MSTP with background in physics / computer science

[the_one_smiley]

I'm applying to MSTP for entry in 2005. I believe I have a somewhat unusual background for an MSTP applicant: I'm a physics major, I'm interested in theoretical and applied computer science, I write software and do programming contests, etc. I have some experience with research in genetics / microbiology, but even there I was solving problems using computer programs.

My question is, will this be an advantage or a disadvantage in the application process? In my experience, I can make significant contributions to research groups consisting mostly of people with more typical biology/genetics/physiology/other "wet" science backgrounds; my knowledge complements theirs and I bring a fresh perspective. This is how I plan on presenting myself during the interviews. Do you think the interviewers and admissions committees will see it the same way? I have the prerequisites, but I believe my knowledge of biological sciences will be a lot shallower than that of most applicants. Or am I totally wrong, in that people like me apply all the time?

Finally, can anyone recommend programs that are amenable to this "physics and computer science applied to biomedical research" objective? Places with strong departments in biophysics, medical imaging, and radiology are clear choices, any others?

Thanks in advance for all your help!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ManchotPi]

I'm applying to MSTP for entry in 2005. I believe I have a somewhat unusual background for an MSTP applicant: I'm a physics major, I'm interested in theoretical and applied computer science, I write software and do programming contests, etc. I have some experience with research in genetics / microbiology, but even there I was solving problems using computer programs.

My question is, will this be an advantage or a disadvantage in the application process? In my experience, I can make significant contributions to research groups consisting mostly of people with more typical biology/genetics/physiology/other "wet" science backgrounds; my knowledge complements theirs and I bring a fresh perspective. This is how I plan on presenting myself during the interviews. Do you think the interviewers and admissions committees will see it the same way? I have the prerequisites, but I believe my knowledge of biological sciences will be a lot shallower than that of most applicants. Or am I totally wrong, in that people like me apply all the time?

Finally, can anyone recommend programs that are amenable to this "physics and computer science applied to biomedical research" objective? Places with strong departments in biophysics, medical imaging, and radiology are clear choices, any others?

Thanks in advance for all your help!

 

[mjs]

smiley,

I PMed you

 

[dl2dp2]

most of what was posted is very true. I just want to point out that people who are in the quantitative fields are no longer considered to be "unusual" or "special", PARTICULARLY in MSTP. In fact, you'll find that a large percentage, if not the MAJORITY of your MSTP classmates come from a more "hard core" backgrounds such as physics, engineering, biochemistry, structural biology etc. Mathematical comeptence is pretty much assumed these days. And many, if not most of the power players (PIs) in biology often have very strong quantitative background. (Think Francis Crick, Walter Gilbert, etc etc) In fact, I see straight "wet" biology applicants are at a distinct disadvantage in applying MSTP, particularly when there are so many of them out there.

 

[Fermata]

There's a MD/PhD at UNC doing something similar right now.

 

[mjs]

I would say that in the lower 3 classes at Univ. of Washington, over half of the students are planning to pursue a PhD in which no small part of the work will be computational or engineering/physical science driven. In my class of 14 there are 3 engineers, a computational biologist (who worked at the HGP no less), a chemist, a statistician and one or two other folks who want to do at least a little computational work, My goal is to talk to these guys and gals enough to at least stay abreast in all of these worlds .

I would disagree with the wet scientists being at a disadvantage. I got snickered at for claiming work in metrials science was going to very rapidly gain recognition as valuable to biologists in the next five years and every day it's looking more and more like I'm right. I think there are places which recognize the value in a quantitative background and places that don't.

I think it's interesting to note that many of the labs where lots of ground breaking quantitative work occurs are run by MD/PhD PIs. Ex- Pat Brown, Lincoln Stein, countless others.

 

[the_one_smiley]

Thank you all for the excellent information. I'm glad to hear that quantitative and computational fields are well-represented in medical research.

ManchotPi: I'm similar to you in that I always knew I wanted to do medical research, but studied physics in college because physics is cool. So my research always had some remote connection to medicine, or at least to knowledge that might one day be conceivably useful in medicine =)

mjs: Thanks for the info and names, I will definately check it out!