I want to become a physician, but also do research on the side. Does this mean I would need to do a MD/PhD?
MD/PhD?
- Thread starter qwe7791
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2011
- Messages
- 28,818
- Reaction score
- 55,101
No. Most MD researchers do not have a PhD.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
This.
A PhD can help with some things and if you want to do bench research I would (and did) consider it. But it isn't required. An MD will allow you to do any research you like. You may have difficulty getting grants if you aren't experienced in scientific writing, have a short CV, or are inexperienced with proposals. But you will also have an entire career to get where you want.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Not at all. I interviewed for a research position and there were 3 PIs. One was an MD/PhD, the other an MD, and the other a PhD.
A PhD might help in terms of forcing you to focus on research during medical school but don't feel the need to pursue a PhD if you don't want to
So what are the benefits of an MD/PhD then? I have considered this but don't know if I want to go through 8 years of training before even getting to residency. On the other hand, someone pointed out to me that throughout those 8 years, you are really furthering your career - it's not a waste of 8 years. ie you are doing research/publishing/etc.
Also, most programs waive tuition for MD/PhD right? So yes 8 years of school, but then you come out with no loans?
Also, most programs waive tuition for MD/PhD right? So yes 8 years of school, but then you come out with no loans?
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
https://www.aamc.org/students/research/mdphd/109850/mdphd_faqs.html
Read the AAMC Resources. There are many advantages, but a large investment. It's not just about building a CV; it's about training, experience, and protected time to learn. No matter what degrees you have or how many, if you want to do bench research, there is a significant amount to learn. MD/PhD programs formalize this training.
And, yes, most programs include a tuition waiver and yearly stipend, but this is not the reason to enter into such a program.
If you want to medically relevant bench research, you should consider the MD/PhD. Some medical schools accept M1s or M2s from within, so if you're really unsure when application season comes around, you can apply MD-only to schools like this that are strong research institutions and decide later about the MD/PhD. I'm not sure how this will affect your chances of getting in though, and there are always smaller research experiences to be had if you go to med schools who offer them.
You might want to post your questions or search the MD/PhD forum to get the flip side of the coin. This forum can be biased against MD/PhD.
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 880
- Reaction score
- 10
I predict that in the future fewer MDs will be going into basic biomedical research for a couple reasons. Funding is getting tighter and way more people are getting PhDs than there are open faculty positions at research institutions. It's becoming a much more competitive arena and MDs are going to get pushed out before PhDs. Also, research is becoming increasingly more technical making it more difficult for MDs to make it up to speed after med school all while doing their residency/fellowship.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2012
- Messages
- 337
- Reaction score
- 5
I have thought about an MD/PhD for some time and spoke to some clinicians, clinician scientists and scientist and all agree
An PhD isn't necessary although it may be helpful its not the only avenue
most scientists I have spoken to agree that Any MD who wants to get involved in research can, and that their is lots of room to collaborate with established PIs as it will also help them get grants. You can also pursue a MSc to get some training although its not the same as a PhD you can get published in it. Its not unheard of for a productive MSc to publish 3-5 first author papers (thats nearly the standard in my lab)
Also if you want to get research training to run a lab with an MD its about the post-doc training more then the PhD and you can do a PDF that are designed for MDs (they are longer but give you the skills you will need in the area you want and help you publish and get a track record)
An PhD isn't necessary although it may be helpful its not the only avenue
most scientists I have spoken to agree that Any MD who wants to get involved in research can, and that their is lots of room to collaborate with established PIs as it will also help them get grants. You can also pursue a MSc to get some training although its not the same as a PhD you can get published in it. Its not unheard of for a productive MSc to publish 3-5 first author papers (thats nearly the standard in my lab)
Also if you want to get research training to run a lab with an MD its about the post-doc training more then the PhD and you can do a PDF that are designed for MDs (they are longer but give you the skills you will need in the area you want and help you publish and get a track record)
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
It's also possible that MDs will get more grants as translational is hot right now and PhDs have barriers to that sort of work.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 514
While the bulk of this is true, I would argue its far harder and takes far more years to get into basic science or translational research (as opposed to clinical) as an MD. Red doctober listed a very good reason why. There are a few reasons I would add:
1. Debt. Graduating as an MD, you will have a HUGE debt burden over your head. This leads 99% of MD's to give up on the idea of doing research and try to get started paying off that debt as soon as possible. Further, being an academic physician instead of a private practice will likely make you less money in the long run than your MD counterparts.
