Is this checkbox Research?

[Neuropathinder]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I would like to know if what I'm doing at my lab is too 'passive' or 'checkboxing.'

I'm gearing my whole venture towards studying neuroscience. A few months before I started my freshmen year, I started up at a JHMS neuroscience lab studying regenerative medicine. I'm there for about 4 hours, three times a week.

I've been there over two years, and I assist several doctors in their research. I expect I'll be on 5-8 publications before I apply to med school. I'm expecting perhaps 3 2nd author slots and maybe 1 co-first slot. The problem is, with my schedule, I pretty much just show up and do whatever needs to be done. I'm trying, but I don't think I have time to balance a serious independent project with my classes.

Is this 'effective' research time? Is doing an independent project more important than anything else? How do I make the most of my lab time?

 

[ChrisMack390]

I think this is pretty great - you are spending a lot of time around research and the scientific method and such. At the same time, why not ask if maybe you could start a small independent project?

 

[Neuropathinder]

I think this is pretty great - you are spending a lot of time around research and the scientific method and such. At the same time, why not ask if maybe you could start a small independent project?

Thank you for your reply, Chris.

I am working towards that, I've got the option open. I just know it will sink even more of my time into the 'research' part of my app. In addition, it might limit my ability to assist other doctors meaning I would be published less.

 

[aldol16]

If you are on that many publications, then research won't be an issue for you. Time spent doing research does not correlate directly with the quality of research done. Many people spend thousands of hours doing "research" and end up with no publication or are added on almost as an afterthought to a long author list. What is important is that you can discuss your role in that research and explain/defend it well.

 

[Neuropathinder]

If you are on that many publications, then research won't be an issue for you. Time spent doing research does not correlate directly with the quality of research done. Many people spend thousands of hours doing "research" and end up with no publication or are added on almost as an afterthought to a long author list. What is important is that you can discuss your role in that research and explain/defend it well.

Aldol, thank you for your reply,

So, for the defend part, I just need to be able to discuss with Adcoms why my research was important? Or is it 'how I made a difference?' Right now for one of my second author projects, it's going to come down to "I pulled a few hundreds genes and conducted an enormous amount of neuron based analysis." I can go into fine details here, but it's not exactly heroic stuff.

 

[JustAPhD]

Be sure to be able to intelligently talk about your research during interviews (if you have 5-8 pubs you most likely will be asked about your research experience), and you'll be just fine. Research doesn't have to be 'heroic' for it to be valuable -most research isn't- and that's ok. Adcoms want to see that you learned the scientific method and furthered your critical thinking abilities.

 

[Neuropathinder]

Be sure to be able to intelligently talk about your research during interviews (if you have 5-8 pubs you most likely will be asked about your research experience), and you'll be just fine. Research doesn't have to be 'heroic' for it to be valuable -most research isn't- and that's ok. Adcoms want to see that you learned the scientific method and furthered your critical thinking abilities.

JustaPhd, thanks for your input.

I've learned enormously from all these hours. I'll be sure to focus in on that.

 

[aldol16]

So, for the defend part, I just need to be able to discuss with Adcoms why my research was important? Or is it 'how I made a difference?' Right now for one of my second author projects, it's going to come down to "I pulled a few hundreds genes and conducted an enormous amount of neuron based analysis." I can go into fine details here, but it's not exactly heroic stuff.

1) What did you do in the specific research project (i.e. what was your role)?

2) What is the significance of your research? In my opinion, this is where many people are lacking. It's no excuse that you were 9th author on a publication. If you were an author at all, that means that you understood the context of the whole work done (not just your part in it) enough to allow your name to be put on it. So while you might not have a detailed understanding of exactly what other people did, you should understand why it was done. Your own input into the project should be contextualized into this broader impact. For example, it's okay if you were responsible for running all the Western blots that went into the paper. You should know that inside out. But you should also know why people stained tissue sections and what they found from that if it's in the paper - you don't have to know the protocol for staining tissue sections but you should know the point of doing it, in the context of your paper.

3) What did you learn from the research experience as a whole?

 

[wizzed101]

What is JHMS? I just googled it and got Jackson Heights Middle School.

Idk what to tell you. I was kinda passive in my first project too. I actually didn't know what the heck was going on (I kinda knew in layman term but to actually understand it, I need a level of mathematics that is still beyond me and everyone on this forums, no offense). But one day, I was kinda curious and ran some crazy/off the cuff stuffs and the results were interesting. My undergrad PI was like "what the heck is this????" I was able to reproduce it. I got first author from the resulting paper.

So can I say in an interview that even though I actually don't know what was going on that particular paper and ensuing projects couldn't have happened without me? I mean I can try to explain it but like I said, I don't have the math and I bet the people who interview me, PhD or not, will not understand it either (coz they are not math people). I can BS it I guess. Do you think this will be perceived positively?

 

[LizzyM]

When I ask an applicant in an interview to tell me about their research experience and what they were trying to discover, I am really evaluating their ability to speak clearly and cogently on a scientific subject in a way that a non-scientist could understand. Some of my colleagues in pediatrics want to hear things described in a way that a child could understand. The idea is to determine if you can take a scientific subject you know well and "translate" it for a lay person. You can see, I hope, the relevance to the practice of medicine.

 

[JustAPhD]

What is JHMS? I just googled it and got Jackson Heights Middle School.

So can I say in an interview that even though I actually don't know what was going on that particular paper and ensuing projects couldn't have happened without me? I mean I can try to explain it but like I said, I don't have the math and I bet the people who interview me, PhD or not, will not understand it either (coz they are not math people). I can BS it I guess. Do you think this will be perceived positively?

I was assuming Johns Hopkins Medical School, although that's not an acronym I see often.
Don't BS it, just explain it in a boiled-down condensed version that makes sense to them (as LizzyM said). They're not going to go off asking for the mathematical theory behind it.

 

[keemobad]

People here think Premeds are expected to cure cancer in their undergrad research...

 

[Neuropathinder]

Hello Everyone that responded.

Thank you for your insight, I will make the most of it. And yes, JHMS is the acronym we use for Johns Hopkins Medical School.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Goro]

To elaborate further on my learned colleague's words, JD Watson (of DNA fame) said that "any scientist worth his salt should be able to explain what he does to a 6th grader. if he can't, he doesn't know what he's talking about"

My own advise to people on this is "explain it like you would to your Gramma".

Ever further, when I ask people about heir research, I am looking for whether or not they were mere technicians (or glassware washers), or actually had field command and knew what they were doing, and more importantly, why.

When I ask an applicant in an interview to tell me about their research experience and what they were trying to discover, I am really evaluating their ability to speak clearly and cogently on a scientific subject in a way that a non-scientist could understand. Some of my colleagues in pediatrics want to hear things described in a way that a child could understand. The idea is to determine if you can take a scientific subject you know well and "translate" it for a lay person. You can see, I hope, the relevance to the practice of medicine.