Looking for advice on research

[DocE]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I am looking to do some research during medical school. Currently I have an opportunity to do either clinical or basic science research. I need your advice as to which kind of reseach (clinical VS basic) would look better on a residency application. Also I am still not 100% decided on what I want to do for specialty. Is doing research in a different specialty than the one I am appling for would hurt/benefit/doesn't matter? Should I wait till I am sure of what I would like to do? Because once I start a project I am not going to be able to switch. I am MS2 by the way.
I would really appreciate any advice.

 

[Annette]

Do you like doing research? What opportunities do you have? --lab space, mentors,etc. If there is a particular area of medicine you like, you will be more likely to find a question you want to answer.

 

[DocE]

I like doing research. I would imagin myself liking clinical research more. There are couple of research projects starting soon by residents and PhDs in which they are looking for studnets to assist. I would like to do research, but in the sametime I want to benefit from it applying for residencies.

 

[Hurricane]

You should do what you like. As long as you're productive, it really doesn't matter what your research is on. And it's much easier to be productive and to learn something if you enjoy what you're doing.

But just as importantly, be sure your chosen project has a mentor that you click with and can help you do the above.

 

[Blade28]

You'll likely get more responses with this thread in the Allo forum as other med students pursuing research are located there.

Moving.

 

[DocE]

Thanks..

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Clinical research is usually easier to publish in than basic science and is more common among medical students. This is one of the reasons why I believe having basic science looks better when it comes to residencies at the top programs.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

Clinical research is usually easier to publish in than basic science and is more common among medical students. This is one of the reasons why I believe having basic science looks better when it comes to residencies at the top programs.

I guess the holy grail would be a published basic science paper with clinical applications in one of the competitive fields.

"Fibroblastic response to experimental drug KX3943 in a mouse scarring model: Implications for cosmetic surgery".

Plastic surgery would be creaming itself over that one.

 

[jdh71]

Basic science is a little more chill too since you're not having to deal with all the issues inherent to investigations on humans. Mice are cute and I'm not not happy when I have to sacrifice them, but I've never had to sit there and read them any sort of informed consent - make sure they understand it in spanish too! Also, with bench work I can come in during the middle of the night and work with whatever I'm doing. Getting patients together at 3 AM just pi$$es them off. Lastly, in my humble experience, many of the guys who want you to help them with clinical research, don't really know what they are doing - they expect you to slog along, come up with "something", all at the same time not bothering them (just let them know when you submit because theyre going to be first author! 👍 ). Makes life difficult, even in 2nd year, imagine trying to finish this way third year. OTOH, basic science researchers generally have been at it for years and years, came out of a PhD or MD/PhD program and know what they are doing, therefore are good at guidance and direction.

IMHO this is a "no-brainer" - basic science, all they way

 

[achybrachy]

I think in most cases it doesn't matter what the research is in, but it can only help if it is in the field you want to apply to, or at least related in some stretch of the imagination. It will vary a little depending on the field you are applying to. In general, though, I would only follow the above basic science advice if you are sure you will get something to show for it, i.e. a pub or at least a presentation/poster.

If you were an M3 I would probably recommend doing something more clinical since you will have way less free time and it is much more reasonable to do at least like chart reviews or case reports and still be able to publish something. If it came down to putting a basic science project down on your application without a pub versus some easier clinical project with a pub, I would go with the pub. In fact, some people make the argument that doing a project and having nothing to show for it can actually look worse than doing nothing. I'm not sure if I'd go that far.

 

[Annette]

I think in most cases it doesn't matter what the research is in, but it can only help if it is in the field you want to apply to, or at least related in some stretch of the imagination. It will vary a little depending on the field you are applying to. In general, though, I would only follow the above basic science advice if you are sure you will get something to show for it, i.e. a pub or at least a presentation/poster.

If you were an M3 I would probably recommend doing something more clinical since you will have way less free time and it is much more reasonable to do at least like chart reviews or case reports and still be able to publish something. If it came down to putting a basic science project down on your application without a pub versus some easier clinical project with a pub, I would go with the pub. In fact, some people make the argument that doing a project and having nothing to show for it can actually look worse than doing nothing. I'm not sure if I'd go that far.

I'm not so certain that this is true. Doing research teaches you a set of skills- how to think out and propose a question so you can answer it, using and interpreting statistics, how to research a question, etc, that is applicable where ever you go. And if you haven't finished the research, the research is still in progress. Not such a big deal- write an interum analysis so you can show you are learning something from the process. Since you have to have the question and the protocol set before you begin the actually research, you can outline what you have done towords this.

 

[achybrachy]

I'm not so certain that this is true. Doing research teaches you a set of skills- how to think out and propose a question so you can answer it, using and interpreting statistics, how to research a question, etc, that is applicable where ever you go. And if you haven't finished the research, the research is still in progress. Not such a big deal- write an interum analysis so you can show you are learning something from the process. Since you have to have the question and the protocol set before you begin the actually research, you can outline what you have done towords this.

I think everything you said is true, in the sense that it is the way it should work. The truth is you can and should learn a ton from research, basic science or clinical, and even without publishing anything, but for purposes of beefing up your CV, a publication makes a big difference.

Especially for the competetive specialties. Take radiation oncology, for example, arguably the field that places the most importance on med school research when selecting residents. According to http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2007.pdf charts 12 and 13, nearly all applicants, matched or unmatched, reported some research (98% for matched vs. 96% for unmatched), so you can't really say that simply reporting research helped anyone per se, it's pretty much just expected that you'll have it. On the other hand, 93% of those matching vs. 75% of those not matching had some sort of publication, abstract, or poster; these people did have an advantage on match day. Did people match without publications? Absolutely. But publications did provide an advantage over just reporting research.

Now that doesn't mean you should let beefing up your CV make the decision for you. Not everyone wants to apply to radiation oncology, and you are certainly much more likely to do meaningful research in something that is really interesting to you.

 

[Chris Knight]

a word to the wise:

Don't assume research you do will end up with a publication, or considerable authorship. You need to talk about that sort of thing with the PI before you start working in the lab, let them know what your looking to get out of working there and see if you can be accommodated. You don't want to put the little extra time you have into a research project that isn't going to benefit you, it is not wrong or weird for you to say right off the bat you're looking to get published. They know the game and they'll understand what your after, and most will be more than willing to help out.

(I made this mistake in undergrad... joined a lab with grant money coming out the wazoo, worked on some killer projects... didn't realize until three years down the line that the projects were so killer that the lab directors of all those other labs across the country we were collaborating with were going to get their names ahead of mine. So I was relegated to the acknowledgments of some pretty spiffy articles in Cell, and JBC, despite how important my personal work was)

 

[Blade28]

That's a good point.

Don't be afraid to assert your goals and motivations for doing research - to your advisor, mentor, PI, whoever.

 

[achybrachy]

That's a good point.

Don't be afraid to assert your goals and motivations for doing research - to your advisor, mentor, PI, whoever.

Or you may just get lucky. I never said anything about publication when I approached my PI, or maybe said something about presenting a poster somewhere, but when I finished up my project he said, "Okay, so now go write the paper. Yes, I'm serious." It was extremely intimidating, of course, but now that it's all done and accepted I'm certainly glad he did.

Probably not the best idea to leave it to chance though.

 

[Blade28]

Yeah, I'd make sure there's at least an abstract or meeting presentation in the works.