Why MD/PhD helps: You get a full scholarship to the medical school and you're paid a stipend for living costs.
2. When you finish medical school and residency, your clinical skills are very sharp, and you will be very good at interacting with patients, analyzing symptoms and finding diagnoses. However, medical school teaches you a medium amount about an extremely broad field, and lacking the extremely deep understanding of a narrow field means during a fellowship/post doc, an MD has to learn all the techniques and background of their chosen field for the first time. This is much harder than you would think.
Why MD/PhD helps: During the program you gain a deep background about your field as well as how to conduct science properly.
3. Career guidance and publications. MD's have a hard time getting advice and guidance on how to build a research history and publish/receive grants. Without a solid research background, it's very hard to get your first R01, and you'll typically have to spend the equivalent amount of time to a PhD doing essentially a post doc while having a ton of debt hanging over you.
Why MD/PhD helps: you have a research background and (usually) experience writing grants already (many MD/PhD's apply for F31 grants.).
You'll find that the MD's that have made it in research tend to be the most amazing and remarkable people you will ever meet, and this is because it really takes a huge amount of work to learn to conduct science and excel at it without the formal training of a PhD. It is doable but definitely not easy. Hope this helps somewhat haha.
Edit: Typed on my phone.
Last edited:
That's because there are ~30+ MDs for every MD/PhD (based on AAMC data for 2012 matriculants). I read a stat that MD/PhDs comprise only 2.5% of medical school graduates, but receive about half of all NIH grants awarded to physicians.
Not sure about this. What barriers? Most MDs have barriers to bench research; that's a pretty big barrier. As I understand, MD/PhDs are the most competitive when it comes to funding their work and obtaining positions in academia, followed by PhDs, then MDs.
An MD researcher once told me that, if she could go back, she would have gone the MD/PhD route. Many of the reasons have been discussed, but one I never heard before had to do with finding collaborators. She could do much of the more clinical work by herself, but wanted to back it up with findings in basic biology. She said it was hard for her to find the basic scientists (PhDs) to help her, as many avoided clinical collaborations with MDs. This could be anecdotal, but she seemed to think having both degrees would have helped her bridge the gap and earn more collaborators.
Obviously I'm biased because I'm doing MD/PhD, but I think everyone can agree that 1) you shouldn't do MD/PhD unless you're sure it's right for you and 2) everyone can do research, but obtaining funding is already difficult and getting worse. It may pay to be more competitive. Good luck with your applications!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,227
Excellent post!
Had a question though. What if a physician (MD/DO alone) collaborated with a PhD? Would a lot of these barriers dissolve for the MD/DO?
A collaboration with a PhD implies that the MD is already established. The problem for the MD is becoming established in research (i.e. what Microglia said about overcoming debt, learning how to do research/apply for grants, gaining experience, publications, etc.). Maybe I'm not understanding the question?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 14
I think a lot of people here are giving the MD degree a little too much credit. A PhD is definitely necessary if you are wanting to do more research than medicine. I don't understand how people can think MD researchers are on the same footing as those with PhD's. Just head over to a top research institution and check how many of the biology professors have MDs (none. unless MD/PhD).
Clinical research? Sure.
Bench research? You should get a PhD.
Clinical research? Sure.
Bench research? You should get a PhD.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,227
What I mean by collaborate is just in terms of a MD (with minimal research experience) working with a PhD on a project? Not so much two established researchers, a MD and PhD, work together. Maybe my use of collaborate is incorrect.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,264
- Reaction score
- 537
The benefit is that you waive tuition and you get a small stipend which covers your living costs. You graduate with no debt, that is a major plus which is supposed to compensate for 7-8 years vs 4 years. In addition, you gain experience in research and get a PhD out of it. What is there not to like?
