MD/PhD Conducive to my Career Goals?

[DeadCactus]

Hello everyone,

I've posted here a few times looking for information to try and figure out if MD/PhD is a fit for me. I've spent a lot of time figuring out what it is I want to do (as best as I can tell at this point anyway) and now with a better picture in mind I'm hoping to get some input on if the MD/PhD is the path to take to reach these goals.

I'm an engineering undergrad and my interest in MD/PhD started with wanting to practice clinical medicine, but continueing to work with math and basic science.

I've spent a little time in a lab and so far I like it. I like the diversity of the projects going around, I like all the cool gadgets and equipment that are used, etc. After watching my PI for a bit, I've found I'm even interested in the other parts of being a PI: working with grad students, undergrads, and post-docs; publishing; conferences and keeping up with the literature, etc.

So I guess the real question is whether my research interests are conducive to the MD/PhD career. After spending a lot of time trying to define what I was interested in, I came to the conclusion that my interests are deeply refined yet, but they do have a common theme.

Basically, I'd like to work on developing new biomedical devices. I'd like to start with a new technology or technique and work on devloping it into a fully functional device which could then be used in a clinical setting. From what I can tell, this seems to follow the idea of translational research pretty well; that is taking a discovery in basic science and developing it into something useful in clinical medicine. It also seems that this interest is broad enough to be applicable in jsut about any speciality I would find myself interested in during medical school. (And also seems very relevant to the field I find myself most likely to be interested in: EM, surgery, rads, and rad onc.) Is my take on the situation pretty accurate? Is this along the lines of what MD/PhDs are aimed at accomplishing or would an MD/MS be a more efficient means of reaching the same goal?

As a follow up: One of my major interests in medicine at this point is medical care outside of the hospital; things along the lines of EMS, tactical medicine, wilderness medicine, and remote scene medicine. Is it an accurate assesment to think that my research interests would mesh well with this sort of clinical interest by working to develop devices to aid medical treatment in these sort situations?

Thank you all for your time and any input you can offer. (Sorry for such a long post.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RxnMan]

...Basically, I'd like to work on developing new biomedical devices. I'd like to start with a new technology or technique and work on devloping it into a fully functional device which could then be used in a clinical setting...It also seems that this interest is broad enough to be applicable in jsut about any speciality I would find myself interested in during medical school. (And also seems very relevant to the field I find myself most likely to be interested in: EM, surgery, rads, and rad onc.) Is my take on the situation pretty accurate? Is this along the lines of what MD/PhDs are aimed at accomplishing or would an MD/MS be a more efficient means of reaching the same goal?...

Rad onc, if I remember correctly, is essentially a fellowship of diagnostic rads - almost all rad onc docs do diagnostic rads before doing a 2-yr rad onc residency. EM does not (yet) have the research infrastructure in most places to support MD/PhD careers (though Hard24Get can tell you where it does exist). Surgery is a good fit in that you'd be able to design devices and know the technical constraints under which a device is implanted and used. But depending on your clinical obligations, it may be hard to get lab time. There is more support for this sort of career in surgery, but nothing like Path or IM or Peds.

As an engineer, have you ever considered prosthetics and rehabilitation? Gait analysis?

...As a follow up: One of my major interests in medicine at this point is medical care outside of the hospital; things along the lines of EMS, tactical medicine, wilderness medicine, and remote scene medicine. Is it an accurate assesment to think that my research interests would mesh well with this sort of clinical interest by working to develop devices to aid medical treatment in these sort situations?...

The bolded are all EM fellowships (wilderness is also FM I believe). How do these connect with implantable devices? The fellowships you've named all have their own areas of research. Does any of that work interest you more than devices?

Some on these boards may argue that you can do everything, but I think that you help yourself by having your clinical life overlap, as much as you can, with your research life. That way time spent in either part of your career - clinic and the lab - translate to the other. In no way am I saying that you can't do what you want. Just keep reading on these boards, especially the surgery and rad onc forums, to get a better idea of the practice of these and how/if they'll let you be a researcher.

Take a look at the "career paths" sticky. It'll give you some ideas of where people go with MD/MS, MD, MD/PhD.

 

[Neuronix]

I think your idea is fine personally and I'm all for things that aren't your usual benchwork. I'm just going to play devil's advocate and try to relate what I hear coming out of MD/PhD directors mouths, especially my own cause I've heard him the most .

Most MD/PhD programs want to train you to be a Principal Investigator, bringing in your own grants and running your own show. They always view this as requiring 80%+ of your time (and I'm sure it does to get R01s). If you can spin what you want to do around this, nobody is going to fault you. It's not clear from your post whether this is part of your vision or not.

What you're proposing... Taking something and trying to make it applicable to clinical medicine, is what I'm doing my PhD in and interests me the most as well But, I must warn you it is a very atypical route and many won't understand it. They understand you being a PI investigating something. If you can say "I want to study X, but bioengineering will help me make things to study it or make new cures for it", you're ok. I can't blame them, the funding decisions are often similar There are many technical wiz kids out there, but they don't know how to focus or apply their inventions to a disease process. This is where we fit a niche...

 

[pseudoknot]

Rad onc, if I remember correctly, is essentially a fellowship of diagnostic rads - almost all rad onc docs do diagnostic rads before doing a 2-yr rad onc residency.

Actually rad onc has a categorical four year residency (after internship in anything you like) and there is no fellowship pathway from diagnostic radiology. You may be thinking of interventional radiology, which I believe is a one year fellowship after diagnostic radiology.

 

[Neuronix]

Actually rad onc has a categorical four year residency (after internship in anything you like) and there is no fellowship pathway from diagnostic radiology. You may be thinking of interventional radiology, which I believe is a one year fellowship after diagnostic radiology.

Wow, as a future Radiologist how did I miss that? This is true. Rad Onc is viewed as a very research friendly specialty by the way.

 

[RxnMan]

Actually rad onc has a categorical four year residency (after internship in anything you like) and there is no fellowship pathway from diagnostic radiology...

I guess I learned something new today. Thanks.