- Joined
- Dec 14, 2001
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 0
Which schools have such programs? And does anyone know if you get tuition waiver and a stipend in any of the do/phd programs?
Thanks
Thanks
DO/PhD
- Thread starter cp00739
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 13,059
- Reaction score
- 7,590
UNTHSC-TCOM also has a MSTP DO/PhD program.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 3,757
- Reaction score
- 7
What do you mean by MSTP? Its certainly not an NIH MSTP program.
I guess any program can call itself whatever it wants. But the term MSTP in terms of DO/PhD programs means nothing. There is absolutely NO difference between a DO/PhD program and an MSTP DO/PhD program. DO/PhD programs are not supported by the NIH.
However, for MD/PhD programs there is a difference. An NIH MSTP MD/PhD program is different from a regular MD/PhD program.
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- 31
You just answered a year-old thread.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,103
- Reaction score
- 9,463
cp00739, in answer to your question, there are no DO/PhD programs that are fully funded. Fully funded means that the program provides tuition waiver and stipend for all years of study in the program. All NIGMS supported MSTPs and some MD/PhD programs do this.
I challenge anyone, because I'd really like to know if there is one, to find a website for a DO/PhD program that claims tuition waiver and stipend for all years of study.
I challenge anyone, because I'd really like to know if there is one, to find a website for a DO/PhD program that claims tuition waiver and stipend for all years of study.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 1
NIGMS does also support DO/PhD programs although it's not called MSTP. Here's a quote from the link which I posted on another thread:
"The National Research Service Award Predoctoral Fellowship for Students will provide up to five years of support for research training leading to the Ph.D. or equivalent research degree; the combined M.D./Ph.D. degree; or other combined professional degree and research doctoral degree in the biomedical, behavioral sciences, or health services research." And for the record this includes DO/PhD, and PharmD/PhD too!
Also, its quite possible to set up your own fully funded DO/PhD program as I believe NIGMS (or some other institute within NIH) has a current student from UMDNJ-DO program) doing her dissertation work at the NIH campus. She combined her NIH money with the money awarded to her by her institution fo get a "full-package" deal for the DO/PhD program.
So to the OP, "do your thang" and if its DO/PhD, so be it. Get the money, matriculate into your program, and dam the naysayers!
Yes and I'll take one irregular MD/PhD or DO/PhD to go!!!
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 3,757
- Reaction score
- 7
pathdr,
that setup is TOTALLY different from the NIH MSTP program.
The MSTP funds programs, not individual students. It is then up to the program's discretion as to which students get the NIH MSTP funding.
The thing you're talking about is not funding to a program, its competitive funding to individual students. To get financial support for DO/PhD programs, you have to get accepted to the program AND THEN YOU ALSO have to be awarded the funding from NIH. Those two processes are totally separate.
NIH funds individuals from any med school thru a variety of means.
It is possible to get funding for DO/PhD, but its much, much harder than if you go to a NIH MSTP MD/PhD program.
that setup is TOTALLY different from the NIH MSTP program.
The MSTP funds programs, not individual students. It is then up to the program's discretion as to which students get the NIH MSTP funding.
The thing you're talking about is not funding to a program, its competitive funding to individual students. To get financial support for DO/PhD programs, you have to get accepted to the program AND THEN YOU ALSO have to be awarded the funding from NIH. Those two processes are totally separate.
NIH funds individuals from any med school thru a variety of means.
It is possible to get funding for DO/PhD, but its much, much harder than if you go to a NIH MSTP MD/PhD program.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,103
- Reaction score
- 9,463
Could I have that link please? The closest I can find is:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-00-069.html
This fellowship's purpose states:
"The National Research Service Award Predoctoral Fellowship for Minority Students will provide up to five years of support for research training leading to the Ph.D. or equivalent research degree; the combined M.D./Ph.D. degree; or other combined professional degree and research doctoral degree in the biomedical, behavioral sciences, or health services research."
That's very similar to what you said, but it's for minority students only. Is there anything along these same lines for students without disabilities or URM status? I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-00-069.html
This fellowship's purpose states:
"The National Research Service Award Predoctoral Fellowship for Minority Students will provide up to five years of support for research training leading to the Ph.D. or equivalent research degree; the combined M.D./Ph.D. degree; or other combined professional degree and research doctoral degree in the biomedical, behavioral sciences, or health services research."
That's very similar to what you said, but it's for minority students only. Is there anything along these same lines for students without disabilities or URM status? I'm an equal opportunity kind of guy.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,943
- Reaction score
- 3,017
I was writing about this in the DO forum. But are you aware of the fact that DOs don't like the bio-molecular approach of modern medicine? I'd go as far as saying that the DO philosophy is somewhat incompatible with the scientific method...
What sort of PhD program are you looking into? There might be some points in getting DO/PhD for public health? Even then it sounds kinda tenuious...or are you just looking to get an MD-ish degree? There might be other ways of doing this (i.e. MD at less competitive programs and PhD after MD)...talk to your health professions advisor
What sort of PhD program are you looking into? There might be some points in getting DO/PhD for public health? Even then it sounds kinda tenuious...or are you just looking to get an MD-ish degree? There might be other ways of doing this (i.e. MD at less competitive programs and PhD after MD)...talk to your health professions advisor
group_theory
EX-TER-MIN-ATE!'