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,227
👍
I think I would say this tough
Applied research? MD is fine
Basic research? PhD is better than MD
An MD with little research training could certainly contribute with clinical data, but not with the bench research. Without prior experience, no MD has the time to be trained to do bench research. MDs may seek to obtain that sort of training during their fellowship from what I understand though. I work under an MD who did exactly that and was lucky enough to receive a training grant to do research in the lab of an MD/PhD. It's not the easiest route; she had a lot of clinical responsibilities outside of research (and still does).
No. 1) This is too broad to make any sense. 2) You're leaving out MD/PhD's.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 14
1) It's a generalization not an absolute
2) An md/phd would have both degrees so they would fit into both categories
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
I meant that applied research spans many many many fields, not just medicine. Would you see an MD working on how to improve energy efficiency in cars?
I would say...
Clinical research - MD is more than fine.
Translational research - MD/PhDs are best suited.
Basic Research - No need for MD.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 14
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
Have you ever done research or worked at a teaching hospital?
I've done bench research for numerous MD only researchers. Our institution is about split on them as PIs. Many departments have research budgets and often give the PI position to a faculty member rather than hire a PhD into the department. That MD may hire a PhD as a research scientist to handle grant writing and such, but he or she is still the PI.
It is VERY common. No more of this speculation based on implied meanings to job titles. It isn't hard to get lab space if you can make money for the department and the NIH gives plenty of grants to MDs to do all manner of research.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,227
Yes it is as Josh7 said it is implied. If you already have an MD/PhD, you are good in all categories.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2012
- Messages
- 5,456
- Reaction score
- 4,227
I agree with this being the most specific. Applied research is broad but I still am referring to the curing disease aspect of it (more of an inference really). Clinical research is still a part of applied research none the less.
Yes, that's because you're at a teaching hospital. There are many other institutions: research institutes, graduate departments, the NIH... Every one has a different make up. How is your experience at one institution any less speculative? I wish I could find some good data on this topic, but all I'm finding is from the 90's.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,214
- Reaction score
- 14
I've never actually been inside a teaching hospital, to be honest. I was just questioning the attitude that I see often here on SDN that an MD=PhD for research which simply isn't true. Sure an MD can run a lab but they won't be as respected when applying for grants (as you stated they had to hire a PhD just to do that).
You're more knowledgable on this subject as you're already in medical school. I was simply questioning your statement that an MD can do any research that they want to. If that were true why don't we see MD professros at research universities? I go to a top public research university and the only MD professors I know are MD/PhD and they practice at the hospital adjacent to campus.
As stated above, you're only referring to research hospitals, which in the grand scheme of things don't actually account for that much research (I think? Now that I think of it teaching hospitals may account for the majority of medical research? Man I can't find any data on this)
Last edited:
Based on this...http://acd.od.nih.gov/Biomedical_research_wgreport.pdf (page 26-27).
16-18% of MDs conduct biomedical research. Hence, biomedical research is possible with an MD as has been said many times. However, with ~3% of physicians being MD/PhDs (AAMC data based on 2011 graduates) and MD/PhDs making up ~40% of NIH-funded physicians (and increasing), it seems to me that MD/PhD is the way to go if you want to do biomedical research.
16-18% of MDs conduct biomedical research. Hence, biomedical research is possible with an MD as has been said many times. However, with ~3% of physicians being MD/PhDs (AAMC data based on 2011 graduates) and MD/PhDs making up ~40% of NIH-funded physicians (and increasing), it seems to me that MD/PhD is the way to go if you want to do biomedical research.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 5,173
- Reaction score
- 4,759
Is this explicitly the case? I was under the impression that grant reviewers were more interested in your publication history (which will be much stronger with a PhD) than in whatever degree you have.
Is it true that an MD with a record of successful independent, peer-reviewed research would be at a significant disadvantage to a similarly qualified PhD? I thought the problem was that building those qualifications will be much more difficult for the MD vs the PhD.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
It isn't about respect. Its all about the proposal and what work you have done previously. A PhD is a leg up because you will have pre established work and you will have experience writing grant proposals. You will also more likely have more hands on work but the guy writing the proposals is usually more of a lab manager anyways. Many PIs do nothing but write and divvy out experiments to lab personnel.
