B
b&ierstiefel
Let's discuss.
Let's discuss.
It was written by a very eminent RO1 funded investigator at MIT.very good article
it would be interesting to know who wrote the article; R01 funded vs. nonR01 funded researcher. i would give it more weight if it were the former.
Although I was cognizant of this, this fact is quite unsettling, especially in the context of the relative paucity of NIH funds now.i especially like the comment of people becoming fully independent by their 40s/50s, long after their peak creativity has passed. just from my experience, it's uncommon for people later in their careers to revolutionize science when compared to their earlier years. e.g. most nobel winners are recognized only decades after their initial discovery was made. another thing is that young researchers are inherently more energetic than their older counterparts...so why not award their energy and creativity.
Seriously, I'm starting to think that being a martyr and a representative for a dying breed just isn't worth it. We only live once. We might as well be happy. I love science. I would be happy to do science but with all that is going on now with decreasing incentives to go into science, I'm not sure if I would still be happy.we will lose our coveted place in the scientific community if NIH funding is not rectified. what BRIGHT person, as the article states, wants to voluntarily suffer for science?
It has always been difficult to effectively combine clinical and basic research work. There are a special rare breed of folks who have been successful at this. And they are praised not because of how good of clinicians they are but they are praised for mainly two things: (a) their research accomplishments and (b) how they were able to balance their professional lives with their family lives. Most of us who go through MD/PhD programs are told that it is more feasible to focus on one or the other as we don't want to be doing half-assed jobs in both. Hence, the whole notion of doing 50% clinical and 50% research is laughable. Many MD/PhD students envision doing 90% research and 10% clinical (i.e., minimizing clinical duties so that they can stay on the top of their game in research and compete with all the PhD folks who do 100% research). But as you say, PathOne, even this will get harder, especially in pathology. Perhaps that is why I was told by multiple folks, during the interview trail, that it is essentially impractical to think that I would be a researcher and a general surgical pathologist diagnostician at the same time.Unfortunately, I believe that it will be increasingly difficult to combine clinical and basic research work. Either field simply requires so much time and energy to stay on top, that it simply becomes too difficult to do both. Personally, I have given up on basic sci almost completely, but continue to do translational and clinically relevant research. If I look at melanomas every day, it makes sense that I'll try out some new IHC stains or molecular techniques on them to try to find better diagnostic markers, but I really can't find the time to start examining pathways and the molecular biology of the lil' critters.
Hmm...the group B is the one that intrigues me the most. Are there really people out there like this? I haven't encountered this group of people.PathOne said:I also note a distinct grouping among Residents (although I don't think there's anything new in that):
Group A: Research? No way.
Group B: I gotta do Research. To get that great Residency/Attending spot. But once I'm there, goodbye research.
Group C: Academic medicine is cool. And I believe it's called "Medical Science" for a reason, so I'll like to do my part as a physician-scientist.
Group D: Yeah, I've got that MD, but I never want to see the inside of a hospital. I'm pure research.
Don't want to give percentages, but it's fairly obvious that A are the most common, and D the rarest. It would be nice to have a lot of C's, but, for reasons cited above, I think they're the group likely to decrease the most.
Seriously, I'm starting to think that being a martyr and a representative for a dying breed just isn't worth it. We only live once. We might as well be happy. I love science. I would be happy to do science but with all that is going on now with decreasing incentives to go into science, I'm not sure if I would still be happy.
The folks who advocate a career in science invariably say that people who go into science do it because they love it. Yeah, but we need a little more incentives here...and they're vanishing!
One of the things I like about path is that the distinction between good translational research and basic science research is fairly blurry. I think there are elements in pathology that are hostile or indifferent to anything that isn't morphologic diagnosis, but the fact is, if pathologists don't find ways to bring new research and new technologies into practice, someone else will. The H&E slide may not be going anywhere in the next 100 years, but academic path needs to keep pushing the envelope if they expect to keep attracting good people to the field, and you can't do that without solid basic science programs.
another thing is that young researchers are inherently more energetic than their older counterparts...so why not award their energy and creativity
Say what?
Ohhh, you have no IDEA how valuable that tissue will truly become. Currently, tissue banks are mostly cubic zirconia, with a few rubies here and there (main problem is the tradition of soaking everything in paraffin, which makes RNA and DNA extraction a bit*h, or even impossible.)
HOWEVER, if everybody started a comprehensive frozen fresh tissue bank, as we're currently planning to do, then you'd have a pure goldmine on your hands, and every molec guy/gal wanting to be your friend.
Heck, if I could charge for access to -my- fresh tissue bank, I'd be looking for that fourth vacation home in no time. Unless you've tried it, you have no idea how bad the vast majority of molecular labs really need tissue. (actually, I've already started a pilot fresh frozen bank, and FedEx is very happy, due to the requests already pouring in).
A quick comment about these mega labs. These labs are virtual postdoc factories where the PI is looking out for him/herself. Mentoring is minimal and you're basically on your own. In many of these labs, the PIs put a few postdocs on the same project and the postdoc who finishes the project first gets full credit. It's a kill or be killed kind of environment. So although, the # of postdocs may be excessive, these labs do foster "natural selection". A good number of postdocs will bite the dust and they will go nowhere. As for grant committes, I think the bigger issue is politics rather than the presence of incompetent people on these committes. Young PI's frequently get their first or first few grants rejected because they don't have enough experience writing grants and because of political associations (or lack thereof).Yeah, I remember that piece from Cell...and it is very true. I think there are several problems. First, there are way too many scientists for the amount of available funding. Getting into a PhD program and getting a PhD used to be alot tougher than it is today. Now, they are given out like candy at alot of institutions, and then many of these so called scientists go do post-docs at big time, well funded mega labs that produce Cell and Nature papers virtually every time they publish. They all go on to get faculty positions. Now, instead of three people studying some oncogenic pathway there are 30 people working on it. The funding has not kept up good enough with inflation let alone this rapid spike in scientists over the past 1-2 decades. This not only makes it harder to get noticed as a young researcher in this vast pool of people, this also puts many incompetent people on grant committees that reject good grants (and papers) by young PIs out of sheer ignorance or spite.