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,863
- Reaction score
- 2,248
I didn't know "DOs don't like bio-molecular approach of modern medicine." But I guess you're the expert on the subject 😉
So what do we (osteopathic students) actually learn in lieu of histology, microbiology, immunology, biochemistry, cell biology, pathology, pharm, etc? I'm curious to know.
You are the self-proclaim expert since you stated that it was a FACT that "DOs don't like the bio-molecular approach of modern medicine? I'd go as far as saying that the DO philosophy is somewhat incompatible with the scientific method..."
Hmmm, do you even know the 4 principles of osteopathic medicine?
The first of these principles is that the human body is a unit; it is an Integrated organism in which no part functions independently.
Do you disagree with that statement? But to give you credit, I know of no scientific study that says the body is an integrated unit so it does fall outside the realm of science.
The second principle states that the body, through a complex system of Internal checks and balances, trends to be self regulating and self healing in the face of stress and disease.
Hmmmm, does this fall outside the realm of science?
The third principle states that adequate function of all body organs and systems depends on the integrating forces of the nervous and circulatory systems.
Basically, in order to live, the organs must receive a constant supply of fresh blood and constant neural impulses. Not sure about the need for constant neural impulses, but I'm pretty sure organs will die w/o fresh blood. There's probably some scientific study to back me up on this, but I could be wrong.
The fourth principle - The body's musculoskeletal system -- the bones, muscles, tissues, and nerves -- is the key to a person's well-being.
Got me there. This is where the confusion occurs. Very few scientific research to back this up (to my knowledge).
So next time you go around proclaiming to know "facts", make sure you know what you are talking about.
P.S. I do not dispute the claim that DOs do very little basic science research. In fact, the amount of NIH grants that DO schools gets pale in comparison with MD schools (a drop in the bucket). If the OP's intent is to do basic science research (or even clinical research in a competitive field), MD/PhD is a better option than DO/PhD. I'm just responding to the declarative FACT that "DOs don't like bio-molecular approach to medicine" from our self-proclaim expert on osteopathic medicine.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,943
- Reaction score
- 3,017
I don't want to be too inflammatory, but...please don't be too sensitive about this...i'm just voicing my own opinion. I'm not an expert, all I've done is I've read the websites about the DO philosophy etc.
DOs kinda have to take the regular courses as it's essential for USLME passage and an actual diagnosis and treatment of patients...this has nothing to do with the DO philosophy right? This isn't, as far as I understand, what differentiates DO from an MD.
DOs kinda have to take the regular courses as it's essential for USLME passage and an actual diagnosis and treatment of patients...this has nothing to do with the DO philosophy right? This isn't, as far as I understand, what differentiates DO from an MD.
group_theory
EX-TER-MIN-ATE!'
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,863
- Reaction score
- 2,248
Sorry if I was a bit harsh and sarcastic - I just got annoyed when you claimed that DOs don't believe in bio-molecular approach to medicine (and stated as a certainty). I should not have used such a harsh tone
I don't believe "allopathic medicine" has a stated philosophy. The term allopathic was termed by Hahnemann initially as a perjorative reference to the traditionalist medical doctors (who were very ineffective during those times - Mercury tx, blood letting, etc). I think the term stuck because DOs and chiropractors started referring to the traditional docs as allopaths.
Medicine - unfortunately, isn't entirely evidence-based.
Shortly after 1978, the US Congress's Office Of Technology Assessment reported that "only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial" and repeated the charge in 1983".
Although if you go to this website
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/ir/percent.html
they debunk the low percentage
Just remember that osteopathic doctors practice almost (if not exactly) the same as MD counterparts (with the exception of the 10% who do OMT, but some MDs are now incorporating that into their practice). Standard of care is the same for DOs and MDs. If DOs don't practice standard of care, they'll lose lawsuits and their malpractice premiums would be higher for DOs than MDs.
I don't believe "allopathic medicine" has a stated philosophy. The term allopathic was termed by Hahnemann initially as a perjorative reference to the traditionalist medical doctors (who were very ineffective during those times - Mercury tx, blood letting, etc). I think the term stuck because DOs and chiropractors started referring to the traditional docs as allopaths.
Medicine - unfortunately, isn't entirely evidence-based.
Shortly after 1978, the US Congress's Office Of Technology Assessment reported that "only 10% to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial" and repeated the charge in 1983".
Although if you go to this website
http://www.shef.ac.uk/~scharr/ir/percent.html
they debunk the low percentage
Just remember that osteopathic doctors practice almost (if not exactly) the same as MD counterparts (with the exception of the 10% who do OMT, but some MDs are now incorporating that into their practice). Standard of care is the same for DOs and MDs. If DOs don't practice standard of care, they'll lose lawsuits and their malpractice premiums would be higher for DOs than MDs.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,192
- Reaction score
- 1
Having looked into the DO/PhD option, I have to disagrre with this statement. I got the impression that DO/PhD prograns were as "serious" about modern scientific methods as MD/PhD programs at schools like PCOM and OUCOM.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 406
- Reaction score
- 0
I know that this thread is a month old, but I just discovered it...
