love research = hate being a PI?

[drdr2010]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

i am in an MD/PhD program and have always planned on working in academic medicine (research and clinical work).

lately though, i worry that i would HATE being a PI. at least if its like anything my own PI does. the reason that i love research is, well, i love doing the research; the time in the lab, animal studies and assays and analysis. i rarely see my PI out of his office. he always seems frazzled and tense, with grant renewals and paper reviews and administrative work. he doesn't do research. i realize that the job of the PI is to direct the research, but i honestly can't see myself doing that (well, at least not being happy about it).

i realize that my PI may not be representative of the job as a whole...but it keeps me up at night.

 

[dave613]

i am in an MD/PhD program and have always planned on working in academic medicine (research and clinical work).

lately though, i worry that i would HATE being a PI. at least if its like anything my own PI does. the reason that i love research is, well, i love doing the research; the time in the lab, animal studies and assays and analysis. i rarely see my PI out of his office. he always seems frazzled and tense, with grant renewals and paper reviews and administrative work. he doesn't do research. i realize that the job of the PI is to direct the research, but i honestly can't see myself doing that (well, at least not being happy about it).

i realize that my PI may not be representative of the job as a whole...but it keeps me up at night.

I thought about that too once, though I am not an MD/PhD student yet. Ultimately what counts is directing the research. Carrying out the procedures is exciting initially, but as you do more and more research i'm sure the thrill dies out, and it all comes down to results,results results--which is what the PIs focus on, and obtain their grants from. Administrative work is very important, and i'm sure later you will be happy that someone working for you is carrying out the same standard western blots, while you get to look at the results and give forth new knowledge.

Again, thi is my opinion and I could be completely wrong. My opinion comes from the fact that my PI ONLY does administrative work...lol.

 

[Thundrstorm]

I worry about this too. I love doing research, but if the ultimate goal is to get to a point where you're not doing the research, I just wonder if I'll be fulfilled. I'm curious to hear more opinions.

 

[j8131]

This is interesting, because I'm exactly the opposite. I love the science and would love to be a PI, but hate doing the actual lab work. That's why I decided against basic science research. I like designing the experiments, writing grants, giving presentations. I absolutely hate the actual lab stuff. It's just my personality. I don't like building things, for example. Too bad people can't have careers in pairs 🙂

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

The simple fact of the matter is that science is NOT about doing PCRs and confocal microscopy. That is merely executing the experiments. True science is planning the experiments, thinking about theoretical models, making connections, and drawing the conclusions.

Who is the real scientist: The chemist who reads the papers, considers the drug targets, and then plans the synthesis (or works that out with his students), or the technician who does the NMRs and distillations?

That said, I think you may have experience with just that one PI. My previous PI was like that. The PI I am with now is very hands-on and wants to keep up on is technique; he joins the hands-on people regularly and does parts of experiments together with them.

Also, I have heard of research professor positions, where you aren't tenure track, but you're basically a very well trained post-doc who's attached to a PI's lab and do most of the planning, experimenting, and concluding. The disadvantages are that you aren't tenure track, the ultimate word lies with the PI because of funding, and if the PI loses his grants, you lose you source of income. So, you trade off security and autonomy for scut work.

The third option is to stay a technician.

 

[mudphudwannabe]

I think there's nothing wrong with wanting to stay active in research, and it's not a "waste" of a PhD if you don't become the PI of the lab. If things like reviewing grants and administration aren't up your alley, you can stay a senior scientist for the rest of your career. Depending on the PI, you may still have a lot of creative freedom without the hassle of doing these other things you don't enjoy. Keep in mind this is coming from an undergrad, but in my position I have had a lot of close contact with my PI (typing, etc..it's been a very strange balance between working on my project and basically acting as an administrative assistant), and I've realized that being a PI is really my ultimate goal. Of course there is a certain amount of bureacracy involved, but reviewing grants is also a way to see what's really new and exciting in science, and to give people you may have never had the chance to meet otherwise feedback on their work. It's also a way to feel connected with the larger scientific community -- like you're really affecting the course research in your field takes. Anyway, whether the responsibilities of being a PI and managing your lab stress you out or not is totally up to you. The people you hire, how you manage them, etc, can make a big difference. I think if it's done well, it could be a very rewarding thing to have the hard work and input of your scientists and technicians..not to mention having graduate students. I am really interested in teaching and mentoring, so I think being a PI is a great opportunity for that.

