med school for a career in basic science

[ithinkimdiffrnt]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi,

I'm going to apply to med school, but I'm really interested in a career in basic science (ie biomedical bench research); some people have told me to do an MD, others just a PhD, some MD/PhD (too long for me, its gonna be one or the other). Can anyone offer some insight about the pros and cons of doing an MD program for someone like me who is really interested in research?

 

[PremedIowa]

A regular Ph.D program will give you far better training in the basic medical sciences than an MD or even an MD-Ph.D ever could. You will be paid the whole way through and get a full 4-7 years of research training rather than having it be an afterthought. Talk to some scientists and physician-scientists and see what they would advocate after having gone through the same decisions.

 

[URHere]

Hi,

I'm going to apply to med school, but I'm really interested in a career in basic science (ie biomedical bench research); some people have told me to do an MD, others just a PhD, some MD/PhD (too long for me, its gonna be one or the other). Can anyone offer some insight about the pros and cons of doing an MD program for someone like me who is really interested in research?

If you are interested in spending your life on basic science research, I think it would be extremely foolish to choose an MD over a PhD. The MD path would require you to memorize absurd amounts of information about the human body (when your research would probably only require a small subset of that information), learn clinical skills you would never use, and put you heavily into debt that you have no prayer of paying off if you jump into the research world directly. Furthermore, how exactly do you expect to find a good research position if you have spent at least 4 years with minimal lab work? True, you could always pursue a research fellowship after residency, but why on earth would you go through the licensing exams and a residency if you don't want to be a practicing physician? If you choose this path, it sounds like you want the reputation of an MD more than you want the training that goes with it.

If you pursue a PhD, you will practically be guaranteed years of direct lab work, publications, and conference presentations before you even start looking for a postdoctoral position. You will have gained experience in grant writing, started to network with those in your field, and gained extremely in depth knowledge about your field of interest (MD education is broad, PhD education is far more focused and often more in depth). Plus, you will be paid for your time. If you aren't willing to consider MD/PhD programs, then it seems like PhD programs are the fit for you, hands down.

 

[midwesterner]

Like the others said: PhD fits the interests you've described much better than MD.

That being said, I assume you've spent time in a lab doing bench work, right? I thought I wanted to do biomedical research until working in a few labs for a while and realizing it wasn't quite what I thought it was. This should be obvious, but I've met a number of people who go the PhD route without having done much work beforehand (besides research on their undergrad campus, which can be quite different depending on the school).

 

[AdmiralChz]

You will have a VERY hard time getting into medical school with your goals in mind. Med schools at some level are dedicated to training clinicians, not basic scientists. Go get your PHD elsewhere.

 

[AtheGre]

Hi,

I'm going to apply to med school, but I'm really interested in a career in basic science (ie biomedical bench research); some people have told me to do an MD, others just a PhD, some MD/PhD (too long for me, its gonna be one or the other). Can anyone offer some insight about the pros and cons of doing an MD program for someone like me who is really interested in research?

That depends, OP, are you planning on a becoming a practicing physician? I am interested in doing something similar to what you've mentioned; I would like to become a practicing physician with a focus on translational research, with one foot in basic science research and one foot in its application in the clinic. I would imagine that getting an MD at a research-intensive institute would offer you plenty of exposure to the basic sciences, which you could parlay into a career that involved significant amounts of research. I've met MDs that are heads of basic science research departments-it's definitely doable. I also think that practicing medicine makes you privy to the deficiencies of current medical practice, issues that can be addressed by conducting basic science research.

Having an MD also offers a lot of flexibility. If you decide that basic science research is not your 'cup of tea', then you could still become a practicing physician and live a comfortable lifestyle. The same is not always the case with a PhD, where if you find out that the academic route to research stardom is not your thing, you could end up being a post-doc for 10 yrs or so. There are many more sacrifices in obtaining a MD than a PhD, but the payoff includes career flexibility and autonomy. That's not to say that there is no career flexibility in having a PhD, but I would argue that there is more career flexibility with an MD than with a PhD. Just my .02.


AtG

 

[PremedIowa]

That depends, OP, are you planning on a becoming a practicing physician? I am interested in doing something similar to what you've mentioned; I would like to become a practicing physician with a focus on translational research, with one foot in basic science research and one foot in its application in the clinic. I would imagine that getting an MD at a research-intensive institute would offer you plenty of exposure to the basic sciences, which you could parlay into a career that involved significant amounts of research. I've met MDs that are heads of basic science research departments-it's definitely doable. I also think that practicing medicine makes you privy to the deficiencies of current medical practice, issues that can be addressed by conducting basic science research.

