Originally posted by derisivewords:
•One of my professors, who's also an MD/PhD, had some pretty nasty things to say about the MSTP program -- and I think he raises some good points. First and foremost, because there is so much new information, new data, new discoveries etc coming out, and since it's highly likely that this trend will only continue, it is extremely difficult for someone to read all the literature that is pertinant to his/her research, and that makes the life of a simple PhD professor rather hellish. Mind you, this professor I'm referring to is crazy ass brilliant, and even he can't keep up with all the new information. Also, as things become more and more specialized, collaboration and teamwork will become more and more the norm, people being experts in their specialized tasks and working together rather than a few MD/PhD super(wo)men doing everything. That being said, apparently there are whispers in academic circles saying that the NIH's original vision of what types of scientists the MD/PhD program is intended to create has failed, and that these super-scientist-doctors don't really exist because no one person has the time to do significant research, and apply the research to their practice. The NIH would never ever admit this of course 🙂
Anyway, for those future MSTPers, any rebuttal? 😛 •••
It sounds like your professor got the wrong idea about what MSTP is supposed to be about. Perhaps when he obtained his degrees they misled him, but I think that what he is talking about was never a stated goal of MD/PhD programs.
First off, it is true that there is so much new data and literature coming out that its hard to stay on top of it all. I would ask you this: Would it be easier to keep track of it with only an MD degree, which generally gets very little training in scientific research, or with both degrees, in which you get significant exposure to both clinical training and scientific research? I dont think anybody at the NIH ever said that if you had both degrees that you would be able to single handedly stay on top of every bit of research going on.
It sounds like your prof seems obsessively compelled to know absolutely everything about his field. Of course, this is a futile goal, no matter how many degrees you have. In med school, he probably got depressed if he got a single question wrong on his exams. It sounds to me like he is holding up MD/PhDs up to an extreme; more than anything the NIH claimed would be obtained from the dual degree programs.
I also dont think the stated goal of MD/PhD programs is to produce physician-scientists who HAVE to work independently. Clearly, collaboration is likely to increase as research becomes more complex and interdisciplinary. There is no rule stated in the MD/PhD programs that you are expected to stay locked up in your own little lab with no collaboration with others. Again, when your prof went thru med school, maybe things were different. I think the potential for collaboration with an MD/PhD program is there... if you want to take advantage of it. For example, since you will probably be working in a lab with other students there (med students, grad students, postdocs) the environment is rich for collaboration between research projects. You will likely have access to others who are NOT working on the same degree and thus have different career goals. In addition, you are very likely to have contact with people who look at their research in different ways. I dont understand why your prof seems to think that such an environment is unsupportive of collaborative efforts.
As for combining research and practice, I agree it is difficult. But I disagree that its not obtainable. I've met many doctor/scientists at my interviews who do both; their research is not lacking or subpar either. Do you have to work hard to get to that status? Absolutely, but thats also true for MDs who are trying to do research; thats not a problem thats unique ONLY to MD/PhDs.
Just from how you have described this particular prof, it sounds as if he was expecting an MD/PhD program to give him absolute knowledge of his field and the ability to do it all with no sacrifice in any of the areas he chose to pursue. I dont know where he got that idea, but thats not part of the ideology of the MD/PhD anymore - perhaps it was in the past. Clearly, thats not reality. Compromise is a part of a career as an MD/PhD, just as it is for any medical career.
