Does anyone here actually enjoy research?

[Virgil]

If some medical students/residents can chime in too, that would be great.

I may be narrow-minded but personally, I don't see how anyone can enjoy research. I agree that the prospects of curing some kind of debilitating disease that affects countless people or pushing the limits of "cutting-edge" science sound exciting in theory. In practice, however, I've found it's an entirely different story. I've been researching for almost a year now and to tell you the truth, it's quite boring. Entering numbers in the computer, staining slides, writing up reports, cutting tissue samples and mounting them on slides, looking through microscopes, interpreting data, reconciling conflicting data, making sense of other research in the field (especially when it conflicts with yours), etc. is all pretty tedious stuff. Unless the deadline for a grant proposal is near or something, there isn't any sense of urgency or pressure. It's not too exciting, and I'm an adrenaline junkie. You rarely get to be on the "cutting-edge", and you can go years (and probably even a lifetime) without any substantial medical or scientific contribution. And when all that tedious, hard work ends up in a rejected paper that is not salvageable, it's ridiculously frustrating.

To those people applying MD/PhD, why are you doing it? Do you enjoy researching? Are you doing it out of a sense of duty (you want to "make a difference") even though you don't particularly enjoy research? If you actually do enjoy it, what do you like about it? Maybe I need to change the way I see research or something. I hope I can learn to love it.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[suwaifo]

You know, I always thought the same way. I was always surprised by all the people that are gung-ho for research. I'd rather be teaching someone some US History, and that's no joke! I guess some may find my love for history just as odd as I find other people's love for research, if that can exist.

 

[87138]

I never had any desire for research, which is why I didn't do any.

At one interview, my interviewer (a PhD) and I were discussing research. I told her "I'm very thankful there are people out there that enjoy research so I don't have to do it."

It's vital, but it ain't for me.


*This mostly pertains to bench research. Clinical research might be a little better, but for me in med school it would probably just be a means to an end.

 

[unsung]

Science is nice because you get a chance to really "delve" into something and become an expert in a narrow area. That appeals to some people and doesn't to others... that's fine.

It's like... say you're really gifted in a sport like gymnastics or something. It definitely takes a certain kind of personality to *want* to practice upwards of 5 hours per day for a shot at being the "best"... and personally I find the idea of "devoting" myself to something to be really appealing. My friend I was talking about this to was much less gungho, although she loved the sport too... but she just wasn't sure she would enjoy focusing on one thing to that extent, to the exclusion of other things.

So I'd say it just depends on your personality. Two people could enjoy the same subject matter to an equal extent... but it takes something extra to want to commit yourself to an in-depth study of something.

Also, I guess I should add that my background was psychology and I enjoyed that type of research much more than being someone else's lab rat in some kind of bio lab ... the fun part about psych research was in designing the experiment, and discussing experiment procedure, critiquing each other's setups, etc., as well as debating current research. It's much more creative imo, in comparison to biochem research, etc., where the problems a student could be working on seem to be so much more narrow and on a smaller scale. I guess that's just because there's so much out there to be done, that it's easy to come up with research Qs "how does this enzyme affect blah". I mean, there are procedural things one could criticize, etc., but at the end of the day, it's all pretty much cut and dry. Neuroscience stuff is way cooler though... maybe I should've looked into that more.

 

[KnuxNole]

I agree, i could never see myself doing research. Especially in undergrad. I mean how the hell am I supposed to do top-notch research when I am just a lowly undergrad who knows next to nothing of science.

I mean I can barely use a pipet(I never knew about the two-stop thingy until this semester ) and other gadgets without supervision and apparently, they expect you to conduct research on complex entities that I have never heard of. I was previously thinking of doing research, but after 3 consecutive professors explained their projects, and I could barely understand the jargon that came out of their mouth, I declined.

 

[Virgil]

You know, I always thought the same way. I was always surprised by all the people that are gung-ho for research. I'd rather be teaching someone some US History, and that's no joke! I guess some may find my love for history just as odd as I find other people's love for research, if that can exist.

You know, I think I should clarify before I end up stepping on some toes here. Research is indubitably important, arguably moreso than the practice of medicine. Without it, the word "medicine" might still be synonymous with "magic" nowadays, but I'm sure you already know that. The reason I started this thread is that it seems more and more people are spending a couple of years here and there doing research, and medicine is becoming more and more competitive. I'm constantly floored by the amount of people in competitive residencies who have PhD's. I'm planning on continuing research to get a leg up on med school admissions. I plan to research during medical school to get a leg up on residency admissions. Hell, I might even research during my residency (depending on what I decide to do) for a competitive fellowship. The only problem is that I can't stand it!

 

[Molly247]

I'm doing research on methicillin resistant staph aureus right now and I'm really enjoying it. It's like a surprise every time you take samples...you never know what is going to grow. I'll admit, pouring plates is not the most exciting thing in the world, but it's a necessary evil.

 

[bhishma]

Love research. Doing just medicine is great and all, but being able to make a lasting difference in science, with the hope that my discovery can save lives even when I'm gone is just more fulfilling.

