ugh.... I realized this was an old thread halfway through my multi-quote.... whelp, i guess I'm committed....
Yes... of course. Tons of ppl do this.
However MD/PhD ppl get bigger hiring packages (more money, more space, etc) than MD ppl who get bigger packages than PhD ppl (or at least that's what I heard), but you're not at a disadvantage. It's just what work you do/ what you choos eto do with yourself and what you make out of your career. You can pretty much choose how much/ what kind of research - clinical research vs. bench work is VERY different in terms of lifestyle/pressure/projects/team/schedule. You can choose what proportion of each you want to do. And pay drops significantly - my friend who graduated from HMS and did her residency at MGH is making 90K/year because she decided research is her passion. It's stressful because sometimes she's not sure if grants will come through (and if they don't she can't maintain her salary, and she has mortgages etc to pay), so once in a while she'll completely drop off the radar and vanish from life, only to reemerge when grants kick in. Just some anecdotal stuff. She does do clinical one day a week and serves as attending once in a while on a calendar rotation and whatnot. She's happy where she is. She has faith that things will continue to grow and lift off. It's what she likes to do. So yes it is possible. She could have chosen much less research or a very different lifestyle, it's what she enjoys.
I also know a lot of MDs who regret not doing a PhD because they feel a learning curve when they get thrown into lab after residency
I do not know this to be true.... at my institution there is a pretty even spread between MDs and MD/PhDs who have massive labspace. we also have a redonkulous number of plain PhDs running around as well. It comes down to your publication history, and it isnt really any harder to start research as an MD vs a "Dr Dr"
If you want to do bench research as a physician, you have to get wet lab experience somewhere. Whether it's a formal PhD or a post-doc after residency or research time spent in the lab during a residency/fellowship. It's extremely unlikely that you'll be able to get a faculty position (as a, primarily, basic science researcher) if you only do medical school and a clinical residency. Medical school and residency are designed to put out clinicians, not bench researchers. So, if you want to conduct basic science research, you'll have to put in the time somewhere to gain the experience necessary to run a lab successfully.
The benefit of doing a PhD is that it's protected time for you to develop into a scientist. It's more of a sink-or-swim type of situation if you're doing a post-doc after residency in order to get bench experience (with the added stress of interest accumulating on student loans). At least, that's how I understand it. MD/PhD students or others with a better understanding can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about something.
yes. experience is key and gives a leg up when wanting to do research as a clinician. It def doesnt hurt
It's true, MD-PhDs have pretty big packages...
Seriously though, to all those saying you can do research with an MD, you're mixing things up. They are allowed to do research, but how can you do research without research training (i.e. a PhD)? Some of you make it seem like MDs can just decide, "Hey why don't I go set up a lab". You will need to compete for grants, lab space, you need to convince an administration to protect your research time, you need to think of feasible yet interesting projects, etc. You can't do any of that without a track record in research.
PhDs are "allowed" to do research as well. The problem is that PhD-only cannot really break into clinical, and MD vs MD/PhDs are on pretty similar footing when it comes to translational or clinical research. basic sciences only? probably not an MDs gig, but why would you want to when your lab can focus on the bench stuff and you can tie into practice.
You can do it either way. If you want to be primarily a researcher,
MD/PhD programs will help you develop in that field of interest (especially if it's bioengineering/math/humanities) and will allow you to graduate with minimal debt from the program. However, if you're interested in clinical research or lab science, try to get involved during medical school and do a research residency. It will prepare you enough to spend your career as a physician-scientist without adding years to your training. Feel free to PM me if you want to talk to someone partway through an MD/PhD
absolutely!
The thing that helped me decide though is really introspection. As undergrad we have limited experience in both the lab and clinic, but you know what type of person you are. If your an oncologist (MD) you will know if the lung cancer is big cell or small cell, but if you're an MD/PhD that studies cancer, you know that this particular cancer is caused by over phosphorlyation of the EGF receptor, which interacts with the Grb2 protein, in a signalling cascade that promotes cell proliferation. Are you the type of person who really wants to know what is going at the molecular level, or are you happy just understanding the physiological/disease outcome? Just try to figure out what type of person you are and the answer will become clearer.
Lastly, can you see yourself spending most of your time in the clinic or the lab? I thought about it and I realized I needed a challenging variety and would never want to be a solely a clinician or researcher, so MD/PhD makes sense. Even though it is unlikely you can do research and clinic work simultaneously for your entire career, if that's what you think is ideal you should shoot for MD/PhD
this is just an incredibly naive statement....
let me put it into perspective for you: if a pre-med can also tell us this in an open forum, then I suspect your MD can also tell you the same
Also, why the hell, as a patient, would you want to know the molecular side of your illness? Go to medical school first, then start drawing up the similarities and differences once you are informed
^ This is a good explanation.
^ This is a bad explanation. As far as I know, MD's applying for grants don't compete against PhD's or MD/PhD's applying; their funding sources are different. "Research" doesn't always mean basic science either, clinical research is often done by MD-only clinician/researchers.
^ This is just plain wrong.
I am on the fence for joining the MD/PhD program after 2nd year... I have actually been told that it is easier getting NIH funding as an MD only (I have some difficulty swallowing this, but still, ive been told...) because the NIH is more interested in funding transnational and clinical work at the moment which is a more "sure thing" without a PhD. I still think it will come down to prior work and your proposals, but I am not in the middle of the research world at the moment and the people who told me this are currently submitting grant proposals... so take it for what it is worth. either way we have a huge "physician scientist" push at our school which is headed up by "just an MD"
, this "just an MD" and several other "Just an MD's" also make many sink-or-swim decisions for the MD/PhD program around here. It just comes down to what you want to do and how you want to go about doing it. There are also research fellowhsips which offer good opportunities for "just MDs" to get their feet wet.
There is also the money argument, but if you think about it, in a dual degree program you get 4 years of med school paid for which is usually about 200-300k. You also miss out on 3-4 years of physician salary and if we assume similar total working years for the population of physicians, you actually come out behind since that adds up to 600-1,200k assuming about a 200k average salary (and remember, residency is another constant, so remember to factor out terms which are on both sides of the equation)
