Importance of research in Pathology

[Leukocyte]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So when browsing through the Pathology residency programs, everyone from the residents to the faculty seem to be heavily involved in research and publications. There are far more MD/PhDs in Pathology than any other medical field. I am scared, because while I like reseach and would like to be inloved in it, I do not have an extensive research background like MOST of the Pathology residents seem to have.

-Does a lack of histrory of publications lower your changes of getting into Pathology?

-Why such a HUGE emphasis of basic science research? Pathology is a professional medical specialty with very clear medical practical job duties, so why the stress of academic research? Does the average "real-life" (community) pathologist really have time for basic science research?

Having said that, I am interested in research, and ready to do it if I get into a Pathology residency, but at this time, I do not have the research background that seems to be "needed" by residency programs.

I am worried that this will decrease my chances of getting into pathology even more than the fact that I already finished a residency program in another field.

 

[mlw03]

Most residents do at some research during their training, not necessarily basic science. In some programs it's a lot more than some. It depends on where you're applying. At research heavy schools, yeah, lack of research hurts your application. But at most mid-tier programs, it's probably common that the applicants don't have much research background.

 

[caffeinegirl]

-Does a lack of histrory of publications lower your changes of getting into Pathology?

-Why such a HUGE emphasis of basic science research? Pathology is a professional medical specialty with very clear medical practical job duties, so why the stress of academic research? Does the average "real-life" (community) pathologist really have time for basic science research?[

A lack of publications or research experience may lower your chances of getting into a upper tier pathology program. I think that your academic record, recommendations, and interviews are rated higher than research experience in most programs. Of course, if your goal is to be an academic pathologist with a heavy research bent (ie, 80% research 20% clinical), then not having any research experience would not be looked upon favorably.

In many upper tier programs, residents are encouraged to be involved in research...but this is not bench research. These would be clinical studies involved with clinicopatholgic correlation, case series, case reports, immunohistochemical or PCR studies, etc. Not the hard core research that involves pipetting in a lab for months at a time 🙂

Do real life community practice pathologists do basic science research? In my experience the answer is no for approximately 99.99999% of cases. There are a small minority of CP-only pathologists who do "home brew" assay development. This does not include pathologists working in the pharma/diagnostic development industry. There are community pathologists who collaborate on clinicopathologic correlation-type studies, usually with academic centers.

In your case, with another residency under your belt, your goal is to present yourself as truly wanting to do pathology and having evidence that you want to pursue this as a career.

 

[Thaitanium]

So when browsing through the Pathology residency programs, everyone from the residents to the faculty seem to be heavily involved in research and publications. There are far more MD/PhDs in Pathology than any other medical field. I am scared, because while I like reseach and would like to be inloved in it, I do not have an extensive research background like MOST of the Pathology residents seem to have.

-Does a lack of histrory of publications lower your changes of getting into Pathology?

-Why such a HUGE emphasis of basic science research? Pathology is a professional medical specialty with very clear medical practical job duties, so why the stress of academic research? Does the average "real-life" (community) pathologist really have time for basic science research?

Having said that, I am interested in research, and ready to do it if I get into a Pathology residency, but at this time, I do not have the research background that seems to be "needed" by residency programs.

I am worried that this will decrease my chances of getting into pathology even more than the fact that I already finished a residency program in another field.

Good Step scores are most important and once you get an interview, you need to show them how much you love pathology by prior experience. Those that stand out at interviews are usually the ones that have path experience via rotations. This usually strikes up conversation. Those that have very little experience, usually have little to relate.

 

[Euchromatin]

I wouldn't worry about having research experience too much unless you are desperate to go to a very research-oriented academic center for residency. Most programs will heavily emphasize the little bit of research they can talk/force their residents and fellows into doing so they can advertise to interviewees that there are "research opportunities" and try to make the program sound like it has better academic credentials. Again, with the exception of the really big name places, most resident "research" is comprised of very clinically oriented projects (not basic science) that are done to mostly to fill up space in the CV for fellowship applications - and they don't usually seem to require you to have any prior research knowledge/experience.

