Combining MD/PhD in practice

[stillsmilin]

---

Members do not see this ad.

If someone looked into a crystal ball and told you that you wouldnt be able to do end up doing both research and clinical, that youd have to choose, would you regret MSTP?

And if you ended up doing one, would you feel like MSTP had failed and that the federal funding should have been diverted eslewhere?

 

[tedrik]

The MSTP would have failed for me if I ended up with a clinical only career. Having the medical training will be highly beneficial for a research career and this is what I am hoping to gain from an MD/PhD program. However, if I ended up doing 100% research, then I would still be very happy with my training.

 

[huseyin]

The MSTP would have failed for me if I ended up with a clinical only career. Having the medical training will be highly beneficial for a research career and this is what I am hoping to gain from an MD/PhD program. However, if I ended up doing 100% research, then I would still be very happy with my training.

Hey:

I agree. If i knew that I would be doing only clinical stuff, then I would not pursue MSTP. On the other hand (if life takes me to there, for some reason if I have to do only clinical stuff) I think my PhD life will not be a total waste of time. I feel like during the PhD one gains a certain discipline and tons of other skills and one may still use these in the clinic.

 

[stillsmilin]

The MSTP would have failed for me if I ended up with a clinical only career. Having the medical training will be highly beneficial for a research career and this is what I am hoping to gain from an MD/PhD program. However, if I ended up doing 100% research, then I would still be very happy with my training.

i agree with the clinical only, but for the research only, with 0% patient contact, you would not be translating your research to the clinic. and if mstp isnt designed to prepare ppl to do that, what will? who is going to do the translating?

 

[Primate]

Real translational research happens almost exclusively in industry (with the RARE exception in academia), if one defines translational research as actually taking something from the lab and "into" patients. However, having an MD informs and influences the direction of one's research. In this way, at least this is the hope, one can use clinical experience to ask the relevant questions that will, if not result directly in a therapy, build the base of knowledge necessary to eventually treat a disease. The MD training is traditionally more to influence the type of lab work one does, not the other way round. At least that's the traditional idea.

Looking at it this way, the MD/PhD isn't wasted even if one is 100% in the lab, as long as the MD experience still informs the way one approaches science.

my tuppence

 

[uproarhz]

I was going to say exactly what Primate said about the translational research goes. I think many people who actually end up doing both even don't do REAL translational research. In a way, you are just laying the foundation in many cases. So I would agree with everyone's opinion that a 100% MD would be a near failure of the MSTP goal. But 100% research is still in line, as long as it has a medical base to it, instead of purely basic science that has little if any relavance to human health and disease. So it somewhat depends on the area of research you end up doing too.

So just out of curiousty, is that a question that you were asked at an interview or where you just wondering?

 

[stillsmilin]

So just out of curiousty, is that a question that you were asked at an interview or where you just wondering?

haha, no, it was not a question i was asked, but just something i was wondering because i noticed that a lot of md/phd's don't end up doing both, often because of logistics. i really want to do both, and i would be really sad if i didnt do patient-oriented research or see patients. but it seems like you just cant predict where youll end up.

 

[uproarhz]

haha, no, it was not a question i was asked, but just something i was wondering because i noticed that a lot of md/phd's don't end up doing both, often because of logistics. i really want to do both, and i would be really sad if i didnt do patient-oriented research or see patients. but it seems like you just cant predict where youll end up.

Well, no you can't exactly control where you end up at, and I think that is the most decisive factor in deciding whether you're gonna end up doing both or only one. So if you are set to do both, just make sure tou choose your residency and place for post doc/career wisely. I personally think a research hospital or medical school sort of place is the best place to do both at. But even there I imagine there is a huge difference between places.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the break down of how you spend your time might vary in different stages of your career. For example, while you are trying to get your foot in the door as a scientist you may have to spend much more time in the lab to establish yourself. Once you actually get a lab of your own and your role in the research becomes more of the manager/mentor/advocate than the actual experimenter, you get more time for doing patient-related stuff.
Good luck and hope you get what you want out of this loooooooooong road 👍

 

[stillsmilin]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the break down of how you spend your time might vary in different stages of your career. For example, while you are trying to get your foot in the door as a scientist you may have to spend much more time in the lab to establish yourself. Once you actually get a lab of your own and your role in the research becomes more of the manager/mentor/advocate than the actual experimenter, you get more time for doing patient-related stuff.
Good luck and hope you get what you want out of this loooooooooong road 👍

thanks for the advice and thanks for the encouragement, right back atchya!