Medical How to chose a research lab for gap year?

[MusicDOc124]

I'm getting ready to make a decision for which lab/PI I want to work with during my gap year/application year.

I am NOT interested in MD/PhD. My research is experience prior to this has been very entry level and all clinical. No prior pubs, posters, or conferences. Only 1 oral presentation from a summer research program, which was required.

Having trouble deciding on a lab since I'll only be around for about 1 year, assuming I get accepted to med school. Very interested in health disparities and health equity, so especially want more knowledge about disease etiology and differential patterns in certain populations, if possible. People have told me I should consider getting an MPH along with an MD, if that gives you a better picture of my interests and common theme in my activities.

I interviewed with 4 different PI's and their students. Two of them seemed hesitant after learning about my background (I've been out of school/away from school for 2 years doing service/community health work) but they were still open to me joining.

One lab is in a competitive specialty in which I am interested in and have been for a while. I've always shied away from it though because people kept telling me it was way too competitive. However, I know that publishing in this area would stay on my resume and look great, provided I continue with it, by the time I apply for residency if I did still want to pursue that specialty after med school. This seems by far the most productive and provides opportunity for me to do clinical research if I'd like (PI likes people who are independent and can do projects on their own after handling his), but not sure how realistic this would be since I'd only be there for a year. PI also pays for and encourages members to attend conferences, get on papers, etc. Forgot to add that this PI seems to say some things that can be misconstrued and that a previous lab member had to have a conversation with him about. However, he was receptive to the conversation and it never happened again after that.

Another seemed slightly unprepared to learn that I didn't have wet lab experience (I have a degree in molecular bio so a lot of people assume I've had lab experience in that area). Again, they were still open to me joining but I got the sense that they were looking for someone who might have experience in some lab techniques, especially considering I would only be staying for year. They did mention that I would definitely get authorships, potentially conferences, or some sort of paper if I was there for a year. It sounded like a priority for them to give that experience to students. Just not sure how many they would give out for 1 year.

Another lab is in epidemiology, so no wet lab or clinical contact, which a member noted as a downside. She did mention that she has been able to put out about 6-7 papers in the span of 10 months. She didn't have prior experience in stats, only wet lab. Also huge downside to this is that their lab branch doesn't have enough funding to attend conferences for lab members at my level. So if I had a finding or paper/poster to present, the PI or more senior post docs would do it in my place.

And then the lab that I'm leaning toward is VERY supportive of my goals and they seem to be selective of who they extend an offer to. They actually haven't had anyone in my position in the lab for a few years since the last girl seta high standard and they're essentially hesitant about who they pick after her. She mentioned this to me during an interview, which I didn't even know about when I spoke to the PI. They're aware I'm applying and will only be there for a year and they were positive about it, as well as my lack of wet lab experience. It can be a translational lab but not as clinical or epi as the others, which would be a new experience. Downside is that since it's basic and I'm only there for a year, it's obviously not guaranteed I'll get any posters or papers out of this, outside from a potential authorship if the project I help on gets finished in time. If it weren't for that though, I would have already made my decision on this lab. I should note that I also have direct community experience with the subject matter of what this lab researches. This would just be the biological side of things.

So basically, I lack wet lab research experience and nothing to show for prior research (i.e. no pubs, papers, etc). So not sure if I should weigh this more over PI fit, especially given that I'm not going for MD/PhD and will only be around for 1 year, presuming I get into med school this cycle. Someone else advised me to pick the lab that would give me the most papers and/or presentations. I'm personally not gunning for research heavy schools, but I would like to get something on my resume, especially once it comes time to apply for residencies.

Seeking advice from adcoms and/or anyone more experienced in research and how a poster/paper would be viewed later down the line?

