Can you do medical research with just MD, no PhD?

[lstone13]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Just curious. I'm not applying to any MD/PhD programs, but I wanted to know if regular MD's are able to perform medical research.

 

[Appless]

Just curious. I'm not applying to any MD/PhD programs, but I wanted to know if regular MD's are able to perform medical research.

yes many do. In fact where I do research many MDs in our dept are heavily involved in research both clinical and non but are not phds.

 

[ABRuniverse]

Yes, definately. My PI in my lab (clinical research in psychiatry) is an MD and she is wildly successful.

 

[physicsguy]

Interesting. This begs the question: why would one do an MD/PhD, given that it takes an additional 3 to 5 years of work?

 

[foster033]

My PI is an MD. We do a lot of translation type research and are involved with some clinical trials. The majority of his time is spent on research issues since he only has a clinic commitment 1 day a week.

 

[foster033]

Interesting. This begs the question: why would one do an MD/PhD, given that it takes an additional 3 to 5 years of work?

Because it's free....and 3-5 years is not that long in the grand scheme of things.

Research does not pay as well as clinical work...an MD only will have loans to pay back and that might be difficult with a reduced salary. It is also sometimes harder to get grants with an MD only and you are not as well prepared for a career in research unless you do some kind of post doc after your MD or residency.

 

[Parts Unknown]

....and 3-5 years is not that long in the grand scheme of things.

Funny, I just ran into one of my former med school classmates (an MD/PhD). We started together in 2001. I'm done with med school, done with residency, in fellowship, boarded, and interviewing for jobs. He just started his M3 clerkships. If he wants to practice, he still has to slug his way through this year, finish M4, graduate, pass Step 2, do residency, pass Step 3, maybe do fellowship, get boarded, and *then* he can find a job.

It is also sometimes harder to get grants with an MD only and you are not as well prepared for a career in research unless you do some kind of post doc after your MD or residency.

If you want to be a researcher, MD, PhD, or MD/PhD, you will have to apprentice yourself, whether through a research driven residency/fellowship or in a post-doc. Being a successful researcher is career-long commitment, and you can absolutely do it as an MD.

 

[foster033]

Funny, I just ran into one of my former med school classmates (an MD/PhD). We started together in 2001. I'm done with med school, done with residency, in fellowship, boarded, and interviewing for jobs. He just started his M3 clerkships. If he wants to practice, he still has to slug his way through this year, finish M4, graduate, pass Step 2, do residency, pass Step 3, maybe do fellowship, get boarded, and *then* he can find a job.

Yeah, and what's your point? he's 3-5 years behind you and he'll have no debt when he get out. assuming you started med school out of college (~22yo) you're now 30...he'll be 35 with no debt.
It's a personal choice, but I'd pick the long free road of the short expensive one any day.

If you want to be a researcher, MD, PhD, or MD/PhD, you will have to apprentice yourself, whether through a research driven residency/fellowship or in a post-doc. Being a successful researcher is career-long commitment, and you can absolutely do it as an MD.

You can absolutely do it, but for the average MD it's typically harder, although not impossible by any means. Like I said, I work in research for an MD who has done very well for himself. While everyone has to put in the time to learn to be a researcher I think it's much better to do that for free, with a stipend in a phd or md/phd program than doing a fulltime postdoc after residency that pays crap while your loans are accumulating interest, but that's just my opinion.

 

[lstone13]

So, is it possible to apply for the PhD after you've been accepted for regular MD admission? Once again, just curious... 🙂

Oh, and if you can, do they still award the stipend?

 

[physicsguy]

Because it's free....and 3-5 years is not that long in the grand scheme of things.

Research does not pay as well as clinical work...an MD only will have loans to pay back and that might be difficult with a reduced salary. It is also sometimes harder to get grants with an MD only and you are not as well prepared for a career in research unless you do some kind of post doc after your MD or residency.

Ah, I think I understand.

So this is probably a stupid question, but here goes. I'll have a PhD by the time I apply to med school, but in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine, specifically astrophysics. Say I wanted to get involved in research as an MD in some field like biophysics or radiology. Would having a physics PhD give me the same research-related advantages as someone who did an MD/PhD? Would it help at all?

 

[FuturaDocta]

Yeah, and what's your point? he's 3-5 years behind you and he'll have no debt when he get out. assuming you started med school out of college (~22yo) you're now 30...he'll be 35 with no debt.
It's a personal choice, but I'd pick the long free road of the short expensive one any day.

What other degree can you add to MD in order to get out of debt?

Does MD/ MS count?

I am genuinely interested in this path, but would like to know if "debt-free" is included.

 

[musafirah]

Yep! i gave up on the MD-PhD idea with my stats, but i will definitely keep doing research because medical technology is just as interesting to me as the clinical stuff. i plan to be MD but collaborate with PhDs and MD-PhDs in the same fields

 

[dr zaius]

Ah, I think I understand.

So this is probably a stupid question, but here goes. I'll have a PhD by the time I apply to med school, but in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine, specifically astrophysics. Say I wanted to get involved in research as an MD in some field like biophysics or radiology. Would having a physics PhD give me the same research-related advantages as someone who did an MD/PhD? Would it help at all?