I think that the accuracy and usefullness of the biomedical model is taken for granted; the biomedical model is too often seen as a proven fact and not a model. Of course, I'm not saying that it's incorrect or useless; I just think that it is too reductionistic.
I can't comment on the DO philosophy because I don't know that much about it, but I recommend that you (everyone) read about the biopsychosocial model -- a model that is too often confused with humanistic medicine. It's not a refutation of the biomedical model, more like a modification. Here's a quote from a great article by Dr. Engel (Science 196 (1977): 129-136):
A great example of this is the connection between the immune and nervous systems. It was long thought that these systems were completely independent and it was whole-heartily rejected that something like mental stress or fatigue could have any effect on the onset of a disease, despite observations made in the clinic and the laboratory. This link was shown experimentally by Dr. Ader and others, but the idea of a link between the two systems was still rejected by the scientific community. (short and interesting overview at http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun99/pni.html)
In talking to Dr. Ader I learned that people only began to accept what he called psychoneuroimmunology after scientists found neurons traveling from the CNS into lymphoid tissue, even though the function of these neurons was not known. The sad truth is that in the reductionistic biomedical model, physiological findings are often seen as inadequate evidence, while anatomical (findings with unknown functions) are seen as trumps.
On a related note, I would highly recommend checking out the recently-published book, "The Biopsychosocial Approach: Past, Present, Future", which includes a collection of articles (including Engel's) that discuss not only the history and philosophy of the biopsychosocial model, but also its effect on current medical educations (early patient contact, focus on interviewing technique, and PBLs are just a few examples).
OK....I'm stepping off of my soapbox before I fall off...
I think that the accuracy and usefullness of the biomedical model is taken for granted; the biomedical model is too often seen as a proven fact and not a model. Of course, I'm not saying that it's incorrect or useless; I just think that it is too reductionistic.
I can't comment on the DO philosophy because I don't know that much about it, but I recommend that you (everyone) read about the biopsychosocial model -- a model that is too often confused with humanistic medicine. It's not a refutation of the biomedical model, more like a modification. Here's a quote from a great article by Dr. Engel (Science 196 (1977): 129-136):
A great example of this is the connection between the immune and nervous systems. It was long thought that these systems were completely independent and it was whole-heartily rejected that something like mental stress or fatigue could have any effect on the onset of a disease, despite observations made in the clinic and the laboratory. This link was shown experimentally by Dr. Ader and others, but the idea of a link between the two systems was still rejected by the scientific community. (short and interesting overview at http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun99/pni.html)
In talking to Dr. Ader I learned that people only began to accept what he called psychoneuroimmunology after scientists found neurons traveling from the CNS into lymphoid tissue, even though the function of these neurons was not known. The sad truth is that in the reductionistic biomedical model, physiological findings are often seen as inadequate evidence, while anatomical (findings with unknown functions) are seen as trumps.
On a related note, I would highly recommend checking out the recently-published book, "The Biopsychosocial Approach: Past, Present, Future", which includes a collection of articles (including Engel's) that discuss not only the history and philosophy of the biopsychosocial model, but also its effect on current medical educations (early patient contact, focus on interviewing technique, and PBLs are just a few examples).
OK....I'm stepping off of my soapbox before I fall off...
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Would anyone be willing to acknowledge they have a PhD from any of the DO schools? I think a Touro or Nova PhD might actually do more harm than good. They offer them online to whoever is willing to pay tuition.
I realize this board is owned and operated by DO's, but I propose removing "DO/PhD" from this "Pre-MSTP forum," since there is no such thing. There's no reason to be deceptive.
I realize this board is owned and operated by DO's, but I propose removing "DO/PhD" from this "Pre-MSTP forum," since there is no such thing. There's no reason to be deceptive.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
No, I don't mean removing this thread. I'm referring to removal of "DO/PhD" from the *forum title*.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
How so?🙄
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2002
- Messages
- 43,318
- Reaction score
- 27
I don't know anything about other schools, but OSU-COM has real PhDs. We're part of one of the 2 big state schools and the degree requirements for the PhD here are not out of the ordinary. I'm sure my school is not the exception. There are real DO/PhD programs, ergo the name of the forum
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,103
- Reaction score
- 9,463
This is kind of funny because alot of people don't even consider MD/PhD REAL PhDs. It's a common criticism you hear from PhDs.
I think legitimate complaints about DO/PhD is that no DO/PhD program is fully-funded and there are no DO schools at major research institutions (all of them either have MD schools or no med school).
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2002
- Messages
- 43,318
- Reaction score
- 27
That's fair enough. Just wanted to be clear that these PhDs aren't just handed out as implied earlier.
Some of the DO schools are working to increase the amount of research being done. Not caught up yet, by any means, but working towards it. 🙂
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
I know. DO's represent 5% of the U.S. physician population and 0% of the physician-scientist population, and yet we still have to endure a parenthetically misappropriated "DO/PhD" following Pre-MSTP. And threads arguing their existence. Where are NIH's trademark attorneys when you need them?
Although obviously none of the other healthcare professionals (e.g., optometry, dentistry, pharm) have MSTP training programs either, they would at least have more issues in common with those discussed in this forum than DO's. More than a few are associated with research institutions where a PhD is actually desirable (e.g., Cal, UCSF, Columbia, etc.).
