med school = the dark side?

[drstrangelove]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I?ve pretty much been a researcher since high school and am now working in a prominent, fairly large lab. We churn out a lot of publications including a fair amount of Nature and Science articles and get a lot of press coverage along with these publications. I myself have a few first author publications and one second author Nature publication.

So when I told the people in my lab I was thinking about med school, everyone was a little surprised. I get the feeling that med school is viewed as the ?dark side?. It seems people are surprised and disappointed, even the few MDs I work with. I tried to get a feel for why I got the reaction I got and concluded the following.

None of these items are facts, but represent a general consensus.

Medicine isn?t where the brilliant people go. Being a doctor is more like being a mechanic than being a scientist. It?s somewhat difficult to get into med school because of the high incentives so the average student is fairly smart, but medicine isn?t about originality, it?s learning a craft and doing it well. Medicine is for job security and the natural route for the smart, hard workers, but not for the people who can actually change the world or forefront of human knowledge.
I hadn?t thought of this previously but this kind of makes sense.

An MD doesn?t teach you how to do research. The only adequate research training is through a PhD. Most MDs doing research are not successful researchers, or do not produce high quality research. The ones that do tend to have PhDs, or are very lucky or extremely talented (i.e. they are PhDs in MDs? clothing).
This I had actually always agreed with, so I think if you want to go to medical school and do research, you are taking the wrong means to an end, or will require additional training along the way.

It?s true that medicine is about directly helping people, and therefore it is the perfect venue for people who want to do this. Medicine is a service field. However, these people again won?t be the most brilliant of people who are breaking new ground in research. Also, what is the key distinction between a doctor and a nurse or nurse practitioner?

Obviously there is a question of whether you want to do research or practice medicine, there was never an argument on that issue. But the main point I saw being made is that brilliant people don?t want to practice medicine, they want to do research. Or really, they don?t want to do research, but they want to impact science and knowledge.

It?s as if they are saying the average medical doctor is smarter than the average non-medical doctor because there?s no incentive to be a non-medical doctor, but the smartest non-medical doctor is smarter, and doing more than the smartest medical doctor because this is where not just the smart, but the brilliant thinkers of our day go.

I just wanted to broach this topic and see what everyone thought of this. These are some sweeping conclusions obviously, but nonetheless not too far off the mark according to the consensus I found. It?s funny in a way because there are all of these biology majors that aren?t really interested in biology, but are just on the same track to medicine. It makes me wonder why don?t they just start a purely premed major program.

 

[tBw]

the average medical doctor is smarter than the average non-medical doctor because there?s no incentive to be a non-medical doctor, but the smartest non-medical doctor is smarter, and doing more than the smartest medical doctor because this is where not just the smart, but the brilliant thinkers of our day go.

Maybe it's because I'm just going to be an MD, but I don't understand what this sentence means....

 

[Moskeeto]

that sentence is the damn funniest thing I've read in awhile.

 

[Street Philosopher]

I agree. Practicing medicine is not as intellectually challenging as theoretical physics or computational neuroimaging. But it's challenging enough for me to keep my interest, and not too hard for me to be exhausted by it. (I think)

 

[merlin17]

Originally posted by drstrangelove


Medicine isn?t where the brilliant people go. Being a doctor is more like being a mechanic than being a scientist. It?s somewhat difficult to get into med school because of the high incentives so the average student is fairly smart, but medicine isn?t about originality, it?s learning a craft and doing it well. Medicine is for job security and the natural route for the smart, hard workers, but not for the people who can actually change the world or forefront of human knowledge.
I hadn?t thought of this previously but this kind of makes sense.

This is the exact reaction I have gotten from all of my classmates and coworkers when telling them I am going to medical school. It doesn't help that premeds in general have such a bad reputation. I think that the fact that so many people are disappointed that I am going to be a doctor and not do something "better with my life" that has made it difficult for me to be really excited about my acceptance to medical school.

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by drstrangelove
Most MDs doing research are not successful researchers, or do not produce high quality research.

THIS is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm not even going to bother listing the dozens of exceptions to this at my institution alone.

 

[ramonmcguire]

Originally posted by merlin17
I think that the fact that so many people are disappointed that I am going to be a doctor and not do something "better with my life" that has made it difficult for me to be really excited about my acceptance to medical school.

You've got to be kidding. Tell 'em to screw off. It's your life. You do things to please yourself. Medicine done right can be a very noble calling. You probably worked very hard to get accepted. Rejoice in your achievements. Be excited as hell. Except perhaps the clergy, what something better would these naysayers have you do?

 

[Premed2003]

Your post is very dumb.

A very high percentage of PhDs were people who couldn't get into medical school! So that in and of itself indicates that medicine is more difficult than sititng in a lab getting a PhD.

The rest of the PhD lab researchers that I met have no social skills. They wouldn't want to be a doc beccause they can't interact well with people.

