Clinical Research vs Lab based research

[rajp98]

Is either one more preferred when it comes to admissions?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[clippers50fan]

Is either one more preferred when it comes to admissions?

Whatever you do, be involved in the scientific thinking behind it, not just a lab rat or a stats boy.

 

[NotaCop]

If you have very strong lab bench career interests or want top 10 or md/PhD do lab science. Otherwise do clinical, work with patients. PM me if you'd like my take on this past year that I've worked as a CRC

 

[mimelim]

If you have very strong lab bench career interests or want top 10 or md/PhD do lab science. Otherwise do clinical, work with patients. PM me if you'd like my take on this past year that I've worked as a CRC

Can you share a link or quote a source other than yourself for any of this? I've been involved in research for more than a decade and been involved in medical school admissions for 5+ years and have never heard any of this.

Is either one more preferred when it comes to admissions?

No. Admissions committees want to see two things from research. #1 Productivity - Nobody likes wasted time. If you are doing something, job, school, research, volunteering, you should produce something. Otherwise, what are you doing? #2 Learn something - There are many valuable lessons to be learned from being involved in research. Not limited to, how to read papers, how to write papers, how to formulate a hypothesis, how to design an experiment, how to collect and organize data, how to perform basic statistical analysis etc. Clinical or basic science research doesn't matter.

 

[NotaCop]

Can you share a link or quote a source other than yourself for any of this?

Nope, hence why I said "if you want my take." My take here being, in a more drawn out phrasing, that clinical is a more valuable pre-MD experience in general because it allows you to test-drive working with patients before going $300k into debt to do it for the rest of your life, but if OP has a true passion for lab research they should follow that instead.

The kid is asking for advice. Better in my eyes to offer some sort of opinion to help him make a decision instead of the general "it doesn't f*****g matter" that is the norm around here for these types of questions.

I will admit that I missed the "when it comes to admissions" part and thought OP was just asking which was better in general, so sorry for misleading you mimelim. But overall I still feel like doing what fits best with personal interests and personal story will add the most strength to an application as it gives you more genuine experiences to write/talk about than just checking a box will, so I feel my advice is still valid even without a bibliography. Disclaimer, it's nearly April and I haven't been accepted anywhere so maybe my advice is worthless. Who knows.

 

[JustAPhD]

It's simple. Do whichever interests you the most, OP.

 

[Lawpy]

Is either one more preferred when it comes to admissions?

Either works fine. Moreover, there are applicants who did non-medically related research (like astrophysics, particle physics, ant behavior research, historical analyses etc.) and still got into medical school (including Top 10). Of course, it'd be harder to tie in interests with medicine with these types of research but it can be done.

 

[mimelim]

Nope, hence why I said "if you want my take." My take here being, in a more drawn out phrasing, that clinical is a more valuable pre-MD experience in general because it allows you to test-drive working with patients before going $300k into debt to do it for the rest of your life, but if OP has a true passion for lab research they should follow that instead.

The kid is asking for advice. Better in my eyes to offer some sort of opinion to help him make a decision instead of the general "it doesn't f*****g matter" that is the norm around here for these types of questions.

I will admit that I missed the "when it comes to admissions" part and thought OP was just asking which was better in general, so sorry for misleading you mimelim. But overall I still feel like doing what fits best with personal interests and personal story will add the most strength to an application as it gives you more genuine experiences to write/talk about than just checking a box will, so I feel my advice is still valid even without a bibliography. Disclaimer, it's nearly April and I haven't been accepted anywhere so maybe my advice is worthless. Who knows.

I think you need to be careful about saying that something is "better", even in general. The vast majority of basic science will never provide any benefit to anyone (other than prestige for the authors). Every once in a while someone will discover/prove something that will fundamentally shift what and how people think, but it is relatively rare. On the other hand, while there is a ton of crap science and worthless clinical research that comes out every month, much more is applicable and changes what people do. I began publishing seriously in the clinical realm 2 years ago. Within that two years, we have changed what we do for patients and just two weeks ago at SCVS, a presenter quoted my work and talked about how it changed what they do day to day for patients. In general, clinical research gets extrapolated into real world benefit much more quickly and much more often. That doesn't make it "better". Just different. For every benefit of basic science research there is a benefit for clinical research. You need both to keep science moving along. Do the basic science papers I put into Nature or PNAS mean a lot more than any of my clinical research? Yes, of course, probably will impress more people. But, I would just be careful when you simply say, "is better" especially when not talking about some small aspect that is easily defensible.

I will also say, sometimes the answer really is, "It doesn't matter". Even if there are innate preferences, sometimes the care level of the average adcom is so low compared to other things, the actual correct answer is, "It doesn't matter, spend your time thinking about other things."

I do wholeheartedly agree about genuine experiences being the end goal, regardless of type of research. They are by far the most beneficial for admissions.

 

[Goro]

As long as you're learning something about the scientific method, either is fine.

EDIT: Quoting one of my favorite all time SDN quotes from the wise @DrMidlife :
"you've preferably had some exposure to research so you can be convinced that Wakefield used malicious dirtbag methods and is not the savior of the world's children."

Is either one more preferred when it comes to admissions?

 

[NotaCop]

I do wholeheartedly agree about genuine experiences being the end goal, regardless of type of research. They are by far the most beneficial for admissions.

Chopped the quote down for thread length/scrolling purposes only.

The whole post is a valuable perspective, I'm glad you added it and OP surely is to. Thanks as always for the wisdom mimelim

 

[learnerforlife!]

If you have very strong lab bench career interests or want top 10 or md/PhD do lab science. Otherwise do clinical, work with patients. PM me if you'd like my take on this past year that I've worked as a CRC

What is a CRC? Also, to me, lab based research does not sound interesting. I like clinical research since I am going to interact with patients and analyze data. I was wondering, do you think I would be a better fit for clinical research? Is is smart to do both clinical and lab based research the same time or would that be hard?

 

[JustAPhD]

What is a CRC? Also, to me, lab based research does not sound interesting. I like clinical research since I am going to interact with patients and analyze data. I was wondering, do you think I would be a better fit for clinical research? Is is smart to do both clinical and lab based research the same time or would that be hard?

Clinical research coordinator most likely. If you're most interested in clinical research then do that. You don't need basic science, wetlab research to be a successful applicant.

Edit: didn't catch the bump.

 

[learnerforlife!]

Clinical research coordinator most likely. If you're most interested in clinical research then do that. You don't need basic science, wetlab research to be a successful applicant.

Edit: didn't catch the bump.

Thanks. What does bump mean?