The microbial track of the MPH is exactly in my interests. If I went down this path, I would do an MPH and probably apply at Yale for a PhD. There is no such program where I am though (or close to where I am) and the program at Yale (from what I've seen) is quite expensive. I wouldn't do a straight PhD as doing a master's seems more secureI'm not sure how I'll feel in a couple of years. I think medical microbiology/infectious diseases are super interesting and I'd like to do that somehow through public health, if that is at all possible. My goal in pursuing an MPH degree would be to do work with the CDC, WHO or a similar organization. I can also see myself in a leadership role/teaching. My reasons against molecular biology/microbiology and similar programs is because I'm not as interested in the specifics of proteins, genes, etc. I find researching info to do experiments painful. I think disease mechanisms are fascinating, how diseases work, how they cause problems with the human body and, from my experiences, that is not what research is like. My research has been very focused on the small and detailed experiments that may contribute to a specific disease, but I don't get to learn about different diseases at all. I enjoy the more broad and interaction with people and I've always felt that was missing in my research experiences. This is why an MPH seemed like the better way to go. I would get to do the parts of research I enjoythinking about new problems, potentially designing experiments, potentially teaching, etcwhile doing it in a field that's much more encompassing than the specifics of a particular protein/gene. I'm not sure if my reasoning is quite why people go down this route, however. Anyway, Stories, since you have tons of info I'd love to hear of your experiences in the field so feel free to PM me or respond on here! Thanks.
Leadership and teaching are two very different things. If you wish to teach at the college level, you must do a PhD. However, you must also be very interested in research, otherwise you'll never cut it as a faculty member.
As for MPH -> PhD, that's a common route, but for Yale's EMD, most folks who come into EMD come straight from undergrad sciences. This isn't true of the other divisions such as CDE, EHS, HP where most folks come in with a MPH already. Mainly because the PhD and MPH in EMD is very different, whereas the MPH from to the other divisions translate over quite nicely. I urge you to compare the curricula of the MPH to the PhD program in EMD as you'll notice they're quite different.
EMD is still focused at the molecular level. It just happens to incoroprate that information into a population framework. Just to give you an idea of what research some of the current doctoral students are doing, here are the titles of their projects:
-Differential gene expression by trypanosoma brucei in the tsetse vector
-A novel approach to identify a small, transmembrane protein inhibitor of the HIV co-receptor CCR5
-Identification of Polymicrobial and genetic factors in otitis media patholgenesis
The only problem what you described in it's entirety (your interests) have all already been discovered and elucidated in the literature. Very few completely new diseases are emerging that need to be identified and mapped. What we're all piecing together (at the least the direction public health is headed) is the gene-environmental interaction that lead to disease. This goes for all fields of public health (minus policy since that's not applicable to this kind of analysis). And unfortunately, when you're talking genomics, you're also then talking about a few proteins which are altered in shape that contribute to whatever disease you're looking at.
The broad picture has already been solved for most diseases. The little pieces all need to be put into place so we have the entire picture. That's what research is currently leading to and will be headed in the future.