These PhDs who told you they're disappointed that you''re becoming a doctor probably are just disappointed that you're leaving their lab and moving on to bigger and better things. They would probably say the same thing no matter what profession you chose. They've advised you and want you to follow in their footsteps

 

[DukeBluDevl02]

It is true that PhD's can be some of the most brilliant people. I don't question that. But, tell me why the PhD I work with (Human/Rat Genetics) doesn't know a DAMN thing about human physiology? Or about anatomy? Or about pharmacology? Or how to correctly operate a PCR machine? So, he basically cannot make any connection to what he's doing or why he's doing it in the human or clinical side. Not to mention that most PhD's I've come in contact with couldn't carry a conversation about ANYTHING else in the world besides what narrow field they specialize in. It's one thing to research so that you're advancing knowledge leading to a practical application, but it's another thing just to be REALLY smart in a singular, isolated field of science with really no goals that can be measured, and I'm not talking about publications in Science or Nature.

I get that same thing about the "dark side" in my lab too. In my opinion it's total, utter b.s. I was a history major in science and medicine, and I understand the importance of research and science to medicine throughout history and currently. But, medicine is important in its application of the science to better humankind. It is a profession which utilizes the knowledge achieved and advanced to take care of those are sick. Would you want a PhD in plant evolutionary biology, genetics taking care of you if you had a heart attack? This is also a case against why some people feel it is necessary to be a "Biology" major in college. Half of what you learn as a biology major is not applicable to medicine, if not more than half.

I'm also not going to touch on the subject of MDs being researchers because there is a great deal of clinical research being conducted out there, mostly by MDs. In fact there exist whole clinical research institutes filled with MDs (e.g. Duke University Medical Center Clinical Research Institute).

And finally a lot of research is so bogus. Sorry for using such an '80s term, but it's true. A lot of the stuff being done out there is completely worthless, even to the advancement of knowledge. And as a sidenote, a lot of time is wasted in research, but because research draws money it's intentional. There are plenty of researchers out there with near cures to diseases or new treatments. But, there's no point in bringing it out to the public if they can continue to make money on it's research, right? So, it's particularly ironic for a researcher to tell someone interested in medicine that they're going to be going to the dark side, when all that they're doing in their very narrow view of the world is really all about money as well, and only a little bit about the advancement of science or knowledge.

 

[JlazyMD]

I agree-- the truly brilliant, true intellectuals are, by and large, not going to be interested in medicine. Theoretical physics and mathematics probabably gets most of them, though i'm sure all the basic sciences have their share.

I also agree there is a reason that MDs without PhDs get a bad rap as researchers. One clinical fellow came to our lab to do a year of research, I had to teach her how to use a pipette!! MDs are in general just as intelligent as PhDs, I would say, but they just don't have the training or the time it takes to be as successful as PhDs on the whole.

Part of this 'dark side' stuff, of course, is old-fashioned envy-- MDs get paid much more, and have a much easier time finding work, and frankly, get more respect and social status than PhDs.

 

[Chronotropic]

Actually in one of my old text books it said Profs were the most respected.

 

[CTIL]

I chose med school over phd because I like the idea of being a glorified mechanic, so don't assume that calling someone a mechanic is an insult.

I bet you mechanics get a lot more tail than PhDs, on average.

 

[drstrangelove]

Maybe it's because I'm just going to be an MD, but I don't understand what this sentence means....

It's really not that hard. Your average MD is smarter than your average PhD because there are clear monetary rewards to becoming a MD, driving smarter more competitive and able people to this field. Nevertheless the truly brilliant people (like Einsteins) don't become MDs, they become PhDs, because this is the avenue for them to make the biggest impact.

This is the exact reaction I have gotten from all of my classmates and coworkers when telling them I am going to medical school. It doesn't help that premeds in general have such a bad reputation. I think that the fact that so many people are disappointed that I am going to be a doctor and not do something "better with my life" that has made it difficult for me to be really excited about my acceptance to medical school.

It's interesting that this isn't just an isolated reaction I got.

THIS is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I'm not even going to bother listing the dozens of exceptions to this at my institution alone.

Anecdotal evidence is nice, but this is maybe an example of what I'm talking about. Quantitative, not qualitative. Replicable experiments, not uncontrolled case studies.

A very high percentage of PhDs were people who couldn't get into medical school! So that in and of itself indicates that medicine is more difficult than sititng in a lab getting a PhD.

This is definitely true. However it doesn't disprove my point. In fact I did say that there is a lot of pressure/incentive to go into medicine. But I also said that a point made to me was more brilliant (top 1%) people go into something requiring more ingenuity.

These PhDs who told you they're disappointed that you''re becoming a doctor probably are just disappointed that you're leaving their lab and moving on to bigger and better things. They would probably say the same thing no matter what profession you chose. They've advised you and want you to follow in their footsteps

The weird thing is I've gotten the same advice from MDs too.

So, he basically cannot make any connection to what he's doing or why he's doing it in the human or clinical side. Not to mention that most PhD's I've come in contact with couldn't carry a conversation about ANYTHING else in the world besides what narrow field they specialize in.

I don't think you need to connect everything to a human or clinical application, or even a practical application for it to be worthy. First of all lots of times practical applications happen by accident. Secondly, quest for knowledge as cheesy as it may sound is a laudable goal.
Whether or not you are well-versed and can hold conversations in many subjects is a different notion altogether, and is probably irrelevant here.

Would you want a PhD in plant evolutionary biology, genetics taking care of you if you had a heart attack? This is also a case against why some people feel it is necessary to be a "Biology" major in college. Half of what you learn as a biology major is not applicable to medicine, if not more than half.

