Do MD's have a better predisposition to do non-clinical research than other fields?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Feb 15, 2017
Reaction score

Members don't see this ad.
Hi guys,

I am studying medicine on the 3rd semester, which means we are going through biochemistry.
I always looked forward to biochem, as I like when stuff gets really detailed and geeky (such as molecular structures and functions, hard math problems, etc.), but right now I am quite disappointed.
The level of understanding which we are supposed to have of different chemical systems in the body seems minimal, and only clinically relevant (I, for one, want to know more than just the disease-provoking systems).

I chose to study medicine, as I thought this would be the best gateway to understand the human organism in its fullness. But the low level of detail has had me wondering, whether MD's are actually suited better than other educations for doing non-clinical research?

Everyone at school has always told me: "everyone wants doctors for everything" (sorry, a slight hyperbole, but you get the point), but I simply can not see which opportunities MD's have over other master-degrees, as some of them have way more e.g. cytology, histology and chemistry, while still being shorter and less hard/stressing educations than the medical education.

Sadly, no one at the University is willing to help me figure out which
research can be done, in case my interest falls far from the clinical fields of medicine.

It would be a great help knowing, what people on this forum doing scientific research are researching, as this might open up my eyes to the opportunities. Also; do you think that someone else (non-MD) would be better suited for doing the research which you are doing? Why/why not?

Thanks in advance.
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user