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Just to clarify, you're claiming a PhD from Oklahoma State is desirable?
If so, then...ummmm, no comment.😉
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey now.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2002
- Messages
- 43,318
- Reaction score
- 27
🙄
You're definitely not worth my time.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 0
Let's stick to the issues here. No need for personal attacks. (And I believe this violates the TOS?).
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 13,059
- Reaction score
- 7,590
This issue has been covered in the FAQ's. There are DO/PhD training programs in the biomedical sciences modeled after the MSTP, but no DO/PhD programs are CURRENTLY federally funded. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed by the osteopathic profession. Efforts are underway to improve the research output and training opportunities for DO's and the profession has had ongoing dialogue with NIH to improve access to special NIH summer programs, internships, and lab rotations for osteopathic students.
Osteopathic institutions should contribute to biomedical research and in fact probably have an ethical obligation to do so in a manner more intensive than has been done in the past. In fact, a yearly conference (which I'm co-chairing this year) titled OCCTIC (the Osteopathic Collaboration Clinicial Trials Initiative Conference) is exploring these very issues. This year we are meeting in Colorado Springs. DO students interested in research should attend. The title of the conference this year is "Promoting Research Synergy." It would even be great if others outside the profession such as want$it$bad would attend and share their outsider views on this topic. Well reasoned outside views helps prevent intellectual inbreeding.
Here's the link for the conference information:
OCCTIC V Homepage
Osteopathic institutions should contribute to biomedical research and in fact probably have an ethical obligation to do so in a manner more intensive than has been done in the past. In fact, a yearly conference (which I'm co-chairing this year) titled OCCTIC (the Osteopathic Collaboration Clinicial Trials Initiative Conference) is exploring these very issues. This year we are meeting in Colorado Springs. DO students interested in research should attend. The title of the conference this year is "Promoting Research Synergy." It would even be great if others outside the profession such as want$it$bad would attend and share their outsider views on this topic. Well reasoned outside views helps prevent intellectual inbreeding.
Here's the link for the conference information:
OCCTIC V Homepage
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,103
- Reaction score
- 9,463
One thing I wanted to point out is that currently to obtain NIGMS MSTP funding, a program must have a well-established (several years) and fairly sizeable fully-funded combined degree program. For this reason, I cannot see a DO/PhD program getting the MSTP grant in the near future as there are no fully-funded DO/PhD programs. It will require significant funding to set one up, but this needs to happen before the DO/PhD option obtains a prominent route for training physician-scientists.
As it stands, there are a good number of fairly sizeable fully-funded MD/PhD programs at big name research institutions (UMaryland, Jefferson, etc) that have been repeatedly rejected for the NIGMS grant. This is not meant to reflect negatively on the quality of their programs, but to point out what a hurdle it is to receive the MSTP grant.
I agree with what has been said that there are no DO/PhD programs that are MSTPs yet, so maybe the Pre-MSTP[MD/PhD & DO/PhD] forum shouldn't have DO/PhD in it. Instead of deleting it altogether however, what about creating a Pre-MD/PhD (since not all MD/PhD's are MSTPs either) forum and a Pre-DO/PhD forum? This way, there would be no Pre-MSTP forum at all, yet everything would be technically correct. After all, there is a Pre-MD forum and a Pre-DO forum... What say you to that?
Although... it seems like this is just another attempt to create some segregation between DOs and MDs. Is it not? So maybe it isn't such a good idea. Keeping it altogether in one forum (possibly titled Pre-Physician-Scientist unless that is a title reserved only for graduates of MSTPs) may be the next best thing to promote unity of the two schools of medicine especially when it comes to research interests. I mean the primary reason there aren't many DO/PhD physician-scientists out there is because someone has to be first, and no one wants to be because of places like this where people are saying DO/PhD programs aren't following the scientific method, or aren't doing REAL research, or aren't awarding REAL PhD's, etc. The same thing happens in the whole MD vs. DO decision in the premed world. Those with higher stats may well want to go DO while the stigma deters them because "DO schools are known for having lower stats." Well how are they ever going to get higher stats unless someone is first?
In reality, DO/PhD programs' objectives are still to create physician-scientists. This is yet another example where a lack of foundation has created problems for the osteopathic profession. If both the AMA and AOA had developed at the same time and at nearly the same rate, there would be both MD/PhD and DO/PhD MSTPs and no DO stigma. However, just as in the clinical world, osteopathic physician-scientists will have to be pioneers in an uninviting environment and make many sacrifices(i.e. no stipend and/or tuition waivers) to pave the way for those who follow after them otherwise there will never be fully funded or MSTP DO/PhD programs. All of this has already been done for MD/PhDs and MDs alike, so enjoy your ride if that is the boat you?re on. If you want to be part of medical history however, your efforts are needed on the DO front.
Alright back to the topic at hand?
Personally, I have applied to 3 MD/PhD programs (2 MSTP, 1 not) and one DO/PhD program(OSU-COM). From everything I can tell, they are very similar and I don't think they need to have individual forums. But... if the technicality of having DO/PhD in the forum title is disturbing to enough people, let's at least make a new forum for the Pre-DO/PhD's as it does seem like there are many questions out there on this topic.