It would definitely help. A big part of earning a PhD in any science field is learning how to think critically, ask good questions, find ways to answer these questions, and troubleshoot experiments because something always goes wrong. The knowledge base you will need will be different. The biggest hurdle will be learning the techniques needed to carry out the research, as any biomedical research you do will probably involve measurement techniques and assays that are unlike anything you've used in astrophysics.

Just my opinion.

 

[musafirah]

Ah, I think I understand.

So this is probably a stupid question, but here goes. I'll have a PhD by the time I apply to med school, but in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine, specifically astrophysics. Say I wanted to get involved in research as an MD in some field like biophysics or radiology. Would having a physics PhD give me the same research-related advantages as someone who did an MD/PhD? Would it help at all?

a physics PhD will take about 5+ years, not the 3 as most of the biomedical sciences would. it will be an easy transition for you to go from astrophysics to biophysics, as the physics theory essentially does not change, only the order of magnitudes do! its a beautiful thing. (but you should have a GOOD handle on statistical mechanics if you go into biophysics, whereas thermodynamics is enough to be a proficient astrophysicist. and the research methods/techniques are VERY different. biophysics requires a proficiency in chemistry)

but what that would do is waste a lot of time. if you already KNOW that you want to be a doctor, don't waste time in the rigors of getting a PhD in straight up physics. have you ever practiced some qualifying exam questions? its a BEAST- not worth it if you just want to be an MD but enjoy physics. don't torture yourself and waste all that time if your ultimate goal is medicine! in my experiences, particle and astro physicists are far off from medicine. condensed matter would be better but once again, it takes MUCH longer than 3 years to get that PhD.

go straight into biophysics and physiology, or medical physics (aka "radiology") if you want to go the MD-PhD route. but for your sake, don't do a PhD in pure PHYSICS unless thats what you want to do for the rest of your life. astrophysics without the background of biomedical physics won't help you much as a physician-scientist. you'd be better off learning the physics of war and economics or philosophy!

PM me if you want to know more about the coursework or research in biophysics! i'm undergrad, so i can tell you my experience alone, but it'll give you some idea of the differences.

if you are really passionate about learning more physics for the fun of it before getting into med sciences, get a masters instead.. otherwise you'll find yourself so caught up in the world of physics that you'll end up somewhere and forget why you started out.

 

[LizzyM]

Ah, I think I understand.

So this is probably a stupid question, but here goes. I'll have a PhD by the time I apply to med school, but in a field that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine, specifically astrophysics. Say I wanted to get involved in research as an MD in some field like biophysics or radiology. Would having a physics PhD give me the same research-related advantages as someone who did an MD/PhD? Would it help at all?

If it helps you write a fundable research proposal, then yes. If not, then no.

 

[musafirah]

Ahh... i'm sorry, i thought you were a physics undergrad, but re-reading, it seems you are already on your way to get that PhD. (Congrats!)
i hope that long post helps some other physics undergrad...


but in your case, i would say that transitioning from astro to biophysics research is NO problem as long as you did well in stat-mech and can learn chemistry lab techniques. transitioning to radiology and medical imaging would be even easier for you. definitely an edge!

 

[LizzyM]

What other degree can you add to MD in order to get out of debt?

Does MD/ MS count?

I am genuinely interested in this path, but would like to know if "debt-free" is included.

MD/PhD programs provide tuition & stipend to encourage talented researchers to consider careers as physician-scientists. Much of the money comes from federal grants awarded to various academic labs (investigators).

There isn't a similar program for MS or other degrees as far as I know because there just doesn't seem to be a need to provide an incentive to go into those fields.


And yes, if you've been accepted into med school and are interested in the PhD, you can apply after the fact and get tuition & stipend from that point forward. The amount of research required to make a strong application is very high and the school wants applicants with research interests and skills that fit with those of the investigators who have funding for MD/PhD students.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Yeah, and what's your point?

That time is cheap when you're young, but gradually increases in value.

 

[randombetch]

Yeah, and what's your point? he's 3-5 years behind you and he'll have no debt when he get out. assuming you started med school out of college (~22yo) you're now 30...he'll be 35 with no debt.
It's a personal choice, but I'd pick the long free road of the short expensive one any day.




You can absolutely do it, but for the average MD it's typically harder, although not impossible by any means. Like I said, I work in research for an MD who has done very well for himself. While everyone has to put in the time to learn to be a researcher I think it's much better to do that for free, with a stipend in a phd or md/phd program than doing a fulltime postdoc after residency that pays crap while your loans are accumulating interest, but that's just my opinion.

If you say up 5 years worth of a PI's salary (~150k), that's over 5 times as much as the amount of debt one accumulates from medical school (~$140k). Financial reasons should NEVER be a reason for pursuing MD/PhD - every MD/PhD director in the country will tell you the same thing.

5 years is around 6% of your life. It is a long time.

 

[physicsguy]

Ahh... i'm sorry, i thought you were a physics undergrad, but re-reading, it seems you are already on your way to get that PhD. (Congrats!)
i hope that long post helps some other physics undergrad...


but in your case, i would say that transitioning from astro to biophysics research is NO problem as long as you did well in stat-mech and can learn chemistry lab techniques. transitioning to radiology and medical imaging would be even easier for you. definitely an edge!