FYI - I had absolutely zero research experience during undergrad or medical school and I got interview invites from every place I applied to (except JHU). In fact, I had to turn down and/or cancel several invites because I was sick of interviewing at the end. Hope that allays your fears a little. 🙂

 

[scienceguy19]

why do most programs want us to do research if 99.99% of the time we won't use it in practice?

 

[mlw03]

why do most programs want us to do research if 99.99% of the time we won't use it in practice?

Because the faculty need to publish for their own academic careers. And because academic medicine lives and dies by the publication record. Period. That's the only reason 99.9% of the time. Only rare faculty actually publish because of genuine desire to do so.

 

[scienceguy19]

So most faculty only publish because they have to? I thought they did research because they wanted to haha. why else would they be in academia?

Because the faculty need to publish for their own academic careers. And because academic medicine lives and dies by the publication record. Period. That's the only reason 99.9% of the time. Only rare faculty actually publish because of genuine desire to do so.

 

[BU Pathology]

So most faculty only publish because they have to? I thought they did research because they wanted to haha. why else would they be in academia?

I actually publish because I want to. As the chair, my salary and career are already established. Adding one or tow more papers would not make a difference.

However, I strongly believe that my work has an impact on our understanding of disease.

So I publish because I want to publish, not because I have to publish.

Daniel Remick, M.D.
Chair and Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center.

 

[deleted314957]

So when browsing through the Pathology residency programs, everyone from the residents to the faculty seem to be heavily involved in research and publications. There are far more MD/PhDs in Pathology than any other medical field. I am scared, because while I like reseach and would like to be inloved in it, I do not have an extensive research background like MOST of the Pathology residents seem to have.

-Does a lack of histrory of publications lower your changes of getting into Pathology?

-Why such a HUGE emphasis of basic science research? Pathology is a professional medical specialty with very clear medical practical job duties, so why the stress of academic research? Does the average "real-life" (community) pathologist really have time for basic science research?

Having said that, I am interested in research, and ready to do it if I get into a Pathology residency, but at this time, I do not have the research background that seems to be "needed" by residency programs.

I am worried that this will decrease my chances of getting into pathology even more than the fact that I already finished a residency program in another field.

I am pretty much your "average" community hospital pathologist-solo at 170 bed general hospital and there is NO WAY i would be able to do any meaningful research or publish even if I wanted to. all my time is spent in service work and as medical director.

 

[mlw03]

I actually publish because I want to. As the chair, my salary and career are already established. Adding one or tow more papers would not make a difference.

However, I strongly believe that my work has an impact on our understanding of disease.

So I publish because I want to publish, not because I have to publish.

Daniel Remick, M.D.
Chair and Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center.

I believe you are the exception rather than the rule, based on my experiences as a med student and resident.

 

[caffeinegirl]

So most faculty only publish because they have to? I thought they did research because they wanted to haha. why else would they be in academia?

There are many reasons to be in academics, but I think the most prevalent is that of furthering our field as a whole. This can be accomplished many ways, be it through teaching, clinical or basic science research. I have had experience in several departments, and the motivations behind publishing are not only those of career advancement (which is inherent to the practice setting, just as hospital administration/med director duties are in many private settings), but also a genuine desire of furthering our field. The choice of academics comes with a "badge" of prestige, but I do think that this is well deserved...the practice of medicine as a whole is furthered in academic centers. I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for my training and experience at academic centers. So I do tip my hat to those who choose that route, even though it was my choice to not pursue that track.

 

[KCShaw]

Remember too that a lot of academics who do mostly research manage to do so by being less involved in clinical medicine &/or teaching -- i.e., residents are less likely to interact with them. My experience has been that many pathologists working at academic centers fall into that "further the field as a whole" category; some just tend towards clinical work & interacting with residents while publishing less or not being as involved in complex long-term grants & research. The department generally has such research heavy faculty, but they may have few if any clinical/resident related responsibilities.

All of which is to say that no, you don't "need" a research heavy background nor a strong desire to pursue a research heavy career in order to be competitive for most programs, just a willingness to be involved and the realization you may be nudged towards some work (generally clinical/non-bench) for publication during residency. Of course, having some prior experience in research of any sort is still something of a bonus.