 

[Cataract]

I love it! I get my jollies from tissue engineering/wound healing research and it's not all pipetting bench work. I had one project where I had to collect cow blood from a slaughterhouse weekly. I watched it get put down, I put a bucket under it, and drive away with 2 liters of blood in the passenger's seat. I don't eat bologna anymore.

 

[Virgil]

Science is nice because you get a chance to really "delve" into something and become an expert in a narrow area. That appeals to some people and doesn't to others... that's fine.

It's like... say you're really gifted in a sport like gymnastics or something. It definitely takes a certain kind of personality to *want* to practice upwards of 5 hours per day for a shot at being the "best"... and personally I find the idea of "devoting" myself to something to be really appealing. My friend I was talking about this to was much less gungho, although she loved the sport too... but she just wasn't sure she would enjoy focusing on one thing to that extent, to the exclusion of other things.

So I'd say it just depends on your personality. Two people could enjoy the same subject matter to an equal extent... but it takes something extra to want to commit yourself to an in-depth study of something.

Also, I guess I should add that my background was psychology and I enjoyed that type of research much more than being someone else's lab rat in some kind of bio lab ... the fun part about psych research was in designing the experiment, and discussing experiment procedure, critiquing each other's setups, etc., as well as debating current research. It's much more creative imo, in comparison to biochem research, etc., where the problems a student could be working on seem to be so much more narrow and on a smaller scale. I guess that's just because there's so much out there to be done, that it's easy to come up with research Qs "how does this enzyme affect blah". I mean, there are procedural things one could criticize, etc., but at the end of the day, it's all pretty much cut and dry. Neuroscience stuff is way cooler though... maybe I should've looked into that more.

But can't you say the same thing about clinical medicine? That's the whole reasoning behind specializiation. Nowadays you'll see many cardiothoracic surgeons who specialize in either thoracic or cardiac surgery.

 

[bodonid]

Have you considered why many med schools encourage non-medically oriented research? I did research in macromolecules, and it was a lot of fun. Most of the co-researchers I worked with knew that I was going into medicine, but that didn't stop me from learning all I could about the eukaryotic cytoskeleton. I think research is research, and it helps to get involved in something that you can wrap your mind around. Clinical research is often convoluted and opaque to people getting in on the ground level, unless you get a lot of time with the person that is overseeing the operation. I knew exactly what I was doing, and I was passionate about it. I gave a seminar and a class; and if nothing else, research will give you more confidence when you say: yes, I want to practice.

 

[Virgil]

Love research. Doing just medicine is great and all, but being able to make a lasting difference in science, with the hope that my discovery can save lives even when I'm gone is just more fulfilling.

I try to think this way to get through the tedium of research. It doesn't work. The thought that it's my "duty" to sacrifice my happiness so that the rest of humankind might benefit (and that's a BIG "might") really doesn't motivate me all that much. As much as I'd like to cure cancer and end up saving millions of lives over the course of eternity, which I probably won't, I'd much rather be selfish and help people (maybe on a smaller scale) doing something I actually enjoy (the practice of medicine). The upside is the guarantee that my work will actually affect people's lives, albeit one individual at a time. With research, there are no such guarantees.

I know if I decide to go into research based on the concept that it's my "duty," I would most probably fail and lead an unhappy life. If you do actually enjoy it, more power to you. I wish I did.

 

[unsung]

But can't you say the same thing about clinical medicine? That's the whole reasoning behind specializiation. Nowadays you'll see many cardiothoracic surgeons who specialize in either thoracic or cardiac surgery.

That's true... and certainly that aspect of medicine is appealing. I'd much rather do neurology and specialize as a tertiary caregiver than be that first line of defense. But I think even beyond that, research has its own special appeal... mostly in terms of the creativity involved. As a real researcher (vs. undergrad foot soldier ), you'd get to think up your own research problems, propose your own theories... then get the undergrad kiddies to do all the grunt work.

Seriously though, as a doc, you get to be the expert and the authority, but you can't really "make up" you own new treatments or something. Everything you'd do or be allowed to do would be based on someone else's research. So unless you are that researcher running an approved test trial, you'd always be working off of the results of people who've gone before you.

 

[bodonid]

I try to think this way to get through the tedium of research. It doesn't work. The thought that it's my "duty" to sacrifice my happiness so that the rest of humankind might benefit (and that's a BIG "might") really doesn't motivate me all that much. As much as I'd like to cure cancer and end up saving millions of lives over the course of eternity, which I probably won't, I'd much rather be selfish and help people (maybe on a smaller scale) doing something I actually enjoy (the practice of medicine). The upside is the guarantee that my work will actually affect people's lives, albeit one individual at a time. With research, there are no such guarantees.

I know if I decide to go into research based on the concept that it's my "duty," I would most probably fail and lead an unhappy life. If you do actually enjoy it, more power to you. I wish I did.

Belive it or not, there are tons of people that go into research saying "i'd love to take care of people and save lives and stuff, but I'd really like to work in the lab". Not many PhDs do it for the 'curing cancer' BS.

