- Joined
- Aug 13, 2001
- Messages
- 892
- Reaction score
- 0
hopefully none. I didn't put the "apriori" in, though. you did. Just emphasizing the point for those who think the descision is completly based JUST based on the luring tuition and stipend.
can an MD do basic science research?
- Thread starter Sonya
- Start date
hopefully none. I didn't put the "apriori" in, though. you did. Just emphasizing the point for those who think the descision is completly based JUST based on the luring tuition and stipend.
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 697
- Reaction score
- 4
Sorry I shouted. 
There have been many posts/threads tangentially getting at doing the MSTP without wanting to do research. That gets under my normally thick skin.
I agree with you.
P
There have been many posts/threads tangentially getting at doing the MSTP without wanting to do research. That gets under my normally thick skin.
I agree with you.
P
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,909
- Reaction score
- 2,941
This calculation is incorrect because an MD with 4 yrs of post-doctoral training is generally ready to move on to a tenure-track faculty position, whereas a fresh MSTP graduate is NOT generally speaking ready for a tenure-track position until some post-doctoral training was done.
There IS a difference between the research you do during your PhD years and post-doc years. As far as producing the results, post-docs win HANDS DOWN. PhDs tend to spend a lot of time goofing off, thinking about creative things, getting married etc etc...Is this fun and enjoyable? You betcha. Is this going to secure an R01 grant as fast as possible? NO WAY
I have come to realize several important things recently. I think I'm gonna be a little bit politically incorrect here but these are my opinions nontheless:
(1) To be a little less extreme...rather than doing a PhD program in molecular/cell biology, I see MD (at least the first two years) as being much more appropriate training for someone who wants to do disease based basic science research. (I.e. me calling these program crap) PhDs don't get the clinical relevancy. They don't see the big picture. Do I think it's important? YES, why? Because all the other PhD (physics, chemistry, math, BME) programs have these "big picture" as part of the cirriculum. Bio programs don't. I honestly DON'T think they teach you "how to think"...A bio PhD program is there to give you some time to develop your research credentials, that's all it is. Most bio PhDs know nothing except whatever myopic range of things they encounter in their research. I found that quite appalling.
(2) MSTP isn't necessarily the best way to go if you want to get in, get out, get a faculty position as fast as possible. This I think is an easy point to make.
(3) MD only pathway + postdoc MAY indeed be the best way to go under CERTAIN instances for someone who wants to do RESEARCH ONLY.
(4) MD only pathway + postdoc (i.e. what the NIH report calls late boomers) suffers essentially no setbacks (except possibly a political one) compare to either an MSTP or a PhD...in fact they may have an advantage in clinical departments. The amount of basic research happening in clinical departments, as we all know, is increasing fast.
(5) Think very carefully before you enter a PhD program, especially a PhD program that is not top notched in your field of study, or you are going in because you didn't get into medical school. By entering a PhD program, you've essentially signed the contract of doing research. An MD confers no such committment.
(6) You are generally safe (both careerwise and financially) with an MD/PhD program, for obvious reasons. And it's a lot of fun too. I think this should be the primary argument for MD/PhD. not because of the whimsical "cirriculum integration" or training to become "the next generation physician scientist" etc etc hand waving.
I think I have a different way of looking at things. When you tell someone you are doing MD/PhD, the first response is usually, wow that'd be REALLY long. Of course, the first question you ask yourself is then, is all this time worth it? (i.e. is it going to SAVE me time later on? Is it a beneficial investment? Is it going to improve myself in someways?) The answer for this, obviously, is not necessarily.
But, instead of this line of thinking, why not ask yourself whether you'll have fun doing what you do? I think for many people such as myself, the answer for that question is a resounding YES. And this is much more convincing an argument for going into the program, personally (not for the interview, of course)
--------------
There IS a difference between the research you do during your PhD years and post-doc years. As far as producing the results, post-docs win HANDS DOWN. PhDs tend to spend a lot of time goofing off, thinking about creative things, getting married etc etc...Is this fun and enjoyable? You betcha. Is this going to secure an R01 grant as fast as possible? NO WAY
I have come to realize several important things recently. I think I'm gonna be a little bit politically incorrect here but these are my opinions nontheless:
(1) To be a little less extreme...rather than doing a PhD program in molecular/cell biology, I see MD (at least the first two years) as being much more appropriate training for someone who wants to do disease based basic science research. (I.e. me calling these program crap) PhDs don't get the clinical relevancy. They don't see the big picture. Do I think it's important? YES, why? Because all the other PhD (physics, chemistry, math, BME) programs have these "big picture" as part of the cirriculum. Bio programs don't. I honestly DON'T think they teach you "how to think"...A bio PhD program is there to give you some time to develop your research credentials, that's all it is. Most bio PhDs know nothing except whatever myopic range of things they encounter in their research. I found that quite appalling.
(2) MSTP isn't necessarily the best way to go if you want to get in, get out, get a faculty position as fast as possible. This I think is an easy point to make.
(3) MD only pathway + postdoc MAY indeed be the best way to go under CERTAIN instances for someone who wants to do RESEARCH ONLY.
(4) MD only pathway + postdoc (i.e. what the NIH report calls late boomers) suffers essentially no setbacks (except possibly a political one) compare to either an MSTP or a PhD...in fact they may have an advantage in clinical departments. The amount of basic research happening in clinical departments, as we all know, is increasing fast.
(5) Think very carefully before you enter a PhD program, especially a PhD program that is not top notched in your field of study, or you are going in because you didn't get into medical school. By entering a PhD program, you've essentially signed the contract of doing research. An MD confers no such committment.
