Finally! How many MD/PhDs have majority research careers.

[Neuronix]

From an in press manuscript that was a collaboration of numerous program directors, here's the answer to a question that I've been wondering for many years.

A recent survey of the alumni of 24 M.D.-Ph.D. programs conducted by the National Association of M.D.-Ph.D. programs and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) Section on M.D.-Ph.D. Training, showed that about two-thirds (66%) of the alumni who had completed all of their training were in academia [1]. Another 14% were working at research institutes or in industry. Most reported spending at least some of their time doing research, but--and this is a critical point--only 65% of those in academia reported devoting at least half of their professional time to research.

Look for: Perspective: Traversing the Bridge Years--Advice for Future Physician-Scientists
In Science Careers May, 15 2009

The source ([1]) is a submitted manuscript. Some of that data can be found here http://www.med.upenn.edu/mstp/documents/PlanningfortheFutureslides-Feb.2009.ppt

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BNSN]

That means 43% of MD-PhDs spend at least half their time doing research in a university setting. If you are generous and assume the 14% at institutes and industry are all researchers, that means 57% of MD-PhDs are researchers, while 43% are not.

That seems like a very unhappy result for MSTP directors around the country.

 

[Neuronix]

Considering it's pretty close to half, I'm wondering if this is a half glass full or a half glass empty. Just like the glass, it depends on who's viewing it. Is 50s% a good result?

 

[BNSN]

I would guess that any director who saw only half their graduates go onto a majority research career would be disappointed.

Why not just take the money and split it between med schools and grad schools and train 1 PhD and 1 MD for every MD/PhD? Double the return for the same investment.

 

[NGN47]

That means 43% of MD-PhDs spend at least half their time doing research in a university setting. If you are generous and assume the 14% at institutes and industry are all researchers, that means 57% of MD-PhDs are researchers, while 43% are not.

That seems like a very unhappy result for MSTP directors around the country.

I would have to say that 57% is not a bad result overall. What percentage of MD-only people are researchers or PhD only people? I think it's less than 57%. Question is, would the MD-PhD people have gone into research anyway even if not in an MSTP? I don't know. I think another big question we should answer is if it is better to do the MSTP or "just" and MD together with a long research fellowship at the end of training. I don't know if I have an opinion on that yet.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

The article has yet to be posted but should be within a few days at http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/issues_perspectives .

I would field a guess that Dr. Brass and others are submitting their manuscipt for the JAMA education issue coming out in September.

 

[gstrub]

I would guess that any director who saw only half their graduates go onto a majority research career would be disappointed.

Why not just take the money and split it between med schools and grad schools and train 1 PhD and 1 MD for every MD/PhD? Double the return for the same investment.

Hmm...what % of MD only graduates spend half their time researching? If it's 50% I'd agree with you. But I bet it's WAY lower than that. So a 57% rate on researchers might be an excellent #.

And what are you talking about splitting $? Are you suggesting getting rid of MD/PhD programs altogether? I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the MD/PhD exceeds the sum of its parts on both the research and clinical ends.

 

[Gabujabu]

What percent of PhDs end up having a majority research career? I would wager that it is less than 50%.

 

[echod]

What percent of PhDs end up having a majority research career? I would wager that it is less than 50%.

I would think that a large proportion of PhD grads end up in eternal post doc/research associate positions that do involve more than 50% research.

 

[JHopRevisit]

I agree with the others who say that these numbers are pretty meaningless without being able to compare to PhD's and MD's.

What was interesting to me was the "Residency Choice as a Predictor of Outcome" in the powerpoint from Penn. That's a solid indirect method of estimating how many people enter research careers.

What's even more interesting is this, from the same powerpoint:

MD-PhDs receive
15% of K23
40% of K08
49% of R01
awarded to physicians​

Since MD-PhD's make up nowhere near 50% of all physicians, that's pretty darn good, right?

 

[echod]

This is a slight diversion. Of the 500 or so MD/PhD graduates each year, do you think there would be any Nobel Prize winners or would any grads be able to hold a patent to a drug with revenues more than $100 million world wide?

 

[Vader]

This is actually a very high return overall on the investment. The percentage of MDs with >50% research careers is no doubt vastly smaller. At my institution, the percentages are quite divergent (over 80% research careers for MSTP graduates vs. ~10-15% research careers for MDs).

 

[Gabujabu]

I would think that a large proportion of PhD grads end up in eternal post doc/research associate positions that do involve more than 50% research.

Most people eventually get fed up with that and move on to greener pastures. This one article from Science indicates that nearly 50% of the grads from Yale's 1991 biophysics Ph.D. are actually not doing what would be considered research-consulting, programming, administration. Only two are on the tenure-track:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;321/5896/1622.pdf

 

[dl2dp2]

Most people eventually get fed up with that and move on to greener pastures. This one article from Science indicates that nearly 50% of the grads from Yale's 1991 biophysics Ph.D. are actually not doing what would be considered research-consulting, programming, administration. Only two are on the tenure-track:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/sci;321/5896/1622.pdf

I think this is a far better point for MD/PhD. PhD grads have a very very abysmal rate of having 50% or more research-based career, especially if you look beyond the top 30-50 institutions producing PhDs, as well as if you look beyond basic biological sciences.