If we did want a new forum, how would we go about getting that?
Although... it seems like this is just another attempt to create some segregation between DOs and MDs. Is it not? So maybe it isn't such a good idea. Keeping it altogether in one forum (possibly titled Pre-Physician-Scientist unless that is a title reserved only for graduates of MSTPs) may be the next best thing to promote unity of the two schools of medicine especially when it comes to research interests. I mean the primary reason there aren't many DO/PhD physician-scientists out there is because someone has to be first, and no one wants to be because of places like this where people are saying DO/PhD programs aren't following the scientific method, or aren't doing REAL research, or aren't awarding REAL PhD's, etc. The same thing happens in the whole MD vs. DO decision in the premed world. Those with higher stats may well want to go DO while the stigma deters them because "DO schools are known for having lower stats." Well how are they ever going to get higher stats unless someone is first?
In reality, DO/PhD programs' objectives are still to create physician-scientists. This is yet another example where a lack of foundation has created problems for the osteopathic profession. If both the AMA and AOA had developed at the same time and at nearly the same rate, there would be both MD/PhD and DO/PhD MSTPs and no DO stigma. However, just as in the clinical world, osteopathic physician-scientists will have to be pioneers in an uninviting environment and make many sacrifices(i.e. no stipend and/or tuition waivers) to pave the way for those who follow after them otherwise there will never be fully funded or MSTP DO/PhD programs. All of this has already been done for MD/PhDs and MDs alike, so enjoy your ride if that is the boat you?re on. If you want to be part of medical history however, your efforts are needed on the DO front.
Alright back to the topic at hand?
Personally, I have applied to 3 MD/PhD programs (2 MSTP, 1 not) and one DO/PhD program(OSU-COM). From everything I can tell, they are very similar and I don't think they need to have individual forums. But... if the technicality of having DO/PhD in the forum title is disturbing to enough people, let's at least make a new forum for the Pre-DO/PhD's as it does seem like there are many questions out there on this topic.
If we did want a new forum, how would we go about getting that?
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,103
- Reaction score
- 9,463
On the topic of separating the MD/PhD and DO/PhD forums, I think that's a bad idea. First, there's a common interest being served by both degrees that hardly needs separation. But, in case you disagree and point out that pre-DO and pre-MD are their own forums, there's another very important criterion for creating a separate forum. Basically, there's not enough DO/PhD individuals on this site to warrant its own forum. For the time being, we'll just have to ignore the trolls and get along 🙂
There are many DO/PhD programs now and I don't think that there's some lack of applicants so that the DO/PhD programs can't fill their spots. What I'm calling for is a greater investment from the DO/PhD programs. This does not take more applicants--but it does take alot of money and cooperation between medical schools and graduate programs. For the pathway to become a major option, there needs to be more funding and larger programs. When I say a "major" option, I mean that the size of DO/PhD is very small compared to MD/PhD. I wonder how many new DO/PhD spots there are annually? 20? Please correct me if my guess is way off.
There are many DO/PhD programs now and I don't think that there's some lack of applicants so that the DO/PhD programs can't fill their spots. What I'm calling for is a greater investment from the DO/PhD programs. This does not take more applicants--but it does take alot of money and cooperation between medical schools and graduate programs. For the pathway to become a major option, there needs to be more funding and larger programs. When I say a "major" option, I mean that the size of DO/PhD is very small compared to MD/PhD. I wonder how many new DO/PhD spots there are annually? 20? Please correct me if my guess is way off.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 13,059
- Reaction score
- 7,590
Nope. You're probably about right. Michigan State and UNTHSC probably have the best developed DO/PhD training programs and will likely be the first to apply and receive true MSTP funding once they are further established. MSU's DO/PhD program has been in existence for about 25 years and you can view a list of current DO/PhD's on their site.
Michigan State DO/PhD
UNTHSC also has a good DO/PhD program---probably been in existence for 15 years.
UNTHSC MSTP
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 7
I think a good question to ask everyone involved may be: should the PhD program in a DO/PhD track have a training philosophy more in line with osteopathy than traditional basic science PhD? In a way, the MD school of thoughts flourished under the flag of PhD-style microscience, while the DO school of thoughts focused on areas not quite as valued by MDs. It seems redundant to me to create DO/PhD spots similar to MD/PhD spots, as it would just once again create a tier system. If it is indeed a PhD program focused more on DO philosophy, it sounds much more agreeable to me. NIH has already started funding research in alternative medicine and other areas traditionally not considered hard science, so there are areas DOs could tackle quite different from the ones that interest MDs.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 13,059
- Reaction score
- 7,590
Give me an example of what you mean. What would be "osteopathically meaningful" research beyond the obvious "Does OMT work?" Most alternative medicine research (including body-based somatic therapies such as OMT) is being conducted at allopathic institutions and schools of physical therapy.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 3
Ok excuse the long post..I am answering a number of different posts and so this might not flow quite rtight. But if you read the entire thread, you will understand what I am saying.
Neuronix you are not quite right...