No, but some would argue that (depending on who) the PhD in plant evolutionary biology is making a contribution that has more impact than one, or even one thousand heart attacks. I also agree here because I find that there are so many biology majors that are not interested in biology. Why not just make a premed major for them?

And finally a lot of research is so bogus

This is CERTAINLY true. I am fortunate to have a very solid research background and foundation, but there are just so many terrible pieces of PUBLISHED research out there. The peer review process helps, but certainly not enough. The thought is also that this is more widespread in some fields such as clinical research as opposed to others.

There are plenty of researchers out there with near cures to diseases or new treatments. But, there's no point in bringing it out to the public if they can continue to make money on it's research, right?

I had never heard of this conjecture before, but that's certainly an interesting one that I will have to discuss and think about.

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

JD=dark side.

 

[Sonya]

All phd's have that view point. (not all, but a good portion). Everyone is a little egotistical about what they do... MD's claim all this cellular science stuff researchers do is not pratical/useful. Never mind their opinions of what is "better" or the "dark side".. everyone thinks what they do is the best. Talk to practicing MDs (not MD's doing research)... see what they say.

If you want to do research, then yes, the PhD is the root. If you want to serve the community, medicine is better.

Every professor i've had (it seems, any i knew well), said i should go into research (math profs have conceeded to me it's okay if you don't major math or physics or something, because this mentality is needed in all research). I truly enjoy the intellectual challenge of research, and took on a project far beyond an undergrads level in undergrad. Naturally, i would MD PhD (I knew i would enjoy being an MD)

But, after three years of undergrad research, then one year of research full time after, i've come to the conclusion, research is very little about brilliant thinking either. Mostly it's sitting in lab, running experiments, getting data, and putting up work. Sure, you need occasionally innovative ideas (and without the abililty to have these ideas, you could be in trouble in research), but you need them very little.

I know, when i'm a senior proffesor, I will need to think and get innovative brilliant ideas a much larger portion of time (then send grad students off to do work), but until then, it's a lot of routine labwork.

When i talked to a former PI about this, he asked where else are you going to find this intellectual stimulation/use your bright ideas. he was right, probably in very few other places as much as research, but still ( i think), not much in research either.

So, now i think i'm not going to even bother with the PhD part, and do only MD... i get so bored sitting in lab collecting data. It seems to go against everything everyone has told me, so i'm unsure about this.

I think why i can't stay motivated for research is partly because I love applying/using science and thinking, but really don't care a bit about making new discoveries. I'm not fascinated by facts, i just like the thought involved with science.


BTW, Being an MD requires thought about diagnosis, so i've heard/seen shadowing a physician.

So, that's my opinion, and i know it's not the common one.

Sonya

 

[TexasGuy41]

People that get regular PhDs = Straight up Dorks
People that get MDs = Dorks with social skills

 

[DarkChild]

indian boy HOOOO!!!

alrighty then.
OP - i think you're comparing apples and oranges. MDs and PhDs want very different things out of life. Maybe both want to impact the world, but they want to do it in different ways. PhDs want to push the boundaries of what we know. MDs want to help individuals get better. Its somewhat natural for people in either camp to be unable to relate to those on the other side.
btw - there are MD/PhDs you know.
given your particular sensitivities you might want to look into that route.

 

[KyGrlDr2B]

If everyone got a phd, then we'd be stuck with a bunch of research and no medical doctors. That's why what is good for one person isn't necessarily good for the other. So just stop comparing everything and trying to figure out what is better. There is no better. Only better FOR YOU.

Just my $.02 after a long day. 🙁 Not trying to be harsh.

 

[indo]

The reason the most brilliant people become research PhDs is because they don't want to actually have to talk and interact with other people.

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by indo
The reason the most brilliant people become research PhDs is because they don't want to actually have to talk and interact with other people.

Nah, I think the really bright people are just intensely interested in whatever subtopic that they study: insect immunology, enzyme kinetics, what-have-you... Something that we lesser mortals (whose idea of an interesting time is sitting there talking about ourselves to anyone who will listen) have a difficult time understanding.

 

[Prophecy]

I bet you mechanics get a lot more tail than PhDs, on average. [/B][/QUOTE]


I am with you on that. It's all about tails, baby!!!!

 

[sacrament]

Originally posted by drstrangelove

Anecdotal evidence is nice, but this is maybe an example of what I'm talking about. Quantitative, not qualitative. Replicable experiments, not uncontrolled case studies.

You must be completely unfamiliar with the medical literature, or maybe you just skim the case reports in NEJM or whatever.

 

[tatabox80]

Why does Star Wars come to mind when I read this post.....

 

[2ndave]

Well hang on--if these PhDs in your lab are all as smart as they seem to think they are, then why AREN'T they off doing theoretical physics? If brilliance is so easy to categorize and put into hierarchies, then these guys with their bio PhDs must just be plugging away in the middle echelons.

But the one I pity the most is that poor Shakespeare. He was stuck in the humanities!! That's where the _really_ dumb suckers end up.

 

[Scrubbs]

I'll probably just end up reiterating a lot of what has already been said, but here's my experience and 2 cents...

