There's some very good banter going on here. I thought I would add my thoughts. First, I work with a female MD/PhD who is a mom to two year old Gabrielle. One reason she chose to become a MD/PhD was because of the time flexibility. Think about what an MD/PhD's responsibilities are: 90% research, 10% clinical. Before anyone gets upset, I use this numbers as an "average", not the final true nature of the job. Back to Gabrielle's mom: She is doing a post-doc and had her daughter after she was done with her residency. Now, doing bench research, she can come in around 9:30 or 10 AM after dropping off her child at daycare and work until 5- a typical day for any other profession, really. Her husband is also an MD/PhD, and they chose this timing for their baby- now, that they are post-docs with their own funding (K grants) they have the luxury of a diminished patient responsibility (just one morning a week for each of them) and flexible working hours. Gabrielle's mom said she likely will look to try to even the balance of her time once Gabrielle is older.
Next point.
I really wonder if guaranteeing a shorter time to degree(s) would increase the number of MSTP applicants. Again, consider what an MD/PhD does. The theory is that the combined begree allows a person to foster a love for the basic sciences in order to advance understanding of disease and physiology, right? Now consider the facts: MD/PhDs are generally paid less, face more time doing fellowships, post-docs and residencies (should they choose to specialize). Now, even if a program could guarantee that you're done in seven years, look at what lays ahead of you. I think that a person desiring to become an MD/PhD considers this and accepts it.
Many people who want to go into medicine do so for a large salary, flexibility, prestige in the lifestyle: the "country club lifestyle", if you will. Md/PhDs are more of scientists than the "stereotypical" (well, generalist at least)physicians and don't fit that mold. Many people simply want to treat patients and don't have the drive to leave the clinic and start asking the questions that need to be asked in order to understand disease states.
Next Point.
A point of the first two articles is stating that there is a shortage of physician- scientists (ps for brevity) doing CLINICAL research. They are all in the lab and the article asks, how can we get p-s's to bridge the gap from bench to bedside? It is an interesting question, as most (of the p-s's I know) seem to undertake study on a disease state without thoughts of therapy.
Whew, that was tiring. I hope it wasn't too rambling or incoherent and I hope I didn't offend or stereotype any one or any group.
M