Having an MD also offers a lot of flexibility. If you decide that basic science research is not your 'cup of tea', then you could still become a practicing physician and live a comfortable lifestyle. The same is not always the case with a PhD, where if you find out that the academic route to research stardom is not your thing, you could end up being a post-doc for 10 yrs or so. There are many more sacrifices in obtaining a MD than a PhD, but the payoff includes career flexibility and autonomy. That's not to say that there is no career flexibility in having a PhD, but I would argue that there is more career flexibility with an MD than with a PhD. Just my .02.


AtG

While I agree that the MD degree does off a lot of flexibility when it comes to clinical practice and translational research, the OP has said that he is most interested in bench basic science. And if he decides he would like to be involved in clinical medicine after obtaining a Ph.D, there are lots of opportunities to do a post-doc fellowship in molecular genetics, laboratory medicine, medical physics, or a number of other fields. I think the involvement of Ph.D's in patient care is often underrated by people who have not worked in or with clinical labs.

 

[AtheGre]

While I agree that the MD degree does off a lot of flexibility when it comes to clinical practice and translational research, the OP has said that he is most interested in bench basic science. And if he decides he would like to be involved in clinical medicine after obtaining a Ph.D, there are lots of opportunities to do a post-doc fellowship in molecular genetics, laboratory medicine, medical physics, or a number of other fields. I think the involvement of Ph.D's in patient care is often underrated by people who have not worked in or with clinical labs.

Can you do basic science research in clinical labs?


AtG

 

[PremedIowa]

I am talking about being the PI or overseer of a clinical testing lab. A lot of their research is generally considered "basic science" rather than "clinical" research because it relates to advancing the science and knowledge of disease.

For example, in a metals testing lab the PI may be involved in the study of the mechanisms behind metal toxicity in addition to consulting with patients and physicians on what tests could be helpful in making a diagnosis.

 

[megamega]

A Ph.D will give you what you need to do research in that area and it is the most direct route. If you are unsure, you should talk to some Ph.Ds, MD/Ph.Ds, and some MD researchers. Most MD/Ph.Ds that I've met have done a combination of research and clinical, but they focus mainly on research.

In my opinion, getting an MD would be a waste of time and money if you're just interested in doing research.

 

[baylor2lsu2013]

Hi,

I'm going to apply to med school, but I'm really interested in a career in basic science (ie biomedical bench research); some people have told me to do an MD, others just a PhD, some MD/PhD (too long for me, its gonna be one or the other). Can anyone offer some insight about the pros and cons of doing an MD program for someone like me who is really interested in research?

wtf? that doesn't make any sense. Why don't you just not do medical school and leave a spot open for someone who really wants to be a doctor.

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

If you really want to do research rather than practicing as a doctor, you should definitely get a PhD rather than an MD.

 

[BigRedBeta]

The question you have to ask yourself is: Do I want to do the things a doctor does? Do I want to see patients, listen to them, diagnose them and then try to treat them?

If none of those things matter to you, then there's zero reason to get an MD. If any of those things sounds important to your career goals (there doesn't have to be a balance between them - surgeons like to treat, radiologists like to diagnose, psychiatrists like to listen), then you need to do so more exploration. Just remember that medical school teaches you to be a doctor and develops the skills that doctors need. If you want to do bench research, is really important for you to learn how to take a sexual history or know the workup for anemia?

 

[witness23]

Can you do basic science research in clinical labs?


AtG

If you are going to get a MD degree and its associated loans, then you probably want to be a PI.

A PI will not be doing any of the science but the grantwork. However, you will have to get training in basic science before going that far.

Thereby, as stated, for the OP's goals PhD programs would be better suited. If you can get over being a lab slave for the next 6 years, it could be fun. You really need to work at a lab full time, not summers, not part time during the week to see if you are going to really appreciate the experience. You will get to see your PI write grants, interview postdocs, see grad students work, see them teach, see post docs work, etc. Really really think about this, a lot of people really they are not cutout to be a PI (I think its a great challenge, but it certainly may not be the best working environment).

As far as translational research, there is a basic science part but you cannot do both. NIH grants force you to be in the lab atleast 75% of your time. You will most likely want to see patients with that MD degree of yours to make money (let's just assume you will have bills to pay or someone to support). Well, that was atleast what i noticed.


I think it's great to take your time to think about it though. You can do that by obtaining a year long research job, supplemented with clinical experience.

Md/PhD students would be great ppl to comment on it.

 

[witness23]

the obvious con is that you might realize that you will get fixated on the MD curriculum and find it hard to leave the path because of the debts/your classmates.

so you might just be happier doing a PhD. If you really like where you are and connect well graduate degrees can be very fun.