Is the MD/MS worth it...or should I just do straight MD?

[clarkalim]

So, I want to get an MD/MS in Nutrition...

I want to become a neonatologist and do clinical research. My research interests, all of them, have something to do with nutrition in one way or another.

So...

-One, is the extra year for the MS worth it? Does getting the MS really help to teach you how to do research?

-Two, the only two schools I've seen that offer MD/MS in Nutrition are U Cincinnati and Case Western, both in Ohio...I can't possibly just apply to two schools for med school. That would be idiotic. But...only two schools offer the program I want, so what do I do?!

-Three, I could just get a MD/MS in Clinical/Translational Science or something along those lines, to learn how to do clinical research. There are a lot more schools that offer that program. But, how would I tie nutrition into that? (I REALLY want to get advanced education in Nutrition. Nutrition is my PASSION.)

-Four, what other options are there other than the MS degree or the PhD degree to be able to do research as an MD? Is a simple certificate in clinical research techniques good enough? Or is it advisable to get a degree if you want to be able to get good grants? And is the MS enough for that, or is the PhD needed? (I really don't want to spend 7+ years in school for MD/PhD...but if I have to, I'll do what's needed. I was set on MD/PhD for the past year anyway, and recently decided that I'd be more interested in clinical than bench.)

Here are my research interests:

I want to learn about and do research surrounding diseases that result from deficiencies.
I want to learn more about the effects of food components on the body, and on different diseases.
I want to learn about how whole nutrition early in life can prevent a myriad of health issues, or strengthen the immune system, etc.
I want to learn about the benefits of different herbs on different health issues.
I want to learn about how maternal nutrition can affect the health of the baby, especially the immune system.

Thanks so much for your help.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[h9i9j9]

Go big or go home. I personally believe someone learns much more with a phD.

 

[StIGMA]

If you have an MD (or PhD), an MS means squat. It is all about experience. You would be better positioned in the future with a year-out program like Doris Duke, HHMI, etc., if you are insistent that you would like to pursue research. You don't need special certificates or masters degrees to apply for grants or get a position. You need experience and a track record. There are many ways to gain experience, and for most people with clinical research interests it comes gradually while working on projects during medical school, residency, and fellowship. Start working on ongoing projects with people doing research that you are interested in, immerse yourself while you are in your first 2 years of medical school, and decide at that point whether you want to take a year off (to pursue a more substantial project) or not. Learn about what sort of research experiences you may have during fellowship. Learn what skills you need for the type of research you want to do, and see if any of those skills need specific instruction (in my opinion, you can learn to do almost everything yourself and with a good mentor). Again, a degree alone means nothing... it is your experiences. You do not need a degree, but you may consider one if you have a defined goal of skills you wish to obtain through that degree.

 

[echosensei]

I am in full agreement with Stigma, with the exception of the statement "an MS means squat." The purpose of the MS is to gain the formal education you need to pursue your research questions, it is not to give you a "one up" on getting grants. I have a colleague who is a surgeon with expertise (and a Master's) in nutrition. His research interest (and many publications), is in the effects of nutrition on perioperative and post-traumatic (e.g., burns) outcomes.

I wonder, however, if an MS in Nutrition is what you really want to be a researcher in the effects of nutrition. Usually, certified dieticians are more likely to go this route. It sounds like what you are interested in are the effects of a specific intervention (in your case, nutrition) on different patient populations. In this instance, an MPH or an MS in statistics would be more helpful, I would think. Most of my colleagues did NOT get their MPH or MS in medical school as a combined program. They enrolled in the MS/MPH programs as residents or subspecialty fellows during their clinical training. The programs are specifically designed for clinical researchers to fit in to their busy schedules (check out the OJOC (on job/on campus) MS or MPH at University of Michigan for an example of this).

 

[clarkalim]

If you have an MD (or PhD), an MS means squat. It is all about experience. You would be better positioned in the future with a year-out program like Doris Duke, HHMI, etc., if you are insistent that you would like to pursue research. You don't need special certificates or masters degrees to apply for grants or get a position. You need experience and a track record. There are many ways to gain experience, and for most people with clinical research interests it comes gradually while working on projects during medical school, residency, and fellowship. Start working on ongoing projects with people doing research that you are interested in, immerse yourself while you are in your first 2 years of medical school, and decide at that point whether you want to take a year off (to pursue a more substantial project) or not. Learn about what sort of research experiences you may have during fellowship. Learn what skills you need for the type of research you want to do, and see if any of those skills need specific instruction (in my opinion, you can learn to do almost everything yourself and with a good mentor). Again, a degree alone means nothing... it is your experiences. You do not need a degree, but you may consider one if you have a defined goal of skills you wish to obtain through that degree.

