cancer research

[ZanMD]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought I'd try here. I've always been interested in doing cancer research. I'd considered going for the MSTP, but the problem is that I'm a nontrad student, and time is precious, so I feel like I'm too old to pursue this route. Does anyone know if there are opportunities for MD's to pursue cancer research? If so, what options do I have? In the words of the bloodhound gang, "I'd appreciate a little input"

 

[pathdr2b]

Hi ZanMD!

I'm also nontrad (by gender, race, age, and social status) and I'll be applying MD/PhD next summer. I'm currently working on my PhD in Molecular Pathology through a fellowship at NIH/NCI and my dissertation work will likely focus on the proteomics of cancer.
Here at NIH, there are many opprotunites to pursue research but more exist if you have the MD/PhD. I personally don't believe that age should be a determent to any career goal especially if you "plan" on being around at a particular age anyway😉

Check out the following website for more details. Good Luck!!!

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/funding/training/redbook/gradirta.htm

 

[Neuronix]

Hi Zan. Without going into alot of detail I can tell you that there is plenty of opportunity for medical students to do research while in medical school and after medical school. If you are a student now, I'm sure that there is someone at your school who would be happy to talk to you about options. If you are not in medical school yet, just rest assured that you will be able to get funding for summers or years out of research. Though it would benefit you to select a medical school that has a significant amount of medical research because that will provide you with the most opportunity. To use some sort of baseline, any school in the top-50 USNews would fit that criterion, and probably most other medical schools as well.

Typically a med school will have money set aside so that you can work for a summer or two in a lab and make some nominal amount of cash. There are also opportunities for you to do years out, either at your home institution or with fellowship money from the NIH or HHMI or other instutions.

If you actually decide you'd like to do research the rest of your life, you can still do that with a MD. You may have some catching up to do that will end up taking you as long as the MD/PhD combo would have, but don't worry that you are cutting yourself off from research by persuing the MD-only path.

Good luck!

 

[ZanMD]

Thanks for the advice guys. Good to know I have a lot of options. I haven't totally counted out the PHD, but it's a long shot.

One other question. What financial possibilities are there for MD/PHD's? Are the grants enough live off of? Am I forsaking a lucrative career in medicine to do research?

 

[Neuronix]

Originally posted by ZanMD
One other question. What financial possibilities are there for MD/PHD's? Are the grants enough live off of? Am I forsaking a lucrative career in medicine to do research?

My general estimate is that MD/PhDs who do research make 1/4 - 1/2 of what MDs make, unless you go into industry. There is the potential for a good salary in academic research, however it also takes alot of years and alot of success to get there. If you're looking for a lucrative career, clinical academic medicine or especially private practice medicine are the ways to go. However, the MD/PhD is not meant for or geared towards either of these more lucerative paths. This is why most MD/PhD programs are fully-funded. When you're making around 60k/year in basic science research, you can't be burdened by 200k+ in loans.

 

[ZanMD]

OK well that clears it up. I have a lot of time to decide. I've always wanted to do cancer cell and genome research, but I'll have to weigh the pros and cons Lots of time to decide

 

[Newquagmire]

Originally posted by ZanMD
Does anyone know if there are opportunities for MD's to pursue cancer research?

Ditto on what's already been said. The people I worked with last year were what the MD-PhD community terms "late bloomers" (i.e. they were MD-only graduates who went into academic medicine [researching leukemia]). You won't make as much money, but it may make you happier.

 

[ZanMD]

Good, becuase I'm all about the happiness

 

[dl2dp2]

be careful about what makes you happy now. once you start a career in research, you'll soon enough realize that there are a lot of crappy things that happen in the academia and a lot of great things that happen in the clinics

i don't know if i'm at the position to give you any advice (as an MD/PhD student). if you search the forum, you'll see my calculation and analysis on various programs. my basic point was that if you want to save time and get a tenured position as fast as possible, go with MD-only, espeically when you are not absloutely sure which area of research you want to go into. In your case, I strongly suggest MD-only route because honestly there is nothing you can't gain later on, but you'd lose valuable time as you are no longer young. (provided that you can handle the financial burden for right now via loans and grants)

Later on you may change your mind about research versus clinics. If you decide not to do research, a PhD would be completely wasted. if you decide to do research, an md-only training + post-doc will not handicap you in a clincial department.