 

[majik1213]

i like clinical research, but abhor that other crap .. i'm doing a mandatory astrophysical research project that I hate, hate, hate

 

[Maxprime]

One of the best explanations I can think of:

You have a patient come in with a glioblastoma multiforme. You tell them you can remove the tumor and treat with chemo/radiation/whatever. But it will, without fail, grow back and kill them - rather quickly. As a clinician, I would be horribly frustrated if I wasn't at least just running a lab to figure out a new treatment.

Research is clever and novel, not algorithmic. The science of solving a problem is usually rather straightforward, but the clever tricks required to progress each step are the fun part.

 

[Virgil]

Have you considered why many med schools encourage non-medically oriented research? I did research in macromolecules, and it was a lot of fun. Most of the co-researchers I worked with knew that I was going into medicine, but that didn't stop me from learning all I could about the eukaryotic cytoskeleton. I think research is research, and it helps to get involved in something that you can wrap your mind around. Clinical research is often convoluted and opaque to people getting in on the ground level, unless you get a lot of time with the person that is overseeing the operation. I knew exactly what I was doing, and I was passionate about it. I gave a seminar and a class; and if nothing else, research will give you more confidence when you say: yes, I want to practice.

I wouldn't say I do clinical research. It's more like basic biomedical research with possible clinical implications (that little tidbit is necessary to qualify for funding in some cases). Nevertheless, I don't think it matters whether the research is clinical or not--the same rules apply. The research process is the same. You're dealing with some scientific or clinical unknown, and to truly understand this unknown there's going to be a lot of data collection, analysis, failed experiments and a lot of down time. I think our individual experiences in lab has definitely played a role in how antithetical our opinions about research are. What exactly did they have you do in lab?

 

[Virgil]

One of the best explanations I can think of:

You have a patient come in with a glioblastoma multiforme. You tell them you can remove the tumor and treat with chemo/radiation/whatever. But it will, without fail, grow back and kill them - rather quickly. As a clinician, I would be horribly frustrated if I wasn't at least just running a lab to figure out a new treatment.

Research is clever and novel, not algorithmic. The science of solving a problem is usually rather straightforward, but the clever tricks required to progress each step are the fun part.

Right on. I think unsung said a similar thing a few posts above. That part of research actually sounds really appealing. But as an undergrad, I'm a mere foot soldier! I admittedly do very little in devising the methods and goals of a project as I'm never given the opportunity, but I understand that. I don't know what I'm doing, and I didn't spend years in grad school and earn the right to do all that. But day in and day out, I just do what I'm told. What I do all day is the grunt work, and my painstaking effort is rarely appreciated. It's no wonder I hate research.

But my question is this. As most of us are just undergrad pre-meds (and maybe a couple of neuroscience grad students) who have only been given the opportunity to do grunt work in research, how can we be sure that research is for us and commit ourselves to a 6+ year MD/PhD program?

 

[spanamit]

It also highly depends on what kind of research you are doing. If your research involves shooting cancer cells with high powered femto second lasers, then yes, it could actually be quite fun.

 

[ChubbyChaser]

I enjoy parts of it, but then other parts make me. It is nice knowing that somehow the work I am putting in might some day, either directly or indirectly help a life.

 

[spanamit]

But my question is this. As most of us are just undergrad pre-meds (and maybe a couple of neuroscience grad students) who have only been given the opportunity to do grunt work in research, how can we be sure that research is for us and commit ourselves to a 6+ year MD/PhD program?

You will be surprised to find that this is certainly not the case for everyone. Some undergrads actually have had an opportunity to define their own projects and lead real investigations, not just merely do "grunt work." And as such, many of these people realize how awesome research really is, and gravitate toward M.D/Ph.D.

At my school you can actually compete for mini-grants as undergrads to do research. Also there are plenty of summer fellowships available. In both cases, you define your own project, of course with the mentorship of the PI.

 

[Virgil]

OK, I've come to terms with the fact that I'm a lowly undergrad who is pissed off at research because I do only the most basic of tasks (grunt work) and know little about the background science.

Alright. This is what I'm going to do. I'm going to read up about common research practices and master the background science (biochem textbooks, all the papers in the field, etc.). I'll strive to understand the exact reason behind everything we do in lab. I'll ask about each and every concept I don't understand, abbreviations in papers--everything. Hell, I'll strive to rival my PI's understanding of the science behind the research. Then I'll ask for a more active part in devising the goals and methods of the project, or even start up my own project under my PI's guidance. That I actually find exciting. Is this feasible, or am I being overly ambitious? I'm pretty busy with my classes and the MCAT as it is...

 

[spanamit]

OK, I've come to terms with the fact that I'm a lowly undergrad who is pissed off at research because I do only the most basic of tasks (grunt work) and know little about the background science.