Anyway, it's definitely not for everybody, but keep in mind that your views might change. Right now I'm still very interested in doing benchwork, but over time you might lose interest in that, or rather gain more interest in working with ideas rather than pipets. Then giving up some of your bench time might seem more acceptable.

 

[drdr2010]

thanks for all the opinions.

i love science, and i want the intense training that comes with a PhD (well, most of the time, haha), but i have worried that i am a "waste" of PhD training if i don't ultimately want to run my own lab. depending how i feel towards the clinical aspect of medicine (havent started clerkships yet), i might like to do clinical work and research in someone else's lab.

now that i think about, i have never asked my PI (he is a PhD, not MD) how he feels about his job...

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

thanks for all the opinions.

i love science, and i want the intense training that comes with a PhD (well, most of the time, haha), but i have worried that i am a "waste" of PhD training if i don't ultimately want to run my own lab. depending how i feel towards the clinical aspect of medicine (havent started clerkships yet), i might like to do clinical work and research in someone else's lab.

now that i think about, i have never asked my PI (he is a PhD, not MD) how he feels about his job...

Sorry if I was a bit harsh. I think that if you are a researcher as an MD, you may very well be more fulfilled than as a PhD. As an MD, you can potentially run clinical trials employing your lab research. If you are writing grants, running the lab, formulating the ideas and conclusions, and seeing how this translates into something clinical, I think that may well be more satisfying than merely doing benchwork.

 

[j8131]

" I think that if you are a researcher as an MD, you may very well be more fulfilled than as a PhD. As an MD, you can potentially run clinical trials employing your lab research. If you are writing grants, running the lab, formulating the ideas and conclusions, and seeing how this translates into something clinical, I think that may well be more satisfying than merely doing benchwork."

Then you could also make the opposite argument that doing basic science is often more intellectually challenging and creative than running clinical trials and this would make it more fulfilling. And how many people really do both? Also, PhD's can do all of what you just named except overseeing the clinical trials.

You know, I have to say that even on the MD/PhD board, it is amazing how little respect the PhD sometimes gets. Bizarrely, for people getting both degrees, the training value of the PhD seems to often be discounted here. In discussions of different options, the alternative discussed is always "MD + postdoc", not "PhD". Research is hard and the PhD best trains you to do it -- I shouldn't have to say that on this board.

 

[Reckoning]

Having worked in research labs in industry and in academia I've seen this is a legitimate worry. While it is nice to get to the point of becoming a PI or a lab director those jobs are quite different than than the ones that got you there. I've known a lot of people who lament the responsibilities and administrative burdens of being a PI and long to get back in the lab and tinker with their experiments. And all of them were awesome in the lab.

Like another poster said, there is value in doing both of these jobs. Some people are better suited for one rather than the other. It is balance that you need to strike as you navigate your career. Stay in the lab. Keep your project scope small. And if you get sick of the academic world try an lab in industry where you can just be a scientist and get compensated for doing just that.

For me the beauty of MD/PhD is that career options open to us are so varied and we should not feel pigeon-holed into pursuing the ivory tower PI track. That said, I am a big picture person and do my most creative thinking holed up at my desk or doodling in my notebook so being a PI would probably suit me well.

I think we are getting into slippery territory when we try to preach what what REAL SCIENCE is. Lots of important discoveries have been made by chance or by following some crazy idea that occured to you at 3am in the lab. And if that is where you work best so be it.

i am in an MD/PhD program and have always planned on working in academic medicine (research and clinical work).

lately though, i worry that i would HATE being a PI. at least if its like anything my own PI does. the reason that i love research is, well, i love doing the research; the time in the lab, animal studies and assays and analysis. i rarely see my PI out of his office. he always seems frazzled and tense, with grant renewals and paper reviews and administrative work. he doesn't do research. i realize that the job of the PI is to direct the research, but i honestly can't see myself doing that (well, at least not being happy about it).

i realize that my PI may not be representative of the job as a whole...but it keeps me up at night.

 

[dr.z]

I know some PIs still find time to run experiments on their own. If you love it and can manage time well, it is possible to run the lab while doing your own experiments.

 

[dl2dp2]

Yes, there is a bias against a straight PhD. And in my opinion this is a legit bias. The fact of the matter is, within the realm of biological sciences, PhDs have far less power compare to MDs. A very very very well trained PhD usually still works against overwhelming odds and makes enormous sacrifices. MDs are better connected. The congress and the public and private agencies are more willing to fund disease oriented research than pure basic biological research.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. I don't think so. However it is the reality and everybody should be made aware of the fact that it's much easier to get tenured as an MD from a top 10 + a postdoc than a PhD from a top 10 + postdoc.

