Basic Science Research

[birkenbeiner]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Can you be an EM full-time and still do basic science research part-time? Like could you get a lab at a university or hospital where you would occasionally come in to do something but wouldnt generate much funding, if any? Or is there any way for a doctor to have a research lab if he doesnt plan to devote >20% of his time to research?

 

[WilcoWorld]

There are numerous academic jobs that allot <20% of your time for research. So, if you work for a university hospital, you could work "full-time" for the U, but spend, say 70% of your time working in the ED, 20% doing "education" (lectures, etc), and 10% in the lab. Most people seem to do more clinically oriented research, but if you're going to produce papers I don't think basic science research would be a problem. However your lab will have to be funded somehow, so that might be an issue if you're not going to be getting any extramural $$$.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

There are numerous academic jobs that allot <20% of your time for research. So, if you work for a university hospital, you could work "full-time" for the U, but spend, say 70% of your time working in the ED, 20% doing "education" (lectures, etc), and 10% in the lab. Most people seem to do more clinically oriented research, but if you're going to produce papers I don't think basic science research would be a problem. However your lab will have to be funded somehow, so that might be an issue if you're not going to be getting any extramural $$$.

The ones that have 10% dedicated to research don't run their own lab, am I correct?

 

[Apollyon]

There was one frequent poster here that left due to politics (really - they're here on SDN) who is MD/PhD, and, for years, worked in the ED on weekends, and during the week did basic science research in immuno.

It can be done.

 

[howelljolly]

With basic science research, you'd be hard pressed to get your own lab (laboratory and funding) if you were willing to devote any less than 80% of your time to research. By "time" I mean on the order of 80 hours per week.

With translational research, you might get away with ~20% of your time on the research.

I think you underestimate the time commitment required for basic science research.

If you want to putter around the lab once in a while, Im sure some PI would be willing to let you hang around. But, you'll never get your own lab, or get paid in somoene else's lab for that.

 

[Dr. Dukes]

BIDMC has a Basic Science EM lab.
http://www.bidmc.org/Research/Departments/EmergencyMedicine.aspx

 

[DrTennis]

http://www.med.upenn.edu/resuscitation/index.shtml

 

[pseudoknot]

BIDMC has a Basic Science EM lab.
http://www.bidmc.org/Research/Departments/EmergencyMedicine.aspx

That's not what that link says as far as I can tell.

 

[AmoryBlaine]

1. The culture is overall not supportive -- that doesn't mean it's impossible just that it's not the same as being a pulmonologist, immunologist, or sugical oncologist.

2. Funding would be tricky unless you latched on to a department that was already doing alot of bench research.

3. Ask around quite a bit about specifics of job placement (i.e. find several people who are doing exactly what you want to do) before pursuing this as a career.

 

[RxnMan]

There was one frequent poster here that left due to politics (really - they're here on SDN) who is MD/PhD, and, for years, worked in the ED on weekends, and during the week did basic science research in immuno.

It can be done.

ERMudPhud was his screen name. He was able to get grants and fund himself, but as time went on, it became more and more difficult until he resigned his grants and went into PP.

He was one of the reasons why I first seriously thought about a career in EM + research.

 

[howelljolly]

I met an MDPhD in EM who left basic science research and went into medical information technology stuff. I dont know why, but maybe its because the basic science stuff isnt all that common in EM.

 

[Dr. Dukes]

That's not what that link says as far as I can tell.

Thats what happens when I post the wrong link.
http://www.bidmc.org/CentersandDepartments/Departments/EmergencyMedicine/AboutEmergencyMedicine.aspx
At the very bottom, doesn't say very much that is useful.

 

[pseudoknot]

I met an MDPhD in EM who left basic science research and went into medical information technology stuff. I dont know why, but maybe its because the basic science stuff isnt all that common in EM.

I think there are a number of reasons:

1. EM inherently lacks followup, making it difficult to conduct research.

2. EM is organized around acuity and not any particular organ system, which leads to the perception that it doesn't really "own" any diseases (which isn't true if you consider sepsis, AMI, cardiac arrest, etc.).

3. Because of #2 and because of rapid turnaround, etc., I think it tends to attract people who have shorter attention spans. This is the opposite of the typical basic scientist.

4. It's a new field and many departments are still building themselves within the institution, so there is less startup money, lab space, administrative infrastructure for research. There is also no NIH institute or study section for EM.

