Going into MD with an interest in translational research/a research residency

[regeneration]

Hi guys,

I'm torn between pursuing a MD->research residency and a MD/PhD. My background is basic/translational research heavy, with some shadowing experience and very little hospital volunteering experience. How do MD-only programs view individuals with a primary interest in clinical/translational research? I know this type of interest in typically reserved for MD/PhD students, but I'm wondering if it can work for MD-only programs as well. Thanks.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yellowfish]

MD-only programs certainly would view your research experience favorably, but clinical experience trumps research in importance at most if not all MD schools, it's sort of the "foundational" extracurricular experience for medical school. I don't think they'd have any qualms with your primary interest in clinical and translational science research, but you'll still need all the other goods as well. I do not know if MD/PhD programs are more lax in terms of volunteering and clinical experience expectations.

 

[OCDOCDOCD]

MD-only programs certainly would view your research experience favorably, but clinical experience trumps research in importance at most if not all MD schools, it's sort of the "foundational" extracurricular experience for medical school. I don't think they'd have any qualms with your primary interest in clinical and translational science research, but you'll still need all the other goods as well. I do not know if MD/PhD programs are more lax in terms of volunteering and clinical experience expectations.

From what I've heard on the MD/PhD forums, MD/PhD programs care much, much less about non-research ECs than MD-only programs. Supposedly all that's really needed is a small amount of shadowing experiencing (~50 hours); clinical volunteering doesn't seem to be terribly important (I was told to not even worry about it), and non-clinical volunteering seems to be all but ignored. Likewise, when it comes to LORs, MD/PhD seems to only care about research LORs; anything else doesn't carry much weight.

But like I said though, this is only what I've picked up from these forums and I have no first-hand experience with any of this, so it's entirely possible I'm completely misinformed on this (and if that's the case someone please correct me).

 

[JFK90787]

OP I am basically done with my current app cycle and have a very heavy research background (3 years working in a lab at a top research medical school, multiple pubs/posters, multiple LORs from professors at this school, etc). I am pretty sure I can say with 99% confidence I would've had a much more successful cycle had I applied MD/PhD. From speaking around to other people where I work, my feeling is that even for the most research-intensive MD schools a summer of research or a senior capstone project is more than enough to cover the research checkbox. Anything after that probably raises eyebrows: "why isn't this person applying MD/PhD?", "If he likes research so much why is he not going to graduate school?" etc. I also played up the whole translational research angle (I work with stem cells), and I'm going out on a limb and saying it didn't resonate with adcoms as much as I thought it would.

I also had a good GPA/MCAT and the necessary clinical stuff, but my volunteering activites paled heavily against my research. Probably half of the 10 or so activities I included on my AMCAS were research-related.

I am still interested in doing research in the future, but after spending 3 intensive years in my current lab, I can't imagine doing another project all over again in a new lab in 2 more years, and further delaying my clinical training. That is why I applied MD only. I also didn't plan on having such a research-heavy background a few years ago, life just kinda unfolded that way.

 

[Microglia]

MD-only programs certainly would view your research experience favorably, but clinical experience trumps research in importance at most if not all MD schools, it's sort of the "foundational" extracurricular experience for medical school. I don't think they'd have any qualms with your primary interest in clinical and translational science research, but you'll still need all the other goods as well. I do not know if MD/PhD programs are more lax in terms of volunteering and clinical experience expectations.

Just finished my MD/PhD app cycle, and I would say that research is extremely important to their admissions (obviously haha). They seem to cut a little slack in terms of clinical experience, but you still should have enough to talk about meaningful patient interactions and show that you understand the MD side of the MD/PhD. I had a lot of shadowing in my field of interest, for example, and a small amount of clinical volunteering.

Second, the average GPA/MCAT for MD/PhD programs is almost always a fair bit higher than that of the medical school, so be sure to do research and ensure your numbers are competitive.

I do think weight is given to non-research LOR's, but not as much as research LOR's, which are definitely one of the most important aspects of your application.

Finally, I'd say the most important aspect of getting into an MD/PhD program is to know your research inside and out. Why did you perform this expt? What background led to it? Why did you select those techniques or that animal model? What are the findings? Do they make sense in the context of others research findings? Have there been any other recent publications on this field? Etc, etc.

 

[goodkarma]

Just finished my app cycle too. ~200 hrs clinical volunteering, only ~20 shadowing, among other ECs and a ton of research. I'd agree MD/PhD adcoms might not care as much about ECs other than research. Even in interviews, that's all I talked about besides "why MD/PhD?" and "why our program?". I don't think anyone asked me about anything else in my application.

To OP, there's a ton of threads with people discussing MD vs. MD/PhD in research. This is a recent one... http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=977273

MD applicants will tell you there's no reason for the PhD. MD/PhDs will tell you they're better suited. IMO, if you really want it, you'll figure out a way no matter what degree/s you have.

 

[LaCroix09]

Hi guys,

I'm torn between pursuing a MD->research residency and a MD/PhD. My background is basic/translational research heavy, with some shadowing experience and very little hospital volunteering experience. How do MD-only programs view individuals with a primary interest in clinical/translational research? I know this type of interest in typically reserved for MD/PhD students, but I'm wondering if it can work for MD-only programs as well. Thanks.

It sounds like you want to be a PhD.