Alright. This is what I'm going to do. I'm going to read up about common research practices and master the background science (biochem textbooks, all the papers in the field, etc.). I'll strive to understand the exact reason behind everything we do in lab. I'll ask about each and every concept I don't understand, abbreviations in papers--everything. Hell, I'll strive to rival my PI's understanding of the science behind the research. Then I'll ask for a more active part in devising the goals and methods of the project, or even start up my own project under my PI's guidance. That I actually find exciting. Is this feasible, or am I being overly ambitious? I'm pretty busy with my classes and the MCAT as it is...

Baby steps.

I would recommend having a chat with your PI telling him that you are interested in being more active in the project. Ask him if he has any reference materials to help you catch up on the background. I am sure these polite requests would not only help alleviate your frustrations, but also show the PI that you are actually interested in his work, and not just another premed who is slaving to get a letter of rec/research experience on his med school app.

 

[Virgil]

You will be surprised to find that this is certainly not the case for everyone. Some undergrads actually have had an opportunity to define their own projects and lead real investigations, not just merely do "grunt work." And as such, many of these people realize how awesome research really is, and gravitate toward M.D/Ph.D.

At my school you can actually compete for mini-grants as undergrads to do research. Also there are plenty of summer fellowships available. In both cases, you define your own project, of course with the mentorship of the PI.

You know, I think that's what I need to do. I need a more active part. The problem is that I'm studying for the MCAT now and over the summer, and I'm applying next year (2009). I'm also trying to raise my GPA, so I'm taking a lot of classes. The soonest I can really dedicate myself to a project of my own is the summer of 2009, but by then I would have already applied to medical school. I want to do a research fellowship sometime before I apply so I can figure out whether or not research really is for me, and whether or not I should apply MD/PhD. What should I do? Should I apply MD/PhD anyway, write a ton of bs in my essays and hope my mind is made up come interviews (if any)?

 

[Lokhtar]

Research is awesome. For me, if I had to choose between being a doctor or being a researcher, it wouldn't be much of a choice - research every single time.

 

[beats]

In my experience, most MD/PhD applicants have not been doing grunt work. I have my own projects, I've orally presented abstracts and presented poster at some conferences and authored some papers.

If all I did was genotype or purify plasmids, I'd prob dislike research too. It's much more enjoyable when you get your own projects or design your own experiments. As of late, I've been creating my own transgenic mouse.

Anyhow, I wouldn't apply MD/PhD if you are not sure whether or not you like research or just to get into a competitive residency. There are other ways to secure competitive residencies. That being said, a lot of my fellow interviewees have no intention of doing research ultimately (their words). For someone who really wants to do research, this is kind of frustrating.

Anyhow, get on some projects where you can be more autonomous. You may like it after all!

 

[Concubine]

If some medical students/residents can chime in too, that would be great.

I may be narrow-minded but personally, I don't see how anyone can enjoy research. I agree that the prospects of curing some kind of debilitating disease that affects countless people or pushing the limits of "cutting-edge" science sound exciting in theory. In practice, however, I've found it's an entirely different story. I've been researching for almost a year now and to tell you the truth, it's quite boring. Entering numbers in the computer, staining slides, writing up reports, cutting tissue samples and mounting them on slides, looking through microscopes, interpreting data, reconciling conflicting data, making sense of other research in the field (especially when it conflicts with yours), etc. is all pretty tedious stuff. Unless the deadline for a grant proposal is near or something, there isn't any sense of urgency or pressure. It's not too exciting, and I'm an adrenaline junkie. You rarely get to be on the "cutting-edge", and you can go years (and probably even a lifetime) without any substantial medical or scientific contribution. And when all that tedious, hard work ends up in a rejected paper that is not salvageable, it's ridiculously frustrating.

To those people applying MD/PhD, why are you doing it? Do you enjoy researching? Are you doing it out of a sense of duty (you want to "make a difference") even though you don't particularly enjoy research? If you actually do enjoy it, what do you like about it? Maybe I need to change the way I see research or something. I hope I can learn to love it.

Absolutely love it. It's the problem solving.

 

[SoxPatriots]

Research can be awful when you're given a project and just go through the motions. But most people like research because they can formulatte questions and test them on their own. I used to be somewhat bored with research, but this year I'm allowed to do whatever I want (which can be much more difficult) but definitely more rewarding.

It takes a lot of self motivation and ambition to come up with original ideas, which Ive found to be a million times better than just pipetting for a doctor because he says so.

 

[medguy83]

There are certain aspects I like about research; discovering new areas of scientific understanding (e.g. RNAi therapy and other neat stuff), having the chance to teach students and work in academia. However, there are a lot of cons associated with the PhD route as well. First off, the field is extremely political (like most careers, but even moreso in academia). The field is a tight-knit group and if you don't fit in with their ideologies you'll be very unhappy. Also, it's difficult to establish grant funding as a newly minted PhD. And if you don't bring in the big bucks to the university, that coveted tenure position may be out of the question.
You've also got to take into account the fact that for the majority of your professional life, your days, nights, and basically every waking hour will consist of a classroom, a lab, papers, and virtual solidtude. Don't get me wrong, there are numerous people who would love this type of life, but I'm not one of them. As an MD I will have the chance to have direct contact with patients, manage their care, and posess the freedom to engage in research at my choosing.

