basic or clinical research

[sweatybrain]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Quick question about research. I have two research job offers for this upcoming summer. One is from an HHMI lab at Rockefeller, where I'll be studying the transcriptional program underlying epidermal stem cell differentiation (with Elaine Fuchs if that means anything to anyone). The other is a more clinically-oriented position, looking at alteration in gene expression profile from patients with a variety of skin diseases (with a very young professor). Since dermatolgy is one of the fields that I'm exploring, I was wondering whether it would be better to take the basic science project (bigger name, albeit, Elaine is not an MD but less clinical relevance/I alread have a PhD in a basic science) or do the clinical research (more relevance in the clinic, but less of a "big name").

Any advice?

 

[gary5]

In general, there seems to be a preference for basic research experience. That said, the best opportunity is with attendings at your med school, in my opinion. Beyond that, choose the more prestigious facility and principal investigator. Also important is the project that you're more interested.

 

[potato51]

I'd say basic science too, based on what I heard directly from a PD.

 

[beastmaster]

I worked at Rockefeller, and from what I can remember Fuchs is certainly the place to be for derm-related research. I recall several derm residents and clinical faculty rolling through there.

 

[PathOne]

Trust me. Elaine Fuchs may not have an MD, but her research is very highly regarded within the medical community, and Rockefeller is a pretty cool place to be (4,000 researchers at Rockefeller, Sloan-Kettering and Weil, all on Manhattan's Upper East Side).

I think it's important that you choose to join a research project which interests you, but if it's all the same to you, I'd go for the basic science project.