Computational backgrounds for med school apps... or PhD route?

[BraveNewWorld]

Hi, I'm really interested in pursuing a degree in CS and biology, doing research in computational biology and using technology as a way to improve the way medicine functions. I am convinced that CS + Bio combined, not just pure bio, is the future of medicine. I read that some med schools liked computational biology such as Harvard, but not sure if it will be weighted extremely heavily. Either way, I'd like to possibly do a MD PhD and possibly do academic medicine, but one of my friends told me that I shouldn't pursue a med school degree as a "stepping stone in academia" Also, if I was interested in research I should just forgo med school and just do PhD. He also told me that MD/PhDs tend to do very non-cutting edge, "blue-collared" clinical-based research, as opposed to the super cool bioinformatics things.

So, my questions are: (1) How useful is it, really, to have a MD if you want to do cutting-edge research? (2) What are the advantages of having a MD as a physician-scientist? (3) Do med schools really value a computational background, and if so what is the incentive behind this?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Funny_Current]

First off, as a bioinformatics buff I personally think you are awesome for even considering this! Secondly, I'm sure your friend means well, but I would be corresponding with adcoms at schools who value an interest in CS. You will get more than just opinions. Finally, you may want to consider a bioinformatics degree because it is heavily based in computer science, but you also get the added bonus of exploring other sciences like genomics, proteomics, and computational biology. Edit: you also don't have to double major and risk overwhelming yourself. A double major with <3.5 does not look as good as a single major with >3.5

To address your questions, it really comes down to how involved you want to be with patients. Do you feel compelled to have that human interaction that is unique to physicians? If not, it's okay. CS and bioinformatics still contribute to the welfare of humanity, it's just "behind the scenes." I've shadowed two MD/PhDs and they have both told me that with or without the PhD, they could just as easily participate in research. The bonus of a PhD is a heightened understanding in your area of interest. Medical schools love diversity. If you are able to bring something unique to the table (and have all of your required classes), then there is nothing wrong with having a non-traditional degree. Just a thought, but I would be less concerned with what looks good and more concerned about how good you can be at something that will contribute to medicine, a PhD, or even both if you want to be a rockstar. Hope this was helpful!

 

[DumboOctopus]

I did theoretical physics (totally not medically relevant) research as my undergraduate thesis and was accepted to multiple top schools I say go for it!

I'm also interested in academia, but find md phd to be too time intensive. There's always research fellowships and such later on once you find a research question relevant to your ultimate practice. A phd is great but def not necessary. I am matriculating to an md-only very research heavy program this year that will be just as helpful to my career goals. My ranking for academia: md >= md phd > phd.

I don't think it helps or hurts either way to have a background in computational research-- as long as in interviews you can speak intelligently about your research, you will find success as an applicant. At most, it helps you stand out. The other pro is you get to publish a lot more frequently than in basic science, so there's that.

 

[eteshoe]

Agree for the most part with the previous posts.

Also I am doing computational research for my PhD (with a bit of wet lab stuff as well). Many of the top research schools do appreciate this type of research so you're not putting yourself at any disadvantage if you choose the MD/PhD route and academia.

I would like to clarify that you won't necessarily publish that much faster/frequently doing computational work (unless you're just developing algorithms) since most of the top journals would also need wet lab data to back up your findings.

So in summary:
1. MDs and MD/PhDs can both do cutting edge research as long as they're willing to devote most of their time to their research program (e.g. 75%+).

2. IMO the only advantage an MD provides as a physician scientist is that you get to see human patients and if your research funding gets tight you can always pick up a heavier clinical load to make ends meet.

3. Med schools 'love' diversity so you won't be at any disadvantage. MD/PhD programs are seeing the trend of computation in medical research and will definitely appreciate someone with the relevant background or willingness to learn the stuff.

 

[Sardinia]

.

 

[mimelim]

Hi, I'm really interested in pursuing a degree in CS and biology, doing research in computational biology and using technology as a way to improve the way medicine functions. I am convinced that CS + Bio combined, not just pure bio, is the future of medicine. I read that some med schools liked computational biology such as Harvard, but not sure if it will be weighted extremely heavily. Either way, I'd like to possibly do a MD PhD and possibly do academic medicine, but one of my friends told me that I shouldn't pursue a med school degree as a "stepping stone in academia" Also, if I was interested in research I should just forgo med school and just do PhD. He also told me that MD/PhDs tend to do very non-cutting edge, "blue-collared" clinical-based research, as opposed to the super cool bioinformatics things.

So, my questions are: (1) How useful is it, really, to have a MD if you want to do cutting-edge research? (2) What are the advantages of having a MD as a physician-scientist? (3) Do med schools really value a computational background, and if so what is the incentive behind this?

I specifically look for pre-meds with a CS background to support our research. I have a very cursory programming background with no formal CS training (lets call me a Level 3) and have found that I am able to solve problems because of this (in the research/quality realm) much faster than others around me. I have access to three Level 10 individuals who are working for start-ups, Epic etc who guide a lot of my work and have recruited pre-meds with Level 4-7 to work in our lab with us. They are incredibly uncommon.

Lets call MS3 - Level 1, Intern - Level 3, PGY 4 - Level 6, PGY 6 - Level 8 and PGY 8 - Level 10 in the clinical realm. (these are all bull**** designations that I am making up to illustrate a point.

