Evidence that MD/PhD is better than PhD or MD for research career

[dl2dp2]

https://report.nih.gov/workforce/psw/early_career_programs.aspx

Neuronix. Thoughts?

This suggests that while the absloute rate of success for a specific RPG is not better for MDPhDs, overall career-wise, the end-outcome of R01 success, the rate of MDPhD is substantially higher than the other two option.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

I don't know if better is the right word, but the applicant pools are different and the outcomes are different. It would be interesting to see which fields/specialties were most represented by MD-only doing research versus MD/PhD doing research. I suspect the fields would be different, but that is only a guess.

Additionally, the previous page stated: "Interestingly, MD/PhDs were generally more persistent than MDs (75.9 percent of male MD/PhD applicants in 2012 persisted compared to 67.1 percent of male MD applicants". I suspect MD/PhDs have been exposed to more research-related hurdles than MD-only applicants and can deal with them better, but that is just a guess. If anything that really matters in the game, it's persistence. In fact, I have this hanging on my wall:

The things I took away from this more is that the LRP -> K -> R route is the route that provides the best chance of success (which is not surprising and has been demonstrated before). The other thing I took away from is how little T grants do for putting researchers into the pipeline. Only 10% of MD-only T awardees went on to apply for a R? Only 25% for MD/PhD? Anecdotally that actually seems right, but those numbers are terrible. One would have to question the usefulness of such programs if that really is the case. T grants require a lot of effort and offer an not insignificant amount of money, for what seems to be very little reward.

 

[dl2dp2]

The average T32 is probably a waste of time. If possible, it's much better to do a part time attending position where the department provides you some "protected time" to do research. Some top T32s have an average success rates (RPG/R01) of 20-30%. In other cases, there's basically no good option outside of T32 to do any research since RPGs require preliminary data, and you don't have time during residency to write grants.

Still, the original observation that MD/PhDs as a "covariate" when all else equal probably enhances your rate of success by 2x. This is probably both causal and correlational. This is why I repeatedly say even if you want a research in basic science these days, it's probably best to do an MD/PhD.

 

[tr]

I suspect the apparent effects of these different training programs are mostly down to selection rather than any specific benefit of the training programs themselves.
Entry to MSTP is limited to people who have shown a strong interest in and aptitude for science from an early age. The same is likely not true for the overall pool of MD-only and PhD-only grads.

F grants and K grants are also competitive, and require the applicant to write a very specific and detailed proposal that will be examined with a fine-tooth comb by a review committee of unaffiliated established scientists.

The T32 at my institution was pretty much not competitive at all. All I had to do to apply was hand in a two-page research proposal, and the relevant faculty acted like admission was pretty much a foregone conclusion. The other people in the T32 program while I was there ran the gamut from very focused and dedicated PhD-only postdocs to a couple of MD-onlys with a vague interest in academics who seemed mostly to be testing the waters.

Thus it would make sense that the pool of people who receive MSTP, F series, and K series funding would be more successful than the pool of people receiving T32 funding, regardless of the actual training received in each of those programs. As you can see the bulk of the people who finish T32 programs never submit an application for an RPG, vs people with Fs and Ks who mostly do.

There's not a good way to control for this, although if you could find a pool of people who were admitted to MSTP but chose to go to a straight-PhD program, that could be illuminating. That would be a tiny tiny group though, and I think stochastic effects (which are very large at this level of competitiveness) might overwhelm the between-group effects at that point.

Edited to say: I'm not saying that training doesn't matter, I'm saying that getting good or bad training is more specific to the environment, the mentor, and the project than to the funding mechanism for the trainee.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

Yes, T32 for the trainee are not that hard to get. But T32 for the PI are hard to get, and much harder to renew. This data would suggest a PI would need to strongly consider the effort to go into a T32 knowing that the ultimate success of the trainees is quite low.

 

[Neuronix]

https://report.nih.gov/workforce/psw/early_career_programs.aspx

Neuronix. Thoughts?

I'm not sure what you're asking. This data has been around for awhile. For people who apply for NIH grants, the funding rates are the same whether you have an MD, PhD, or MD/PhD. The full report has the data for this and I've posted it several times on this site. What you've posted tries very hard to put the data in a positive light and argue for MD/PhD program expansion.

It's probably true that a higher percentage of MD/PhDs do apply for grants than MDs or PhDs, but their success once applying is still the same as for other degree types.