 

[DietSexy5000]

I'm currently in the cycle and I'm eerily similar to you in that I have 3 years in a basic science lab and two summer positions in more translational type stuff. Definitely where I want my career to go (as in practicing clinical medicine and making research contributions in the lab). MD programs have been really receptive to my application with numerous interviews and acceptances. Point is, in my humble experience, having research as a top priority for you doesn't mean you have to go MD/PhD and admissions committees don't select against/do look favorably at MD candidates who are planning for a research career.

One qualifier: my personal statement spent a lot of time discussing the MD vs MD/PhD debate that I went through in my mind for two years and how it's really fundamental to my aspirations, etc so I think this really helped me.

 

[Law2Doc]

It sounds like you want to be a PhD.

Every school has a story of a guy they inadvertently admitted who ended up bored and unengaged throughout all his rotations because he really wanted to be a researcher and couldn't care less about learning peds, OBGYN etc. Schools are leery of this, and so while having a research background is a good thing, showing up with a career goal of research and not being squarely in the MD PhD pigeon hole can hurt you.

 

[TheShaker]

OP I am basically done with my current app cycle and have a very heavy research background (3 years working in a lab at a top research medical school, multiple pubs/posters, multiple LORs from professors at this school, etc). I am pretty sure I can say with 99% confidence I would've had a much more successful cycle had I applied MD/PhD. From speaking around to other people where I work, my feeling is that even for the most research-intensive MD schools a summer of research or a senior capstone project is more than enough to cover the research checkbox. Anything after that probably raises eyebrows: "why isn't this person applying MD/PhD?", "If he likes research so much why is he not going to graduate school?" etc. I also played up the whole translational research angle (I work with stem cells), and I'm going out on a limb and saying it didn't resonate with adcoms as much as I thought it would.

I also had a good GPA/MCAT and the necessary clinical stuff, but my volunteering activites paled heavily against my research. Probably half of the 10 or so activities I included on my AMCAS were research-related.

I am still interested in doing research in the future, but after spending 3 intensive years in my current lab, I can't imagine doing another project all over again in a new lab in 2 more years, and further delaying my clinical training. That is why I applied MD only. I also didn't plan on having such a research-heavy background a few years ago, life just kinda unfolded that way.

While JFK's application likely beats mine in terms of research and numbers, I had somewhat of the same experience playing the researching MD card. Most of my interviewers have questioned why I'm applying MD instead of PhD or MD/PhD. Having your application centered around research is difficult to pull off without enough clinical experiences to back it up and it will still leave a bad taste in the mouths of adcoms who are worried that you are only going into medicine for the wrong reasons.

I don't know, I feel like super strong applicants won't have a problem either way but it would have been much easier to make a case for myself had I applied MD/PhD.

 

[Hemorrage]

Well it makes sense doesn't it? MD students should obviously have a strong appreciation and understanding of biomedical science to the capacity where they can apply it effectively, however, scientists are the ones that actually discover the science itself. If you feel that you want to be a part of hardcore biomedical research then MD/PhD or PhD is what you should follow, otherwise focus on your clinical EC's and get into MD

 

[aiwe]

OP,

I also have a heavy background in translational research, although I spun it in my personal statement to indicate how I had realized I wanted to interact with patients in person instead of stay at the bench in the future. However, during my "year off", I am realizing more and more that I do want to stay involved in "basic science" research, and in my personal experience it seems that this is a bit unusual for MD applicants. I have more to talk about with MD/PhD candidates on interviews than with my fellow MD-hopefuls, and my aspirations seem more in line with theirs (the MD/PhDs).

It seems to vary by school: some places, like WashU, U Penn, emphasize research and encourage students to get involved, even if it is "basic science". Others definitely do not.

At the urging of one of my interviewers (haha! don't know what that means...) and my own personal desires, I am now planning on applying to the MD/PhD program of whatever institution I enter this summer. I was able to get accepted at 3 medical schools so far though, so don't think having basic science research prevents that!

 

[Hemorrage]

OP,

I also have a heavy background in translational research, although I spun it in my personal statement to indicate how I had realized I wanted to interact with patients in person instead of stay at the bench in the future. However, during my "year off", I am realizing more and more that I do want to stay involved in "basic science" research, and in my personal experience it seems that this is a bit unusual for MD applicants. I have more to talk about with MD/PhD candidates on interviews than with my fellow MD-hopefuls, and my aspirations seem more in line with theirs (the MD/PhDs).

It seems to vary by school: some places, like WashU, U Penn, emphasize research and encourage students to get involved, even if it is "basic science". Others definitely do not.

At the urging of one of my interviewers (haha! don't know what that means...) and my own personal desires, I am now planning on applying to the MD/PhD program of whatever institution I enter this summer. I was able to get accepted at 3 medical schools so far though, so don't think having basic science research prevents that!

If you already have 3 acceptances im telling you to screw research and go MD. Sure you may not be able to participate in hardcore biomedical research as an MD, however, you can advance the study of whatever field you decide to enter.

 

[Microglia]

If you already have 3 acceptances im telling you to screw research and go MD. Sure you may not be able to participate in hardcore biomedical research as an MD, however, you can advance the study of whatever field you decide to enter.

I think they mean they will internally apply after matriculating as an MS1 to the MD/PhD of their school.

 

[aiwe]

I think they mean they will internally apply after matriculating as an MS1 to the MD/PhD of their school.

Yep, sorry, that's what I meant. I need more coffee, my entire post was not very well written at all.