MD/PhD or MD + research fellowship?

[D and D]

Hi all. I did a search for this and found a really awesome post, but it might be outdated (3+ years), and my situation is a little different than the OP's.

I'm applying to medical schools this summer, and I'm still torn between doing MD or MD/PhD.

I've been doing research since my first year of college, have a first-author publication on the way, and have presented at many national meetings (including another in October). Needless to say I absolute LOVE my research.

I did spend a summer doing clinical research and can say pretty definitively that I do not want to do clinical research, basic research all the way!

Despite my love for basic research, I don't really think I need to be a PI of a lab some day, I think I'd be happy working in a lab with autonomy, and doing clinical work as well.

So for these goals, does anyone have input on whether it would be wise to do an MD/PhD? Or would an MD with ample research experience suffice? Thanks in advance!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[RxnMan]

Take a look in this forum's faqs, specifically for my posts, or for a poster by the name of OldBearProfessor. You'll see some perspectives on not doing a PhD.

 

[Neuronix]

Despite my love for basic research, I don't really think I need to be a PI of a lab some day, I think I'd be happy working in a lab with autonomy, and doing clinical work as well.

When you're an MD or a MD/PhD you either run the show in a lab, collaborate by doing some special task only you can do, or you go back to clinical work. It's not worth your or your department's time to have a board certified physician running gels, purifying proteins, etc, etc... That's a student or technician's job.

If you are board certified you can find certain niche roles that allow you to participate in research as an assistant. For example, if you're the Pathologist, you might obtain and specially prepare certainly sample, though your techs will probably do all the prep. If you're a Surgeon you might cut something out for someone or do special procedures on large animals. If you're a Psychiatrist you may do some medical eval on patients for someone else's MRI research. The list goes on of possibilities. But that's not designing research, that's just assisting. You do not need a PhD for this and it's not what MD/PhD is designed for. It's not the intellectually stimulating or rewarding part of science, doing someone else's bidding.

On the other hand, if you want to run your own lab, you'll need to bring in funding. That takes a 80% or more commitment to your laboratory. That's what a MD/PhD is made for, to run, and more importantly bring in funding for, a laboratory that does clinically-relevant basic science research.

 

[D and D]

Thanks for the responses. I didn't mean that I want to run gels etc. all day, I simply know that I'd be happy if I had my own project in the lab. I'd still even write my own grants, but I wouldn't be the PI. I worked in a lab at a medical school where there were 3 PhDs - one was the PI, the other two had their own projects (all related to the interests of the lab), and there were 2 grad students and a tech.

 

[Tradewind]

I didn't mean that I want to run gels etc. all day, I simply know that I'd be happy if I had my own project in the lab. I'd still even write my own grants, but I wouldn't be the PI.

I can see the allure in that. Having your own academic research project without having to spend the bulk of your time managing people and money. But there are downsides to being a mad scientist.

One major problem is, unless you're running the lab as the PI and/or seeing enough patients as a clinician, you won't be making near your earning potential.

Also, unless you're the PI, your research output will probably be too sparse and insignificant to be gratifying. You need a group to help carry out your research ideas, if you want them moving at a reasonable pace.