduate engineering curriculum is more "engineering heavy" than graduate school curriculum. Graduate programs are designed to prepare you to be a scientist, so much of the learning if focused on analyzing primary literature and learning how to write research proposals. Fundamental engineering skills taught in undergrad should give you enough intuition to pick up any required background you need later on in your career.

I would choose a lab with research that interests you most, and pick up any engineering skills you need along the way. "Engineering heavy" skills are probably less important to have if you plan on working on the tissue engineering side of things than more technical fields such as medical imaging / signal processing. Just keep in mind, it is always easier to learn about a field and make progress when you are truly interested in the topic you are studying! Besides if you make it through all your training and don't feel confident in highly technical areas of your work, you can collaborate with a PhD that does!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
My advice is to get solid PhD training in something medically relevant. When you can command respect by your CV and by speaking the language of both the clinical and research worlds, you are then ready to translate the two. My worry is if you try to be applied too early, you never learn the research world, and hinder your chances in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top