Degree for research only

[curiousstudent]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Since I don't have any interest in really being a practicing physician, only research, would the MD/PhD still be beneficial over a straight PhD, or would it make more sense just to get a regular PhD for a research-only route?

 

[jjmack]

I think that the encyclopedic type knowledge the MD is will be helpful. I have also heard that tests and things learned during your clincal years can be helpful when doing animal studies such as continious monitoring EEG. I also know an MD/PhD neuroradiologist at Wash U who was just doing a PhD in radiology, but decided to get an MD for career reasons ie he gets paid 2-3X as much basically doing the same thing.

 

[mendel121]

Since I don't have any interest in really being a practicing physician, only research, would the MD/PhD still be beneficial over a straight PhD, or would it make more sense just to get a regular PhD for a research-only route?

I don't think that it would be worth it. What an MD adds to the research would only be clinical/anatomical/physiological knowledge of the disease/trait being studied. PhDs will tend to work on the same thing for extended periods of time thus allowing you to learn in great detail about what you are working on to gain the knowledge about the given subject that an MD would have. Also, I may get flamed for saying this, but many in academia believe that a PhD gotten outside of an MSTP (or combined MD/PhD program) is much more valuable (indicative of higher quality training) that one gotten within an MSTP.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

If you are absolutely repulsed by doing anything clinical, I would advise against getting the MD in conjunction with the PhD.

However, the MD/PhD degree does open more doors than a PhD. PhDs are a dime a dozen these days. Blame credential inflation. But if you don't see yourself using the MD at all, why get it?

Look, the MD will be valuable in that you can apply for grants that PhDs can't touch. But is that worth going through 4 years of med school and then residency?

Essentially, the question really becomes...Is the MD worth getting in YOUR life given YOUR goals?

I've grappled with this question...but alas, it's 7 years too late for me now. For me though, I don't regret getting the MD. I'm glad I toughed it out.

 

[MDPhD]

I am in the same boat as you as far clinical practice goes. I lean more towards the research end of the field. But I do have an interest in translational research. And since I am a major nerd I read the New England Journal of Medicine every week and my favorite section is "clinical implications of basic research". However our physicians go through a somewhat rigorous training these days and for some reason I am drawn to that. I am fascinated by the human body and its functions and I would just love to have the education an MD has. So thats why I would love to go to medical school and do the PhD program as well. I just get a kick out of the science and I think it is just terribly fascinating.

 

[mjs]

I'm a total dork and I agree that medical school opens doors for you, but the first two years are very dry and too focused on trying to memorize things rather than finding an understanding of them for my taste. It's not nearly as much fun as reading the New England Journal. This aspect of the training is soemething to consider when talking about these career choices. To be honest, when I started to apply to medical school I had no idea i'd spend a lot of the next two years memorizing. I've sorta gone through science withdrawl.

 

[Science_Guy]

If you are absolutely repulsed by doing anything clinical, I would advise against getting the MD in conjunction with the PhD.

However, the MD/PhD degree does open more doors than a PhD. PhDs are a dime a dozen these days. Blame credential inflation. But if you don't see yourself using the MD at all, why get it?

Look, the MD will be valuable in that you can apply for grants that PhDs can't touch. But is that worth going through 4 years of med school and then residency?

Essentially, the question really becomes...Is the MD worth getting in YOUR life given YOUR goals?

I've grappled with this question...but alas, it's 7 years too late for me now. For me though, I don't regret getting the MD. I'm glad I toughed it out.

I would agree that the PhD is numerous and "dime a dozen" in SOME fields of study, but not all. Having experience in clinical research, I could definitely make the same argument could be made about physicians in many urban areas, especially in some specialties (not to mention the FIERCE competition between some of those institutions and physicians in the same damn city). That being said, credential inflation has been absolutely atrocious, and some preeminent institutions have made attaining a PhD in some fields a little "less" vigorous in recent years. Not to mention the bogus B.S. correspondence programs that are of questionable credibility in my mind.

If you are looking at areas like basic pharmacology, yes, there are a lot of doctoral folks out there, although it doesn't make the attainment of those degrees any less worthwhile. But....ultimately, it is the area of expertise/research that will set apart the successful academic PhD from those who may be focused in an area with fewer direct clinical/real world applications. Does the combined MD/PhD help? Sure it does, especially when clinical research is involved. If they are more interested in basic research, does it make sense for them to spend the additional time in medical school? Probably not, especially considering that they will likely do a postdoc, then spend time getting a lab up and going at an academic institution.