 

[tr]

However it is the reality and everybody should be made aware of the fact that it's much easier to get tenured as an MD from a top 10 + a postdoc than a PhD from a top 10 + postdoc.

No, that's nonsense. As a basic science researcher, by the time you're up for tenure the only thing that counts is your publication record. The letters after your name mean jack by that point.

A clinical faculty appointment is somewhat easier to obtain than a basic science slot (supply and demand: the majority of PhDs are interested in becoming academics, while the majority of MDs are not), but that's a different animal altogether, and not something that PhDs are competing for.
Clinical faculty may launch their own research programs if they can fund them; but for these positions you need residency and fellowship training. No way you can get a clinical appointment with MD+postdoc.

 

[mendel121]

" I think that if you are a researcher as an MD, you may very well be more fulfilled than as a PhD. As an MD, you can potentially run clinical trials employing your lab research. If you are writing grants, running the lab, formulating the ideas and conclusions, and seeing how this translates into something clinical, I think that may well be more satisfying than merely doing benchwork."

Then you could also make the opposite argument that doing basic science is often more intellectually challenging and creative than running clinical trials and this would make it more fulfilling. And how many people really do both? Also, PhD's can do all of what you just named except overseeing the clinical trials.

You know, I have to say that even on the MD/PhD board, it is amazing how little respect the PhD sometimes gets. Bizarrely, for people getting both degrees, the training value of the PhD seems to often be discounted here. In discussions of different options, the alternative discussed is always "MD + postdoc", not "PhD". Research is hard and the PhD best trains you to do it -- I shouldn't have to say that on this board.

Amen - it seems sometimes on this board that the PhD is some sort of status symbol people talk like they could take it or leave it, that it's so easy to ge the training to get one, they could accomplish the same thing in a one year fellowship

 

[mendel121]

Yes, there is a bias against a straight PhD. And in my opinion this is a legit bias. The fact of the matter is, within the realm of biological sciences, PhDs have far less power compare to MDs. A very very very well trained PhD usually still works against overwhelming odds and makes enormous sacrifices. MDs are better connected. The congress and the public and private agencies are more willing to fund disease oriented research than pure basic biological research.

Is this a good thing? I don't know. I don't think so. However it is the reality and everybody should be made aware of the fact that it's much easier to get tenured as an MD from a top 10 + a postdoc than a PhD from a top 10 + postdoc.

That's probably the most ridiculously arrogant and closed minded thing that I've seen in my short time watching this board. The real fact of the matter is that PhDs are uniquely trained to do what a straight MD cannot - plan and perform the experiments necessary to do disease oriented research.

There are unique talents that an MD has, and a different set of unique talents that a PhD has when these unique talents come together is when good disease oriented research can be done. When one of these talents is belittled by statements like these, the research suffers.

 

[dl2dp2]

I'm not really trying to stir up debate here. What I've said is not an opinion. Hence whether I'm arrogant or not should not be a factor.

It's easier to become an academic physician with an MD than an academic researcher as a PhD. That's a fact. And I've said, I don't think it's a good thing, but that's the nature of things, so...

Again, I'm not saying that PhDs don't get a unique training. All I'm saying is that there's a bias within the major hospital systems, and biomolecular medicine at large, to tenure MDs, and fund MDs, and politicize MDs. People who go into a PhD program need to be made aware of this.

I fail to see how my statements have belittled PhDs. I think the current system has a prejudice againt PhDs and I have voiced my concern. There are very many bright PhDs who can't get a job beacuse they can't get funding due to lack of luck. MDs keep their jobs by practicing medicine. And, to cite some data, the NIH's MSTP survey showed that the "late boomers" (i.e. the MD+Post-docs) obtain grants at the same rate as MSTPs, and slightly higher than PhDs.

That's probably the most ridiculously arrogant and closed minded thing that I've seen in my short time watching this board. The real fact of the matter is that PhDs are uniquely trained to do what a straight MD cannot - plan and perform the experiments necessary to do disease oriented research.

There are unique talents that an MD has, and a different set of unique talents that a PhD has when these unique talents come together is when good disease oriented research can be done. When one of these talents is belittled by statements like these, the research suffers.

 

[mendel121]

Maybe I'm misreading what your saying, and if I am, I apologize, but when you say that the bias against a straight PhD is legit, it sounds to me like you're belittling the degree.

