- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
- Messages
- 258
- Reaction score
- 3
Originally posted by sluox
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.
Whew. This whole post is very interesting (although I could easily use another "I" word)
Where do I start? Well first off you talk as if DOs only learn about OMT and nothing else. If DO students take all the same basic science courses as MD students, why isn't it reasonable to think that some of them may be interested in studying one of those sciences on a deeper level...ie PhD? The question should not be what a DO degree will add to a PhD degree but how the PhD can add to the DO degree. (Hello this is the same concept for MDs getting a PhD) I am SOOO very confused why people assume DO means "I hate research" or "I am incapable of being interested in research" or "I am incapable of being a competent researcher". Regardless of whether one chose osteopathy because of the 'huge philosophical difference' or as a 'default', whenever ANYONE chooses to pursue a phD...they must be obviously interested in research of some sort..usually translational research.
Furthermore, being excited about osteopathy because it provides a different approach to patient care and you firmly believe it prepares you to be a better clinician (primary or specialty) than most allopathic programs, does NOT preclude you from being interested in the research that could help you better treat some of your patients OR help another physician better treat a patient. SIGH. Therefore DOs should be just as interested in funding for physician-scientist programs and research as MDs. IF we all agree that biomedical research eventually translates to better treatments/care for patients...then why is it so impossible to concede that DOs (as another type of physician) should/could be involved in such research.
Now in regards to where someone does their PhD in a joint program. Granted neither MSU and OSU is Harvard or JHU...but would your advice also be extended to those students pursuing a MD/PhD at those institutions? Should those students just get their PhD at a 'better' school also? Because as has already been said in this thread....the DO students and MD students have access to the same faculty for basic science research. And what about the plain graduate students? Maybe we should stop research all together at institutions that aren't as 'established'.
Furthermore, as compared to MSU's osteo school and OSU's osteo school ALONE...UMDNJ-School of Osteopathic Medicine ALONE has received more NIH monies/grants for research. But UMDNJ-SOM is not free standing either. It is part of the ONLY health professions school system in NJ. Therefore the DO/PhD students have access AND utilize the research faculty of the Graduate School of Biomedical Science which the other UMDNJ schools (2 allopathic and 1 dental) use for their joint programs also. (Is anyone else getting de ja vu? ) And I am guessing grant readers have heard of UMDNJ before even if they have never heard of a DO.
But I beg to differ on that point also. I believe most scientifically educated people (MD, PhD..essentially the folks making the decisions) have heard of a DO. Wouldn't it be odd for the grant readers not to know of a credential that is in the request for proposal specifications. (ie grants usually specify the degrees a person must possess to be qualified to apply etc...usually it is listed MD, DO, DVD, DDS, PhD or Pharm D etc.) I don't think its a questions of grant reviewers not knowing about DO, but more so about them not RESPECTING DO or being biased AGAINST DO for historical reasons.
I am not sure why I always get sucked into such discussions. I guess its good to keep the brain cells working. Perhaps its because I was taught to be a critical and logical individual and occasionally people put up very illogical arguements...that i HAVE to say something. I don't know. This previous post was just funny to me. I have to ask....sluox, did you read the entire thread?