 

[alhkim]

I have to agree with the general sentiment here...for exclusive basic science research, getting the MD is several years of lost productivity in research. Now, while MD/PhDs do have their benefits, what Andy said is absolutely correct: you will need to finish med school AND residency (MDs who do not do residency, unless they are spetacular researchers during the PhD years, do not receive the same benefits as those who do residency/fellowship), which is 7-8 years of lost research time.

Now, the clinical education I've received has been very useful, especially understanding the epidemiology of disease. But a PhD can easily get this information from reference books without going to med school...this can separate you from the cookie-cutter PhDs.

 

[mendel121]

Does the combined MD/PhD help? Sure it does, especially when clinical research is involved. If they are more interested in basic research, does it make sense for them to spend the additional time in medical school? Probably not, especially considering that they will likely do a postdoc, then spend time getting a lab up and going at an academic institution.

I'll agree with this, and the general sentiment here, the MD probably isn't worth it with the exception of translational work for example, but it seems to me that is that instance you may want to practice anyway, but I'm wading into the shallow end of my knowledge pool there.

Just a comment about funding, there really is not a great benefit to having an MD vs only PhD. According to NIH data PhDs get funded with a higher success rate than any type of MD (if anyone is as big a geek as me, you'll care to know that the differences in this table are statistically significant via a Chi Square test for independence)-

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/mdsphds7001.htm

The benefit to the MD comes if you are looking at doing certain types of research the involve clinical work, but again it seems practicing may be necessary here. This is probably reflected in that while MDs have a lower success rate they get much more money (the clinical research would tend to be very expensive to do compared to some types of basic science)-

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/bydeg01.htm

 

[Science_Guy]

I'll agree with this, and the general sentiment here, the MD probably isn't worth it with the exception of translational work for example, but it seems to me that is that instance you may want to practice anyway, but I'm wading into the shallow end of my knowledge pool there.

Just a comment about funding, there really is not a great benefit to having an MD vs only PhD. According to NIH data PhDs get funded with a higher success rate than any type of MD (if anyone is as big a geek as me, you'll care to know that the differences in this table are statistically significant via a Chi Square test for independence)-

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/mdsphds7001.htm

The benefit to the MD comes if you are looking at doing certain types of research the involve clinical work, but again it seems practicing may be necessary here. This is probably reflected in that while MDs have a lower success rate they get much more money (the clinical research would tend to be very expensive to do compared to some types of basic science)-

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/award/trends/bydeg01.htm

Very interesting NIH data....I hadn't seen these figures covering a 35-year time frame. But as you stated, the higher budgets for clinical projects represents a good reason for the differences in grants awarded. Per patient costs in clinical studies can be pretty high (depending on study endpoints, how long the study will last, etc), especially throwing in institutional overhead.

I have come to know many excellent MD, PhD, and MD/PhD researchers in my travels. Many of the excellent MD and MD/PhD clinical researchers I have had to pleasure to collaborate with tend to be either in academic institutions, or have academic appointments in addition to their private practices (so they conduct research through the larger institution). I have also dealt with MDs in larger stand-alone practices who like to do research as well, but have tended to find them sometimes lacking in their construction of good clinical studies (some of the biggest problems: underpowered studies, questionable statistical interpretation, looking at too diverse a study population so at to make the data meaningless), although that is not universal.

 

[curiousstudent]

What about doing an MD/PhD to gain the medical knowledge background, and then going straight into a postdoc? Would skipping residency have any affect on potential research (although obviously you couldn't practice medicine)?

Also, are there any advantages to going through the MD/residency/fellowship route for research, or is the lack of background in basic science experience a disadvantage?

 

[tedrik]

What about doing an MD/PhD to gain the medical knowledge background, and then going straight into a postdoc? Would skipping residency have any affect on potential research (although obviously you couldn't practice medicine)?

Some people do skip a residency and go straight into a postdoc, but the majority of graduates choose to do a residency. I think you'll know what you want to do once you've gone through your PhD and the clinical years. Those who choose to skip the residency probably know for sure that they never want to see patients and only want to do basic research. However, if you don't do a residency right after completing your MD, I've heard that it's very difficult (impossible?) to do one later in your career.

Also, are there any advantages to going through the MD/residency/fellowship route for research, or is the lack of background in basic science experience a disadvantage?

There are lots of MDs who do great research, but they normally have some sort of research training, such as a postdoc. I had a couple MD interviewers that did research and they all said that the best way to go is to get the PhD training. People will ask you why you want to also get the MD to do research, but nobody is going to question your reasons for wanting the PhD.

 

[dr.z]

If you are not interested in dealing with patients, I would go get Ph.D. It will save you time as research career could be very rough and long.