 

[foster033]

At a lot of schools you can apply to the md/phd program up until MS2. So if you don't know now that's okay, just apply to the md program. Do some research after your first year or do the fellowship in 2009 and decided after these things if you want to apply to the md/phd program.

but if you can't find at least a little enjoyment in the basics of research I think a phd might not be for you.

 

[physicsnerd42]

If some medical students/residents can chime in too, that would be great.

To those people applying MD/PhD, why are you doing it? Do you enjoy researching? Are you doing it out of a sense of duty (you want to "make a difference") even though you don't particularly enjoy research? If you actually do enjoy it, what do you like about it? Maybe I need to change the way I see research or something. I hope I can learn to love it.

I haven't read any of the responses, but I'll chime in. I'm a MD/PhD student and I love research. I enjoy the challenge, the deep understanding that comes from studying a subject for years (vs. having one lecture, or less, on each subject in med school). I like finding out something that no one else knows. Designing experiments is a challenge if you want to do it well. I'm in the second year of med school and I get bored out of mind by some classes but I love going into lab. In general (and don't jump on me for this), you don't really have to use your brain very much during the first couple of years of med school--you just have to be good at memorizing inane details and spitting them back out on a test (yes, there are exceptions like physio, but really, is physiology that mentally taxing?). With research, you actually have to think about things. There is, as you mentioned, the prospect that what I work on in the lab could someday find its way into patient care.

I think what you're doing in the lab also determines your enjoyment of the lab experience. I have worked in labs where I've been bored out of my skull. If all you're doing in the lab is what someone else tells you to do, then it's easy to get bored. If you're thinking up experiments and then deciding where you want to go next as results come in, then it's much more interesting.

Anyway, that's my $.02.

 

[spilledmilk]

After doing both I totally prefer lab research...and also enjoy both...

Even though my lab work never got published and my clinical stuff has =/

Either way- both experiences have shown me that science is fun and I don't want to do research as my career.

 

[lex]

I hate labs... the fact that I finished the pre-reqs with lab is quite a miracle. I despise every moment I wasted in those lab courses. As for research, if it is going to be like the undergrad lab, I absolutely would run away from it. But if it is a computer lab (dry lab/research), count me in.

 

[Virgil]

Research can be awful when you're given a project and just go through the motions. But most people like research because they can formulatte questions and test them on their own. I used to be somewhat bored with research, but this year I'm allowed to do whatever I want (which can be much more difficult) but definitely more rewarding.

It takes a lot of self motivation and ambition to come up with original ideas, which Ive found to be a million times better than just pipetting for a doctor because he says so.

I have little self-motivation and ambition, probably not enough to be a successful researcher. That's partly why I decided against law as a career...and partly why I'm gravitating away from MD/PhD. If I'm given a case as a lawyer, I'd probably wait until the week of to start writing a defense. But if someone was like "Doctor, he's crashing. We need to operate NOW!" I'd be ready to go. I work well under pressure and high-stakes. I don't know if this is part of my personality or just plain laziness that needs to be overcome.

 

[Vvandenn]

Research makes me depressed. Being in a lab is like my own personal hell.

 

[Drogba]

I enjoy parts of it, but then other parts make me. It is nice knowing that somehow the work I am putting in might some day, either directly or indirectly help a life.

I don't if people realize how huge of a might this is. The vast majority of medical research will not affect patient care or population health significantly. Saying you are getting in to research to develop something thats going to have a huge impact is as idealistic as saying you are becoming a doctor to "save all the african babies (as the SDNers love to say)," in my opinion. Don't me wrong, I love the idealism, but I don't think most people view basic research in this realistically critical light.

More than likely you will have a negligible impact on healthcare as a basic scientist. As a clinician you will have impact on patients' life day in and day out. If you love basic research do it, it's an important part of medicine, and no one ever accomplished anything without ambition, so shoot for the stars just realize you might not make it out of the stratosphere.

I think the happiest basic scientists are probably those that are captivated by the intellectual pursuit and while they would love to make a huge impact on health, they will have enjoyed the process even if they don't manage to.

 

[Virgil]

I don't if people realize how huge of a might this is. The vast majority of medical research will not affect patient care or population health significantly. Saying you are getting in to research to develop something thats going to have a huge impact is as idealistic as saying you are becoming a doctor to "save all the african babies (as the SDNers love to say)," in my opinion. Don't me wrong, I love the idealism, but I don't think most people view basic research in this realistically critical light.

More than likely you will have a negligible impact on healthcare as a basic scientist. As a clinician you will have impact on patients' life day in and day out. If you love basic research do it, it's an important part of medicine, and no one ever accomplished anything without ambition, so shoot for the stars just realize you might not make it out of the stratosphere.

I think the happiest basic scientists are probably those that are captivated by the intellectual pursuit and while they would love to make a huge impact on health, they will have enjoyed the process even if they don't manage to.

I couldn't agree more; you speak the truth.