 

[cliquesh]

Sorry for hi-jacking, but I'm a 3rd year DO student interested in pathology. I have done one pathology elective, thought it was great...I have a Step 1 in the 250's, top 10%, 0 medical school research, did some unpublished research in college that used a lot of microscopy...I was just curious what you think my odds of matching a program with plenty of fellowship opportunities?

 

[mlw03]

Sorry for hi-jacking, but I'm a 3rd year DO student interested in pathology. I have done one pathology elective, thought it was great...I have a Step 1 in the 250's, top 10%, 0 medical school research, did some unpublished research in college that used a lot of microscopy...I was just curious what you think my odds of matching a program with plenty of fellowship opportunities?

don't hijack. it's rude. start your own "what are my chances?" thread if you want to ask something like that. the only part of your post related to this thread is the part about unpublished research that used microscopy, to which i'd say if ain't published, it barely counts. if anything it could hurt because faculty don't like when residents start a project and then don't follow-through with it.

 

[c0ffee]

I have quite a bit of research, and it's been favorably looked upon at the interviews I've been on. Mostly because it shows faculty that I enjoy thinking critically, can get work done, and will be able to add to their publication list. Having said that, is it required? No. A few of my friends have landed spots without any research. Grant it, they're not high-powered institutions.

 

[poppyseeds]

I have done a lot of research and I am interested in an academic/research based career in pathology. From my experience interviewing for residencies this year, I can say that having a good publication record and a strong interest in continuing with science means a LOT. That said, do you need to have published to get a very good residency position? Probably not.
Its unfortunate that some people may get involved in research projects without having an underlying interest in advancing their medical field, but rather just advancing their careers/egos. Life is too short!!
I have noticed that people who don't have an appreciation for research/science like to believe that everyone else, deep down, feels the same way. That is simply not true.

 

[mlw03]

I have done a lot of research and I am interested in an academic/research based career in pathology. From my experience interviewing for residencies this year, I can say that having a good publication record and a strong interest in continuing with science means a LOT. That said, do you need to have published to get a very good residency position? Probably not.
Its unfortunate that some people may get involved in research projects without having an underlying interest in advancing their medical field, but rather just advancing their careers/egos. Life is too short!!
I have noticed that people who don't have an appreciation for research/science like to believe that everyone else, deep down, feels the same way. That is simply not true.

I don't think that's the case. Rather, people who don't like research the way you do resent having it rammed down our throats in residency. Pediatricians don't have to do research in residency to advance their careers, so why should pathologists? Let's leave the research the folks like you that want to do it and let the rest of us work solely on being the diagnosticians we wish to be.

 

[Ombret]

Pathology is kind of a hybrid between basic science and clinical specialty, so most academic departments will have a mixture of these on their faculty, but the basic science types will have next to no impact on your clinical training and their presence does not mean the residents are all doing bench research. Even the MD-PhD types are not necessarily cooking up a fancy research career. However, many programs will encourage some kind of scholarly endeavor from each of their residents. Given that we practice evidence-based medicine, I think it's educationally valuable for even the least research-oriented trainee to be involved at least once in a project where they try their hand at creating some evidence. Writing a paper even once makes you much better at reading them. Finally, I would cynically guess that some fraction of resident research is really just a free trip to USCAP or some other conference, and maybe that is ultimately not such a bad thing.

 

[mlw03]

Pathology is kind of a hybrid between basic science and clinical specialty, so most academic departments will have a mixture of these on their faculty, but the basic science types will have next to no impact on your clinical training and their presence does not mean the residents are all doing bench research. Even the MD-PhD types are not necessarily cooking up a fancy research career. However, many programs will encourage some kind of scholarly endeavor from each of their residents. Given that we practice evidence-based medicine, I think it's educationally valuable for even the least research-oriented trainee to be involved at least once in a project where they try their hand at creating some evidence. Writing a paper even once makes you much better at reading them. Finally, I would cynically guess that some fraction of resident research is really just a free trip to USCAP or some other conference, and maybe that is ultimately not such a bad thing.

By "some fraction" I would guess around 4/5.