I'm sure there are many other reasons, but this is what came immediately to mind.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqI1AzuwQrg&feature=related[/youtube]

I thought this was pretty interesting. This is about the ER at Henry Ford. Towards a little before midway through the video, they talk about research in sepsis. I think they mentioned that one of Henry Ford's doctors is a leader in sepsis research. I'm no expert, but I guess since sepsis is pretty translational to the ER, it works.

 

[RxnMan]

I think there are a number of reasons:

1. EM inherently lacks followup, making it difficult to conduct research.

2. EM is organized around acuity and not any particular organ system, which leads to the perception that it doesn't really "own" any diseases (which isn't true if you consider sepsis, AMI, cardiac arrest, etc.).

3. Because of #2 and because of rapid turnaround, etc., I think it tends to attract people who have shorter attention spans. This is the opposite of the typical basic scientist...

I think these are all good points. Hospitalization begins in the ED, emergent stabilization of many different diseases begins in the ED, and almost every department interfaces with the ED. Follow-up is done by the guys in whatever department the patient ends up in, but we should be the front end of collaborative partnerships. These factors should make the ED the center of outcomes and patient-oriented research in the hospital.

Oh, and for the basic science guys - yes, we should 'own' those diseases you mentioned.

4. It's a new field and many departments are still building themselves within the institution, so there is less startup money, lab space, administrative infrastructure for research. There is also no NIH institute or study section for EM.

I think this is another reason. By and large, there's not the culture or training paths to support EM physician-scientists (compared to other fields like Path, IM).

 

[logos]

My school has one professor in the emergency medicine dept that does basic research. He is a great guy, but it seems clear doing research based out of emergency medicine does have more obstacles than choosing other departments.

The truth is that EM shares every disease with at least one other specialty. Even cardiac arrest, which seems to me be the disease that EM most "owns" in basic research, is shared with cardiology and critical care people.

 

[3rdJob]

I agree with most of what the above posts say. However, I think NIH funding for research (both clinical and bench) in EM is improving rapidly. There are certain institutes (NINDS comes to mind) that recognize that much time critical treatment is at least intiated in the ED. For certain diseases (stroke), they are starting to require involvement from EM. It is certainly very helpful to establish collaborative relationships with other departments since, as was pointed out previously, we're pretty new at this. This leads to a relative lack of mentors and therefore mentorship for the junior researcher. Mentorship is critical in beginning a research (either clinical or bench) career. On a personal note, I have a lab, NIH funding, and work clinically. It is a lot of fun, but you have to love what you're doing 'cause these grants don't write themselves.....😉

P.S. Don't hold you breath waiting for an EM based NIH Institute. Not happenin' in our lifetimes.....

 

[Teee]

my PI is a basic science researcher that does ER shifts when other ER docs are on vacation and stuff so sometimes once a week, sometimes none in a month, sometimes, 5 times a week. He is well funded and the research has nothing to do with ER stuff. hope that helped.

 

[Haemr Head]

Thats what happens when I post the wrong link.
http://www.bidmc.org/CentersandDepartments/Departments/EmergencyMedicine/AboutEmergencyMedicine.aspx
At the very bottom, doesn't say very much that is useful.

The Department of Emergency Medicine at BIDMC has 3 emergency physicians who are pursuing basic science projects as well as 2 PhDs. The basic science projects they are working on is looking at endothelial signaling in sepsis and more specifically the role of VegF. One of the BIDMC toxicologists is using a basic science model to better understand the hepatic cellular tolxicity of acetaminophen and novel methods to prevent this. There are 3 labs funded by the Department of Emergency Medicine at BIDMC and the investigstors have been awarded two RO1s with a few more in process.

Many other academic EDs have bench science labs in areas ranging from ischemic reperfusion, toxicology, and sepsis.

 

[ccfccp]

I thought this was pretty interesting. This is about the ER at Henry Ford. Towards a little before midway through the video, they talk about research in sepsis. I think they mentioned that one of Henry Ford's doctors is a leader in sepsis research. I'm no expert, but I guess since sepsis is pretty translational to the ER, it works.

This doesn't directly address the topic at hand, but if you're interested in the research they're talking about I assume it's the early goal directed treatment of sepsis and SIRS put out by Rivers et al. It's pretty much considered a landmark paper in EM and Critical Care (I must have heard about it and the follow-up studies 15-20 times last year...) As a pre-med it might be an interesting read for you.

Here's the link:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/345/19/1368