Although it is NOT advertised I am learning quickly of fully funded programs...specifically at UMDNJ-SOM. DO/Phd students there (although they only accept 5/year) receive the same stipend and tuition waiver each year as MD/PhD students at the two UMDNJ allopathic schools. This to me signifies FULL FUNDING although not federal funding. I will stipulate that because UMDNJ-SOM is part of a the ONLY health professions system in NJ...the students have access to the Biomedical Science Graduate program which is on ALL the campuses. (They have three prodigies there now....twin brother and sister started at age 16 and older brother started at 17...they are all MSII in the DO/PhD programs and individually, entering they had more research publications than most entering MSTP students...turned down several big name programs with obvious federal funding to be there...I can't imagine anyone doing this if they weren't getting funding at UMDNJ. This is what prompted me to investigate further.)
I thought it was rude to say no one would want to say they have a PhD from a DO school. I can't speak for many but I see no difference in getting my PhD as a DO student for UMDNJ than as a MD student for UMDNJ...because I have access to the same faculty! Having worked at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School as a Research Specialist, I can attest to some of the cutting edge research they are doing in the biomedical science departments (a conglomerate of basic science departments)...furthermore, the number of people interested in getting their PhD ALONE at all three campuses. And neuronix is right, people pursuing phD alone no matter where from look down at those that did a combined degree as the fake phD....
I will also add (and I am sorry I keep using UMDNJ as an example since I once worked there...but its a great one) that UMDNJ-SOM actually has a higher entering class GPA than UMDNJ-NJMS...and more applicants per seat than both schools, interviews less applicants and has a smaller entering class...so one could contend it is just as "competitive" to get into the osteopathic school.
I also think any combined medical degree/phd (in basic sciences) program produces physician scientists. NIH may have made the term more well known through their funding and people assume it 'belongs' to them. But, By definition anyone who has a medical degree AND a research science degree is a physician AND a scientist... so I guess I am confused why it would be any confusion about why people in a non-mstp program would NOT be physician scientists.
Doesn't MSTP stand for Medical Scientist Training Program anyway...???
😕
I agree with Neuronix that two different forums is not a good idea simply because there are NOT enough people interested on this board to do so. This has alot to do with the limited funding and spaces etc.
Neuronix you are not quite right...
Although it is NOT advertised I am learning quickly of fully funded programs...specifically at UMDNJ-SOM. DO/Phd students there (although they only accept 5/year) receive the same stipend and tuition waiver each year as MD/PhD students at the two UMDNJ allopathic schools. This to me signifies FULL FUNDING although not federal funding. I will stipulate that because UMDNJ-SOM is part of a the ONLY health professions system in NJ...the students have access to the Biomedical Science Graduate program which is on ALL the campuses. (They have three prodigies there now....twin brother and sister started at age 16 and older brother started at 17...they are all MSII in the DO/PhD programs and individually, entering they had more research publications than most entering MSTP students...turned down several big name programs with obvious federal funding to be there...I can't imagine anyone doing this if they weren't getting funding at UMDNJ. This is what prompted me to investigate further.)
I thought it was rude to say no one would want to say they have a PhD from a DO school. I can't speak for many but I see no difference in getting my PhD as a DO student for UMDNJ than as a MD student for UMDNJ...because I have access to the same faculty! Having worked at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School as a Research Specialist, I can attest to some of the cutting edge research they are doing in the biomedical science departments (a conglomerate of basic science departments)...furthermore, the number of people interested in getting their PhD ALONE at all three campuses. And neuronix is right, people pursuing phD alone no matter where from look down at those that did a combined degree as the fake phD....
I will also add (and I am sorry I keep using UMDNJ as an example since I once worked there...but its a great one) that UMDNJ-SOM actually has a higher entering class GPA than UMDNJ-NJMS...and more applicants per seat than both schools, interviews less applicants and has a smaller entering class...so one could contend it is just as "competitive" to get into the osteopathic school.
I also think any combined medical degree/phd (in basic sciences) program produces physician scientists. NIH may have made the term more well known through their funding and people assume it 'belongs' to them. But, By definition anyone who has a medical degree AND a research science degree is a physician AND a scientist... so I guess I am confused why it would be any confusion about why people in a non-mstp program would NOT be physician scientists.
Doesn't MSTP stand for Medical Scientist Training Program anyway...???
😕
I agree with Neuronix that two different forums is not a good idea simply because there are NOT enough people interested on this board to do so. This has alot to do with the limited funding and spaces etc.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 3
I am sure there are more articles similar to this one...
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/3893722.htm
When it happened they were featured on philadelphia's ABC...
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/3893722.htm
When it happened they were featured on philadelphia's ABC...
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- 31
You grant that UMDNJ has an integrated graduate sciences system, but this is definite not the case at other osteopathic schools. UMDNJ is the exception to the "rule" if you can call it that, along with UNT.
I also would like more information about these guys, considering that information about offers from federally funded programs were turned down seems to be private information. Also, there are no publications for any "Shah S" from any of the UMDNJ campus on Pubmed; it is possible that their publications were collaborations with other school, but I doubt it.
To be frank:
1. DO schools do not have the same levels of funding and prestige than allopathic schools. Funding indicates that the NIH or other institutions believe that their research is worth pursuing, even if the subject areas are similar to that of an allopathic school. Granted, UMDNJ is an exception, but I can't name any other school where the research faculty is shared between an allopathic school and an osteopathic school. In fact the fact that the PhD program is associated with an allopathic school gives them more credibility.