These studies ending up having a 30-50% of MD/PhDs end up with a 50% or more research draw the wrong conclusions because of a common problem in research: lack of control. They make it sound as if 30-50% yield is low, but how low is the yield for the millions spent on numerous PhD programs?

At the end of the day, graduate school population needs to be restricted, like derm. Lower-level work needs to be done by hired techs who are unionized. The current system cannot last forever--all the international students will eventually get fed up. As I've said, the only thing more problematic than the American medical system is the biological research enterprise.

 

[itsallthesame]

At the end of the day, graduate school population needs to be restricted, like derm. Lower-level work needs to be done by hired techs who are unionized. The current system cannot last forever--all the international students will eventually get fed up. As I've said, the only thing more problematic than the American medical system is the biological research enterprise.

The foreign graduate students can always go back to their home country and have much better job prospects than in America and than if they had stayed in their home country for education. For many, bad/mediocre job prospects in America beats the hell out of staying in their home country... why they come here in droves.

Hired techs are fine, but they either A) lack the ambition/dedication/intellect required to work alone of graduate students or B) are trying to get into medical school and will leave your lab as soon as they do. Very little long term stability and hard to justify the expense of getting them up to speed.

Really, who that might have the chops to be a professor really wants to be a tech. And what professor with a med large lab, wants to spend all his/her time reading all the lit, designing all the experiments, and telling techs what to do? And what capable person wants to work as a tech, a job that leaves them without any real chance to ever move up the ladder at all, except modest pay raises and will work the 60+ hour weeks of a grad student without charging over time?

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Finally!

Whole article here:

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2009_05_15/caredit.a0900061

 

[JHopRevisit]

Finally!

Whole article here:

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2009_05_15/caredit.a0900061

IMHO this article didn't turn out to be interesting, it's just a series of platitudes. What I'm waiting for is his first reference, which I think you might have alluded to earlier:

"L. F. Brass, M. H. Akabas, L. D. Burnley, D. M. Engman, C. A. Wiley, O. A. Andersen. An analysis of career choices made by graduates of 24 M.D.-Ph.D. programs. Manuscript submitted."

 

[Kickback]

Finally!

Whole article here:

http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.or...s_issues/articles/2009_05_15/caredit.a0900061

Funny story: An MD/PhD whose children I babysat just emailed me this link after I asked her a question about her take on being an MD/PhD.

I think that this article is more useful for pre-MD/PhD students than current students, but even then this has been covered many times on SDN. As stated in the article, the translational scientist is not someone that is seen that much in the media, and we go in "enchanted with the idea of integrating medicine and research". The author is saying that the PhD should be to be a necessity to your career goals, and you should really think about your overall career goals before even entering the program.This also seems to be the common thread of advice in all of the "why MD/PhD" threads on SDN.

 

[witness23]

good article

 

[echod]

In figure 9A of this article JAMA Vol 294 page 1343-1351, you will find that MD/PhD grads make up about 37.5% of the K08 applicants. If you trust their data, and the posts before saying that MD/PhD RECEIVE about 40% of the K08s, then what does that say about our success rate for competing for K08s? Almost 100%?


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/11/1343/JOC50107F9

 

[alacast]

No. 375 MD/PhDs could apply, 625 other people could apply, and only 10 are selected (of which 4 would be MD/PhDs).

 

[Neuronix]

If you trust their data, and the posts before saying that MD/PhD RECEIVE about 40% of the K08s

http://www.med.upenn.edu/mstp/documents/PlanningfortheFutureslides-Feb.2009.ppt

Source

, then what does that say about our success rate for competing for K08s? Almost 100%?

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/7/836/TABLEJOC32232T2

Different article. The K grant type for MD/PhD had a 35.3% funding rate (vs 38.7% for MD only, p=.42).

In total, something doesn't add up to me either.

 

[Vader]

In figure 9A of this article JAMA Vol 294 page 1343-1351, you will find that MD/PhD grads make up about 37.5% of the K08 applicants. If you trust their data, and the posts before saying that MD/PhD RECEIVE about 40% of the K08s, then what does that say about our success rate for competing for K08s? Almost 100%?


http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/294/11/1343/JOC50107F9

As the other posts alluded to, this just means that the percentage receiving K08s is proportional to the percentage applying. Doesn't say anything about actual numbers!

 

[Neuronix]

Oh, durrrr... Ok math time. No more posting when I wake up. All my made up figures and conclusion are very close to the numbers in Ley and Rosenberg, rounded for clarity.

If you have 200 K08 grants in one year.

Let's say 40% of applicants are MD/PhDs. In this case we'll say about 260 MD/PhDs out of 650 total K08 applications.

Then to obtain 40% of all K08 grants, MD/PhDs only have about a 31% success rate, though that's a little off with the real number being ~35% according to my last post's citation.

It all makes sense to me now. Oh depressing joy.

 

[itsallthesame]

Remember, these statistics don't account for multiple applications.

Example, if 0% of people were funded on their first attempt, and everyone reapplied and was funded... 100% of people would be funded while success rate for that grant type would be 50%.