Originally posted by ZanMD
Good, becuase I'm all about the happiness

 

[Newquagmire]

Originally posted by sluox
be careful about what makes you happy now. once you start a career in research, you'll soon enough realize that there are a lot of crappy things that happen in the academia and a lot of great things that happen in the clinics.

True. This is why I said "may make you happier." Not sure how "non-trad" you are, but if you're not quite there yet (like myself), at one point in your life you may start to think about settling down with a family and raising children of your own. Sometimes that's not so easy on a scientist's budget. This is only one part of the lifestyle that you should consider...

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by sluox
I strongly suggest MD-only route because honestly there is nothing you can't gain later on, but you'd lose valuable time as you are no longer young. (provided that you can handle the financial burden for right now via loans and grants)

I usually save these comments for the allopathic threads, but
🙄 🙄 🙄

Originally posted by sluox
Later on you may change your mind about research versus clinics. If you decide not to do research, a PhD would be completely wasted. if you decide to do research, an md-only training + post-doc will not handicap you in a clincial department.

Even if the OP decided not to do research, he'll make a better salary most places no matter what he does just becasue she/he also has a PhD. So common give me a break, on what planet and in what universe is a PhD a wasted degree? (unless of course, it's in basket weaving

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by Newquagmire
Sometimes that's not so easy on a scientist's budget. This is only one part of the lifestyle that you should consider...

NIH recently advertised a Neoropathologsit position at a salary range of 90K-120K. So I'll ask this question again from another thread, geez how much money does a person need to live a decent lifestyle?

 

[noy]

At 90-120k, is your spouse an orthopedic surgeon?

Remember, the poor physician scientist can always marry the rich physician 😎

 

[pathdr2b]

Originally posted by noy
At 90-120k, is your spouse an orthopedic surgeon?

Remember, the poor physician scientist can always marry the rich physician 😎

Or in my case, the rich Engineer/CEO

 

[Newquagmire]

Originally posted by pathdr2b
NIH recently advertised a Neoropathologsit position at a salary range of 90K-120K. So I'll ask this question again from another thread, geez how much money does a person need to live a decent lifestyle?

How many positions did the NIH advertise? Probably just one.

How many physician-scientists are there? More than one.

Yes, it's possible to make a 235325345 digit salary, but this is true of any profession from baseball to CEO/engineering. Not everybody who enters a profession will achieve or desire the high-paying positions (which is also true of medicine). More than likely, those that do will have to go through some gruntwork before getting there anyway...

 

[ZanMD]

Well to give you guys some perspective, I'm currently in a very lucrative career in the IT field already. Without going into specifics, I'm already doing about as well as I would as a research scientist, and if I continued on my career path I could make pretty close to, if not at a 6 figure salary. So trust me when I say, it's not about the money.😎 I'm 28, btw. And I'm willing to sacrifice another 12 years of my life to do something I actually believe in.

And for those not in the know, if you're making 60-90K/year and married to a wife who has a decent job, you will live very comfortably. No you won't drive a ferrari, or take trips to bora bora every year(unless yuo're just irresponsible) but you'll do very well. Unless you have to have a 5000 sq ft house, you don't need more than that. I'd be very happy on that amount of money. But then I'm not really a materialist.


So I guess if I really want to do research in Cancer, HIV/AIDS or a similar field, the pay would be well worth it. But I'm thinking MD first with a post grad.

 

[dl2dp2]

MD/PhDs do not make more than MDs if they practice in the clinics. Hence the PhD would indeed be a "wasted" degree

Originally posted by pathdr2b
I usually save these comments for the allopathic threads, but
🙄 🙄 🙄

Even if the OP decided not to do research, he'll make a better salary most places no matter what he does just becasue she/he also has a PhD. So common give me a break, on what planet and in what universe is a PhD a wasted degree? (unless of course, it's in basket weaving