Might sound like a stupid question but..
Started by ravupadh
Get help with your application
Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.
Clinical research happens in, or at least in association with, the clinic. It involves studying the effects of different treatments on patients, or analyzing the correlation between different metrics and outcomes for patients, or something involving patients. Bench research happens at the bench. It involves studying bacteria, or cell cultures, or enzymes, or DNA. No patients are involved.
Clinical research is mostly statistics and looking at correlation between people that get X vs people that get Y. Your subjects are patients. Done by MDs and in some cases MD/PhDs
Bench (aka basic) research is pipetting a lot, lots of tiny ass tubes, lots of molecular biology (gels/PCR/blots/etc.), genetics, biochemistry, etc., and is generally looking at a specific question you are trying to answer, or problem you're trying to solve. Done by PhDs mostly, MD/PhDs, and some MDs (mostly the old school ones).
So basically your bio profs in college are probably all basic/bench researchers. Whereas people that do clinical trials and test drugs on patients, or people who track patients over 15 years and look at how they respond to different treatments etc. are clinical researchers.
There is a place where these two OVERLAP and that is called translational research (i.e. translating basic science discoveries from the bench to the bedside).
edit: added more specifics/examples
Bench (aka basic) research is pipetting a lot, lots of tiny ass tubes, lots of molecular biology (gels/PCR/blots/etc.), genetics, biochemistry, etc., and is generally looking at a specific question you are trying to answer, or problem you're trying to solve. Done by PhDs mostly, MD/PhDs, and some MDs (mostly the old school ones).
So basically your bio profs in college are probably all basic/bench researchers. Whereas people that do clinical trials and test drugs on patients, or people who track patients over 15 years and look at how they respond to different treatments etc. are clinical researchers.
There is a place where these two OVERLAP and that is called translational research (i.e. translating basic science discoveries from the bench to the bedside).
edit: added more specifics/examples
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
So during clinical research you're just basically applying whatever's been discovered in the laboratory to human beings?
And you can't really do any sort of research outside of clinical research with just an MD right? I want to treat patients, teach, as well as conduct hard scientific research (i.e. DNA sequencing, stem cell therapy, etc.) so an MD/PhD program would probably be the best option for me, no?
EDIT: What degree do you need to take part in translational research?
And you can't really do any sort of research outside of clinical research with just an MD right? I want to treat patients, teach, as well as conduct hard scientific research (i.e. DNA sequencing, stem cell therapy, etc.) so an MD/PhD program would probably be the best option for me, no?
EDIT: What degree do you need to take part in translational research?
Yeah so clinical research has less science. It is more statistics. Kind of like ok I give patient A this much drug, and now I give patient B less...what happens? Oh ok patient A survives longer. *publishes paper*
Basic research you kind of have to figure out why something happens. For example, apoptosis is triggered by protein A interacting with protein B and it leads to such a signaling cascade etc etc. All the stuff that is in your science books about basic biology is the result of basic research.
With an MD you CAN do basic and other types of research. The degree does not limit you, rather your training limits you. So if you are MD-only and want to do basic research you should probably do a postdoc in a lab to get lab experience. If you find out early enough you want to do research as a MD, then the MD/PhD route may be for you.
Based on your goals, I think the MD/PhD program sounds like the best option.
Finally as for translational research you also do not need any specific degree. MD, PhD, and MD/PhD can all do translational research, although some may say the MD/PhDs may be better trained to do such research that bridges both basic/clinical research and requires knowledge of both basic science and medicine. Hope that helps.
Correct
Perhaps you can collaborate with 'scientists' on fundamental research if you choose, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find funding if you were the PI with an MD (on a basic research project)
I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment. There is very little chance that you will have the ability to give an honest effort in three venues simultaneously. Each of those professions are quite time-consuming, and require your full attention. It's not like you can 'be a doctor' during the days and just moonlight in a lab somewhere. Though I admire your motivation, I think you need to be a bit more realistic in your goals and expectations.
D
deleted74029
You can do any type of research you'd like with an MD. It's possible to be an MD and run a lab without hardly ever going to clinic. If you go the MD/Ph.D route you are pretty much conceding that you want to do mostly research, but you don't have to necessarily. Translational research is just a term that can apply to any research as long as it fits the criteria, you don't need any specific degree to perform it.
If you choose the MD/PhD route plan on putting 80-90% of your time into research and 10-20% clinic/teaching.