Actually I think your post would be excellent advice for an undergrad. Honestly, if I knew back in undergrad that I wanted to be a doctor, I most certainly wouldn't have gone to grad school in physics. Heck, I wouldn't have even majored in physics!

Alas, here I am. I'm in the third year of grad school at the moment. I figure there are at least 3.5 reasons for finishing. First, as you correctly stated, PhD qualifying exams are a beast (e.g. I encountered a problem where they actually wanted you to derive the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the SHO with creation and annihilation operators from scratch...in about 20 minutes!). Problem is, I already passed the PhD qualifier, so I figure it'd be a waste to quit now. Secondly, I don't want an admissions committee to see me as having a habit of not finishing academic programs. Third, being in grad school means I can take classes for free, and I've got about five or six prereqs to go (two semesters each of ochem and biology, plus biochemistry and/or a humanities elective). And then there's that extra 0.5 of a reason: as much as I hate to admit it, I am working on an interesting project, and while I absolutely don't want to do physics or any computer-related activity (I really hate programming) for the rest of my life, I do want to see if I can discover something cool.

Actually, I think I'd rather have a career that is exclusively clinical. The reason for my inquiry is that it never hurts to know all of one's options, and if I can do research without getting another PhD, that's certainly something I would like to consider. But you're completely right: mine is a rather circuitous path to med school. I just hope it will be ultimately successful.

 

[foster033]

That time is cheap when you're young, but gradually increases in value.

umm, ok...how does that invalidate anything I've said??? you're not really stifling your earning potentional at all..you're delaying it a few years and the payback is that you don't have to fork over outrageous amounts of money each month to payback loans once you actually start work. not to mention you might actually learn some valuable things along the way that make you a better doctor/researcher.

I finished undergrad 3 years ago and have been working in research ever since...I plan on applying md/phd probably within the next year or two. I'll be 40ish when I finish residency if I go that route...but who cares? I'll have the next 30 years to devote to my career and I won't have to worry about loans.

 

[Parts Unknown]

umm, ok...how does that invalidate anything I've said???

I'm not trying to invalidate anything you have said. I am merely pointing out, from the the other side of the fence, that a few years here and a few years there is not insignificant, even tranposed against the entirety of your life. I used to share your opinion, and there is a very good chance that you will someday share mine.

When deciding on MD vs. MD/PhD, you cannot accurately distill it down to fast and expensive vs. slow and cheap. You have to look at the entire picture, and being an indebted 27 year old MD research fellow may indeed beat being a 30 year old lab monkey, making stipend money, who hasn't even started his clerkships.

I'll be 40ish when I finish residency if I go that route...but who cares?

You will, my friend. You will.

 

[musafirah]

Actually I think your post would be excellent advice for an undergrad. Honestly, if I knew back in undergrad that I wanted to be a doctor, I most certainly wouldn't have gone to grad school in physics. Heck, I wouldn't have even majored in physics!

Alas, here I am. I'm in the third year of grad school at the moment. I figure there are at least 3.5 reasons for finishing. First, as you correctly stated, PhD qualifying exams are a beast (e.g. I encountered a problem where they actually wanted you to derive the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the SHO with creation and annihilation operators from scratch...in about 20 minutes!). Problem is, I already passed the PhD qualifier, so I figure it'd be a waste to quit now. Secondly, I don't want an admissions committee to see me as having a habit of not finishing academic programs. Third, being in grad school means I can take classes for free, and I've got about five or six prereqs to go (two semesters each of ochem and biology, plus biochemistry and/or a humanities elective). And then there's that extra 0.5 of a reason: as much as I hate to admit it, I am working on an interesting project, and while I absolutely don't want to do physics or any computer-related activity (I really hate programming) for the rest of my life, I do want to see if I can discover something cool.

Actually, I think I'd rather have a career that is exclusively clinical. The reason for my inquiry is that it never hurts to know all of one's options, and if I can do research without getting another PhD, that's certainly something I would like to consider. But you're completely right: mine is a rather circuitous path to med school. I just hope it will be ultimately successful.

Heh, yes it is rare to be pre-med and physics undergrad. people always look at me like i'm crazy. it's nice to meet you and again, congrats on your success in physics. i'm sure you'll find success in medicine as well. i also hope you discover something cool! what are you working on btw?
on that qualifying exam question (on second thought.. there are worse things).

i do recommend, if you have time before going to med school, to take biophysics and medical physics courses. i've found that us physicists tend to think differently than biology/medicine students, so having exposure to biophysics will allow you the background knowledge in both fields to learn the medical sciences analytically, rather than train your mind to change learning styles and memorize-- something i've never had to do in a physics class. i am also a natural physicist so getting to the goal of medicine has required an interdisciplinary approach for me: seeing biology and chemistry thru the lens of a physicist. you already know the formulas, but its really helpful to learn it specifically in these terms to be able to apply physics towards your future career, rather than waste all that learning to learn a totally different way of thinking. oh, its especially helpful to take biophysics before physiology 🙂

if you do decide to do research as MD, pay attention in that analytical chem class!


i hate programming too! 😀 thats one of the main reasons i ruled out a career in physics and stopped going back and forth on it and decided to take the medicine route. (also, i'm too much of a people person). i then decided to double-major in physics and biomedical physics and now i feel ready more than ever to switch gears into biomedical sciences!