 

[medfool24]

I think if you find a research topic you're totally interested in that you can enjoy research.

I just did research (with a random prof from a class I did well in) to put in my resume and AMCAS and I feel I was sort of cheated from really learning about what research really is like and truly how to be an investigator. Like someone said earlier, I was just going through the motions but I think there is some value in that since you learn techniques. But using those techniques to help you answer your own question (or one you are really interested in) is ideal, in my opinion.

 

[Vihsadas]

I don't if people realize how huge of a might this is. The vast majority of medical research will not affect patient care or population health significantly. Saying you are getting in to research to develop something thats going to have a huge impact is as idealistic as saying you are becoming a doctor to "save all the african babies (as the SDNers love to say)," in my opinion. Don't me wrong, I love the idealism, but I don't think most people view basic research in this realistically critical light.

More than likely you will have a negligible impact on healthcare as a basic scientist. As a clinician you will have impact on patients' life day in and day out. If you love basic research do it, it's an important part of medicine, and no one ever accomplished anything without ambition, so shoot for the stars just realize you might not make it out of the stratosphere.

I think the happiest basic scientists are probably those that are captivated by the intellectual pursuit and while they would love to make a huge impact on health, they will have enjoyed the process even if they don't manage to.

I agree with the direction you've taken the discussion, but I'd have to say that basic research does have huge impact on patient care...its just that usually noone realizes it until much later. It's true that if someone enters research because they want to find the wonder cure it's unrealistic. But a ton of basic research has been done that, at first, didn't seem to have any real use and was initially written off as a waste of money. There are just too many examples of basic research that has been picked up a few years after being discovered and put to incredible use. The most pertinent example I can think of is the phenomenon of magnetic resonance. I will agree that the motivation to get into research so that you can save the world is probably not too well informed.

I like basic research simply because I think there is something almost spiritual about uncovering how all of the pieces fit together. I mean, we're increasing our understanding of life, and the integral basis for how we function. In our time, we're down to the real nitty gritty questions about existence and biology. It's cliche...but when you think about it, it really is cool.

 

[Drogba]

I agree with the direction you've taken the discussion, but I'd have to say that basic research does have huge impact on patient care...its just that usually noone realizes it until much later. It's true that if someone enters research because they want to find the wonder cure it's unrealistic. But a ton of basic research has been done that, at first, didn't seem to have any real use and was initially written off as a waste of money. There are just too many examples of basic research that has been picked up a few years after being discovered and put to incredible use. The most pertinent example I can think of is the phenomenon of magnetic resonance. I will agree that the motivation to get into research so that you can save the world is probably not too well informed.

I like basic research simply because I think there is something almost spiritual about uncovering how all of the pieces fit together. I mean, we're increasing our understanding of life, and the integral basis for how we function. In our time, we're down to the real nitty gritty questions about existence and biology. It's cliche...but when you think about it, it really is cool.

Neither of the nobel winners for the MRI was a physician. One was a chemist and one was a physicist. Regardless, it was a product of basic research that transformed diagnostic medicine. One of my research interests is the effect of medical technology on population health, and though I've only been looking in to it for a short while I feel it's relatively safe to say there are only a handful of technologies that have had a significant impact on population mortality rates and life expectancy.

The most significant transition in health has been the one from infectious disease to chronic conditions and medical technology seems to have played a very small role in that transition. I'm not discounting the value of basic science, intrinsically as pushing the boudaries of knowledge or as an applied pursuit, it's just not accurate to credit basic science with much of the improvements in health over the past century or two People intuitively believe that medical technology has played the central role in this transition and but this is simply not supported by the data I've seen.

 

[Vihsadas]

Neither of the nobel winners for the MRI was a physician. One was a chemist and one was a physicist. Regardless, it was a product of basic research that transformed diagnostic medicine. One of my research interests is the effect of medical technology on population health, and though I've only been looking in to it for a short while I feel it's relatively safe to say there are only a handful of technologies that have had a significant impact on population mortality rates and life expectancy.

The most significant transition in health has been the one from infectious disease to chronic conditions and medical technology seems to have played a very small role in that transition. I'm not discounting the value of basic science, intrinsically as pushing the boudaries of knowledge or as an applied pursuit, it's just not accurate to credit basic science with much of the improvements in health over the past century or two People intuitively believe that medical technology has played the central role in this transition and but this is simply not supported by the data I've seen.

Yes I know about the origins of the MRI. I wasn't intending to limit the scope of my argument to biological sciences. A large chunk of research done today is interdisciplinary or translational. If I am to go into research I will probably take this approach (I have interdisciplinary training).
I still say that basic research is important in clinical medicine, with the caveat that people may not see the use of the fruits of basic research until much later.
I'm not arguing whether medical technology specifically has improved clinical outcome, and to be honest, as you've implied with the transition from infectious disease to chronic conditions as the main focus of medical intervention, any comparison that is done about the effect of basic research on life expectancy will be completely dwarfed by the effect of the development of antibiotics in the 1940s . What if quality of life and pain and suffering are studied rather than life expectancy?