I wonder, however, if an MS in Nutrition is what you really want to be a researcher in the effects of nutrition. Usually, certified dieticians are more likely to go this route. It sounds like what you are interested in are the effects of a specific intervention (in your case, nutrition) on different patient populations. In this instance, an MPH or an MS in statistics would be more helpful, I would think. Most of my colleagues did NOT get their MPH or MS in medical school as a combined program. They enrolled in the MS/MPH programs as residents or subspecialty fellows during their clinical training. The programs are specifically designed for clinical researchers to fit in to their busy schedules (check out the OJOC (on job/on campus) MS or MPH at University of Michigan for an example of this).

Thanks for your advice, guys! The thing is, I want to LEARN nutrition. Nutrition is my passion, my first love. I have a NEED to get formal training in it. Not just because I think I have to, but because I want to. I love nutrition.

So, question:

-Won't getting an MS in Nutrition also help me to learn how to conduct research, since I have to do a thesis? It would be redundant to get an MS in Nutrition and a certificate or additional training in Clinical Research Techiques, right?

Also,

Thanks for this:

They enrolled in the MS/MPH programs as residents or subspecialty fellows during their clinical training. The programs are specifically designed for clinical researchers to fit in to their busy schedules (check out the OJOC (on job/on campus) MS or MPH at University of Michigan for an example of this).

I am DEFINITELY going to look into this because I'd rather not spend an extra year in school.

 

[StIGMA]

Formal training in nutrition will involve coursework. I sincerely believe you could attain the same knowledge through your medical training supplemented with reading the books and literature.

For most MS programs - and I do not know about nutrition programs - a thesis-based masters is more significant than a solely course-based masters. For instance, a thesis-based MS may take 2-3 years of full-time work compared to possibly 1 year for a course-based masters (with no research).

Most medical students will get their research training during medical school, possibly during a year-out program, and residency/fellowship as they desire. A formal masters degree is not required. I do not mean to talk you out of it, but I hope to allow you to consider other possibilities to get you to your goals. I would give you better advice if I could, but I am still in training myself!

 

[clarkalim]

Formal training in nutrition will involve coursework. I sincerely believe you could attain the same knowledge through your medical training supplemented with reading the books and literature.

For most MS programs - and I do not know about nutrition programs - a thesis-based masters is more significant than a solely course-based masters. For instance, a thesis-based MS may take 2-3 years of full-time work compared to possibly 1 year for a course-based masters (with no research).

Most medical students will get their research training during medical school, possibly during a year-out program, and residency/fellowship as they desire. A formal masters degree is not required. I do not mean to talk you out of it, but I hope to allow you to consider other possibilities to get you to your goals. I would give you better advice if I could, but I am still in training myself!

No worries, I appreciate your advice!

The MD/MS Nutrition is a thesis-based MS that only takes one extra year. Students take a year off between MS3 and MS4 to complete the research component to the coursework they did in MS3.

 

[vc7777]

Go big or go home. I personally believe someone learns much more with a phD.

🙄 Yes, yes...you are so smart. OP, you are asking PhDs to tell you not to choose their lifestyle - which is a tall order.

I would never tell you one path is better than another. It is so highly variable.

That being said, let me try and add some balance:

Note that plenty of MDs get by without a PhD. There is some distortion of reality on this website. You don't need a PhD to be a productive researcher. There's a little bit of cognitive dissonance in this forum, OK?

As an analogy - I was a professional research engineer for many years. I would hire an engineer with 3 years of real-world experience and "just a B.S." over a newly-minted PhD candidate any day. In fact, I would be suspicious of a PhD. Bluntly, some of them lacked certain skills that only come with on-the-job training. I know it's not quite the same, but you get the idea: A piece of paper isn't the end-all-be-all.

If you have an MD (or PhD), an MS means squat. It is all about experience.

I agree - with one caveat. It all depends on "how much" research you want to do in your ideal career. Defining "How much" is "a lot" or "a little" is where there is wide (and reasonable) disagreement:

I could argue that all your degrees beyond the MD mean "squat" - including the PhD - if you want to be a clinical researcher. If you can pursue nutrition during and beyond medical school without any of this degree nonsense, ok?

Don't do it for a degree. Do it for the experience. Do it because you love it - which it sounds like you do.