I started doing bench research the summer after high school and continued with it through college. I was very torn between a PhD and an MD, and did not want to go the MudPhud route. The advice that I was given by several PhD mentors was to get my MD, because if I wanted to do any sort of clinical research, a lot of red tape would be removed with an MD. Also, my career options would be greater (ie - research, practice, combo of both).

I am now graduating med school, and I don't regret my decision in the least. No, I do not have the training that a PhD has when it comes to bench research. However, I do have lab skills that will help me if I choose to return to the lab. In fact, my strong research background made me very desirable to residency programs during my interviews.

I am going into Emergency Medicine, and a few years down the road I want to work in a residency program. I'd like a good portion of my career to be focused on research, so I'd like to think that my work will be of good quality and relevence. MDs and PhDs tend to research different topics, and both are necessary. The microscopic discoveries made by PhDs are given purpose by MDs in the clinical setting.

 

[Curci]

Apples and oranges! I can't believe people are actually making these comparisons. People go into medicine or research because that's just what they want to do. One profession shouldn't be thought of as more worthy than the other. This MD vs. PhD thing is almost as bad as MD vs. DO. 🙄

Even if it were true that the smartest PhDs are smarter than the smartest MDs, it's not like getting a PhD is going to make you smarter! You'd have the same IQ regardless of the letters after your name. It's like saying that PhDs have bigger penises, so you want to get a PhD because you don't want other people to think that you're small. Who actually thinks like this?

Do medicine because you want to, because it calls you. Don't do it to prove to people that you're smart. You certainly shouldn't base your decision on other people's opinion on your career. Just do what you want! I can't believe that this is even an issue.

 

[canadagirl]

I have some thoughts about this reaction about medical school being a less good thing to do; I've definitely encountered it as well.

First, I find that I get completely different reactions from people now that I say "I'm going to medical school in September" as opposed to before when I said "I'm applying to medical school." Premeds have a bad rap. Researchers often feel used by them, I think. And it's frustrating for them to see great potential researchers go into medical school and leave research behind! Med students, on the other hand, have a pretty good rap. 🙂

It's also such a typical thing to want to go to medical school - in a life science program, it feels like EVERYBODY wants to. So by telling the people in "I want to go to medical school" I think it makes us seem very ordinary. Vs. "I want to spend my life researching X". Less ordinary.

I have to admit that I was speaking to someone I've known for a long time who is a truly spectacular person - one of the most accomplished, brightest people I know. And when she said "I'm thinking of going to medical school" I was totally shocked! Because it seemed so ordinary a goal for somebody so extraordinary.

I don't think it's true, of course! I'm going to medical school, and I want to do extraordinary things, just like the rest of you out there!! But I do see and respect where the negative reactions come from.

 

[OnMyWayThere]

Where do these things happen??? I haven't seen any of this. There is one word that describes those people if you really are getting those reactions: H-A-T-E-R-S... okay one more J-E-A-L-O-U-S... ok one more, I-G-N-O-R-A-N-T... dude, do your thing and let them do theirs. We'll see who'll be smiling in 10 years.


PEACE,
Jeff

 

[quideam]

Being a doctor may be, in some ways, analogous to being a mechanic, but that's a great thing!

Doctors do a lot more than just regurgiate facts; anyone who has spent time in an inner city ED or has scrubbed into a surgery knows that there is a lot of creativity that goes on, both with which tools to use and how to use them, as well as creativity in the treatment, etc. I'm planning to go into military medicine specifically because it will give me an even GREATER opportunity to be 'creative' in providing medical care when i'm in the field.

Besides that, I want to contest the idea that brilliant people don't go into medicine. What DO brilliant people do? Whatever they want to! Personally, even if I had a 200 IQ, I would still loathe the idea of being stuck in a lab performing experiments on drosophilia. I LIKE medicine, and I think that I would become a doctor no matter what my potential for other things would be. The only exception is if I could be a speech writer for the president, but that's a whole other story...😀

Just my two cents in defense of docs; I think that doctors have perhaps the most versatile, useful, and I dare say, **exciting** careers, and I think that most people going into medicine wouldn't trade it for anything.

- Quideam

 

[X]

Let me just say that brilliant people who can and do change the world do not debate or worry about whether they should get an MD or a PhD. They just do what they need to do - NO DEGREE REQUIRED.


X

 

[TroutBum]

My two cents:

I work at a hospital that does a ton of research. I have worked as a lab tech doing bench work, and in the clinical side with patients. I think doing the lab work is a nice little break when it gets a little too hectic dealing with the patients. But, I would NOT want to spend my entire career holed up in a lab. I'd go nuts.

Neither is better than the other, just apples and oranges, like others said. Different strokes for different folks.

Being able to handle a ton of information, possess sharp diagnostic skills, and relate that information to other people (as MDs have to do) is not an insignificant skill. I would say it's no less significant to be able to do this than to be able to hack brain-numbingly difficult math problems.

As far as MDs not being able to do research well--I don't say this much, but basically you're just flat wrong. My boss is an MD and is acknowledged as one of the best researchers at a very prestigious research facility. The place is full of MDs like this. In fact, more often that not it's the MDs who run the labs, and the PhDs all work for them.