2. If your goal is academic medicine, note that is very rare for a DO student to reach an academic position at an allopathic institution. There are a number of examples at my school where yes, DO's are academicians (one in opthalmo!), but the chances of receiving such a position are difficult at best. I could grant you that the PhD is "real", but the long-term consequences of getting an MD versus a DO may may not be good.
3. Naming programs an MSTP is an old issue and is covered in previous threads, but in short, the program title *MSTP* suggests full federal funding by the NIH, since that is what they term their program. Calling a non-federally funded program an MSTP is suspicious at best, and deceptive advertising as the worst. Physician-scientist as a title is, on the other hand, not a term that the NIH uses to title their programs.
Yours,
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 3
I don't know as much about other programs obviously because I worked within the UMDNJ system. However, it seems to me for programs that actually have a DO/PhD program ie MSU-SOM and OSU-SOM..they are part of a similar health professions system that has several schools including an allopathic medical school, dental school and graduate biomedical program. I can only assume (and I may be wrong) that these DO/PhD program students also have access to faculty within the system.
Essentially the three students got 20 or so interviews (EACH) for MD/PhD programs and the few DO/PhD programs that exist and as the story goes..UMDNJ-SOM was their third interview and they cancelled all the rest..having found their school. All three had near 4.0 GPAs and very high MCAT scores. Their information is a bit more public than most people simply because they were on the news, in several newspaper articles etc. Finally, I have had the pleasure of speaking with one of the twins regarding their decsion making and other options available to them. I never bothered looking up their publications..I guess the news spot convinced me.
I can't agree more. For the most part, free standing DO schools are not getting the recognition for any research work they might be doing perhaps because it isn't worth pursuing or perhaps because they are doing the work at DO schools. Who really knows? All we do know is yes the level of funding is not at all the same. Having done research at a big name institution and less prestigious state school, I understand where the differences lie in terms of funding..and that is important. Hopefully this is something that can slowly change within the osteopathic community.
I agree here as well. Anyone doing such a program is in for a struggle if they want to do academic medicine at an allopathic institution unless their research is out of this world. Of course there is no telling what things will look like 7-10 years from now when a person is finished their program. Osteopathic medicine and its 'respect' within the medical community has changed tremendously in the past 7-10 years..I can't help but believe it will continue to do so.
Your feedback/comments are greatly appreciated....
- Joined
- Nov 21, 1998
- Messages
- 13,059
- Reaction score
- 7,590
Michigan State University is another "exception" to the rule. They share their faculty between the college of human medicine and the college of osteopathic medicine. At what point do the "exceptions" begin to prove the rule?
There is no doubt that research is underfunded and underprioritized at most osteopathic schools (especially newer private ones). Still, it is not like there is *NO* research being done at osteopathic schools. In fact, the amount of research is rapidly increasing. Find below a link to a very interesting power point presentation given to the AOA Bureau of Research that makes this point.
Research at DO schools
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2003
- Messages
- 576
- Reaction score
- 7
The reality is, it is easier to become a PhD granting institution than a professional degree granting institution. MDs and DOs have minimal requirements attached to the degrees. PhDs generally don't, as graduate schools are not professional schools. Many non-PhD granting institutions have research or even quality research going on as well, so just "having good research" at one or two labs does not say much about the institution. Most academic powerhouses have a cadre of good scientists and physician-scientists, and that is the difference. I am sure there are good football players at some Division III schools (see Jerry Rice), but one such player hardly makes the school a powerhouse.
If you look at the powerpoint slides provided, only 2 out of 27 publications "from grants" are in quality journals considered by MD institutions (NEJM and J Physiology), and similarly 3 out of 15 "from fellowships" are in respected journals (JBC, J Phys, Cancer Letter). A total of 27+15 = 52 publications over 6 years is fewer than per person or per lab publication numbers by some individual investigators, not to mention the WHOLE field. I don't think there is much point in arguing that there is good research going on in osteopathy, when the number shown here clearly indicates that it is rare and unusual for that to happen.
If you look at the powerpoint slides provided, only 2 out of 27 publications "from grants" are in quality journals considered by MD institutions (NEJM and J Physiology), and similarly 3 out of 15 "from fellowships" are in respected journals (JBC, J Phys, Cancer Letter). A total of 27+15 = 52 publications over 6 years is fewer than per person or per lab publication numbers by some individual investigators, not to mention the WHOLE field. I don't think there is much point in arguing that there is good research going on in osteopathy, when the number shown here clearly indicates that it is rare and unusual for that to happen.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 3
Who is arguing that? I think even the ppt points out that it is currently subpar and DOs need a "wake up call". However, those who are trying to do research are having some successful outcomes in both research and funding. That's what I understood the presentation to show. The presentation stipulates that what is being done (research wise) is NO WHERE near enough. No one is disputing that. But what I am saying is that DO/PhD programs simply should not be ignored because 1. some people have inaccurate information on how they function/work...i think there is alot of misconception 2. DOs can obviously do competent research, but it is obviously on DOs, to some extent, to step it up as they concede. I agree.
