My main interests do correlate with both clinical and translational research pathways, but I am having difficulty locating any translational research PhD programs. Would you happen to have further information on these programs?
The problem with a "translational research PhD" is that nobody has a great definition for what exactly is translational research. I like to break PhDs down into basic science and social science because that's easier to define. MD/PhD programs are generally much more basic science leaning. I recommend them for people looking for a majority basic science career. But there are exceptions to this (social scientists mostly, but it's still relatively uncommon).
Neuronix, would you recommend considering an MD/MS or DO/MS program that focuses on clinical or translation research, instead? An MS in the basic sciences may also be beneficial to an MD applicant hoping to engage in future clinical or translational research, but I am not certain if it would be more or less helpful than other options.
Nobody can tell you for sure what your best option is. If you want to have a career that involves more than 20% clinical research (rough estimate), you'll need substantial research experience somewhere in your training. Whether you're best served by one year, a PhD, when that year is, what work it's in, nobody can really tell you for sure. There's no hard data on this. What I generally do is ask pre-meds what their interests are and go from there.
If you're leaning towards clinical/translational research more than 20% of the time, my standard advice is to try for a MD/MS program or other year out programs where you will get some experience (whether that's in social, basic science, or clinical research it's all based on you). Certainly any school will let you take a year out to get an extra degree (MPH, MS 1-2 years, or just a year out for research somewhere), but the question is whether you will get any medical school tuition break for doing this. Most schools you will not, and that's why CCLCM and Pitt's program are great. They force you to do it, but you get a nice scholarship in the process.
If you ask other people you might get slightly different answers because again this is my advice but there are no hard and fast rules.
In terms of the MD vs. DO options, could a DO possibly be a worse route to take in terms of research opportunities?
100 times yes. I get flamed occasionally by the DOs (or caribs) for this sort of talk, but DO programs are geared towards primary care. Their residencies are also geared towards primary care. DOs CAN match allopathic programs, but for big name academic places where you'd get the research training this is a big stretch. A few osteopathic schools are attached to allopathic schools, but otherwise the osteopathic schools have little research on their own. Sure, you can take time out to do research, but the opportunities are not like they would be for allopathic programs.