 

[GoodMonkey]

luuuuuuuke. i am your faaaaaaaaaaaaather.

 

[koma]

I've been doing research for 4+ years and came to medicine through that route. In my view, research is the same manual work/skill crap that medicine is with one huge exception - with medicine you can see results of your work on the time scale of hours to days. With research it's on the time scale of years. Research is also a whole lot less predictable. You can work on something for a year and end up trashing the entire project. (and it's a whole lot of politics and sucking up) I thought I would be a ph.d because I love theoretical thinking, design, etc etc. But these are miniscule part of research as I experienced it. Maybe once you get to be prominent in your field and get your own lab and slave techs, you can afford to just sit in your cushy chair and write grants and figure out how to change your domain. But most of the time you will be doing crap like testing animals, counting cells, surgery, killing rats, etc etc. And if you look at your life from day to day and hour by hour, it's really really depressing because very little of the work you do will end up making any difference at all (to anyone). Of course, a lot depends on what lab/area/etc you work on. But I've been extremely frustrated with research, in spite of giving it my best. Being a doctor you have a lot more opportunities, you can work pretty much anywhere - you're not limited by space. As a researcher, you're basically stuck in the lab for your entire life. I'm sure I've just had bad luck as you had good luck, so I guess one's perspective on research just depends on lots of random circumstances.

 

[Sonya]

Scrubbs,

I'm leaning toward taking the path you described.

You say you don't regret it, which is good to know.

What sort of limitation do you think will be on your research, becuase you didn't do a PhD? (maybe you don't mind these limitations, but what are they). Do you think you would be at a significant disadvantage doing basic science research?

Thanks,
Sonya

 

[carrigallen]

Originally posted by Deuce 007 MD
JD=dark side.

you underestimate the Power of the Dark Side.

bzzz clash (lawsuit) bzzz clash (subpoena) fzzzz

 

[Tamomo]

I bet an MBA is almost as evil as a JD.

But don't even consider the worst of all possible evils...
JD/MBA = dark side....thinking about that makes me stay up at night.

 

[Deuce 007 MD]

Just look at the initials JD= Jedi of the Darkside. If that doesn't spell out evil empire I don't know what does.

 

[Doc Ivy]

I totally agree with the OP, when I told my PI that I was applying to med school the first thing out of his mouth was "Damn, why do all the good ones want to be doctors?"

...but then again, another one of my profs that I've talked to about pursuing a career in academia said and I quote "I don't care how much you love research most PhDs haven't done benchwork in years, they're too busy writing grants, don't be an idiot---go to medical school!"

 

[drstrangelove]

People claiming apples and oranges I think are missing my main point.

Obviously if you want to do research get a PhD, if you want to serve people get a MD.

But the point that was made to me by several people was that really smart people dont waste their time with a MD and just practice medicine, they get a PhD and perform groundbreaking research.

As Sonya pointed out it does take a lot of hard work to get to the PI level, but there are also lots of young, brilliant researchers out there. And she's right, being a MD is not about making new discoveries it's about being able to apply your clinical knowledge on a routine basis.

About PhDs not having social skills, I'm not sure if this is really true. But what is true is MDs don't have research skills.

You must be completely unfamiliar with the medical literature, or maybe you just skim the case reports in NEJM or whatever.

Case reports, NEJM, and a lot of clinical literature and research in general are sorely lacking in experimental rigor. You can resolve this by saying case reports aren't for rigorous research purposes, but that's not surprising given MDs aren't trained in research.

Well hang on--if these PhDs in your lab are all as smart as they seem to think they are, then why AREN'T they off doing theoretical physics? If brilliance is so easy to categorize and put into hierarchies, then these guys with their bio PhDs must just be plugging away in the middle echelons.

Who broke anything down by subject?

It is totally unfair and wrong to say that phd's are mostly MD rejects. Has it ever occured to you that maybe they weren't interested in working with people? If this statement were true, I guess we med students/MD's are Veterinarian school rejects? After all, it is waaaay harder to get in to a vet school. Hows that?!

Well put

I'd like a good portion of my career to be focused on research, so I'd like to think that my work will be of good quality and relevence. MDs and PhDs tend to research different topics, and both are necessary. The microscopic discoveries made by PhDs are given purpose by MDs in the clinical setting.

The real problem with this is that eventually you will have to have some more training somewhere to learn how to do research. But I agree, some of the MDs that can hack it would bring to light a different scope of research.

As far as MDs not being able to do research well--I don't say this much, but basically you're just flat wrong. My boss is an MD and is acknowledged as one of the best researchers at a very prestigious research facility. The place is full of MDs like this. In fact, more often that not it's the MDs who run the labs, and the PhDs all work for them.

I didn't say all MDs sucked at research. But definitely MDs are not trained for research. And those that manage to do well either were good researchers regardless of their medical training, or got extra training or were very lucky. I dunno about more often than not, maybe depending on the circumstance.

research as I experienced it. Maybe once you get to be prominent in your field and get your own lab and slave techs, you can afford to just sit in your cushy chair and write grants and figure out how to change your domain.

Research is a lot of hard work, noone would dispute that I think. It's really taking something and going all the way through with it and being persistent. Nonetheless, it's really amazing what people on the cutting edge are doing like in my lab. It's a really high energy place and you see these students just finishing their doctoral degrees and being offered their own labs right out of school, all spawns of the head honcho in the field. But it still takes the day-to-day dedication in and out.

