Do physician view points significantly differ from a scientist's?

[Endoxifen]

As the title says, is there a significant difference between how a physician and a scientist views the world? I've been told that physicians are considerably more dogmatic, with answers commonly given as definites, but this was from a molecular biologist, not a physician.

If there are significant differences, is there any benefit to switching one's view?

What does everyone think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Dr. Stalker]

OP - just look at the p value to figure it out 😛

 

[Endoxifen]

OP - just look at the p value to figure it out 😛

I prefer CIs to p-values. Helps avoid potentially crossing the null.

 

[gyngyn]

There is only evidence, or lack thereof.

 

[Mad Jack]

Depends on what you mean. Our point of view as to how to interpret certain bits of science might be somewhat different, as we tend to view the effects of science upon the health of individuals as paramount, while a scientist might have a personal objective that is entirely disconnected from the health or welfare of a population. But in regard to science itself... Medicine is science, so yeah, we operate with the same methods and perspectives as other scientists in regard to how research is conducted, plus or minus some rules in regard to our subjects that they don't have.

 

[chemystery31]

I can only say working with several PhD's and several MD's, absolutely yes (in general). I'm neither myself so I can't say definitively.

It begins with what type of person it draws. The MD career path is well laid out. Get good grades/EC's, med school, residency, attending. It's a pre-professional program. With PhD programs, there is much you have to decide. In that sense, to me at least, MD is the easier path because there is more structure built in to prevent failure (of course assuming you're intelligent enough for either). PhD there is no garuntee and no final skill you have. You could do a PhD in chemistry but end up working in potroleum, industry, comercial science (eg selling equipment), teaching or actually obtaining something like an NIH R01 and starting a lab. In fact, it's rare for a PhD student to end up with their own lab. The future is not a promise for a PhD whereas MD has extremely high job security.

MD are about bottom lines, patient outcomes. PhD is about exploration, investigation, discovery. MD have definitive impact limited to the individual scale. PhD have indeterminate impact with unlimited potential usefulness. That is, MD will treat patients and improve their health, but are limited to one person at a time; PhD work may never lead to anything directly useful but developing a new chemotherapuetic or antioboitc or therapy or imaging/diagnostic modality could lead to unlimited impact to humanity.

This also lends itself to the type of interactions you prefer too. MD enjoy the benefit directly helping others (which is rewarding) and PhD may never see that gratification. MD's may see it every hour or so of their day while PhD may only see it once every 5 or 10 years.

Many MD's do research and there is such a thing as physician scientists, so I'd say it's never black and white, but there are definitely leanings that I have found to be unignorable and something that I considered when chosing my career path.

There's obviously exceptions to all of this (so bringing up exceptions doesn't negate what I'm saying) but my argument is that these are the general trends that more people fall into than fall out of.

 

[WisNeuro]

As a PhD scientist-clinician, generally, yes. There are definitely exceptions, but being trained in statistics and the scientific method definitely changes things. I've worked with several (primarily clinicians) who decided to do some research, and I've noticed some of the dogmatic thinking. Also, I have had to spend a lot of time explaining what are relatively simple statistical concepts (e.g., the general uselessness of p values, necessity of correction for multiple comparisons, etc) in almost ever case. Actually had someone not include multiple comparison corrections I showed them after it made their t comparisons non-significant. Always exceptions to the rule, but in general, glaring differences.

 

[aldol16]

So here's my take, coming from the other end of the spectrum as a scientist now going into medicine. As a scientist, I spend the vast majority of my daily life trying to figuring out how to measure the natural world and understand it. That's at the very core of what academics do. Specifically, as a chemist, I try to understand how nature performs challenging chemical reactions because nature has the advantage of a billion years' worth of insight and can inform how chemists design syntheses. But it's hard to see molecules and even harder to see how they react, so most of my day is devoted to figuring out clever ways to measure that reactivity so that I can test my hypotheses.

As a direct consequence of these stated goals, we can spend a lot of time thinking about things that may seem trivial to the applications-based person. In other words, in many cases, it doesn't matter if we know how it works - as long as it works. If I figure out how to dump garbage into one end of a reactor and crank out gold at the other end, does it really matter if I know how the reaction works? A pure scientist will tell you it does.

As scientists, we usually make understanding the natural world our goal. Some of us delve into using that understanding to improve real-world systems - those people are called engineers. The line between pure science and applied science is a thin one, but applied scientists and engineers are generally more problem-oriented. It doesn't matter to them if I can measure the heat of a reaction to five decimal places. It only matters that they can get a number on the right order of magnitude so that they can design a reactor that can withstand heat a few orders of magnitude higher for a comfortable margin of safety.

I see physicians as being applied scientists. Although medicine is moving towards more of an evidence-based approach, I still see doctors as caring more about the final vs. initial states of a system as opposed to the mechanism between those states. In other words, I think that a doctor is primarily concerned with whether a particular drug works (outcomes of control vs. treated groups) whereas a scientist is more interested in the mechanism by which the drug works (which biochemical receptor does it hit and how does it activate/inhibit it?).

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I can only say working with several PhD's and several MD's, absolutely yes (in general). I'm neither myself so I can't say definitively.

😕

 

[chemystery31]

😕

As in my opinion is an unequivocal yes, but I am emphasizing that it is only my opinion.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

As in my opinion is an unequivocal yes, but I am emphasizing that it is only my opinion.

lol got it. Was just a weird way to say that.