But what I should also point out is that 'good research' is subjective and defined by the 'funding powers that be'. I have seen it first hand (and I am not talking about within a DO school)....just the difference between research funding at prestigious private IVY league schools and state schools. Its unfortunate but somewhere along the line, we began to define good and meaningful research by how much funding we received for the project. In THEORY, I guess this makes sense. But in all my research experience I have never thought the process was fair...especially given all the politics even when I worked for a PI that STAYED with funding etc. How is it fair when so much of funding is not what you know or what you are doing, but WHO you know. Furthermore if the granting body is dominated (and that is an understatement for DOs, URM MDs) by big name graduates etc. Historically black allopathic medical schools run into the same problem.
Anyway, as with any group(women, minorities, DOs...etc) that is discriminated against until they prove themselves (or laws change to prevent that discrimination)....balance/equality eventually comes but takes time certainly. The group can't sit back on their a$$ however and just wait for whenever that day might come. So, like previous posters have indicated AOA needs to step up....
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,477
- Reaction score
- 31
I don't agree with your reading of the presentation. I think the publications and numbers shown apply only to research directly related to osteopathy, and does not cover publications in other basic sciences departments that are at osteopathic schools, which may have more funding and quality publications.
Yours,
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,943
- Reaction score
- 3,017
Uh? is there any particular reason why you (anyone) would want to do a DO/PhD besides the fact that...you may not be able to get into an MD/PhD program?
I'm not asking this in a sort of contemptuous way...I'm just wondering what a DO would add to your PhD degree...are you going to focus on OMT research? OMT physiology?
If someone wants to do translational research, I don't understand what's the advantage of doing a DO??? I really don't know why DOs should spending more money on research: really i thought that's not what the training is for? The odd thing is it's probably much easier to get into a very good biology PhD degree program if you are a US citizen--in which case you are much better prepared for a career in research than a PhD degree from any of the DO institutions.
Correct me if i were wrong, but recently i've been reading the DO forums and it started to appear to me that there are two different lines of thoughts:
(1) There is no essential difference between MD and DO. Therefoer, DO is simply a "default" option for people who for one reason or another, cannot get into an MD school to make up their dues so they get another oppurtunity once they apply for residency. I.e. MSU-DO -> Johns Hopkins residency -> Chief of Neurosurgery somewhere
If this were you, then I can (possibly) see why you would want to do a DO/PhD. However, my recommendation is going to be, do your PhD at some other more established research institution. OSUSOM et al will be looked very badly upon, even if you were just a straight PhD. I mean, Oklahoma State or Michigan State perhaps are still acceptable places to do your PhD...but really, I seriously recommend against doing your PhD (in molecular biology) at New Jersey School of Osteopathic Medicine...most academic researchers (i.e. grant reviewers) don't KNOW what a DO is! (unless, as I'm clearly unaware of, there is some expert in OMT...but...i've already argued that OMT is scientifically hokey 🙂 j/k)
(2) There is a HUGE, foundamentally philosophical difference between MD and DO. DOs don't want to go to MD schools even if it were offered to them on a silver platter. DOs don't want to do MD residencies in the first place. DOs are better trained for primary care/rural medical care.
In that case, if you (one) wanted to have a research based career, clearly it's not right to get a DO...it's almost unethical in that sense because you are taking a spot from someone who wants to provide quality primary/rural care...you are just using it so you could have clincial practice prilliage once you get your own lab.
I'm not asking this in a sort of contemptuous way...I'm just wondering what a DO would add to your PhD degree...are you going to focus on OMT research? OMT physiology?
If someone wants to do translational research, I don't understand what's the advantage of doing a DO??? I really don't know why DOs should spending more money on research: really i thought that's not what the training is for? The odd thing is it's probably much easier to get into a very good biology PhD degree program if you are a US citizen--in which case you are much better prepared for a career in research than a PhD degree from any of the DO institutions.
Correct me if i were wrong, but recently i've been reading the DO forums and it started to appear to me that there are two different lines of thoughts:
(1) There is no essential difference between MD and DO. Therefoer, DO is simply a "default" option for people who for one reason or another, cannot get into an MD school to make up their dues so they get another oppurtunity once they apply for residency. I.e. MSU-DO -> Johns Hopkins residency -> Chief of Neurosurgery somewhere
If this were you, then I can (possibly) see why you would want to do a DO/PhD. However, my recommendation is going to be, do your PhD at some other more established research institution. OSUSOM et al will be looked very badly upon, even if you were just a straight PhD. I mean, Oklahoma State or Michigan State perhaps are still acceptable places to do your PhD...but really, I seriously recommend against doing your PhD (in molecular biology) at New Jersey School of Osteopathic Medicine...most academic researchers (i.e. grant reviewers) don't KNOW what a DO is! (unless, as I'm clearly unaware of, there is some expert in OMT...but...i've already argued that OMT is scientifically hokey 🙂 j/k)
(2) There is a HUGE, foundamentally philosophical difference between MD and DO. DOs don't want to go to MD schools even if it were offered to them on a silver platter. DOs don't want to do MD residencies in the first place. DOs are better trained for primary care/rural medical care.
In that case, if you (one) wanted to have a research based career, clearly it's not right to get a DO...it's almost unethical in that sense because you are taking a spot from someone who wants to provide quality primary/rural care...you are just using it so you could have clincial practice prilliage once you get your own lab.