And hospitals are doing a crap ton of research. I'm on mobile so I can't see your status. Are you pre med or med student? Id suspect you're at a small college either way. Look at the med school rankings for different schools by NIH dollars. I may be mistaken, but I believe these numbers are independent of the undergrad or graduate colleges (although my COM funds several grad students and PhDs doing nothing but research as well).
As an MD with limited experience you will likely have to start clinical and begin tying in basic sciences as you go along. But there is nothing stopping you from collaborating and growing your experience to the point of having your own animal lab running genetic and protein experiments along side your clinic work. These researchers tend to be pretty successful. As I said, translational is hot right now and a PhD can't do the clinic part in many cases. So who does the NIH want to fund? The MD who knows how to run a western or a PhD and MD both and pay both salaries?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
No. And it depends on the type of work you want to do. My gf is a PhD candidate and actually advised me against doing MD/PhD on the basis that it diminishes the appearance of the clinical aspect of the research and may make getting grants even harder in some cases. I think she is jaded by having some grants miss her lab, but the point is that your letters don't really hurt you.
Id plan on collaborating with a wet lab until you get a strong paper out and then start applying for grants-all assuming your dept is willing to give you lab space
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2012
- Messages
- 839
- Reaction score
- 28
MD/PhD is a waste.
You can do all the research you want as an MD. The best pathway is to spend some time in medical school getting some research skills (can do this summer after first year and during fourth year electives) and then depending on the field you can do research during residency or fellowship.
If you do an MD/PhD your research during your PhD will most likely not relate to your fellowship area, and by the time you reach fellowship your research will be outdated. The time to establish yourself as a researcher is fellowship.
In IM for example there is even a pathway where you do only 2 years of IM, then go straight to a longer fellowship with more research time. In general surgery you can take out 2 years during residency to research.
At that point in your career you'll be able to bridge from your fellowship research to getting your own grants and finding a position as a junior faculty member.
For those in the thread saying being an MD is a barrier to doing basic science research: no. just no. The only barrier is that it's not as financially rewarding as clinical medicine and grants are hard for everyone (regardless of degree) to get right now.
You can do all the research you want as an MD. The best pathway is to spend some time in medical school getting some research skills (can do this summer after first year and during fourth year electives) and then depending on the field you can do research during residency or fellowship.
If you do an MD/PhD your research during your PhD will most likely not relate to your fellowship area, and by the time you reach fellowship your research will be outdated. The time to establish yourself as a researcher is fellowship.
In IM for example there is even a pathway where you do only 2 years of IM, then go straight to a longer fellowship with more research time. In general surgery you can take out 2 years during residency to research.
At that point in your career you'll be able to bridge from your fellowship research to getting your own grants and finding a position as a junior faculty member.
For those in the thread saying being an MD is a barrier to doing basic science research: no. just no. The only barrier is that it's not as financially rewarding as clinical medicine and grants are hard for everyone (regardless of degree) to get right now.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
I wouldn't call it a waste. Although some MD/PhD students seem to go on cruise control during their research years.
I will say it is a waste if you're doing it to get free schooling. The numbers don't add up in that regard.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
I'm surprised by EM actually. But I would suspect it is largely clinical and technique type research more than bench work.
Oncology has a ton of molecular research. Neurology actually has quite a bit as well dealing with genetic disorders and ASD. IM docs and specialists will have labs working with CF models, muscular dystrophy models, whatever.
