MD/PhD with no ambitions of running a lab?

[dunkindona]

Hi everyone,

I am an MD student on a research year in systems neuroscience and am only now considering a PhD. At this time, I have no real ambitions of running my own lab, but I recognize that most programs aim to train physician-scientists with exactly that end in mind. Does anyone know of physicians (especially in related fields of medicine) who maintain a clinical practice while successfully *collaborating* with research scientists? Strong publications and grants being some of the measures of success...

Alternatively, can anyone convince me of why it would be much better to aspire to run my own lab? Striking a workable balance between this and clinical medicine seems to be tricky, especially when you toss family into the mix.

D

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

At least you know at this stage of the game that you don't want to run a lab, some people have no clue as to what they want yet So now the question for you becomes this, "Why do you want a PhD?" If you want to collaborate with a researchers who run their own lab, you don't need a PhD; the MD should be sufficient especially if you envision a career of full clinical work. There are plenty of MD folks who collaborate with basic science researchers who work on clinically relevant matters. Somebody has to have the patient population based on which the study will be done--that person is you. Somebody has to have access to a tissue bank--that person is you. Somebody has to have access to families that have some weird disease/syndrome that is inherited in a Mendelian fashion--that person is you. You certainly don't need a PhD to collaborate is what I'm saying.

Doing an MD/PhD will double your time spent in medical school although it is fully funded (which is appealing). If money is an issue, which it is for many folks, going the MD/PhD route helps but won't matter in the long run. Think about it...you do 4 years of med school and then make more money during residency while your MD/PhD counterparts still make 20K. Then when you finish residency, you make 6-digit annual salary while your MD/PhD counterparts are starting to go through residency making 45K. The debt incurred during the 4 years of med school gets paid off and in 10-20 years, MD/PhD folks and MD folks will probably equalize out financially. In fact, the MD/PhD folks who run a lab make significantly less money than you folks who will be doing mainly clinical work. OK so that's my take on the money issue which is one issue (and I'm not accusing your or anyone of using MD/PhD to get a free ride).

If you want to do a PhD to learn science but not end up running a lab, programs will infer from this that you're doing a PhD for "sh*ts 'n giggles." I personally am not taken aback by this because there are plenty of MD/PhD's out there who go through the program and vow to NEVER do science ever again. But here's the thing...you don't absolutely NEED a PhD to learn how to do science. You can learn how to do some science just by working in a lab. You'll probably learn about science indirectly from working with your collaborators as you help out in the practical aspects of study design and experimental protocols.

I have to admit that I am biased. But honestly, from my perspective, if you don't want to run a lab and you already know this...more power to ya! You don't need a PhD...and getting a PhD ain't easy.

 

[Gfunk6]

As usual, I agree with Andy. In my experience, people decide that they don't want to run a lab AFTER they finish their PhD b/c of burn-out and/or disenchantment with research. However, if you have already decided this BEFORE your PhD, then save yourself some trouble and go straight MD. There really is no reason to get a PhD if you are not interested in writing grants and/or running a research lab.

 

[dunkindona]

The thing is this: I am not absolutely certain at this point whether I want to run my own lab. It has never been an ambition of mine. But on the other hand, I know very little about it. I was primarily considering a PhD, because I am extremely happy intellectually in my lab and with my project. I now have an opportunity to expand the scope of my project (with the hopeful increase in published work) but would rather do this through a formal degree-granting program with didactic requirements. I am certain I learn better combining relevant coursework with research and writing. The alternative is returning to medical school after one year of a "research track." I prefer to leave with meatier training (and accomplishments). Along the way, I may acquire the ambition...Afterall, two years ago, I never considered research as part of my professional goals. One year ago, I never considered spending more than one year doing it. And now, I am seriously investigating a PhD. Thoughts?

 

[tr]

The thing is this: I am not absolutely certain at this point whether I want to run my own lab. It has never been an ambition of mine. But on the other hand, I know very little about it. I was primarily considering a PhD, because I am extremely happy intellectually in my lab and with my project. I now have an opportunity to expand the scope of my project (with the hopeful increase in published work) but would rather do this through a formal degree-granting program with didactic requirements. I am certain I learn better combining relevant coursework with research and writing. The alternative is returning to medical school after one year of a "research track." I prefer to leave with meatier training (and accomplishments). Along the way, I may acquire the ambition...After all, two years ago, I never considered research as part of my professional goals. One year ago, I never considered spending more than one year doing it. And now, I am seriously investigating a PhD. Thoughts?

Is it financially feasible for you to take another research year? It's possible that if after you do two years in the lab you get one good paper out of it, and wish to continue for another year or two, you could jump into the MD-PhD program, do the necessary coursework/qualifiers, and graduate. There is definitely one guy in our program who entered very late in the research years. I don't really know what his story is, but I'd guess that the leniency of program directors wrt these options varies a lot from institution to institution.

Why don't you talk to the director of the MD-PhD program at your school and see if he has any advice for you?

ETA: The major advantage afforded by the MD-PhD is the training itself and the publication record you build, not all the letters you get after your name. If you do two years of solid work in the lab and apply for funding at least once, you'll have gotten the lion's share of the research training you'd need. I'm not sure how necessary a PhD would be at that point. Maybe you could get a master's out of it, maybe not; but in any case you could easily take a research residency or postdoc position and expect to perform successfully after you graduate from med school.