The 3rd one you list seems like you will have a good shot for papers and conferences in a field you like. You'd just have to fund yourself for the conferences (if any). You will have opportunities in med school to do research, especially if you seek out the opportunities. Research is viewed positively. Go with your interests.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[lord999]

First lab is a no-go, even for MSTP. Third and fourth laboratories seems reasonable, and health services research is always poor, it's not personal. One potential issue with lab 4, why are they so willing to recruit you? Not to load you with self-doubt, but they probably have other options. If this is a translational lab though, it might very well be because you have that community health experience (dealing with the public) that handling the social work bureaucracy and such would be a good reason to recruit you, that you bring a different skillset to the table not ordinarily found in their normal membership.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

You asked how adcoms will view your experience earlier: if it's just a year without publications that's a gap experience before applying, I'd want to be sure you had a supportive mentor and didn't burn down the lab. How you worked with your peers in times of trouble or stress would be good. Hope you explain what you did in an interview that would keep my faculty interested even if they aren't in your area of expertise.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Thanks! I actually meant how a poster and/or authorship would be viewed vs. not having anything (since there are labs that aren't my first choice that will give me a greater chance to either publish or present more than others). However, I know for sure it would look good to adcoms as it's tangible proof that I was productive in the lab. I was also curious how residencies would view it if let's say I do go for a certain specialty that looks for research in that field? Or if choosing a "slower" lab w/ less work to show for it would make it harder for me to do research in a different field in med school and/or appear like I kept jumping around between different projects?

It depends on the school and the faculty member. Medical school only weighs "research productivity" if you really have a desire to do academic medicine (in my opinion and experience). Most incoming medical students with undergraduate research don't want to do it so much in medical school according to my observations. Note if you address able to make your research understandable to a complete stranger, that would be helpful.

We know labs come in all sizes so you may have presentation opportunities with chalk talks instead of posters. You could have a very busy lab and be forced to work with a postdoc. You could have experiments fail on you, or not get IRB approval to start. Your PI could lose funding. That's life in a lab. Your faculty should know that, even on an MD/PHD review.

Now the stakes may be a bit more with residency, but you would work with your PI and student dean to set up your residency profile and application.

 

[lord999]

When you say the first lab is a no-go, are you referring to how I described the PI? If so, yeah, I also didn't get the best vibe from him when I interviewed with him over the phone. He seems nice enough but his reaction to my prior experience + the way his prior lab member described him in some aspects seemed a tad off.

And I wondered why as well re: the 4th labl, but I think it's because of my unique experience + my how it falls directly in line with the subject matter of the lab. I actually wouldn't say that they were recruiting me hard; if anything those words came from their former lab member (she is in an MD/PhD program now so not directly affiliated with the lab anymore). They didn't seem to have any qualms with my lack of experience in basic science research and/or me applying for medical school. They acknowledged my potential absence for interviews but said they support it because it's for my long-term goals/career. It seemed like most of the research work I'd be doing would be basic science, but the PI does go into the clinic routinely to see patients, obtain samples, etc. And then runs clinical trials after basic science phase of trial has been completed. I know the former member mentioned that he would be able to provide more clinical opportunities for networking or observation of him at departmental and other high-level meetings. So it seems like he's invested in mentorship of the student as well.

First lab: Yes, a PI that acts like that is not a safe place for a training research, it's a risk that almost never needs to be taken. Also, I tend to advise people against having a short term relationship with someone who is openly reputed to be neuroatypical (to leave in politically correct language), because you could actually have an incident that you'll remember for a lifetime. But, for a gap year, choose one that you can get something tangible out of, because they will get something out of you! Either the third or fourth lab has pros and cons, but you seem to be drawn to the fourth lab.

 

[lord999]

Thanks for the clarification! I had similar gut feelings about the PI from the first lab, especially only being on a short term basis.

I also forgot to ask you about what you were referring to when you said "health services research is always poor"?

So, HSR unlike most of the basic sciences, does not have a usual home for funding. The NIH has two panels for almost all of HSR, but the selection criteria is all over the place where even subspecialties in some basic sciences have panels for them. AHRQ is not the organization it used to be (and you need connections), and most of the foundations also have political ties. Basic science can count on better funding sources for much of their work, but HSR always is on a shoestring budget.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

Funding politics doesn't always have much to do with the D/R partisanship. There are other types of politics, especially when it comes to research funding for social sciences and health care.