One piece of anecdotal evidence about the improvement of clinical outcomes for chronic diseases due to basic research is the development of recombinant DNA technology. Eventually, Genentech re-framed this approach to produce recombinant human insulin to target diabetes (chronic cond. as I'm sure you know). Not to mention the advent of Epogen and Nupogen.

 

[Drogba]

Yes I know about the origins of the MRI. I wasn't intending to limit the scope of my argument to biological sciences. A large chunk of research done today is interdisciplinary or translational. If I am to go into research I will probably take this approach (I have interdisciplinary training).
I still say that basic research is important in clinical medicine, with the caveat that people may not see the use of the fruits of basic research until much later.
I'm not arguing whether medical technology specifically has improved clinical outcome, and to be honest, as you've implied with the transition from infectious disease to chronic conditions as the main focus of medical intervention, any comparison that is done about the effect of basic research on life expectancy will be completely dwarfed by the effect of the development of antibiotics in the 1940s . What if quality of life and pain and suffering are studied rather than life expectancy?

One piece of anecdotal evidence about the improvement of clinical outcomes for chronic diseases due to basic research is the development of recombinant DNA technology. Eventually, Genentech re-framed this approach to produce recombinant human insulin to target diabetes (chronic cond. as I'm sure you know). Not to mention the advent of Epogen and Nupogen.

The point is mortality had declined significantly even before antibiotics were introduced, or any specific treatment existed for many IDs. Thus one can reasonably conclude that medical interventions were not a primary motivator for the shift from ID->chronic (most important development in health on a population level).

There are examples of important treatments. HAART, multiple antibiotics for TB, the insulin example you've mentioned. There is only a handful though, and few of these had a population impact in the transition I'm talking about. They are also relatively useless in conditions of extreme desperation. You can't just throw ARVs at HIV+ patients that are starving, for example.

My main argument is people really need to look beyond medical technology and reassess the intuitive connection between medicine and health. People need to look beyond technology to understand health and it is readily apparent that the absence or presence of a medical technology is not the main determinant of population health.

I'm incredibly thankful for the medical technology we do have, but far too many people have far too limited a perspective on health and disease. It's great we have ARVs, we can essentially transform AIDS into a manageable chronic disease with them; however, there are reasons that the infection spreads the way it does within and between populations that have nothing to do with medicine and when these dynamics change for the better so will the spread of the disease. Proper treatment is a significant part of the equation, but it is only a piece.

 

[Vihsadas]

The point is mortality had declined significantly even before antibiotics were introduced, or any specific treatment existed for many IDs.

Wait, what? really? The two number one killers in North America in the early 1900s (discounting the anomaly of the influenza pandemic) were Tuberculosis and Pneumonia. After the advent of Penicillin and other beta-lactam antibiotics life expectancy skyrocketed and the new number one killers are Heart disease (chronic) and Cancer.

Thus one can reasonably conclude that medical interventions were not a primary motivator for the shift from ID->chronic (most important development in health on a population level).

I don't think I agree with that. It is unreasonable, in my opinion, to think that the mortality rates from infectious diseases would not have plummeted if new medical interventions (antiobiotics) were not discovered.

There are examples of important treatments. HAART, multiple antibiotics for TB, the insulin example you've mentioned. There is only a handful though, and few of these had a population impact in the transition I'm talking about. They are also relatively useless in conditions of extreme desperation. You can't just throw ARVs at HIV+ patients that are starving, for example.


My main argument is people really need to look beyond medical technology and reassess the intuitive connection between medicine and health. People need to look beyond technology to understand health and it is readily apparent that the absence or presence of a medical technology is not the main determinant of population health.

I can agree with your opinion on technology.

I'm incredibly thankful for the medical technology we do have, but far too many people have far too limited a perspective on health and disease. It's great we have ARVs, we can essentially transform AIDS into a manageable chronic disease with them; however, there are reasons that the infection spreads the way it does within and between populations that have nothing to do with medicine and when these dynamics change for the better so will the spread of the disease. Proper treatment is a significant part of the equation, but it is only a piece.

Okay, I think we're more on the same page than we might have realized.

 

[Drogba]

Wait, what? really? The two number one killers in North America in the early 1900s (discounting the anomaly of the influenza pandemic) were Tuberculosis and Pneumonia. After the advent of Penicillin and other beta-lactam antibiotics life expectancy skyrocketed and the new number one killers are Heart disease (chronic) and Cancer.



I don't think I agree with that. It is unreasonable, in my opinion, to think that the mortality rates from infectious diseases would not have plummeted if new medical interventions (antiobiotics) were not discovered.

This is the intuitive thinking I was talking about that skews peoples' perception of medical contribution to population health.

From McKeown (it's a valid, and famous. source please don't make me find a citation ):

As you can see tuberculosis was in a steep decline before Koch even discovered the bacillus. By the time antibiotics were actually widely used the disease incidence had sunk to a small fraction of what it was previously.