 

[girlwithaknife]

Originally posted by drstrangelove
People claiming apples and oranges I think are missing my main point.

Obviously if you want to do research get a PhD, if you want to serve people get a MD.

But the point that was made to me by several people was that really smart people dont waste their time with a MD and just practice medicine, they get a PhD and perform groundbreaking research.

Actually, I think people have understood your point perfectly. Whether the most "brilliant" people choose PhD over MD is irrelevant if what they want to do is research. You are confusing brilliance with personal interest.

I would say that "really smart" people don't waste their time with an MD if they have no interest in working in a clinical setting. If your goal in life is to produce "groundbreaking research", why would you bother with the MD? You don't want to be a doctor. People should only go to medical school if they have an interest in doing at least some clinical medicine. If you are brilliant, but hate running experiments over and over again, and hate writing grants, why would you bother with a PhD?

 

[Scrubbs]

Originally posted by Sonya
Scrubbs,

I'm leaning toward taking the path you described.

You say you don't regret it, which is good to know.

What sort of limitation do you think will be on your research, becuase you didn't do a PhD? (maybe you don't mind these limitations, but what are they). Do you think you would be at a significant disadvantage doing basic science research?

Thanks,
Sonya

I think some of the obstacles I will have to face is that I have not been specifically trained in grant writing and statistical analysis. Also, although I have a background in cell culture/gels/ELISA's, it hasn't been my focus for a few years. When you're in a lab, you think in lab mentality. When you're not, you lose it. However, most academic facilities employ people who DO have these skills (read PhD). If you have a good idea, they can tell you how to do it... and with time, you learn what you need to know. I've thought about the possibility of getting a PhD (possibly after residency), but we'll see.

To the OP: I just reread your original post... if you honestly feel this way about the med school vs. PhD debate, why even consider medicine?

Originally posted by DrStrangelove
It's funny in a way because there are all of these biology majors that aren?t really interested in biology, but are just on the same track to medicine. It makes me wonder why don?t they just start a purely premed major program.

Not everyone in med school is a Bio major; many were history or philosophy majors who completed the pre-med requirements. My Biology major was the right choice for me for several reasons:

1. I loved Biology (concentrations in Molec. Cell and Immunology)
2. I wasn't sure I'd end up in med school (see previous post)
3. It was REALLY helpful for my first year med courses - I breezed through the first year.
4. Believe it or not, but doctors need to know how the human body (down to each cell) works.

Originally posted by DrStrangelove
Case reports, NEJM, and a lot of clinical literature and research in general are sorely lacking in experimental rigor. You can resolve this by saying case reports aren't for rigorous research purposes, but that's not surprising given MDs aren't trained in research.

Experimental Rigor? What kind of research are you doing? When your cells or rats or flies start taking meds "when they want", dropping out of studies for "adverse reactions", lieing to you about what they're eating/drinking/doing, etc. let me know. Then we'll talk experimental rigor... Patients (who are an intergral part of clinical research) will not submit to living in a lab kept at 72 degrees, eating what you feed them, and taking meds on your schedule for 6-8wks.

 

[monkeyarms]

why is everyone always trying to prove how smart they are? the fact of the matter is that whether you save lives or contribute knowledge to the next textbook, the value is only really measurable in your own conception. the truth is, lots of the really "brilliant" people are artists, musicians, writers, teachers, politicians, etc. a lot of phd and md folks have no idea who those people are and no idea why they are considered "brilliant." in the end we will all exist only the memories of others, and brilliant or not, we all will choose our paths based on those things we deem valuable. while it is a nice intellectual exercise, this debate is asinine.

 

[sd77]

First, I'd like to commend the OP for maintaining his/her composure during this post. When I first read it I thought it would get nasty, but it really hasn't too bad.

Although some of you may think this is actually a topic worth discussing, my "opinion" is that people (whether MDs, PhDs, Schoolteachers, or garbagemen) that have the nerve to say one is "more brilliant" than the other (yes, even in the general sense) is a good example of the ignorance you will find no matter where you go. The majority of people decide what they want to do in life based on what motivates them, not what their brain power "calls for". If you're seeking approval from society for having an above average IQ then go join MENSA, if you want to change the world, then do what motivates you better than anyone else.

And as far as who is better at research...the cream will rise to the top no matter the "official" training.