Your statements are to me arrogant because they represent a lack of respect for what PhDs have to offer. The MD bias is fact, but as I read your comments, you seem to think that the bias towards MDs is correct, and that it should be that way, and that is what I take exception to.

Sorry if I misread, but I'm sensitive to this, MDs are in fact extremely arrogant and belittling when it comes to their perceptions of PhDs. All I'm saying is have respect for the hard work and torture that the average PhD goes through to get where we are, we have a lot to offer with or without the MD.

I'm not really trying to stir up debate here. What I've said is not an opinion. Hence whether I'm arrogant or not should not be a factor.

It's easier to become an academic physician with an MD than an academic researcher as a PhD. That's a fact. And I've said, I don't think it's a good thing, but that's the nature of things, so...

Again, I'm not saying that PhDs don't get a unique training. All I'm saying is that there's a bias within the major hospital systems, and biomolecular medicine at large, to tenure MDs, and fund MDs, and politicize MDs. People who go into a PhD program need to be made aware of this.

I fail to see how my statements have belittled PhDs. I think the current system has a prejudice againt PhDs and I have voiced my concern. There are very many bright PhDs who can't get a job beacuse they can't get funding due to lack of luck. MDs keep their jobs by practicing medicine. And, to cite some data, the NIH's MSTP survey showed that the "late boomers" (i.e. the MD+Post-docs) obtain grants at the same rate as MSTPs, and slightly higher than PhDs.

 

[jjmack]

I don't think there was disrespect just stating what really goes on and not passing any judgment.

Maybe I'm misreading what your saying, and if I am, I apologize, but when you say that the bias against a straight PhD is legit, it sounds to me like you're belittling the degree.

Your statements are to me arrogant because they represent a lack of respect for what PhDs have to offer. The MD bias is fact, but as I read your comments, you seem to think that the bias towards MDs is correct, and that it should be that way, and that is what I take exception to.

Sorry if I misread, but I'm sensitive to this, MDs are in fact extremely arrogant and belittling when it comes to their perceptions of PhDs. All I'm saying is have respect for the hard work and torture that the average PhD goes through to get where we are, we have a lot to offer with or without the MD.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

You are right. MD's can definitely be arrogant and belittling. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that, at this day and age, it is generally more competitive to get into med school than it is to get into grad school. Folks who get into medical schools tend to have very high GPAs and go through hell and back to just get into a med school. Does this mean that PhD candidates are dumber? Of course not. It just means that PhD students might have had a little more fun in college. But anyways, some folks who get into med school take it a bit too far once they have overcome the difficult challenge of being accepted...they feel that they are God's gift to earth and are very quick to judge and belittle those who are not in med school. I have witnessed this mentality with respect to med students' attitudes towards grad students, nursing students, pharmacy students, and dental students. These folks will therefore jump the gun to think that they are the brightest of the bright. And when it comes to their perceptions of PhD training, they may jump to the conclusion to think that if a PhD can do X, Y, Z then the MD would sure be able to easily tackle these things.

I think this arrogance of some med students is very unfortunate. The MD and PhD training programs (let's assume that there are no MD/PhD programs) provide people with vastly different skillsets. MD curricula tend to teach critical thinking skills and creative intuition LESS than PhD curricula. On the other hand, MD training stresses that a person master a painstakingly wide array of topics, a lot of them via rote memorization whereas PhD programs will encourage deep understanding of a specific area of science. This makes sense. MD trained folks are not trained to do science! They are trained to take care of patients in a hospital ward or a clinic where they can and will be encountered with a wide array of diseases at a given time. MDs must therefore have mastered a ton of information so that at a drop of a hat, this information can be applied to ill patients correctly and efficiently. PhDs are trained to apply the scientific method to address very specific and focused research problems. PhDs are trained to ask pointed questions and create new knowledge via controlled experimentation.

Hence, MD's are really in no position to comment on what a PhD has to offer in the grand scheme of things. This is because MD's clearly have not undertaken rigorous PhD research training and cannot fully appreciate it. Now if a certain individual with an MD degree decides that he/she would like to dedicate him/herself to biomedical research...then this person needs to get in-depth research training whether it be by doing a PhD and/or postdoc after residency.

I'm not directing this post at any certain individual. I just wanted to post my thoughts because I have grappled with these kind of thoughts. I will admit that when I was starting out in MD/PhD training, I was egotistical and condescending at times...it was like, "ooh look at me, I'm in medical school...i'm the frickin' bomb!" Now having completed the requirements for both the MD and PhD degrees, I have seen first hand what both training paths have to offer. The MD training and PhD training offer very different things and it is pointless to say which is better or more worthwhile. It really does no service to get into these kind of juvenile pissing contests.