 

[randombetch]

you're not really stifling your earning potentional at all..

Yes you are.

you're delaying it a few years and the payback is that you don't have to fork over outrageous amounts of money each month to payback loans once you actually start work.

Opportunity cost of those years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total value of loans repaid.

I'll have the next 30 years to devote to my career and I won't have to worry about loans.

If you're in $140k in debt and you have a 6% rate of interest (rather high), then you're paying $1000 a month for 20 years (cumulative payment of about $240k or ~two years of salary for a PI). That's about 8% of a PI's paycheck.

By the way, with inflation counted, that's really only a 2-3% interest rate.

 

[foster033]

If you say up 5 years worth of a PI's salary (~150k), that's over 5 times as much as the amount of debt one accumulates from medical school (~$140k).

5 years is around 6% of your life. It is a long time.

That's very simplistic math...PI salary's can range widely, especially if one has an MD as it depends greatly on how much time the spend in clinic vs. the lab. but most PIs do not make 150K for straight research, it's usually less than that (like 80-90k). Also, most students in md/phd will not take 5 years to finish the phd portion...most of the students around here do it in 3 or 4.

I'm not sure what the average med school debt is...but let's use your 140k number...you realize that depending on your interest rate you'll be paying at least double that and probably more...

The point is if you want to do research the best way to go is md/phd...you get your training for free along with a stipend.

if you want to do research with an md only you'll it's possible but it is more expensive and the road is harder. you'll have to do a postdoc (avg. 35-50k/yr) for a few years to get the research experience you need, all the while interest will be accumulating on your loans and you'll probably have trouble making the payments with such a low salary. Not to mention there's no guarantee you'll even be able to find funding. getting funding for your own lab is competitive as is keeping it...

It's obviously a personal choice but if you end goal is to do some type of research you'd be a fool not to pursue md/phd

 

[kami333]

lol at research and earning potential being used in the same sentence😀

 

[Parts Unknown]

Also, most students in md/phd will not take 5 years to finish the phd portion...most of the students around here do it in 3 or 4.

You must be in the promised land. I haven't heard of a 4 in some time. Around here 6 is the new 5.

if you want to do research with an md only you'll it's possible but it is more expensive and the road is harder. you'll have to do a postdoc (avg. 35-50k/yr) for a few years to get the research experience you need, all the while interest will be accumulating on your loans and you'll probably have trouble making the payments with such a low salary.

This actually isn't true. There are residencies and fellowships with dedicated research tracks, and loan forgiveness programs (like the NIH's LRP) that can be done intra- or extramurally. Some folks do post-docs, but most don't find it necessary.

Also, you can simply forbear you loans when you aren't earning very much.

It's obviously a personal choice but if you end goal is to do some type of research you'd be a fool not to pursue md/phd

There is a minority of MD/PhD students who thrive, but most either survive or quit, usually when a real paycheck appears on the horizon.

 

[kami333]

You must be in the promised land. I haven't heard of a 4 in some time. Around here 6 is the new 5.

I work with 2 MD/PhD students who'll be out next year after 4years. I work with another one who should have been out with them at 4years, but he had to go back to take some med school classes before they changed the curriculum.

 

[foster033]

I'm not trying to invalidate anything you have said. I am merely pointing out, from the the other side of the fence, that a few years here and a few years there is not insignificant, even tranposed against the entirety of your life. I used to share your opinion, and there is a very good chance that you will someday share mine.

I doubt it...I understand what you're saying, and maybe it's the right thing for you but I just don't look at life the same way...it's not a race to me, there's not some ultimate final destination...I don't see it as wasting a few years here and a few years there, it's all an experience that shapes you. Doing research puts the clinical aspect of medicine in perspective for me and I can not even imagine applying to med school without the "real-life" experiences I've had over the last 3 years...

When deciding on MD vs. MD/PhD, you cannot accurately distill it down to fast and expensive vs. slow and cheap. You have to look at the entire picture, and being an indebted 27 year old MD research fellow may indeed beat being a 30 year old lab monkey, making stipend money, who hasn't even started his clerkships.

It's fairly accurate if your end goal is research...except that maybe I should say long and expensive (MD) vs. slow and cheap (md/phd)...
you simply cannot do research without putting in the training time, so in reality it will be a long road either way. You make things considerable harder on yourself though if you only go the MD route....
monetarily as well as professionally...from the AAMC website "Physician-scientists are needed so that the achievements of basic science laboratories and other focused research efforts can be translated into active clinical practice. However, the financial pressures on MD-only graduates are so great that few physicians choose to spend the time necessary to obtain research training after medical school. In order to address this issue, most MD-PhD programs pay candidates a stipend and tuition scholarships during the training years. The financial support for those willing to undertake MD-PhD training recognizes the additional time that a student must spend in training for this career."


Bottom line is if you want to do research you're going to have to put in the lab time at some point. I think it's best to do the formal phd program because a) it's free and b) I think you'll receive better training.