 

[europa]

If you are the person who wants to make a contribution to society or be well -numerated, who the hell would want to be either a medical or scientific doctor? Six years of schooling for your PhD and then three to four years of post-doc training to churn out papers, where only a small sub-sect of a field might read it, on your less than stellar salary. Sure less than 1% of post-docs are unemployed, but masters students get to make more than post-docs. As for contributing to science, do you realize that one sentence you read in a biochem book might be the result of the work of twenty or so labs. Those that move up the latter, yes some of their research is great, but really about networking and brown nosing. Break throughs and who gets credit in science have really been about luck. As for being a physician, you struggle for four years in medical school, without a break, spend another four years in residency and maybe once you establish your own practice you clear $100k, before HMOs. You expose yourself to diseases, and risk your life on an every day basis. Who knows if your patient joe shmoe might have AIDS or something worse. If you want to really change the world, change social perception or better yet the way the technology is distributed. Do you realize that american workers going to africa get vaccines, but native people don't, because they don't have money. Do you realize that diseases like AIDS are spread because of the sex industry in third world countries and women have no say about their lives. Get a job with the federal government; you will have security and great benefits, plus be able to take a vacation or too. Work in news or print media where you can help direct people's thoughts. For those who really want money, marry a wealthy guy or girl and work on a couple of charities, or become a hollywood star who grosses $40 million a year, and attach your name to a cause. You message will get out further, plus get a lot of better perks. Now, in no way am I downplaying the importance of medicine or science: they are good fields for those who genuinely want to do it. Seriously, the debate of getting your PhD or MD is a moot point. It depends on the person and their goals: succeeding in life is about learning the skills they don't teach you in school (mainly navigating politics, getting money, etc). You can do as much with an MD as with a PhD, or vice versa. There are PhD who do help out in clinical trials, but again it depends on the person and expertise. I always figure the other side is a little jealous of each other: MDs get the perks (aka better salary), and PhDs are more in the mainstream. Anyway, just thought I would drop in my two cents.

 

[IrishOarsman]

MD vs PhD, eh?

It's like comparing soccer players to football players.

Both are athletes (academics), both are highly trained.

There are some that are amazing and some that are truely mediocre in both- and the best one's don't necessarily get the best $$ (think: ugly people get fewer sponsorships teehee).

Plus, there is variation even within both sports: some people are QB some are linebackers some the punter or some are goalies some are defensive backs and some are shooters.

So, if you get into a pissing contest over who's who/what, I don't think that its a really good conversation.

If you want to talk about the different character of these groups fine... ie, *in general* MDs have a personal alturistic drive and *in general* PhDs are incredibly focused on their area of interest. There is much to be said about who might feel more called to/comfortable within a given group. Plus, it is possible to be both: massively hard, yes, but possible. (my boss is a MD/PhD neurosurgeon who's a world authority in neurovascular theory and the only guy in chicago who can do some microvascular neurosurgical operations - oh, and his last marathon was still under 3 hours. crazy.)

But, hey, if you want to fight over this... go ahead.
😎

 

[relatively prime]

Some of what this dude is saying is true... I mean, most great medical discoveries are made by PhDs or MD/PhDs. When MDs make huge discoveries it's usually by accident. I agree that the most brilliant minds of our day will do a MD/PhD or a PhD... while the really smart but perhaps not quite brilliant people do just an MD.

 

[carrigallen]

Originally posted by IrishOarsman

There are some that are amazing and some that are truely mediocre in both- and the best one's don't necessarily get the best $$ (think: ugly people get fewer sponsorships teehee).

i guess you mean Anna K. isn't the world's best women's tennis player?

 

[drstrangelove]

I would say that "really smart" people don't waste their time with an MD if they have no interest in working in a clinical setting. If your goal in life is to produce "groundbreaking research", why would you bother with the MD? You don't want to be a doctor. People should only go to medical school if they have an interest in doing at least some clinical medicine. If you are brilliant, but hate running experiments over and over again, and hate writing grants, why would you bother with a PhD?

Exactly, I agree completely. But one item that people seem to tell me is that "really smart" people tend to have the capability of doing really important research, therefore why would they work in a clinical setting where they might save 1000, 10000 lives as opposed to performing work that would advance all of human civilization and the breadth of human knowledge.

If you are brilliant but hate running experiments over and over again I think you go to a less experimental field, and probably stay away from sciences like biology. You probably are working in a highly theoretical field of science, or maybe music or something. But these kinds of people just don't do medical practice do they?

To the OP: I just reread your original post... if you honestly feel this way about the med school vs. PhD debate, why even consider medicine?

I've done research for the longest time, published research, worked with heads of the field, conducted interviews with several news agencies. But I feel like I would like to have a specifically human disease focus, so medicine might be a good fit. But so many people I know and work with have tried to tell me that medicine wouldn't fit with what I am capable of. Like medical school is about practicing medicine, studying a case or reviewing a profile and coming up with a diagnosis, prognosis, and plan of treatment. Therefore it would just be like any other trade, getting extremely good at quilting or fixing houses and wouldn't utilize my abilities. Whereas research would be producing original work, and requiring more people like me to made advances. So it's an issue between my interest in human disease versus where I would make a bigger difference or have intellectual satiety.

Not everyone in med school is a Bio major; many were history or philosophy majors who completed the pre-med requirements. My Biology major was the right choice for me for several reasons:

Definitely true. But I'm guessing most of the people in med school were bio majors. But that wasn't my point anyway, my point was that so many bio majors are majoring in biology BECAUSE they want to go to med school instead of because they want to major in biology. There's such a huge rift between the average pre-med biology student and the average biology student with no intentions of medical school. Why not separate the two.

Experimental Rigor? What kind of research are you doing? When your cells or rats or flies start taking meds "when they want", dropping out of studies for "adverse reactions", lieing to you about what they're eating/drinking/doing, etc. let me know. Then we'll talk experimental rigor... Patients (who are an intergral part of clinical research) will not submit to living in a lab kept at 72 degrees, eating what you feed them, and taking meds on your schedule for 6-8wks.

