Is a MD/PhD Really Necessary?

[deleted393595]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I know I want to be involved in research during med school and residency and afterwards, but at the same time, I am uncertain about getting a PhD along with my MD degree. My biggest concern is that since I want to go into ortho, which is a 7 year long residency, spending an additional 5 years getting a PhD will be too much.

I have heard of doctors being able to do research with just an MD, and I am open to the idea of getting a MS (Masters) because I want to work on translational research. Thus,

1) Will ADCOMs shun me for being an MD applicant because they think that I should be a MD/PhD applicant instead?

2) Is spending 5 years getting a PhD really worth it? Because this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Soon-Shiong) was able to get through with just a Masters which he did while doing residency.

 

[Quadratic]

No

To answer your first question, MD only ADCOMs at strong research institutions (top 30 schools) will not shun you if you desire to become involved with research during medical training and beyond. Nor will they reject your application if it is research heavy. For some schools this is practically a silent requirement. However, you should make sure that other ECs are well represented. I am unaware of how it would be viewed at schools with stronger social mission.

Your second question requires a longer response. MD/PhD programs aim to produce physician scientists that will conduct basic science research. Of course, some programs allow flexibility for students to choose related fields, including Clinical/Translational Science (NOTE: Few schools have these as formal options). However, the students that matriculate with an expressed interest in this work have historically been the exception rather than the rule. Also, the ideal time line for MD/PhD programs is 7 years, although the average time to completion is ~8 years.

It is also important to note that MD only physicians can become involved with research of any kind, but the amount of effort needed to function as an independent researcher varies. An MD that wants to become involved in basic science research will need to complete a research fellowship, or spend a significant amount of time (3-4 years, >90% commitment) within a laboratory before reasonably expecting to receive grants as an principal investigator, assuming that they can obtain a faculty position where basic science research entails their primary effort. This is a substantial investment compared to that of becoming involved with clinical trials.

The bottom line is if you're interested in basic science and medicine, and you have the stats, go for MD/PhD as you WILL invest roughly the same amount of training time eventually. Otherwise, it may be optimal to consider other alternatives (e.g. master's program).

 

[RockinRoll]

Hell no

 

[deleted393595]

No

To answer your first question, MD only ADCOMs at strong research institutions (top 30 schools) will not shun you if you desire to become involved with research during medical training and beyond. Nor will they reject your application if it is research heavy. For some schools this is practically a silent requirement. However, you should make sure that other ECs are well represented. I am unaware of how it would be viewed at schools with stronger social mission.

Your second question requires a longer response. MD/PhD programs aim to produce physician scientists that will conduct basic science research. Of course, some programs allow flexibility for students to choose related fields, including Clinical/Translational Science (NOTE: Few schools have these as formal options). However, the students that matriculate with an expressed interest in this work have historically been the exception rather than the rule. Also, the ideal time line for MD/PhD programs is 7 years, although the average time to completion is ~8 years.

It is also important to note that MD only physicians can become involved with research of any kind, but the amount of effort needed to function as an independent researcher varies. An MD that wants to become involved in basic science research will need to complete a research fellowship, or spend a significant amount of time (3-4 years, >90% commitment) within a laboratory before reasonably expecting to receive grants as an principal investigator, assuming that they can obtain a faculty position where basic science research entails their primary effort. This is a substantial investment compared to that of becoming involved with clinical trials.

The bottom line is if you're interested in basic science and medicine, and you have the stats, go for MD/PhD as you WILL invest roughly the same amount of training time eventually. Otherwise, it may be optimal to consider other alternatives (e.g. master's program).

Thanks so much for taking the time to write all of that out!

My primary interest is in translational medicine/research, and so, an MD/PhD would not be necessary for it then since it's mainly for basic science research even though some MD/PhD programs offer translational med tracks?

 

[Quadratic]

Thanks so much for taking the time to write all of that out!

My primary interest is in translational medicine/research, and so, an MD/PhD would not be necessary for it then since it's mainly for basic science research even though some MD/PhD programs offer translational med tracks?

Even though some programs offer "translational science" graduate tracks (e.g. Case Western), you will likely specialize either in bench research, computational analysis, or clinical trial design. Some successful physician scientists, like Dr. Soon-Shiong, acquire enough political and financial capital to have a solid, "in-house" operation where they have the equipment and staff to manage a solid proportion of translational work. However it is more likely the case that you will begin your career doing translational work as a collaborator, meaning that your value will be strongly placed on what you can actually contribute. The question is, what do you see yourself doing? If you and I are working with a group of researchers to identify novel biomarkers in prostate cancer, would you rather develop statistical methods for data analysis, collect the tissue samples, or analyze gene expression levels in the laboratory?

 

[deleted393595]

Even though some programs offer "translational science" graduate tracks (e.g. Case Western), you will likely specialize either in bench research, computational analysis, or clinical trial design. Some successful physician scientists, like Dr. Soon-Shiong, acquire enough political and financial capital to have a solid, "in-house" operation where they have the equipment and staff to manage a solid proportion of translational work. However it is more likely the case that you will begin your career doing translational work as a collaborator, meaning that your value will be strongly placed on what you can actually contribute. The question is, what do you see yourself doing? If you and I are working with a group of researchers to identify novel biomarkers in prostate cancer, would you rather develop statistical methods for data analysis, collect the tissue samples, or analyze gene expression levels in the laboratory?