Yes you are.

really, how so? if you really want to do the math...it probably comes out about = but the md/phd route will give you a much more even earning over the first few years of your career and you will have more freedom because you will not be saddled with large amounts of debt.

Opportunity cost of those years >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total value of loans repaid.

If you're in $140k in debt and you have a 6% rate of interest (rather high), then you're paying $1000 a month for 20 years (cumulative payment of about $240k or ~two years of salary for a PI). That's about 8% of a PI's paycheck.

By the way, with inflation counted, that's really only a 2-3% interest rate.

Again, I think you might want to recheck the premise of some of your math here. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be, you're forgetting about taxes, mortgages, undergrad debt, etc. and your grossly over estimating the salary of a researcher.
$1000 a month is a huge amount of money...esp on a resident or post doc salary of <50K...after taxes, insurance, etc. you'll be lucky to bring home $3000/month...and then a third of that will go to loans plus you still have to pay rent/mortgage, car payment, buy food, etc.

here's some info on the debt problem

 

[physicsguy]

Heh, yes it is rare to be pre-med and physics undergrad. people always look at me like i'm crazy. it's nice to meet you and again, congrats on your success in physics. i'm sure you'll find success in medicine as well. i also hope you discover something cool! what are you working on btw?
on that qualifying exam question (on second thought.. there are worse things).

Ah, so you're a fellow physics major? Cool.

Right now I'm doing my PhD on particle astrophysics. Basically I look at gamma ray sources in the sky. Hopefully I'll be able to do something on figuring out acceleration mechanisms for blazars or supernova remnants. But there's also a good chance my thesis will be on instrumentation, which still isn't so bad.

i do recommend, if you have time before going to med school, to take biophysics and medical physics courses. i've found that us physicists tend to think differently than biology/medicine students, so having exposure to biophysics will allow you the background knowledge in both fields to learn the medical sciences analytically, rather than train your mind to change learning styles and memorize-- something i've never had to do in a physics class. i am also a natural physicist so getting to the goal of medicine has required an interdisciplinary approach for me: seeing biology and chemistry thru the lens of a physicist. you already know the formulas, but its really helpful to learn it specifically in these terms to be able to apply physics towards your future career, rather than waste all that learning to learn a totally different way of thinking. oh, its especially helpful to take biophysics before physiology 🙂

Cool, I'll try to do that. Unfortunately if I graduate in five years, I'll only be able to take six courses (not counting some psychology I'll do in the summers). But if I do a sixth year, I'll definitely look into taking the courses you recommend.

i hate programming too! 😀 thats one of the main reasons i ruled out a career in physics and stopped going back and forth on it and decided to take the medicine route. (also, i'm too much of a people person). i then decided to double-major in physics and biomedical physics and now i feel ready more than ever to switch gears into biomedical sciences!

Heh, I definitely know what you mean about programming. That was one thing that made me decide I didn't want to do physics for a living. And in fact, the reason I started looking at medicine is also because I wanted to interact with people. One of my lesser motivations for getting into med school is that I'd never have to write another program for the rest of my life!

 

[todds]

if you want to do research with an md only you'll it's possible but it is more expensive and the road is harder. you'll have to do a postdoc (avg. 35-50k/yr) for a few years to get the research experience you need, all the while interest will be accumulating on your loans and you'll probably have trouble making the payments with such a low salary. Not to mention there's no guarantee you'll even be able to find funding. getting funding for your own lab is competitive as is keeping it...

It's obviously a personal choice but if you end goal is to do some type of research you'd be a fool not to pursue md/phd

I disagree with the road is harder. In fact, there are plenty of opportunities available to those interested, its just that most students want to get making money. But the option is there and its not a harder one. There are plenty of research opportunities included within fellowships or instructor positions which give a good amount of protected time.

In fact, I think its easier to do research post-MD because you find what your research interests are.

Most faculty I know encourage students to get research experience AFTER MD, not before. The first reason I already stated above. The second one is that once you are board certified, you can supplement your income BY A LOT. So yes, you're research post-doc may be 50K, but you also may be making 50K on the side as a part time clinician. I know first hand quite a MDs in research fellowships who are making >100K. This is also possible through "Instructor" positions at places like Harvard.

So even though you will take a paycut compared to your colleagues, its not that bad.

Doing the math (MD 4 years + 5 years residency + fellowship + 3 years research = 12 years). MD/PhD 8 years + 5 yrs residency = 13 years.

Go take a look at the physician-scientist board and quite a few of them as well promote POST-MD training. There are also programs at the NIH which will pay portions of your loans while you complete a research fellowship.

Suppose you have 140K in debt like was mentioned, if you make interest payments during residency, you can likely pay off your debt in 3-4 years as a Instructor/fellow with your 100K income, especially if you get the NIH to pay back some of it as well. In this case, financially, you'll probably in the same boat as a MD/PhD except in with MD+postdoc, you will likely have more connections to your institution where you did residency + research more relevant to your clinical interests.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I work with 2 MD/PhD students who'll be out next year after 4years. I work with another one who should have been out with them at 4years, but he had to go back to take some med school classes before they changed the curriculum.

I'm not saying they don't exist, but an assumption of 3-5 years is just that: an assumption.