(6) You are generally safe (both careerwise and financially) with an MD/PhD program, for obvious reasons. And it's a lot of fun too. I think this should be the primary argument for MD/PhD. not because of the whimsical "cirriculum integration" or training to become "the next generation physician scientist" etc etc hand waving.
I think I have a different way of looking at things. When you tell someone you are doing MD/PhD, the first response is usually, wow that'd be REALLY long. Of course, the first question you ask yourself is then, is all this time worth it? (i.e. is it going to SAVE me time later on? Is it a beneficial investment? Is it going to improve myself in someways?) The answer for this, obviously, is not necessarily.
But, instead of this line of thinking, why not ask yourself whether you'll have fun doing what you do? I think for many people such as myself, the answer for that question is a resounding YES. And this is much more convincing an argument for going into the program, personally (not for the interview, of course)
--------------
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 7
I cannot believe this thread is still going on. I just have one thing to say: a LOT of PhDs do disease based research, because there is much more money in it than basic basic biology research. As a result, you have a lot of "me too" work and "me too" papers, using the same technique looking for one upregulated or downregulated protein in a million plus one diseases. Personally I think that has contributed to the decline of US biological research, as European and Asian scientists are now more likely to make a discovery on the fundamental level that can open up the possibilities of entirely new fields rather than just possibilities of another paper. But that's my opinion of what's wrong with science in America and has nothing to do with the choice of MD vs. MSTP or the ability of MDs to do research.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 1
As a cancer researcher I could respond to this on so many levels but quite frankly, I'd rather not waste too much of my time. What I will say is that if European and Asian scientists are "all that" then why the hell can you not walk two centimenters at the NIH without bumping into a European or Asian scientist? American researchers, NIH in particular, MUST be doing something right or else they wouldn't be here!
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 7
You know, pathdr2b, is there anything you are not pleased with about where you are and what you would like to do? It seems that everything you do is the best thing there is, and nobody else deserves any credit for their accomplishments: MDs can't do research as well as MD-PhDs, PhDs can't get good grants as MD-PhDs can, Asian/European scientists can't do crap compared to your NIH folks, young single MD-to-bes don't know as much as you, etc. Given your obvious levels of success, I am surprised that they have not granted you the dual degrees already.
Having known some of the top researchers in the world (many of them Nobel winners), I know that they actually value the way science is done differently elsewhere. I would probably agree that the average American lab is better than the average European lab, but I highly doubt the top European and Asian labs cannot compete with the top American labs. American science will not go anywhere with the holier-than-thou attitude built on ill-spent money and copycat ingenuity, and many PIs here know that as well as I do if not better than me. The only way to improve on what we have is to look at what's wrong with our system and what we can learn from others, and how others are succeeding despite what we designate to be their fate (MDs doing good research, PhDs getting good disease-based grants, Asian and European labs producing good science). I think the joint degree programs across the country look at that (thus the constant debate over the identity and need for joint degree programs), and I am sure the NIH labs look at that too (otherwise they wouldn't be recruiting good labs from outside of Bethesda to join them). I really wish people would get off their high horses and go back to the old American work ethics that got us to where we are today. (Next thing you know, somebody will tell me to get out of George W's America)
Having known some of the top researchers in the world (many of them Nobel winners), I know that they actually value the way science is done differently elsewhere. I would probably agree that the average American lab is better than the average European lab, but I highly doubt the top European and Asian labs cannot compete with the top American labs. American science will not go anywhere with the holier-than-thou attitude built on ill-spent money and copycat ingenuity, and many PIs here know that as well as I do if not better than me. The only way to improve on what we have is to look at what's wrong with our system and what we can learn from others, and how others are succeeding despite what we designate to be their fate (MDs doing good research, PhDs getting good disease-based grants, Asian and European labs producing good science). I think the joint degree programs across the country look at that (thus the constant debate over the identity and need for joint degree programs), and I am sure the NIH labs look at that too (otherwise they wouldn't be recruiting good labs from outside of Bethesda to join them). I really wish people would get off their high horses and go back to the old American work ethics that got us to where we are today. (Next thing you know, somebody will tell me to get out of George W's America)
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 1
Drawing conclusions about things I NEVER said are proof that you're going to be a pretty crappy scientist one day. Do the world of science a favor and regurgetate that "bitter" pill you obviously ingested during your MD/PhD training and try a good laxative instead. It may make you feel better
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 7
whatever happened to the earlier "I wish there were more women and minorities" reply? Did I actually make you go back and sort through everything I have said? I thought you didn't want to go through the effort of doing that.
And I stand by the statements you've quoted. I am quite proud of my training and not the least bitter, but I've learned to be humble and I caution against the type of arrogance MD-PhDs-to-bes get based on heavy advertising over MDs and PhDs. I go back to what I said at the very beginning: it is not what degree(s) you get, but what you do with them. I am sure that you will get your degrees through some school based on your credentials and background, but the language you have used here is a pretty good example of how even joint degrees don't turn you into a saint.
And I stand by the statements you've quoted. I am quite proud of my training and not the least bitter, but I've learned to be humble and I caution against the type of arrogance MD-PhDs-to-bes get based on heavy advertising over MDs and PhDs. I go back to what I said at the very beginning: it is not what degree(s) you get, but what you do with them. I am sure that you will get your degrees through some school based on your credentials and background, but the language you have used here is a pretty good example of how even joint degrees don't turn you into a saint.