You cannot compete with 100% research PhDs if you put less time than that. Research is full-time. If you don't plan to do basic/translational research then I think the MD/PhD is a waste of time/national resources. You are better off doing a MD program at Duke or Stanford that either have a research year integrated (Duke) or promotes taking a year off to do research (Stanford). There are probably others, but those two come to mind. Just a disclaimer.
I think you can do that at pretty much any research friendly school. I know Rochester has a good 5 year program with a year of research with stipend. On interview I asked schools if I could do that and all were positive that I could if i asked, I wouldnt be rejected.
I am on a phase too where I am thinking MD/PhD. I dont know y the crazy idea after being miserable for a year in Lab but I enjoy the knowledge acquired (such a nerdy pleasure lls) But I dont know if I can afford to put in the time. but I ifor sure do not wanna be treating patients 100% of my time.
yeah but Duke is a 4 year program. 3rd year is time to get research or get masters or do whatever really.
oh cool i guess they get less clinicals in then. I know a lot of schools have elective time 3rd/4th year when you can get research as elective or other clinical internship of interest
Thanks for all the responses!
Doing a post-doc after getting your MD does sound like an option, but wouldn't that ultimately take more time than the MD/PhD track?
I think MD/PhD is really what I want after I've read the responses here. I don't mind spending the majority of my time on research, so as long as I'm not doing the same exact thing 100% of my time I'll be satisfied. I want to have *some* variety in my life by adding teaching and patient care to my profession.
Doing a post-doc after getting your MD does sound like an option, but wouldn't that ultimately take more time than the MD/PhD track?
I think MD/PhD is really what I want after I've read the responses here. I don't mind spending the majority of my time on research, so as long as I'm not doing the same exact thing 100% of my time I'll be satisfied. I want to have *some* variety in my life by adding teaching and patient care to my profession.
Probably not. The PhD addition would probably tack on an extra 3 years, whereas a post-doc would probably be 1 year. The extent of training (obviously) would not be equivalent though.
So in terms of research opportunities, you would obviously be limited with just a post-doc rather than if you had the PhD? Do you know what sort of limitations there would be with just a post-doc after an MD (and also any limitations with doing a 5 year MD program with 1 year of research included) in comparision to having the MD/PhD?
It would probably be on the end of the financier. They might be more comfortable handing money over to a classically trained PhD than an MD who's dabbled in research. I reiterate, though, as long as you don't mind being a collaborator instead of PI you could participate in as much research as you choose. If it's the title you're after, perhaps you need to reconsider your motivations.
... I'd like to add, though, that this will probably only be a limitation early on. After you've got a couple projects under your belt and have results to show the financiers, they will more readily give you funding.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Clinicals are the same, but they get less class time. First year is lecture. Second year you start clinicals (other schools' third year). Third year you get to do research or whatever. Fourth year is like the normal fourth year.
Difference between MD + postdoc and MD/PhD + postdoc (you will probably need to do one since after residency you'll be out of the lab loop so to speak) is that MD/PhD has formal PhD training and protected research time so you don't have to be burdened with grants and they won't make or break you. I don't know much more than that. I do know that MD/PhDs still do some kind of research thing either in a PSTP or research fellowship, although some skip residency and go straight into academia, but imo the latter option seems like a waste of the MD training.
Agreed. I actually think that the whole MD/PhD is a waste. I say specialize in one or the other. Even if you graduated with a MD and a PhD, you'd still have to do residency AND a fellowship in order to be autonomous in both of your respective fields.
Even with an MD+Post Doc aren't you still generally limited to just clinical research, since you're more likely to get funded if you have a PhD?
If that's not the case then why doesn't everyone who wants to do basic science research just skip the PhD and do the MD + Post-Doc to save time?
If that's not the case then why doesn't everyone who wants to do basic science research just skip the PhD and do the MD + Post-Doc to save time?
No, you probably won't need much training in a lab to do clinical research. The post-doc is there to strengthen your lab prowess and nail the common lab techniques (PCR, chromatography, genomics, etc).
A number of reasons. Often, they feel that the PhD better prepares them to organize, plan, and complete a project from start to finish (as opposed to being a competent lab technician with a scientific background). Additionally, MD/PhD is usually fully funded plus a stipend. Also, unfortunately, there are those who aspire to the dual degree for the title.
Similar threads
