M.D./Ph.D. in not science related field

[sisepuede]

hi

I just found out I got in to my favorite med school. And I am really excited--the thing is I am also really interested in getting a Ph.D. in history. Has anybody ever heard of somebody who did both? at the same time? maybe not in history, but in something else social science or humanities related?

I have heard of this program at the University of Illinois where I think people can do that, but I heard too late and couldn't apply. Do you know people who did that or did any of you apply to that? and if so how does it work?

I applied to some graduate schools, just a few, to see if, on the small chance I got in, they would be willing to work something out with me.

thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mr. Tee]

I don't think the MSTP programs will allow you to do a Ph.D. in a non-life science field.

Why social science/humanities? How would you be able to utilize both the M.D. and the Ph.D. in social science/humanities? Why would you need the M.D. or the Ph.D.? Why both?

(they're certainly going to ask you this)

 

[tulane06]

UTMB-Galveston has an MD/PhD program where you can get the PhD in medical history, medical ethics, etc.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

U of Chicago provides many combined non-science PhD-MD tracks, including history.

Georgetown and SLU have MD-PhD programs in bioethics.

Here is a link to the UTMB medical humanities program that tulane06 mentioned.

 

[synapses5317]

Hi there! I myself am an undergrad interested in getting an MD-PhD in History of Medicine, and I attended a conference at UC San Francisco earlier this past May 14-15 for MD-PhDs in the social sciences and humanities, which included people in medicine from such diverse fields as anthropology, history, philosophy, and sociology. I know of MD-PhD programs in History of Science/Medicine at schools like Harvard ("Harvard Approves MD–PhD Program in Social Sciences") , UCSF, Yale, U. of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins, UTMB, UIUC, Duke, and possibly UC Davis and UC San Diego.

The organizers of the conference---two UCSF students getting their MD-PhD's in anthropology--are planning a second meeting to be held in another year or two; have launched a list serv for people interested in the community (see more information below); and reportedly have just finished creating a website to provide resources and communication among medical scholars. I have digital audio recordings from the first conference that they are going to upload to the website which you can later listen to.

LIST SERV INFORMATION:
1. Sign up with riseup.net at:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/remindpasswd/referer/
2. Once you login, go to the renaissancedocs website:
http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/renaissancedocs

I would disagree with anyone who argues that an MD-PhD in the social sciences or humanities is irrelevant. We need the social sciences and humanities to help better frame and critique work done in medicine and science. As Paula Treichler from the U. of Illinois asserted at the conference, "Theory without practice is a daydream, and practice without theory is a nightmare."

PM me if you want to talk.

 

[Napoleon4000]

I think that the NIH guidelines for MSTP are more stringent now because of the reduction in funding to the NIH. That combined with their Healthy People 2010 and NIH Roadmap the NIH is now pulling more for actual translational research that is linking basic science with clinical research. So, although you will find some programs that cater to anthropology etc it may or may not be part of the MSTP from NIH. You would do well to call the universities to get more detail or by talking to faculty at the places you are applying to. I can see the benefit of social science for public health purposes.

 

[Lanced]

As mentioned before, a social science PhD would be more oriented to public health or policy. I come from a social science background and am a little interested in this topic -- though a MPH seems quicker and has a similar return.

Dissemination of research is an area of great inefficiency in medicine. It often takes new procedures, research up to a decade to effectively disseminate throughout the population. For example, it is fairly well established that 150 minutes of moderate activity/week (Surgeon General's recommendation) lowers risks of all cause mortality by more than 50%, perhaps even without any weight loss, yet how many physicians are effective at changing that behavior in their patients?

Sorry, I happen to think behavioral medicine is underemphasized so that’s my rant...

 

[DrBowtie]

As mentioned before, a social science PhD would be more oriented to public health or policy. I come from a social science background and am a little interested in this topic -- though a MPH seems quicker and has a similar return.

Dissemination of research is an area of great inefficiency in medicine. It often takes new procedures, research up to a decade to effectively disseminate throughout the population. For example, it is fairly well established that 150 minutes of moderate activity/week (Surgeon General's recommendation) lowers risks of all cause mortality by more than 50%, perhaps even without any weight loss, yet how many physicians are effective at changing that behavior in their patients?

Sorry, I happen to think behavioral medicine is underemphasized so that’s my rant...

It is hard for people to break old habits and a doctor visit isn't enough to change people's ways. Good thought but unless you make people hire a personal trainer/dietician then they won't/can't acheive the results.