The number with Level 1 of either and Level 3+ of the other are a dime a dozen. There are extremely few individuals with Level 3 CS AND Clinical knowledge. The problem with clinical Level 1/2 knowledge (or in many cases sub Level 6) is that you can see problems or are exposed to people complaining about problems, but you really don't understand those problems. If you don't understand the problems, you can not create a lasting solution. On the flip side, when you have Level 1/2 CS knowledge, you have no idea what is possible. Further, even if you realize that something is possible, you don't understand how feasible something is or how much work it will take to change/implement something. The classic is when my attendings say, "It would be cool if we had a system that did XYZ. It would be easy to setup". What they don't realize is that THEIR component will be easy, but building it into the rest of the user's workflow with minimal interruption is not so easy and we can only do so much on a software/system side.

So, is it valuable, yes. McKinsey came knocking again a couple of weeks ago (third time). Epic offered me a job yesterday. You will be incredibly valuable if you have a CS/informatics background in medicine. However, my warning is simple. Medical training is long. It is hard. It is not to be taken lightly. Even with maximal effort, many people can not get into medical school and of those that get in, many struggle. Trying to do multiple things dilutes your focus. If you can not perform at a high level while doing all of those other things, it is not worth doing both. Nobody cares if you are a Level 6 CS if you have a hard time maintaining a reasonable GPA, get a decent MCAT score and do the typical ECs.

 

[JustAPhD]

Agree for the most part with the previous posts.

Also I am doing computational research for my PhD (with a bit of wet lab stuff as well). Many of the top research schools do appreciate this type of research so you're not putting yourself at any disadvantage if you choose the MD/PhD route and academia.

I would like to clarify that you won't necessarily publish that much faster/frequently doing computational work (unless you're just developing algorithms) since most of the top journals would also need wet lab data to back up your findings.

So in summary:
1. MDs and MD/Ph.Ds can both do cutting edge research as long as they're willing to devote most of their time to their research program (e.g. 75%+)

2. IMO the only advantage an MD provides as a physician scientist is that you get to see human patients and if your research funding gets tight you can always pick up a heavier clinical load to make ends meet.

3. Med schools 'love' diversity so you won't be at any disadvantage. MD/PhD programs are seeing the trend of computation in medical research and will definitely appreciate someone with the relevant background or willingness to learn the stuff.

Very true, but this is easier said than done for many, many MD/PhDs. I have a buddy who's an MD/PhD at a large state school's med school. His time is split 80% research 20% clinical on his contract. In reality this ends up being 80% research 80% clinical. This obviously adds up to be more than 100%, and you can bet the hospital is making sure his clinic responsibilities aren't the part that's getting cut into.

Honestly if you're interested in compbio research I'm not sure there's many advantages to being an MD as well unless you really want to have that patient interaction (which is totally ok!).

 

[eteshoe]

Very true, but this is easier said than done for many, many MD/PhDs. I have a buddy who's an MD/PhD at a large state school's med school. His time is split 80% research 20% clinical on his contract. In reality this ends up being 80% research 80% clinical. This obviously adds up to be more than 100%, and you can bet the hospital is making sure his clinic responsibilities aren't the part that's getting cut into.

Honestly if you're interested in compbio research I'm not sure there's many advantages to being an MD as well unless you really want to have that patient interaction (which is totally ok!).

lol - I definitely wonder if some of the MD/PhDs at my school actually sleep at all.

 

[Lucca]

If you want to do medicine and see patients then you are going to need an MD. If all you want to do is research, a PhD can get you there and in CS there will be plenty of opportunities outside of academia should that not work out or if you change your mind about what you want to do.

If you want to apply CS and biology together to solve biomedical problems, an MD/PhD can get you the career you want. Whether or not you get the PhD is up to you. There are pros and cons to getting it or not.

 

[numbersloth]

If you want to apply CS and biology together to solve biomedical problems, an MD/PhD can get you the career you want. Whether or not you get the PhD is up to you. There are pros and cons to getting it or not.

One thing I'm confused about is that there really seems to be no point in doing the PhD... I see a ton of MDs who have their own lab and don't do any clinical work anymore. Am I missing something?

 

[eteshoe]

One thing I'm confused about is that there really seems to be no point in doing the PhD... I see a ton of MDs who have their own lab and don't do any clinical work anymore. Am I missing something?

In order to run a lab (basic or translational science), one needs protected time to develop their scientific skill set. The PhD is a pretty convenient way to do this but by no means is the only way. Many MD-only PIs most likely would have done a postdoc or had research-time built into their residencies/fellowships.

 

[Lucca]

One thing I'm confused about is that there really seems to be no point in doing the PhD... I see a ton of MDs who have their own lab and don't do any clinical work anymore. Am I missing something?

Like @eteshoe says, the PhD itself does not matter, what matters is the training and the training has to come from somewhere. An MD isn't going to teach you how to run a basic science lab, although it might prepare you well for doing other kinds of research (QI, clinical, etc.). A PhD is one way to get that training and there are others which do not involve getting a doctoral degree.

Doing a combined program specifically (MD/PhD), will pay for itself. No debt means less things stand in the way of you spending more of your time doing science (which means you earn less compared to your clinical colleagues). Also, it means that you get your scientific training while you are young and have few responsibilities. Doing a postdoc after only earning an MD is a viable option, but you will be older, have debt, and perhaps more responsibilities which will pressure you into earning more money and earlier.

There are many ways to become a physician scientist and the name itself means little. What kind of physician and what kind of scientist do you want to be? The answer to that is probably the most useful.