Basic vs. Clinical Research

[boston_3]

I'm a bit torn and thought others may have some advice. I am unsure whether I want to pursue basic science or clinical research during school. I think I'd be more interested in hands-on basic science like research, and I think it'd be an interesting skill set to acquire, but I'm afraid I may not accomplish much during M1/M2. I'd love to hear thoughts from others if you've considered the same issue. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[GoSpursGo]

It depends on your goals. If you just want to try research for fun, then basic could be good. But if you're hoping to apply to a competitive specialty and need pubs, then you likely can't accomplish that with basic research unless you take a formal research year.

 

[aldol16]

Do what it is you want. Basic science will take longer to publish and it's harder inherently but people recognize that. You should try to get a few publications out if you go this route. Clinical research will be faster paced and easier to publish - you will be expected to have more papers if you're going this route.

 

[Hollow Knight]

One of my buddies has like 20 pubs at this point as an almost M3. He did that through case reports, not through pipetting stuff....

 

[PathNeuroIMorFM]

As someone who still does both - DO CLINICAL RESEARCH.

Basic research is very rewarding and less BS than clinical research, but I've gotten only 3 manuscripts from that across 3 years (including research year). Only one will be first auth. Meanwhile I just spit out three first auth clinical manuscripts in one year for significantly less time and work.

Basic science research is a slow, grueling process in an application system that rewards higher output, even if quality is sacrificed. Bench for a summer if you want through a summer program like Memorial Sloan, but don't dedicate your years to it. One of my Rad Onc peers who did not do a research year has gotten ZERO pubs, despite a lot of time in the lab. They switched to clinical research and got 3 case reports published in a week. It's absurd.

I personally really enjoy having a slow burn basic science project running in the background while I have faster clinical projects to fill the gaps. If you're shooting for something hyper-competitive, this is a nice strategy, but it's not the only way to get things done.

 

[GoSpursGo]

Basic science research is a slow, grueling process in an application system that rewards higher output, even if quality is sacrificed.

I have said this before, but this is not necessarily true. We know that basic science research is harder and longer, so if someone really puts in the time and contributes meaningfully to a medium to high impact basic science publication, to me there is no number of crappy case reports that would be worth that basic science pub. It's also rarely binary, and while you may not get the same number of clinical papers as someone who is just at their desk pumping out case reports right and left, you likely will be able to do a few clinical papers. Again, give me the person with a basic science pub and 4 case reports over the kid with 15 case reports any day. No matter how many times someone on SDN says nobody is going to look at your research beyond just adding up the number of publications, that is just not true. If I see something meaningful in an impactful journal, that definitely stands out.

What *is* true is that basic science research is much riskier, and there is a very real chance that you spend much more time and get literal zero pubs. If you get zero pubs, then yes you basically wasted your time. And that is the reason that I said I would not pursue basic science research during medical school unless you're really prepared to do a full research year.

 

[aldol16]

I have said this before, but this is not necessarily true. We know that basic science research is harder and longer, so if someone really puts in the time and contributes meaningfully to a medium to high impact basic science publication, to me there is no number of crappy case reports that would be worth that basic science pub. It's also rarely binary, and while you may not get the same number of clinical papers as someone who is just at their desk pumping out case reports right and left, you likely will be able to do a few clinical papers. Again, give me the person with a basic science pub and 4 case reports over the kid with 15 case reports any day. No matter how many times someone on SDN says nobody is going to look at your research beyond just adding up the number of publications, that is just not true. If I see something meaningful in an impactful journal, that definitely stands out.

People on here also underestimate how hard it is to do case reports nowadays. Gone are the days when you can write a clinical case report on something interesting and get it published somewhere reputable. Most journals now are very selective with their case reports. Even with clinical papers, journals are having increasingly stringent requirements (for good reason) that raises the bar for publishing. It's still easier to publish than basic research because there still is a lower time commitment but as the literature becomes saturated, the bar becomes ever higher.

 

[GoSpursGo]

People on here also underestimate how hard it is to do case reports nowadays. Gone are the days when you can write a clinical case report on something interesting and get it published somewhere reputable. Most journals now are very selective with their case reports. Even with clinical papers, journals are having increasingly stringent requirements (for good reason) that raises the bar for publishing. It's still easier to publish than basic research because there still is a lower time commitment but as the literature becomes saturated, the bar becomes ever higher.

Bolded for emphasis. I think a lot of med student case reports are published in journals of questionable repute.

 

[Kierkegaard's Bud]

Volume tends to be on the side of clinical. Rather than going full basic science, consider exploring bioinformatics or epidemiology work. Basic science does not respect your schedule.

 

[mistafab]

Unless you are interested in a career with research (i.e, grant fund chasing, post doc years possibly, being a PI, etc) then I wouldnt waste time in basic research.

It is too time intensive and there is no real carryover for physicians. Additionally, it is often less consistent publication-wise.

Clinical research is a good skill, less intense, and does have carryover into a general career. I recommend you avoid case reports and get into
more useful/meaningful clinical science. It is also easier to join in on an open project and get more involved intellectually.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

For a student, do clinical research and get your name on nonsense nobody cares about.

Then if you really like research, do basic science research, the real research, and find out the reasons on how biophysiological processes work and how they fall apart to make us sick, and meticulously publish a hypothesis also nobody cares about.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

For a student, do clinical research and get your name on nonsense nobody cares about.

Then if you really like research, do basic science research, the real research, and find out the reasons on how biophysiological processes work and how they fall apart to make us sick, and meticulously publish a hypothesis also nobody cares about.

Medical student and division chief approach to research: