Yeah, I'm
right there, right now. Humor me - why did you still apply if you only had a half-hearted interest?
Research and clinical medicine are both kind of okay some of the time, right?
kingrumak (is this a Gears of War reference?), I'm basically in the same boat as you right now. It seems somewhat clear that prior posters' answers depend on how much you value having a stable, guaranteed six-figure income, and what your tolerance is for jumping through fiery hoops to get there (and once there).
You do seem to have a real interest in a specific type of translational research though, so the added knowledge itself might be worth it (though your interests will certainly change, unless perhaps they're motivated by an autistic relative or something similar). I've really come to appreciate more and more recently how the difference between good and not-so-good biomedical researchers lies more in their ability to ask good, impactful questions, than with technical proficiency in the answering. Not that the latter is unimportant.
The real question is what the marginal benefit is of MD/PhD over (PhD + HHMI Med into Grad), with respect to research, and whether the extra years justify it. I don't know. If I was interested, though, I would probably make a big excel spreadsheet where I look at the research interests and achievements of 20 translational PhD-only researchers and 20 translational MD/PhD researchers of similar-ages/similar years after receiving degrees, then try and go from there.
I have more basic science interests, and find it more difficult to justify. But eh. I'll probably still do it. I'm motivated by the location flexibility and salary, to be honest with myself.
Also, some people mentioned getting the MD/PhD then jumping ship and not doing a residency. I mean... you can *do* it, but... ? Idk. I'm not an expert, and maybe it's just selection bias, but to me it seems that the people who do this usually have had very successful PhD research careers.
I talked to one guy (who is a name), who got an MD/PhD then skipped out on residency, and he told me that even though he might be a "failure" by the typical standards, he felt (i) the broad and deep biological understanding that medical school conveys, and (ii) the ability to quickly learn/memorize new information, justified it in his mind.
But again, he is a name. Not your typical researcher... I actually didn't like him very much.
Here is a (PhD-only) alternative scheme that I have been contemplating:
1. Get a management consulting job. This is one of the few industries where you can get a job doing similar work both with a bachelors, and a PhD, and not be overqualified after the fact.
2. After 2 years, leave, and get a PhD for fun and profit.
3. If it seems like it went well enough that you think you can make professor, or you see industry jobs you like
*, use your PhD to go do those things.
4. If you don't think the funding climate is good enough for you to become a professor or other academic knight, and biomedical industry is unappealing, return to management consulting.
I know a professor who did this. Except, you know, he's really smart and did well enough to become a professor. Unlike future me, probably.
I don't know. I really would like to be an academic researcher, but I've become very pessimistic recently that the academic market in 10-15 years will be favorable to !(living in the middle of nowhere) and !(perma postdochood).
*Competition for biomedical industry jobs is pretty stiff, and usually not as interesting as academia.