Models of physician-scientist success

[9732doc]

I find it instructive to look at numerous examples of individuals who are succeeding (however that's defined) and then try to glean some general principles on to achieve comparable success. This strategy has been very helpful to me as a trainee as I've made decisions about my science and continuing career paths I'm taking.

By model, I mean, the way someone organizes their scientific activity and the kinds of goals they pursue.

For example, one common model I see is where a physician-scientist is focused on a niche disease (very narrow scope) and then focuses his/her entire lab efforts on that disease. In this way, they have a hope of developing clinical competent in this narrow sphere AND they are sought after by the patients who have the usually rare illness that the doc is studying.

Another model I've seen is where someone, usually a surgeon or pathologist, has direct access to interesting and unique biospecimens from patients and this person then has a distinct competitive advantage scientifically.

I thought it would be useful to ask the group here to assemble a collective list of successful models. And, for each model, citing some specific individuals would be great too. Note: I'm leaving the definition of "success" intentionally vague so as to not bias toward certain examples or models. If you think someone is doing awesome, suggest it.

Edit: Some interesting related thoughts in this article:
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/...-21st-century?r3f_986=https://t.co/BZXb1gKzha

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lucca]

While I was at the NIH, I met Dr. Zaghloul, a neurosurgeon and tenure track faculty member in NINDS. He graduated from the Penn MSTP in 2003 and graduated residency in 2010 and became a PI in 2013 after doing an epilepsy fellowship and some postdoc research (so relatively recently, but not a freshly minted PI). I mentioned to him that I was considering MD/PhD (I was undecided at the time) and he had a lot of good advice and encouragement, as well as sobering words about the sacrifices, length of training, and competition. You can read about his research on his lab page but he described himself as a 100% physician scientist. He spends the majority of his effort on research, but the experiments and technology his group works on depends on data collected from patients during the surgeries he and his team perform. He is the first person I think of when I try to imagine a classical physician scientist, doing research related to the pts they see and treating pts with conditions specifically related to their research.

I also met Dr. Zimmerberg while I was there, who is a physician scientist (NICHD/DIR) but less traditional in that he only did 1 yr of residency (@washu) after completing his MD/PhD (Einstein) and then went into a first postdoc (Stanford) followed by a second (NIH, 1983) which led to his first faculty appt at the NIH and is essentially a 100% research-scientist (and a section chief) although he talked about some side projects he has at the Clinical Center involving pts with metabolic disorders. His group works on theoretical biophysics related to membrane fusion/fission/formation, membrane dynamics, surface catalysis, and electron microscopy (so pretty hardcore basic science). He is far more senior obviously than Dr. Zaghloul.

After that, I met many younger faculty on the interview trail (MD/PhD graduated from 2000 onwards, don't recall meeting with any MD-only scientists tbh but my interests are fairly technical so that might've biased the ppl I was introduced to). Unfortunately, so many I'd have to dig through my e-mail and interview day schedules to remember all of their names. I would say the majority of physician scientist PIs I met on the interview trail were either 100% research or mostly research and a lot of them remarked that to do the kind of science I wanted to do I may have to make a similar choice in the future.

 

[kepler16b]

While I was at the NIH, I met Dr. Zaghloul, a neurosurgeon and tenure track faculty member in NINDS. He graduated from the Penn MSTP in 2003 and graduated residency in 2010 and became a PI in 2013 after doing an epilepsy fellowship and some postdoc research (so relatively recently, but not a freshly minted PI). I mentioned to him that I was considering MD/PhD (I was undecided at the time) and he had a lot of good advice and encouragement, as well as sobering words about the sacrifices, length of training, and competition. You can read about his research on his lab page but he described himself as a 100% physician scientist. He spends the majority of his effort on research, but the experiments and technology his group works on depends on data collected from patients during the surgeries he and his team perform. He is the first person I think of when I try to imagine a classical physician scientist, doing research related to the pts they see and treating pts with conditions specifically related to their research.

I also met Dr. Zimmerberg while I was there, who is a physician scientist (NICHD/DIR) but less traditional in that he only did 1 yr of residency (@washu) after completing his MD/PhD (Einstein) and then went into a first postdoc (Stanford) followed by a second (NIH, 1983) which led to his first faculty appt at the NIH and is essentially a 100% research-scientist (and a section chief) although he talked about some side projects he has at the Clinical Center involving pts with metabolic disorders. His group works on theoretical biophysics related to membrane fusion/fission/formation, membrane dynamics, surface catalysis, and electron microscopy (so pretty hardcore basic science). He is far more senior obviously than Dr. Zaghloul.

After that, I met many younger faculty on the interview trail (MD/PhD graduated from 2000 onwards, don't recall meeting with any MD-only scientists tbh but my interests are fairly technical so that might've biased the ppl I was introduced to). Unfortunately, so many I'd have to dig through my e-mail and interview day schedules to remember all of their names. I would say the majority of physician scientist PIs I met on the interview trail were either 100% research or mostly research and a lot of them remarked that to do the kind of science I wanted to do I may have to make a similar choice in the future.

"To be a successful physician scientist in basic science, clinical practice has to be your hobby." - One of my interviewers at a T20 school.

He was basically saying that since you're competing against straight PhDs who devote 100% of their time to research, you can't dilute your time with too much clinical practice and still be successful. Interesting thoughts to chew on.

Another interviewer at that school told me that his clinical practice and research don't overlap much, but he loves both so he does both. I was happy to hear that as I don't have a clear vision of how my research will relate to clinical practice, but I know that I want to be trained in both.

FWIW my research is also highly technical, so I interviewed with primarily basic science researchers.

 

[Lucca]

"To be a successful physician scientist in basic science, clinical practice has to be your hobby." - One of my interviewers at a T20 school.

He was basically saying that since you're competing against straight PhDs who devote 100% of their time to research, you can't dilute your time with too much clinical practice and still be successful. Interesting thoughts to chew on.

Another interviewer at that school told me that his clinical practice and research don't overlap much, but he loves both so he does both. I was happy to hear that as I don't have a clear vision of how my research will relate to clinical practice, but I know that I want to be trained in both.

FWIW my research is also highly technical, so I interviewed with primarily basic science researchers.

Yes, I'm sure a version of this problem will arise over and over again in different forms throughout our careers. My attitude towards is that I love science and if I had to choose between 100% clinical and 100% research, I would choose research given the opportunity but I feel the MD/PhD training gives me the best possible training and chance to do exactly what I want to do so I'm going down that route. I'm sure many will disagree with that view and I think that's fine too. Like OP I don't think theres necessarily an ideal career path and we're all at least aware of the challenges of trying to do this.