 

[Drogba]

Also

 

[Vihsadas]

Huh, interesting. I don't do any research in epi, so I haven't read the literature...I believe your source, but I'd like the citation so that I can show one of my profs if you have it handy haha. If not, I'll try and pubmed it.

 

[UVAbme2009]

I love my research. I work for a doctor in the Div. of Nephrology here. Millions in grants so a lot of interesting projects going on. There are two that I REALLY like, and wish I could work on, but that's okay.

 

[QofQuimica]

If some medical students/residents can chime in too, that would be great.

I may be narrow-minded but personally, I don't see how anyone can enjoy research. I agree that the prospects of curing some kind of debilitating disease that affects countless people or pushing the limits of "cutting-edge" science sound exciting in theory. In practice, however, I've found it's an entirely different story. I've been researching for almost a year now and to tell you the truth, it's quite boring. Entering numbers in the computer, staining slides, writing up reports, cutting tissue samples and mounting them on slides, looking through microscopes, interpreting data, reconciling conflicting data, making sense of other research in the field (especially when it conflicts with yours), etc. is all pretty tedious stuff. Unless the deadline for a grant proposal is near or something, there isn't any sense of urgency or pressure. It's not too exciting, and I'm an adrenaline junkie. You rarely get to be on the "cutting-edge", and you can go years (and probably even a lifetime) without any substantial medical or scientific contribution. And when all that tedious, hard work ends up in a rejected paper that is not salvageable, it's ridiculously frustrating.

To those people applying MD/PhD, why are you doing it? Do you enjoy researching? Are you doing it out of a sense of duty (you want to "make a difference") even though you don't particularly enjoy research? If you actually do enjoy it, what do you like about it? Maybe I need to change the way I see research or something. I hope I can learn to love it.

I think maybe the problem is that you're expecting every day in the lab to be like CSI or something, just one amazing and exciting discovery after another. Well, as you've found out, it's not like that at all about 99.9% of the time. Research requires a tremendous amount of manual labor, attention to small details, and repetition. You might spend three months working on an experiment only to find that you've been barking up the wrong tree, or someone else just published results to a similar experiment (i.e., you got scooped). Experiments often don't work, or they give ambiguous results, and then you have to figure out now what do you do. There's a tremendous amount of delayed gratification. When things do go right though, it's the best feeling in the world. It took me over two years to make this one compound when I was a grad student, and it was incredibly frustrating. I tried and tried and I'd get all the way up until the second to last step and then bam, hit a wall. But when I finally got that NMR and saw that I had made the d*** thing in the end, it was a terrific feeling. Maybe not an adrenaline rush, and probably not anything that will cure someone's fatal disease, but I had accomplished something that I'd been trying to accomplish for a long time and that no one else on the planet had ever accomplished before.

Based on your posts, I can't begin to fathom why you'd even be considering applying for an MD/PhD program! You called yourself narrow-minded and said you're trying to love research, but I don't think you're narrow-minded at all. You've tried research for a year, and you still don't like it. That's the honest truth. Since you're a self-described adrenaline junkie, research is probably not the right field for you. There's no shame in that. Go do something else that is more exciting to you. Why make yourself miserable trying to "love" a career that doesn't match your temperment? I agree with the folks who told you to apply MD-only. There are ample opportunities in med school to do research, and if you decide that you want to get a PhD later (during or after med school), that's always an option, too.

 

[VoiceofReason]

I think liking your project in theory (liking the subject matter and goals) goes a long way toward helping you enjoy the actual benchwork. Also a meaningful sense of ownership is sorely lacking in undergrad research usually.. that would help too.

 

[shantster]

My enjoyment in lab depends on the lab dynamics and mentorship. Summer after sophomore year was my first experience so I didn't get too much hands on independent work since I was learning everything (cell culture, basic lab etiquette, how to read an article, etc.) at once. Didn't have the greatest time, but learned a lot.

Next summer was in a smaller lab and treated as a PRA. Since I already knew a lot of basic techniques, I was given much more freedom in designing my own experiments and protocols, and I was allowed to order things that I needed to get the experiments completed. Knowing how to read through papers and having an extra year of science allowed me to effectively troubleshoot when the experiments did not go as we expected. Really liked the experience, even though the research itself was not as interesting to me as the previous and later experiences.

Following summer, lab was horribly about getting stuff ordering basic supplies and we'd sometimes run out of media or FBS etc. and also was horribly about ordering something specific. I was so used to realizing that this new protocol I found would be helpful to troubleshoot what wasn't working and then being able to order it myself so that it would arrive the next day. Anything special I wanted would arrive a week or so later so I'd be stuck without anything to do. Also didn't get as much freedom as I was used to and I don't work best if someone is always looking over my shoulder. Did not like that experience at all.

So moral of my stories... If you are still unsure about whether you like research, try working in a different lab for a while. It might be the lab more than the particular research. My favorite lab was the one where I didn't like the research they were doing as much as the other two, but it was by far my best experience. The one great thing about med school is that you have so many choices in mentors for each particular area and so it's easier to find someone who works in your field of interest that would be a good mentor. If they don't competely overlap, go with the person you like more.