 

[mendel121]

Ah - sometimes the pissing contests are fun, gets the juices flowing, but you're absolutely right, PhD vs MD is apples vs oranges, there isn't a comparison to be drawn. I guess I just want to get across that those of us getting the dual training should effort to educate our less enlightened colleagues regarding their attitudes toward the PhD.

Back to the topic for this thread though, I think that being a PI is what you make of it, you can be the PI that stays in his/her office and writes grants, books, etc all day, or you can be the PI that does some of that, but spends more time in the lab. I can think of several examples of each of those in my department alone (MD/PhDs and straight PHDs).

You are right. MD's can definitely be arrogant and belittling. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that, at this day and age, it is generally more competitive to get into med school than it is to get into grad school. Folks who get into medical schools tend to have very high GPAs and go through hell and back to just get into a med school. Does this mean that PhD candidates are dumber? Of course not. It just means that PhD students might have had a little more fun in college. But anyways, some folks who get into med school take it a bit too far once they have overcome the difficult challenge of being accepted...they feel that they are God's gift to earth and are very quick to judge and belittle those who are not in med school. I have witnessed this mentality with respect to med students' attitudes towards grad students, nursing students, pharmacy students, and dental students. These folks will therefore jump the gun to think that they are the brightest of the bright. And when it comes to their perceptions of PhD training, they may jump to the conclusion to think that if a PhD can do X, Y, Z then the MD would sure be able to easily tackle these things.

I think this arrogance of some med students is very unfortunate. The MD and PhD training programs (let's assume that there are no MD/PhD programs) provide people with vastly different skillsets. MD curricula tend to teach critical thinking skills and creative intuition LESS than PhD curricula. On the other hand, MD training stresses that a person master a painstakingly wide array of topics, a lot of them via rote memorization whereas PhD programs will encourage deep understanding of a specific area of science. This makes sense. MD trained folks are not trained to do science! They are trained to take care of patients in a hospital ward or a clinic where they can and will be encountered with a wide array of diseases at a given time. MDs must therefore have mastered a ton of information so that at a drop of a hat, this information can be applied to ill patients correctly and efficiently. PhDs are trained to apply the scientific method to address very specific and focused research problems. PhDs are trained to ask pointed questions and create new knowledge via controlled experimentation.

Hence, MD's are really in no position to comment on what a PhD has to offer in the grand scheme of things. This is because MD's clearly have not undertaken rigorous PhD research training and cannot fully appreciate it. Now if a certain individual with an MD degree decides that he/she would like to dedicate him/herself to biomedical research...then this person needs to get in-depth research training whether it be by doing a PhD and/or postdoc after residency.

I'm not directing this post at any certain individual. I just wanted to post my thoughts because I have grappled with these kind of thoughts. I will admit that when I was starting out in MD/PhD training, I was egotistical and condescending at times...it was like, "ooh look at me, I'm in medical school...i'm the frickin' bomb!" Now having completed the requirements for both the MD and PhD degrees, I have seen first hand what both training paths have to offer. The MD training and PhD training offer very different things and it is pointless to say which is better or more worthwhile. It really does no service to get into these kind of juvenile pissing contests.

 

[j8131]

Personally, I think the bias really comes mostly from the prestige and money associated with clinical medicine, which in turn make the MD degree prestigious and more competitive. It's a very shallow thing.

Yeah, the MDs know about diseases, but there's still plenty of disease-related stuff that PhDs can do. The specific things you need to know you can pick up. It's not like you need to know enough to practice the relevant medical specialty. It's like this: if you're a computational neuroscientist, are you better off with a background in math or neuroscience (assuming not both)? Clearly, math. As a researcher, you're better off with research training.

Note I'm not belittling MD knowledge. But the point is that there's a wide range of disease-related stuff for which the predominant skill needed is research ability, not memorized disease knowledge. (Obviously this doesn't apply to everything, including true clinical research). The focus on diseases doesn't explain the bias.

After a lot of soul searching, I decided to go the MD route. But it's really quite frustrating in a way. True, my interests are clinically oriented, but I would be quite content to do only research, and a PhD would give me better training. And now that I've entered the process, I have to say, the whole premed thing is just overblown. Not that it's easy to get into med school, but many things are heck of a lot harder to do. It doesn't seem any harder than getting into a top PhD program or establishing a business career or any of the other so-called "professional" paths.