Original Research vs. NonOriginal Research

[maxi05]

Hi all,
I am new to SDN, so I am sorry if I do not get this right or this question has been asked recently. I was wondering if adcoms viewed an undergraduate doing original research (creating a hypothesis, carrying out the experiments, getting results, publishing, etc.) more highly than non-original research (a project they jumped on that their PI was conducting)?
The reason I ask is because I have done original research work. By the time I apply to medical school, I should have a first author abstract, national conference oral presentation, and thesis written on a research project that stemmed from my hypothesis. Additionally, I will most likely be submitting a first author pub during my gap year. My academic advisor told me that I should specify that it is original work and that it is important to do so, so I wanted other opinions? I do not want to come off on my application as annoying by specifying it as "original" if it is not necessary, especially because my PI is an essential part of me being able to conduct the research I want to do and realistically I would not be able to do it without him!
I do want to apply to competitive research schools (T10/T20) so I know how I display my research experiences will be important.

Thanks so much for your guys help!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ENZm3Qk5]

I would hesitate to call ongoing projects "non-original" research. I think that everybody starting in a lab, especially at the undergraduate level, begins here and they are still "original" projects because they are addressing gaps in current knowledge.

If you worked up to scientific independence, that's awesome and will for sure give you some brownie points during the application process. I think the fact that you have a thesis and first author abstract speak to your skills and initiative in research. However, I assume that your independent work is still related to the specific expertise of your lab/PI.

TL;DR: scientific independence (asking and testing your own questions) is admirable, let your qualifications/accomplishments speak for themselves. You will also have ample opportunities to get into the specifics of how you developed your project during interviews.

 

[maxi05]

I would hesitate to call ongoing projects "non-original" research. I think that everybody starting in a lab, especially at the undergraduate level, begins here and they are still "original" projects because they are addressing gaps in current knowledge.

If you worked up to scientific independence, that's awesome and will for sure give you some brownie points during the application process. I think the fact that you have a thesis and first author abstract speak to your skills and initiative in research. However, I assume that your independent work is still related to the specific expertise of your lab/PI.

TL;DR: scientific independence (asking and testing your own questions) is admirable, let your qualifications/accomplishments speak for themselves. You will also have ample opportunities to get into the specifics of how you developed your project during interviews.

Thanks for the response! Yes, you are correct, all projects are original. I am sorry, I am not familiar with the terminology so I was not sure how to differentiate between the two concepts I was talking about: I meant to differentiate between projects hypothesized by the undergraduate vs hypothesized by the PI.

Should I mention this scientific independence in my primary applications/secondaries, or simply list my research experiences and then bring up my route of thought/me creating the hypothesis if asked at interviews?

 

[ENZm3Qk5]

Thanks for the response! Yes, you are correct, all projects are original. I am sorry, I am not familiar with the terminology so I was not sure how to differentiate between the two concepts I was talking about: I meant to differentiate between projects hypothesized by the undergraduate vs hypothesized by the PI.

Should I mention this scientific independence in my primary applications/secondaries, or simply list my research experiences and then bring up my route of thought/me creating the hypothesis if asked at interviews?

No problem.

I mentioned that I started an independent project that led to an honors thesis/pubs in my application. If you have research as one of your most meaningful entries then add a few sentences about what you found and what you learned. It's impossible to fit everything so focus on the highlights.