 

[randombetch]

really, how so? if you really want to do the math...it probably comes out about = but the md/phd route will give you a much more even earning over the first few years of your career and you will have more freedom because you will not be saddled with large amounts of debt.

It's almost equal, but not quite. The more experienced researcher always gets paid more. At age n, you'll be paid more than age n-5. Being five years behind, you'll always be paid as an n-5 year old instead of an n year old.

Again, I think you might want to recheck the premise of some of your math here. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be, you're forgetting about taxes, mortgages, undergrad debt, etc. and your grossly over estimating the salary of a researcher.
$1000 a month is a huge amount of money...esp on a resident or post doc salary of <50K...after taxes, insurance, etc. you'll be lucky to bring home $3000/month...and then a third of that will go to loans plus you still have to pay rent/mortgage, car payment, buy food, etc.

here's some info on the debt problem

It is exactly as simple as I am making it out to be. I am taking taxes into account (assuming a biomedical researcher makes ~$150k, which is very reasonable and not grossly overestimated as you claim. Average salary at Rockefeller University is about $190k). You'll be paying mortgage and undergrad debt off either way so I don't see why you're bringing it up. You don't have to pay back $1000 as a resident or post doc, and even if you did, you'd still be making more money as a resident paying off loans than as an MD/PhD student.

 

[Parts Unknown]

I doubt it...I understand what you're saying, and maybe it's the right thing for you but I just don't look at life the same way...it's not a race to me, there's not some ultimate final destination...I don't see it as wasting a few years here and a few years there, it's all an experience that shapes you.

I know you think you understand, but perspective has to be gained the hard way. Don't get me wrong, I have met a few people who abide by the "it's a journey not a destination creed"; the 9 year grad student, the 11 year postdoc, the guy on his third residency. But eventually most of us come to see that journey actually involves being a researcher, or being a physician, and not just training to be a researcher or physician.

To that end, a combined degree program will work very well for some, but you're probably being a little to exalting of it. The simple fact is that getting credentialed with a marketable set of skills earlier in life, rather than later, can be a better choice for many would-be researchers. It has its advantages, as evidenced by the multitude of successful MD-only researchers out there today.

Besides, before long you start picking up pesky things like spouses and children and pets, and they have to be fed and clothed and housed and vacationed and sent to college. All the while building a nest egg so that working at age 70 is an option rather than a necessity. It's a real drag.

 

[todds]

It's almost equal, but not quite. The more experienced researcher always gets paid more. At age n, you'll be paid more than age n-5. Being five years behind, you'll always be paid as an n-5 year old instead of an n year old.



It is exactly as simple as I am making it out to be. I am taking taxes into account (assuming a biomedical researcher makes ~$150k, which is very reasonable and not grossly overestimated as you claim. Average salary at Rockefeller University is about $190k). You'll be paying mortgage and undergrad debt off either way so I don't see why you're bringing it up. You don't have to pay back $1000 as a resident or post doc, and even if you did, you'd still be making more money as a resident paying off loans than as an MD/PhD student.

I think you really need to check out some opening offers for assistant professorships. Biomedical research DOES NOT on average make anywhere near 150K. From my personal experience in grad school, you are considered fortunate if you get a 60K offer starting as an assistant professor.

After a few years, that my go up to about 70K. Associate Professor is around 80K which is after at least 5-8 years. You crack 100K once you've reached "Professor" status and not everyone gets there.

The best researchers at an institution sometimes don't get 150K, or even the Chair of faculty, and they've been there for years.

To be at Rockefeller, you have to be the BEST OF THE BEST. Thats not a realistic picture. Becoming a professor at Harvard/Rockefeller is a far fetched dream for most. The average professor is nowhere near that pay. For Harvard actually, its much lower.

 

[BerlinDude]

Moving back to the original discussion, I'd say MDs are allowed to do research, but most can't research jack-**** (based on my personal observations). Scientific research is so complex nowadays you really need to have specialized training to do it. What's more, when you apply for grants you need to establish that you are capable of performing the stated goals of a project, and it's hard to do that without a significant research record.

There are programs (Howard Hughes, Sarnoff fellowships, etc), that allow MDs to get at least some research training, even if it's not as good as a PhD.

 

[randombetch]

I think you really need to check out some opening offers for assistant professorships. Biomedical research DOES NOT on average make anywhere near 150K. From my personal experience in grad school, you are considered fortunate if you get a 60K offer starting as an assistant professor.

After a few years, that my go up to about 70K. Associate Professor is around 80K which is after at least 5-8 years. You crack 100K once you've reached "Professor" status and not everyone gets there.

The best researchers at an institution sometimes don't get 150K, or even the Chair of faculty, and they've been there for years.

To be at Rockefeller, you have to be the BEST OF THE BEST. Thats not a realistic picture. Becoming a professor at Harvard/Rockefeller is a far fetched dream for most. The average professor is nowhere near that pay. For Harvard actually, its much lower.

PI's with MD's tend to get much higher pays than $60k assistant professorships. I have never heard of a PI with an MD making $60k a year - that's just pitiful. The PI I worked for over the summer had been a PI for one year (assistant professor) and he was making >$180k, although he was an MD/PhD. My friend's PI was an MD-only with a couple years of experience as a PI (associate professor), and he was making $150k.

