Article: Med school adcoms are to blame for lack of physician-scientists

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I read the above article as soon as that particular JCI journal was out, about two or three months ago . . . can't remember very well now.
I agree with some of the points made by the author, and I am not a "humanist" or "volunteer"; although I do have some clinical experience in my home country, here in the states I have no time at all. I have to work to support myself to some degree while carrying heavy courseloads. So yes, adcoms may be to blame, but their quest for diversity and tons of outside experience is the main hitch. However, that does not bother me at all . . .
 
A post lamenting the lack of science training in Med School? I must say, MacGyver, you confuse me.

While med school doesn't currently train scientists, do you (or does anyone else) think that it should? What about clinical investigation?

We are going to be the adcoms of the future, and I'm very interested in what y'all think on this one.

Personal opinion (so tune out if you like ;) ): Undergrad med ed should have more focus on understanding clinical research (we got one half-a$$ed week of it) for all students. It should also, as the article suggested, foster a community of inquiry among those so inclined (ie- if more than the 2% in MSTPs WANT to do science, help them. Some schools do this, others not so much, so there could be a self-selection mechanism already at work here). There's room enough for all, and uses aplenty for each.

P

PS - I didn't know Arrowsmith went to med school!?! Gawd, I remember when they were only in their 40s and really rocked. ;) :laugh:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I think the humanist bias has turned into a rather poisonous question for technically inclined people. In many of my interviews, it was implied that spending all day on the bench did not reveal a passion for medicine, when that was what pushed me there in the first place! Did anybody feel like they got the stink eye during interviews for spending too much time in the lab instead of doing volunteer work?

I did a year's worth of medically related externships as a senior in high school and a bit of shadowing as a college student, and that was enough for me. After freshman year, I've been in labs nearly continuously. I know in some interviews, there was nothing I could say to convince people that I was still passionate about medicine as well.

And for what it's worth, yes I do think medical schools are responsible for training physicians in the practice of science AND physician scientists. Also, has anybody noticed the gap in opinions about the intimacy of bedside care and medical research between physicians and researchers who are middle aged now as opposed to people who are in their last few years of work?

In all my interviews with older physicians, the connections between medical breakthroughs and basic research were obvious, whereas many of the physicians and researchers who are at the peak of their career seem to see a much larger gap between the two. Is this a coincidence, or some difference in how they were trained and what they've seen during their lifetimes and careers?
 
I can understand how frustrating it must be to come up against an interview panel that expects you to be a "bleeding heart".

I'm at Cambridge University, and there is a very strong push here amongst the pre-clinical science faculty to produce researchers, and to an extent the admissions process reflects this. A standard interview question runs "if you could make any breakthrough in medicine, what would it be?". The answer that most applicants give is - "a cure for AIDS". However, one of my friends replied - "to design a computer that completely simulates the human brain". At most medical schools this would have condemned him. At Cambridge, however, they gave him a place.
 
Different institutions have VERY different takes on the issue of volunteerism versus science. While some hope to attract both types of students and even some who've experience with both, other institutions seem much less concerned with a "love" of science, if you can call such inquisitiveness that. To my knowledge, there are not any med schools looking exclusively for budding scientists (though a few come close, and, as I said, some also encourage science much more in general than do others).

To my mind, this brings up a larger issue. Should there be a one-size fits all approach to med education? While we'd probably all agree that there are certain basics in which all practicing physicians be schooled, what are these minima? Do dual tracks even for the MD make sense, or is simply self-selecting into the appropriate program serve this purpose?

P

PS - first day back in clinics today after the PhD, and it was a rush!
 
Originally posted by MPS
I can understand how frustrating it must be to come up against an interview panel that expects you to be a "bleeding heart".

I'm at Cambridge University, and there is a very strong push here amongst the pre-clinical science faculty to produce researchers, and to an extent the admissions process reflects this. A standard interview question runs "if you could make any breakthrough in medicine, what would it be?". The answer that most applicants give is - "a cure for AIDS". However, one of my friends replied - "to design a computer that completely simulates the human brain". At most medical schools this would have condemned him. At Cambridge, however, they gave him a place.

This is one reason why I initially thought of going to the Uk for studies! But the financial expense and conservatist attitudes kinda pushed me back. Although I still have plans for the UK when I am done with my studies in the States.

Back home the idea behind volunteerist ideals paled in comparsion to proven academic ability. At my college I get terribly sick of pre-meds complaining of their little volunteer time when they need to be talking about their grades. There goes a nut-head saying, "Oh, I have only 120 ER hrs, I have to get it up to at least 300." What! Things are getting very mechanical here. Of course biomedical research is what I want to, I have "little" clinical experience--I have observed surgery closely, assisted maimed victims just fresh from an accident scene, etc, and I consider these enough ( In the States this little. You must have learnt how to perform a "simple" appendicitis operation (appendectomy) )Even if I decide to volunteer it will be no more than 4 hrs a week as other things demand my attention.

But the gong of volunteerism--please! I need a break. Volunteerist ideals are secondary stuff . . . but every doctor has to be humane, and interviews, at least, help in the process.
 
Top