I was already accounting for this when I made that statement. I definitely applaud all the difficulties of clinical research, but point of fact is if you examine the methodology or statistics of several more clinical or medical journals, there are so many that are pure distortions of the scientific method. But this is somewhat excusable given that the purpose of dissemination in some of these cases is just to provide information to the community at large. However a lot of times this information isn't standardized, or meaningly useful from a scientific standpoint, sometimes from a clinical standpoint though.

the fact of the matter is that whether you save lives or contribute knowledge to the next textbook, the value is only really measurable in your own conception. the truth is, lots of the really "brilliant" people are artists, musicians, writers, teachers, politicians, etc. a lot of phd and md folks have no idea who those people are and no idea why they are considered "brilliant." in the end we will all exist only the memories of others, and brilliant or not, we all will choose our paths based on those things we deem valuable. while it is a nice intellectual exercise, this debate is asinine.

Everyone's mentioning artists and musicians, but let's refine. I'm really interested in basically the biological and medical fields here. I also disagree that the value is only measurable in your own conception. That's simply not true, you can take any perspective. And your perspective is usually some culmination of your inherent outlook and others' as well. Humans aren't isolated animals like that.

First, I'd like to commend the OP for maintaining his/her composure during this post. When I first read it I thought it would get nasty, but it really hasn't too bad.

Thanks.

Although some of you may think this is actually a topic worth discussing, my "opinion" is that people (whether MDs, PhDs, Schoolteachers, or garbagemen) that have the nerve to say one is "more brilliant" than the other (yes, even in the general sense) is a good example of the ignorance you will find no matter where you go. The majority of people decide what they want to do in life based on what motivates them, not what their brain power "calls for". If you're seeking approval from society for having an above average IQ then go join MENSA, if you want to change the world, then do what motivates you better than anyone else.

I have to say I really disagree here. While noone wants to quantify who's better than who, the fact of the matter is that an Einstein or a Newton did a lot more than any garbageman did. And people don't have to impact for better too, a Hitler or a Stalin is an example of this.
It's probably true that the majority of people choose based on motivation, which is probably why medicine is one of the harder professions to get into.

 

[girlwithaknife]

Originally posted by drstrangelove
Exactly, I agree completely. But one item that people seem to tell me is that "really smart" people tend to have the capability of doing really important research, therefore why would they work in a clinical setting where they might save 1000, 10000 lives as opposed to performing work that would advance all of human civilization and the breadth of human knowledge.

If you are brilliant but hate running experiments over and over again I think you go to a less experimental field, and probably stay away from sciences like biology. You probably are working in a highly theoretical field of science, or maybe music or something. But these kinds of people just don't do medical practice do they?


I've done research for the longest time, published research, worked with heads of the field, conducted interviews with several news agencies. But I feel like I would like to have a specifically human disease focus, so medicine might be a good fit. But so many people I know and work with have tried to tell me that medicine wouldn't fit with what I am capable of. Like medical school is about practicing medicine, studying a case or reviewing a profile and coming up with a diagnosis, prognosis, and plan of treatment. Therefore it would just be like any other trade, getting extremely good at quilting or fixing houses and wouldn't utilize my abilities. Whereas research would be producing original work, and requiring more people like me to made advances. So it's an issue between my interest in human disease versus where I would make a bigger difference or have intellectual satiety.

I think what you have to decide is whether you would even be happy going through medical school. The MD would not be worth it if you see it as 4 years of wasting your intellectual capabilities. Also, I can tell you that you will not get on well with your classmates or residents if you see them as "garbagemen" below your level of intelligence. Particularly residents can sniff this sort of attitude a mile away, and they don't have the time or patience to indulge you. Although this may not seem important to you now, it can make or break your ability to graduate from medical school.

It sounds like you are really pursuing an academic career, focusing entirely on research and making a big name for yourself in academic circles. I would really recommend against the MD for you, because I do not think it would add anything to your future plans, and your spot could go to somebody else who really wants to practice medicine.

There is no reason why you cannot concentrate on research in human medicine with only a PhD. Many of our professors are PhDs, particularly during the basic science years. You can ally yourself with a major medical teaching institution, and contract with physicians for writing your human subjects protocols and for accessing patient populations. We have biochem and physiology professors who are very familiar with human disease and current therapies who have not gone to medical school. The only thing that distinguishes them from MudPhuds is that they cannot see patients themselves. I get the impression that you would be ok with this.

 

[drstrangelove]

I think what you have to decide is whether you would even be happy going through medical school. The MD would not be worth it if you see it as 4 years of wasting your intellectual capabilities.

Well this is an issue I am trying to figure out. I'm not sure if it could be considered a waste but it is interesting that there is an opinion that it is.

It sounds like you are really pursuing an academic career, focusing entirely on research and making a big name for yourself in academic circles. I would really recommend against the MD for you, because I do not think it would add anything to your future plans, and your spot could go to somebody else who really wants to practice medicine.

This raises another interesting issue aside from whether or not brilliant minds go into medicine.

Is it acceptable for someone to attend medical school if he/she has no intentions of ever practicing medicine? Should medical schools admit these kinds of students?