I guess our experiences just differ.

 

[foster033]

Moving back to the original discussion, I'd say MDs are allowed to do research, but most can't research jack-**** (based on my personal observations). Scientific research is so complex nowadays you really need to have specialized training to do it. What's more, when you apply for grants you need to establish that you are capable of performing the stated goals of a project, and it's hard to do that without a significant research record.

There are programs (Howard Hughes, Sarnoff fellowships, etc), that allow MDs to get at least some research training, even if it's not as good as a PhD.

This!! Thank you!

if the goal is research you need to be trained in research and having an MD does jack towards that goal...doctors are NOT scientists!! MD only researchers are the exception, not the rule...and as mentioned above it can be more difficult to obtain grants.

 

[JJMrK]

This!! Thank you!

if the goal is research you need to be trained in research and having an MD does jack towards that goal...doctors are NOT scientists!! MD only researchers are the exception, not the rule...and as mentioned above it can be more difficult to obtain grants.

Can I ask what your experience with this is?

 

[foster033]

I know you think you understand, but perspective has to be gained the hard way. Don't get me wrong, I have met a few people who abide by the "it's a journey not a destination creed"; the 9 year grad student, the 11 year postdoc, the guy on his third residency. But eventually most of us come to see that journey actually involves being a researcher, or being a physician, and not just training to be a researcher or physician.

Listen, not to be rude...but maybe you are the one who doesn't understand...I completely respect your opinion, but I think you are the one who has little perspective if you can't understand mine. Not everyone lives life the same way, and not everyone has the same ultimate goal. I have no desire to be the 9 year grad student...I think you are misunderstanding the point...if you race through the training trying to get done as quickly as possible to get to the "being" you are going to be considerably worse at the "being"..not to mention in research, as well as medicine the training part is never complete. techniques and procedures change rapidly and you are, or should be, constantly training.

 

[Melicopter]

I doubt it...I understand what you're saying, and maybe it's the right thing for you but I just don't look at life the same way...it's not a race to me, there's not some ultimate final destination...I don't see it as wasting a few years here and a few years there, it's all an experience that shapes you. Doing research puts the clinical aspect of medicine in perspective for me and I can not even imagine applying to med school without the "real-life" experiences I've had over the last 3 years...

I completely agree with this. I've worked in research for 2 years, and I love it. I was considering applying to MD/PhD programs for a couple of reasons: 1) I love research, so would likely enjoy my time doing the research, and 2) I want to keep my options open so I can do either research or clinical work or both.

After discussing my options (and my desire to focus more on clinical work) with a few people, I realized that the things I like in research are the procedures and the results. I don't like writing grant applications. I don't even like reading grant applications. The PIs I work for spend an incredible amount of time writing.

I hope that as a doctor I can partner with people who are working in research, but I don't want to be a PI, so I don't think I need the MD/PhD.

The main point, in case I lost you, is that the reasons for MD/PhD should not be the money. Realistically, if you're a PI your money situation is potentially unstable until you are somewhat established. It also should not be the time. If you enjoy research, your time doing your doctorate research will be rewarding. If you don't enjoy research, why are you even considering this?

This is your life, not a means to an end. Live for what you love, not to get through it.

 

[foster033]

Can I ask what your experience with this is?

Well here's my basic research background/background with md and md/phd research...

received a highly competitive research internship at a fortune500 co. during college
got a research job at said fortune500 co. after college (managerial track)
left job to pursue academic research
work in a lab with an MD only PI; recently promoted to lab manager
currently a consultant for a pharmaceutical company (part time)
have trained high school/undergrad/grad students/MDs (MDs were by far the worst!)
have presented posters/abstracts at national conferences
boyfriend worked in lab of md/phd who was on med school and md/phd adcoms
boyfriend currently works in the lab of md/phd director and part-time at [different] pharmaceutical company

Okay, I'm going to say this one more time and then I'm done...because I feel I'm repeating myself a lot.
It all boils down to this for me...if you want to do a job you need to be adequately trained for said job...yes, you can do postdoc after getting your MD, but it's just not the same as getting your phd, those people put in 80 hour weeks for 5+ years and you are going to be directly competing with them. If you're able to supplement your postdoc salary with clinical work you aren't putting in enough time in the lab. There are programs that produce highly competent MD only researchers, and there are MD only researchers who put in the time needed after residency (what my PI did) to learn the ropes in a lab...but this is not an easier path...you still have to do the work, you are saddled with debt, and you general get less respect from md/phd and phd researchers...I think with the current trend of increasing competitiveness in funding and the increasing number of md/phd students being trained it's going to be even more difficult in the future for md only researchers.