 

[inniktobapka]

Hi clarkalim,

I'm just curious to know what you eventually decided regarding your wanting to pursue teh MD/MS in nutrition. Did you end up applying to the program at UC? I'm asking because I am interested in applying there for most of the same reasons you stated. What advise would you give about pursuing an MD/MS combined degree? Thanks

 

[RookTookIt]

Hi clarkalim,

I'm just curious to know what you eventually decided regarding your wanting to pursue teh MD/MS in nutrition. Did you end up applying to the program at UC? I'm asking because I am interested in applying there for most of the same reasons you stated. What advise would you give about pursuing an MD/MS combined degree? Thanks

I don't think he/she has made a decision yet.
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=11863833#post11863833

 

[bcmb2013]

I am in full agreement with Stigma, with the exception of the statement "an MS means squat." The purpose of the MS is to gain the formal education you need to pursue your research questions, it is not to give you a "one up" on getting grants. I have a colleague who is a surgeon with expertise (and a Master's) in nutrition. His research interest (and many publications), is in the effects of nutrition on perioperative and post-traumatic (e.g., burns) outcomes.

I wonder, however, if an MS in Nutrition is what you really want to be a researcher in the effects of nutrition. Usually, certified dieticians are more likely to go this route. It sounds like what you are interested in are the effects of a specific intervention (in your case, nutrition) on different patient populations. In this instance, an MPH or an MS in statistics would be more helpful, I would think. Most of my colleagues did NOT get their MPH or MS in medical school as a combined program. They enrolled in the MS/MPH programs as residents or subspecialty fellows during their clinical training. The programs are specifically designed for clinical researchers to fit in to their busy schedules (check out the OJOC (on job/on campus) MS or MPH at University of Michigan for an example of this).

Hello,

Currently, I am a junior in college and I have been highly involved in research experience throughout my undergraduate career. I have done 1 school year of research at my home university, a summer of research at Caltech, and I am the lead author of a paper in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). I enjoyed my research experience, but I want shift from basic research and devote my career to clinically related problems. I believe that an MD/MS in Clinical Research is the correct choice for me to conduct research and then transfer these skills from "bench to bedside".

What do you think are the shortcomings of an MD/MS versus an MD/PhD? Should I not devote my time getting an MS and get research experience as an MD?

Thanks,

Curious Lab Rat

 

[K31]

What do you think are the shortcomings of an MD/MS versus an MD/PhD? Should I not devote my time getting an MS and get research experience as an MD?

There are a lot of programs out there that offer you the chance to get a MS during your fellowship. If I were applying to medical school and was interested in pursuing clinical research, that would be the path I'd take rather than get the master's during med school. For one thing, your research interests are likely to be better differentiated by that point and you can tailor the program to better give you the skills that will be applicable to your career.

 

[Neuronix]

Some of the MS/MD programs give free med school. That's not a bad deal. One year of research for a full scholarship if you're interested in research anyway.

Otherwise, I agree the MS is kind of meaningless. You can get research experience in all sorts of ways, formalized as an MS or not, by year out program, research fellowships, etc... The MD/PhD is more meant to create full-time biomedical researchers.

 

[Poetic Silence]

I realize the original post is quite outdated, but I'd like to add my own collective wisdom for those who may wander into this thread seeking similar advice.

Another option for those interested in herbal and nutritional research and treatment would be to obtain a naturopathic doctor after med school. It would appear most ND programs give advance standing to MD/DO grads.

Speaking of DO,, it is my understanding that osteopathic medical school offers more educational opportunities in holistic, alternative, complimentary and nutritional medicine.

There are residencies available for MD/DO grads interested in holistic and alternative medical practices while keeping scientific and evidence based medicine a priority as well. I imagine these residencies have a special focus on nutritional and herbal interventions with research opportunities available.

Finally, you may also be interested in obtaining a masters in traditional Chinese medicine, a form of alternative medicine with a focus on herbal and dietary treatments. If you go this route, you'll also be trained in acupuncture.

Just passing through while sharing what I've learned through my own research.

 

[PfNO22]

Hello,

Currently, I am a junior in college and I have been highly involved in research experience throughout my undergraduate career. I have done 1 school year of research at my home university, a summer of research at Caltech, and I am the lead author of a paper in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). I enjoyed my research experience, but I want shift from basic research and devote my career to clinically related problems. I believe that an MD/MS in Clinical Research is the correct choice for me to conduct research and then transfer these skills from "bench to bedside".

What do you think are the shortcomings of an MD/MS versus an MD/PhD? Should I not devote my time getting an MS and get research experience as an MD?

Thanks,

Curious Lab Rat

Lerner College of Medicine, for example.