MD only vs MD/PhD for research oriented guy

[Palaver87]

I am a third year undergraduate and have been doing research for all three years and I absolutely love it. I have tried basic science research for 2 years and have moved on to a clinical research position. I know that I want to pursue a research oriented career in medicine in the future. However, I am not sure whether to apply to MD or MD/PhD programs for several reasons...

1) I feel that a PhD is not necessary to do research. I am wondering if you can just learn research technique on your own by being actively involved in labs during medical school, applying to research heavy residencies, and entering a fellowship. I feel that a PhD is really only there to win grants.

2) It seems that people who get MD/PhD's generally manage labs later in their career and most of their time is used up by writing grants and going to meetings. This seems more like a business perspective of marketing your research ideas and having little minions do your research rather than you taking an active involvement in making discoveries.

3) I see many MD only doctors actively participating in research at UCSF. How do you think this experience is different from MD/PhD people? Do you think the MD only people are less involved, only get the grunt work, etc?

4) Another side note is that I enjoy teaching. I have taught a stem cell class and will teach a patient-based neuroscience class next semester, so a comparison of faculty openings for MD's vs MD/PhD's would be greatly appreciated as well.

I hope I can get some honest and informative suggestions for my points from you guys who are clearly more familiar with the topic than I am. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[mtlove]

I am a third year undergraduate and have been doing research for all three years and I absolutely love it. I have tried basic science research for 2 years and have moved on to a clinical research position. I know that I want to pursue a research oriented career in medicine in the future. However, I am not sure whether to apply to MD or MD/PhD programs for several reasons...

1) I feel that a PhD is not necessary to do research. I am wondering if you can just learn research technique on your own by being actively involved in labs during medical school, applying to research heavy residencies, and entering a fellowship. I feel that a PhD is really only there to win grants.

2) It seems that people who get MD/PhD's generally manage labs later in their career and most of their time is used up by writing grants and going to meetings. This seems more like a business perspective of marketing your research ideas and having little minions do your research rather than you taking an active involvement in making discoveries.

3) I see many MD only doctors actively participating in research at UCSF. How do you think this experience is different from MD/PhD people? Do you think the MD only people are less involved, only get the grunt work, etc?

4) Another side note is that I enjoy teaching. I have taught a stem cell class and will teach a patient-based neuroscience class next semester, so a comparison of faculty openings for MD's vs MD/PhD's would be greatly appreciated as well.

I hope I can get some honest and informative suggestions for my points from you guys who are clearly more familiar with the topic than I am. Thanks!

I am merely applying this year, but I can take a shot at some of the questions. More experienced people please respond also.

1. There are many other ways to acquire research experience in med school without doing the MD. NIH has two programs (one has a clinical research focus and the other a basic science) where you take a year off after second or third year to do research. Some schools have required or potential research time built into the curriculum (Duke has a year for example). Many students do research over the summers. Finally, residency/fellowship is another potential time to do research.
2. PIs do not spend much time in the lab as you suggested, but a PI is not the only career available to you. I attended a lecture today at NIH that mentioned only 1 out of 5-10 people in graduate school will actually become a PI. You can be a staff scientist, work in industry, work in an advisory role to the government, etc.
3. This has a very subjective answer. An MD/PhD today actually publically claimed that MDs can rarely be successful in science and that most MD only PIs produce weak science. This view was a little harsh. I think that success is more dependent on the person's aptitude to do science and their actual research experiences. With experience, luck, and talent you can probably overcome the problems associated with the lack of a PhD. The road is definately tougher for you, since it is more difficult to get basic science grants with only an MD.
4. I really have no idea about securing teaching positions with each degree.

If you are purely interested in clinical research, I would not pursue the MD/PhD. You would be better off doing the single degree and doing clinical research for a year at NIH or after med school. I hope this helps.

 

[Circumflex]

Only consider doing the MD/PhD if you know you want to do basic science research later in your career - and, even then, it is not necessary. If you do want to do basic science research later, you will have to do some type of a post-doc that consists of at least 2 years of dedicated research time. This is if you are an MD/PhD or MD. Some clinical fellowships incorporate dedicated reserch time, but if you want to be an independent PI, you will need that allotted time plus some more to establish a publication record. You can't get grants without them.

With regard to your question about being in the lab vs. running the lab, it is not a matter of MD vs. MD/PhD, but more about what type of research you are doing and how competitive you want to be. If you want a large lab with post-docs and students with some clinical responsibilities, you will definitely not have much (if any) time to be in the lab. If you want to putz around with clinical samples, but don't care about an RO1 grant, then you can do some work yourself.

Clinical research is a whole different ballgame. You still have to write grants, but you have clinical coordinators and other colleagues collecting data.

 

[QofQuimica]

I've started collecting posts from students who are going into research via different paths for people like you who are trying to figure out what you want to do. Check 'em out and let me know what you think:

http://more.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=402913

 

[opusthecat]

1) I feel that a PhD is not necessary to do research. I am wondering if you can just learn research technique on your own by being actively involved in labs during medical school, applying to research heavy residencies, and entering a fellowship. I feel that a PhD is really only there to win grants.

No, a PhD is not necessary. Time spent in the lab is necessary and will teach you how to do research. I would say for most people it takes at least 4 yrs of full-time research to really know what your doing and to develop good grant-writing skills. You can either do this in an MD/PhD program, or in a post-doc type of position after medical school. When it comes to funding grants, it is only the quality of the proposal that matters. MD vs. MD/PhD vs. PhD makes no difference except that those with PhD typically have more mentored research experience and are able to write better grants. The biggest advantage of MD/PhD is you don't have to pay for medical school (usually).

2) It seems that people who get MD/PhD's generally manage labs later in their career and most of their time is used up by writing grants and going to meetings. This seems more like a business perspective of marketing your research ideas and having little minions do your research rather than you taking an active involvement in making discoveries.

If you are going to run a lab that does basic science research, this is how it is going to be. Your job is to come up with the ideas, get the money and to supervise/train. Don't know about clinical labs.

3) I see many MD only doctors actively participating in research at UCSF. How do you think this experience is different from MD/PhD people? Do you think the MD only people are less involved, only get the grunt work, etc?

As I mentioned above, you need to get the experience somewhere. If you don't get a PhD then you have to work in a lab after you get your MD. I don't know if this is technically necessary, but it is if you want to do quality research.