- Joined
- Mar 1, 2011
- Messages
- 338
- Reaction score
- 6
what exactly is the difference between clinical research and bench research? I know clinical research involves more patient interaction but that really it? Thanks for any answers.
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*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?
CorrectSo during clinical research you're just basically applying whatever's been discovered in the laboratory to human beings?
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)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??
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.I want to treat patients, teach, as well as conduct hard scientific research
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?
If you choose the MD/PhD route plan on putting 80-90% of your time into research and 10-20% clinic/teaching.I want to treat patients, teach, as well as conduct hard scientific research
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.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.
yeah but Duke is a 4 year program. 3rd year is time to get research or get masters or do whatever really.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.
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 interestyeah but Duke is a 4 year program. 3rd year is time to get research or get masters or do whatever really.
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.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?
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?
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.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
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.
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).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?
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.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?