How did you decide on the MD part of MD/PhD

[shazoop]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Currently a 3rd year undergrad who was originally planning on applying this June. I have most of the boxes checked:
GPA: 3.9+
MCAT: 100th percentile
Research: 3 years same lab, currently finishing up 1st author pub. Lab is statistical genetics, but I've experience with basic machine learning, statistics, programming, and most importantly Google-fu.
ECs: Hospital volunteering, shadowing, community service (middle school tutor), leadership, etc.
I'm committed to research, and an MD/PhD or PhD are the two career paths I'm interested in (PhD probably in Statistics, Applied Math, etc.). Recently, I've recently been increasingly hesitant about the MD portion.

On one hand, I've had moments in the hospital and some truly spectacular moments in tutoring that have led me to seriously consider medicine. I know I enjoy interacting/talking to patients (does get draining after a while though), and the satisfaction I get from giving a blind patient water/seeing a kid start to believe in himself and succeed in school/ etc. is different than the satisfaction I get from research.

On the other hand, lately I've been reading up on what the medical profession is actually like, and it sounds suuuuper crappy - bad work-life balance, less autonomy, defensive medicine, rising malpractice, increased paperwork, etc. I can't definitively say if I want the MD that bad; I know I want it, but I don't understand/know enough to make a firm decision. Anticipating responses, I would at least like to try my hand at practicing part-time (80/20 was it?), since the MD seems like a waste otherwise.

So here's are a few questions I have:

1. How did you decide on the MD part of the MD/PhD, for you research-oriented folks?

2. Can you produce quality research as an MD/PhD, even with some clinical obligations? For that matter, is the PhD quality of an MD/PhD lower due to time constraints, added obligations, rush to finish, etc.?

3. Does an MD/PhD constrain me to translational or basic research with a strong clinical component? Let's say I want to spend some time doing purely theoretical research with no direct clinical component but that has a potential clinical payoff (ie. refining clustering algorithms that can be used in identifying high-risk bipolar patients).

TL;DR: The gravity of "8+ YEARS" just hit me a couple weeks ago, and I'd like to know what I'm really getting myself into.

 

[eteshoe]

Hey there, I'm still on the training path so I'll give some of my thoughts but I'm sure some of the physician scientists further down the line will also chime in.

1. I (un)fortunately need the MD portion to legally treat patients. But all jokes aside, because I plan on practicing - I need the MD. It's as simple as that (sort of). You don't have to practice, but if you don't see yourself practicing, then the MD part may be wasteful (or not - because I know a few MD/PhDs that have forgone residency for a Postdoc).

2. From the mentors I've interacted with, I believe one can. Though you need to be willing to collaborate with people on both sides since it would be difficult to keep your skills sharp on both ends. And it takes an almost inordinate amount of discipline (again my observation from an academic setting, N=1)

3. I don't believe that your research is limited to basic or translational with a clinical component. With the onset of computation bleeding into every sector, your training could come in handy. I know of one MD/PhD in a biostatistics lab doing a lot of computational modeling.

Also with just pure research (e.g. PhD-only) you would still need ~ 8 yrs due to the Postdoc (especially if academia is your end goal). Just keep that in mind and pursue what makes you intellectually fulfilled cuz this will be a long path