Is my lab work relevant?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

BaLeavaMD

Praise is what I do!!!
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
383
Reaction score
0
I'm looking into doing MD/PhD...I have been working in a hemoglobinopathy lab for about two years (total). We do lots of research on Sickle Cell Anemia. I do more clinical work, though. I run HPLCs, IsoElectric Focusing, etc. for the different research projects that PIs and physicians have here at the medical school. Is this significant enough experience or should I try to do some more "real" research?!!

rhl
 
rhlmdmph2b said:
I'm looking into doing MD/PhD...I have been working in a hemoglobinopathy lab for about two years (total). We do lots of research on Sickle Cell Anemia. I do more clinical work, though. I run HPLCs, IsoElectric Focusing, etc. for the different research projects that PIs and physicians have here at the medical school. Is this significant enough experience or should I try to do some more "real" research?!!

rhl

Have you been published? Are you just running the machines or are you actually part of the project? Meaning, are you just told what to do, or do you understand everything that's going on and contribute your own knowledge to the project? If you have been published, or are seriously involved in your project, then I think your research experience would be classified as enough for md/phd.
 
dave613 said:
Have you been published? Are you just running the machines or are you actually part of the project? Meaning, are you just told what to do, or do you understand everything that's going on and contribute your own knowledge to the project? If you have been published, or are seriously involved in your project, then I think your research experience would be classified as enough for md/phd.
I have not been published...I understand what's going on with the research and can explain the projects, but I really just do the clinical work of the projects, the physicians write it up and get the credit, but I do the actual lab testing of the blood!!
 
rhlmdmph2b said:
I have not been published...I understand what's going on with the research and can explain the projects, but I really just do the clinical work of the projects, the physicians write it up and get the credit, but I do the actual lab testing of the blood!!

I think your research is significant regardless of whether you consider it clinical or basic science. Even if it seems like you feel like a robot that does repetitive experiments, as long as you understand the research then it is useful to mention. At your MSTP interviews if you mention the research, be prepared to talk about the significance of the research and also think about hypothetical future directions (i.e. If you were running the lab what questions would you want to answer and how would you answer them?)
 
you sound more like a technician than a researcher. Could you be able to write an undergrad thesis based on your work? If yes, then you should be fine.
 
rhlmdmph2b said:
I have not been published...I understand what's going on with the research and can explain the projects, but I really just do the clinical work of the projects, the physicians write it up and get the credit, but I do the actual lab testing of the blood!!


As long as you thoroughly understand what's going on, and could answer hypothetical questions about future direction, you have more than enough research experience.
 
The real question here is: do you have a fundamental role on the projects or are you simply running experiments while others do the thinking?

From the information in your posts thus far, there seems to be no evidence of thinking of the research question, forming hypotheses, designing approaches to answer these questions, analyzing the data, writing manuscripts, etc that would indicate a role above and beyond that of a technician.

MD/PhD admissions committees look for applicants that have had a significant research experience, meaning that you have a large role on a project, understand what you are doing, and are more involved on it than simply running experiments.

Being on a publication is not sufficient for MD/PhD admissions. Committees know that people are often added on a co-author list for contributing very little to the ideas and experiments behind the paper. In fact, it is BETTER to have an in-depth research experience in which you work on your own project, thinking about the questions you are trying to answer, designing experiments, doing the analysis and presenting the results. I didn't have any publications when I applied, but had my own independent projects that I knew inside-out and had presented at conferences and in abstracts.

Hope this helps.
 
Vader said:
The real question here is: do you have a fundamental role on the projects or are you simply running experiments while others do the thinking?

From the information in your posts thus far, there seems to be no evidence of thinking of the research question, forming hypotheses, designing approaches to answer these questions, analyzing the data, writing manuscripts, etc that would indicate a role above and beyond that of a technician.

MD/PhD admissions committees look for applicants that have had a significant research experience, meaning that you have a large role on a project, understand what you are doing, and are more involved on it than simply running experiments.

Being on a publication is not sufficient for MD/PhD admissions. Committees know that people are often added on a co-author list for contributing very little to the ideas and experiments behind the paper. In fact, it is BETTER to have an in-depth research experience in which you work on your own project, thinking about the questions you are trying to answer, designing experiments, doing the analysis and presenting the results. I didn't have any publications when I applied, but had my own independent projects that I knew inside-out and had presented at conferences and in abstracts.

Hope this helps.

I agree with what you said. Which md/phd programs were you accepted to?
 
Top