Thanks once again for your quick response!

I'm not too familiar with the process and I could be wrong about the details, but in the example you provided, I'd see myself recruiting patients for trials and developing statistical methods for data analysis since I have been doing the latter as part of my research in undergrad. Assuming that the trials go well and that those markers are clinically significant enough, I'd see if I could develop a device/test for identifying those markers (I've also had a minor role in device creation for my research), get it patented and get venture cap funding for it to create a startup.

 

[sp808]

No
It is also important to note that MD only physicians can become involved with research of any kind, but the amount of effort needed to function as an independent researcher varies. An MD that wants to become involved in basic science research will need to complete a research fellowship, or spend a significant amount of time (3-4 years, >90% commitment) within a laboratory before reasonably expecting to receive grants as an principal investigator, assuming that they can obtain a faculty position where basic science research entails their primary effort. This is a substantial investment compared to that of becoming involved with clinical trials.

It's also important to note that an MD/PhD has to do the same thing on top of getting the PhD. It is not just 8 years of your life, but 20+ years between an MD/PhD entering med school and getting a faculty job. This is an incredible commitment and OP does not sound like he is serious enough to go down that path. The MD/PhD training is first and foremost for a research-based career in basic science, not for an MD who wants to dabble around in translational projects.

 

[thesauce]

I know I want to be involved in research during med school and residency and afterwards, but at the same time, I am uncertain about getting a PhD along with my MD degree. My biggest concern is that since I want to go into ortho, which is a 7 year long residency, spending an additional 5 years getting a PhD will be too much.

I have heard of doctors being able to do research with just an MD, and I am open to the idea of getting a MS (Masters) because I want to work on translational research. Thus,

1) Will ADCOMs shun me for being an MD applicant because they think that I should be a MD/PhD applicant instead?

2) Is spending 5 years getting a PhD really worth it? Because this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Soon-Shiong) was able to get through with just a Masters which he did while doing residency.

To my knowledge, it's always been 5

 

[deleted393595]

Thanks for all of the input, you guys!

 

[Sephiroth]

Thanks once again for your quick response!

I'm not too familiar with the process and I could be wrong about the details, but in the example you provided, I'd see myself recruiting patients for trials and developing statistical methods for data analysis since I have been doing the latter as part of my research in undergrad. Assuming that the trials go well and that those markers are clinically significant enough, I'd see if I could develop a device/test for identifying those markers (I've also had a minor role in device creation for my research), get it patented and get venture cap funding for it to create a startup.

FWIW, there are PhDs geared toward that if you are so inclined. At several MD/PhD interviews, some of the faculty seemed to want me to go into bioinformatics since I have some (much less than they probably realized, haha) experience with it to do data analysis, though for me it was more along the lines of analyzing genomic data, but that data analysis is there. With BME faculty, some of them were talking about device development as well. That might be the field you'd want to look at.

Really it comes down to your career goals and the extent to which research plays a part in it as to which you want to do. If all goes well, it's 3 years (though 4 is common), but at least you wont have student loans to worry about, so that somewhat mitigates it (though certainly doesn't make up 3 years of attending salary).

As for research on applications, schools might like it, but I did have a few MD-only interviews at which the interviewer, at least from my impression, didnt like the fact that the research:community service ratio skewed heavily for research (not that I was severely lacking in community service) at schools that did seem more service oriented anyway. That's one of those "who know?" though.

 

[Nymphicus]

You don't get a PhD because you want to do research. MD is plenty good enough for that.

You get a PhD if you want to devote your life and career to research.

 

[OrthoPod57]

I'm not sure how set you are on ortho at this point, but if you are you should consider that many ortho residencies have one or two "research track" positions you can match into that allow you to take an extra year during residency to focus specifically on basic or translational research. Thus these ortho residents spend 6 yrs in residency compared to the traditional 5 yrs, but they come out of residency with very strong research on their résumés and they match into top academic fellowships. It is even possible to get your masters during this year depending on how motivated/ productive you are.

I have a few of these research track spots on my rank list but since I am leaning toward going into a community based practice they are farther down my list.

My suggestion to you is to go for just your MD now. If you want to do ortho your first priority needs to be getting a good step1 score and cultivating a strong relationship with your home program. In med school there will be plenty of time to get some ortho research under your belt as well to boost your residency application and give them a reason to want you in one of these research track spots.

 

[Textbookversion]

do not get an md/phd

For what you want to do, it is a huge waste of time and overkill. Definitely emphasize your interest in translational research during interviews.

 

[deleted393595]

Thanks once again y'all. I'll definitely keep all of this advice in mind.

 

[goodkarma]

The purpose of MD/PhD programs is not to provide training for "basic science research". You don't need an MD for that. MD/PhD's train physician scientists for translational research. Read the description or welcome page for any MD/PhD program.

Length of PhD depends on the program. Usual is 4, not 5. Most are happy to help you complete in 3 if possible, but not common. Also, information you can usually find through a quick google search.