I think the point that is missed is that most PIs, MD, PhD, or both are not doing much of the leg work themselves. They act as lab managers. You will need to understand the science but RAs, research scientists (which are usually PhD version of a PA in their role, but they usually have a PhD and post doc), and techs tend to run the actual experiments.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 17
Yea, there's a lot of research fellowships in EM - I think it's largely because it's a growing field that is still trying to find its identity. There are some fellowships where you get an msci if you go basic science or mph if you go clinical/translational, i think hopkins actually has a phd option.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
Id have to see some papers to get an idea. That is actually kind of exciting. I plan on doing research later on and like the ED but was turned off by lack of research. I'm not even looking for a wet lab necessarily. Too many years already in a cell culture hood
the translational stuff is kind of a spectrum letting you do an awful lot. Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2011
- Messages
- 1,216
- Reaction score
- 17
Id have to see some papers to get an idea. That is actually kind of exciting. I plan on doing research later on and like the ED but was turned off by lack of research. I'm not even looking for a wet lab necessarily. Too many years already in a cell culture hood
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
Yea, EM is growing a ton, even in the past couple years. It used to be filled with FM docs so a lot of docs working in EM just arent the research type, that being said, it seems like there's a different group of people going into the field now. The downside is that it's getting more competitive.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Id have to see some papers to get an idea. That is actually kind of exciting. I plan on doing research later on and like the ED but was turned off by lack of research. I'm not even looking for a wet lab necessarily. Too many years already in a cell culture hood
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
That's interesting. A lot of the EM faculty here do some pretty extensive research. MI and reperfusion injury seems to be a popular topic.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
I suppose that fits. Is it lit and chart based or experimental?
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
i don't agree with this at all. why the heck would an MD waste their time being a biology professor? for a more relevant metric - look at how many research faculty at a medical school have only MD's. quite a few. I have done a lot of research at top tier medical schools (2 of the top 5 in NIH funding) and many, many labs have MD PI's. The MD's almost always do clinical work (not related to their research). The reason you don't see MD's as faculty in a biology department is because they don't want to do that.
there's nothing you learn in a PhD program that you cant learn with a decade of experience in the field.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Experimental - they are very much wet basic science labs.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,146
Glad to know that my desire to teach at the undergrad level is a "waste of time."
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 880
- Reaction score
- 10
I think many people here aren't fully understanding what the MD PIs at these research institutions who do non-clinical research have to go through to get those positions. It's not like they graduate med school, do their residency, then decide to open up a lab. Med school alone does not train students to be biomedical researchers.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2012
- Messages
- 8,219
- Reaction score
- 97
The DNP field experience argument about encroaching on OUR turf is more valid than this.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 514
I have a close family member who is an MD only and has been a professor (teaching the medical school) as well as running a clinic and performing bench research at a very top tier private institution for quite a few years now. It is absolutely possible, as I stated in my initial post. However, the challenges that I listed were all things they had to overcome to get to that point.
To make this clear: MD's can become the exact same as an MD/PhD. Downside: (see my earlier post for all of them but briefly: ) it takes almost the same amount of time doing fellowships as you would have spent on the PhD, you don't have advisors and a structured program, and you're saddled with debt.
Edit: Still typed on phone. Haha.
To make this clear: MD's can become the exact same as an MD/PhD. Downside: (see my earlier post for all of them but briefly: ) it takes almost the same amount of time doing fellowships as you would have spent on the PhD, you don't have advisors and a structured program, and you're saddled with debt.
Edit: Still typed on phone. Haha.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2012
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 514
This exactly. This is why the MD/PhD path exists.
I'm not exactly sure why everyone on this thread is making it seem as if MDs can do "all the research they want". They are not giving out funding like candy these days for anyone with any combo of degrees, and the stats I threw out there that everyone is ignoring clearly show that MD/PhDs are much more competitive at obtaining grants.
Of course you've all seen a lot of MD researchers - you're all med students. I'll grant you that med schools are big hubs for biomedical research, but that's not all there is. PhDs still make up the vast majority of biomedical research and the rest is split almost 50/50 between MDs and MD/PhDs. If trends continue as they are going, MD/PhDs will surpass MDs in terms of funding by the time I graduate in 7-8 years, though they comprise 3% of graduating physicians.
Usually what field MD/PhDs decide to obtain their PhD in is at least related to what they want to do in the future, but if it's not, it doesn't matter. The point is that they are experienced in working in research for an extended, continuous period of time, must construct clear research aims, defend a thesis, write publications and grant proposals, and observe how their mentors run labs and go about their various responsibilities.
I'm sorry, but you cannot seriously put that on the same level as a MD student doing research during a summer or as an elective. Even if an MD student does a significant amount of research in med school, who's to say that it will be related to what they want to do? My boyfriend (MD student) is required to do research as part of his curriculum at a top 20 research institution, and there are almost no opportunities in bench research. Researchers don't want an MD student for 3 months - it takes that long to train them.