 

[JJMrK]

Well here's my basic research background/background with md and md/phd research...

received a highly competitive research internship at a fortune500 co. during college
got a research job at said fortune500 co. after college (managerial track)
left job to pursue academic research
work in a lab with an MD only PI; recently promoted to lab manager
currently a consultant for a pharmaceutical company (part time)
have trained high school/undergrad/grad students/MDs (MDs were by far the worst!)
have presented posters/abstracts at national conferences
boyfriend worked in lab of md/phd who was on med school and md/phd adcoms
boyfriend currently works in the lab of md/phd director and part-time at [different] pharmaceutical company

Pretty impressive, congrats on your accomplishments. Admittedly I don't know as much about the subject as you, but IMO this is too strong of a stance:

It's obviously a personal choice but if you end goal is to do some type of research you'd be a fool not to pursue md/phd

To me, "some type of research" includes a lot of things, including small projects. I'm interested in research, but I don't want it to be the basis of my career. I've worked for an MD only PI, and the scope of the projects he is involved in seems perfect for me. IMO, I'd be foolish to pursue an MD/PhD because of the associated opportunity costs.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Listen, not to be rude...but maybe you are the one who doesn't understand...I completely respect your opinion, but I think you are the one who has little perspective if you can't understand mine.

That's just it, I totally understand your perspective. I used to be in your shoes, saying the same things. I get it. That's why I'm here to tell you, angling for your first "real" job when you're middle aged and broke, well, it sucks.

...if you race through the training trying to get done as quickly as possible

I'm not saying you should "race through training." Everyone who wants to play the game has to put in the time. But you do seem okay taking a very meandering path, and if that works for you, great. But a lot of people (myself included) who start down the long, winding road end up with some measure of regret, so beware. The journey looks a lot different at this end than it did at the outset.

With regard to gaining experiences that make you a better researcher/physician, I totally agree with you, but it comes down to an analysis of cost:benefit. I could spend years doing all manner of low-yield activities, but sooner or later I'm going to have to step up and practice. And that practice will give me the best training of all.

 

[Parts Unknown]

but it's just not the same as getting your phd, those people put in 80 hour weeks for 5+ years

Eighty hours a week? Maybe if you count time spent at the bar.

If you're ever in a situation where your PI expects that much of your time, you are getting used.

 

[Parts Unknown]

Moving back to the original discussion, I'd say MDs are allowed to do research, but most can't research jack-**** (based on my personal observations).

Very true. To be a good researcher takes devotion, and it has gotten practically impossible to be a competent clinician and run a lab. Most of what you are seeing is MD dabbling, which I agree can be pretty awful to observe.

 

[mdeast]

Because it's free....and 3-5 years is not that long in the grand scheme of things.

Research does not pay as well as clinical work...an MD only will have loans to pay back and that might be difficult with a reduced salary. It is also sometimes harder to get grants with an MD only and you are not as well prepared for a career in research unless you do some kind of post doc after your MD or residency.

Just a heads up: If you end up doing research at any time during your career full-time in an NIH funded lab there's actually loan repayment programs that will help you pay back your med school loans (up to about 30k/year). You have to apply but most people who do end up getting it. You may be making less but you'll get help to get your finances in order if you make that sacrifice.

 

[foster033]

Just a heads up: If you end up doing research at any time during your career full-time in an NIH funded lab there's actually loan repayment programs that will help you pay back your med school loans (up to about 30k/year). You have to apply but most people who do end up getting it. You may be making less but you'll get help to get your finances in order if you make that sacrifice.

I'm aware of programs like this, but they are by no means a guarantee...from what I've seen only 40% of those who apply get loan assistance, and even then it's only up to 35k/yr depending on a variety of factors, meaning many probably get less than that. It also seems like there is some restriction in the areas of research you can pursue.

Again, I've never said it's impossible, it's not, but I do think it's harder and there are more hoops you have to jump through...if you know that you want to do a significant amount of research then I would really recommend an md/phd to prepare yourself for that.

I generally think of these programs as being useful for people who decide after their MD degree that they would like to pursue research or for those who were unable to gain admission into md/phd programs and are now exploring other avenues to reach their dreams.

 

[kami333]

Eighty hours a week? Maybe if you count time spent at the bar.

If you're ever in a situation where your PI expects that much of your time, you are getting used.

That's probably why the students at your school take 6years😛

 

[URHere]

I'm kind of disturbed that this thread has become such a raging financial debate. Yes, fully funded programs are a god-send, but I think that most MD/PhD students and graduates will agree that pursuing an MD/PhD program for the money alone is a terrible decision.

My opinion on the matter is this: MD-only researches can be excellent researchers. When it comes to clinical research, I think that those with actual clinical experience have an insane advantage...and, when it comes to research on pathways, proteins, etc anyone with a solid background in the area AND an understanding of how to do solid research can be an outstanding scientist. For an MD-only physician, this usually means either having a strong research background or completing a research fellowship, but it can absolutely be done.

However, the further the research gets from the clinical realm, the more difficult it is for someone without specific research training in that area to grasp the concepts. If an MD researcher wants to become involved with biomedical engineering, for example, medical school and a fellowship alone are probably not enough to give them the training they need. In those cases, a PhD is invaluable.

There are many reasons to pursue an MD/PhD. Some know that they will need in-depth, specialized training. Others really want to make connections and establish themselves in a field before floundering around post-residency (it is very hard to establish a lab without seeking guidance from those who have been there). Some of us, really just miss research too much when we spend all of our time with patients (and vice versa). The money is a help, but not the reason. The degree is too long, and too frustrating for that.