I've thought about this so many times. The MD gives us something to fall back on. And to maintain the clinical skills, we insist on doing more training and clinical responsibilities. This is a potential pitfall because whatever time we devote to clinical work, the research suffers. Hence, you're already starting off on a negative mindset...instead of thinking, "This is what I will do when I succeed at the bench", we think about what we will do should the research fail. The research world is quite interesting because of the inherent instability in the system. The investigator is always under constant pressure. Produce, produce, produce! Publish in high level journals. Get more grant funding (much of the overhead which goes to the department) to increase the legitimacy and likelihood for getting tenure. This puts increasing pressure to focus more on the research and negotiate a decrease on the clinical work. For instance, people who get Howard Hughes investigator awards use this as political leverage to say, in essence, "You know what? I want even less clinical responsibilities and because I'm a fancy pants HHMI investigator who's bringing in a lot of money, you can't make me do that much clinical work." But this whole thing only serves to add more fuel to our fire of insecurity because of the little annoying question that lingers in the back of our minds, "But what if all this research goes to ****?"Second, everything is getting super specialized in medicine as mentioned by others in this thread. This means that in order to both practice and do research, now you have to superspecialize in both. For instance, you do your research on your favorite lymphoma, and all you sign out clinically is some heme and nothing else. However, in pathology this road puts you in a particularly bad situation because you basically pigeon hole yourself into a corner that you cannot escape. By soley focusing on whatever super-specialty you choose, you lose your general path diagnositic skills and/or your CP covering abilities. So, if you flunk at research, don't get tenured, etc, you are utterly screwed because you'll never be able to find a job outside of academics, where you have already been fed to the lions. I think many residents realize this and it scares them off, rightfully so.
Absolutely! Residency is about learning diagnostic skills, no more or no less. If one is not going to take this duty seriously, one is wasting his/her time where he/she could or should have instead just gone straight into postdoc after med school. I've realized this about a year into residency...you're not gonna have any meaningful time to do research so focus on the diagnostic side and develop it to its fullest potential.I think one way to go is to really focus on your diagnostic skills during the first 3.5 years of residency and nothing else other than trying to keep up with science in your spare time. You've GOT to be able to practice, I don't care if your dead set on research or not. The MD is a perfect fall back option, but you have to be able to use it.
See, this abstract 70/30 split is good but comes at the WRONG time. When you start out as faculty, you need to recruit good people into your lab so that your own lab can be strong. Ideas and grants need to be developed. Establishing credentials to make the case for promotion from assistant prof to associate prof are of greatest importance here. In this context, 30% clinical work becomes too taxing and distracting.Finally, in getting a faculty position you should only look for places that will not pigeon hole you into only signing out only specialty cases. Find a place that will allow you to do some general sign out (time should be roughly 70lab/30signout), at least during the beginning of your career.
Even CP only...what's the point of doing CP only, I wonder? CP only folks don't have much of a fallback option. I posit that some of these folks just do this residency just for the sake of doing a residency but they're not really into this and just can't wait to get back into lab. This subset of folks should not be in residency in the first place.In fact, I would be willing to bet that these "typeC" applicants are what alot of academic residencies are looking for. People who are confident enough that they will succeed in pure research should just do a post-doc, no reason to go into residency IMO (exception being CP-only).
So here's an article I stumbled on a year ago...
Hmm...the group B is the one that intrigues me the most. Are there really people out there like this? I haven't encountered this group of people.
Are you sure you were MD/PhD????
It seems like most of them come out this way, although they don't intend to. They just get burned out by research and never want to see a pipet again. Of course, most of these folks don't go into Path. They seem to end up in surgical specialties.
/or were you being sarcastic???
I've seen the data through my contacts at the NIH and this simply isn't true. A young PI who submits a quality project is more likely than anyone but a graduate and/or medical student to have their research funded. Most grad programs require their students take courses in grant writing, thus the success so many have in being awarded grants. Personally, I've never known an MD only student to take a grant writing class in medical school (not saying it doesn't happen) so I wonder where could MD only student learn how to write a good grant?Young PI's frequently get their first or first few grants rejected because they don't have enough experience writing grants and because of political associations (or lack thereof).
Just a couple observations from the 'trenches":First, there are way too many scientists for the amount of available funding. Getting into a PhD program and getting a PhD used to be alot tougher than it is today. Now, they are given out like candy at alot of institutions, and then many of these so called scientists go do post-docs at big time, well funded mega labs that produce Cell and Nature papers virtually every time they publish. They all go on to get faculty positions. ).
When you say young researcher, are you talking about a PhD, an MD, or and MD/PhD "young" researcher? My contacts at the NIH/NCI tell me the reason why many MD only's don't get funding is due to the poor quality of the projects they submit which honestly shouldn't be suprising. Medical school trains you to be a clinician not to conduct research.This not only makes it harder to get noticed as a young researcher in this vast pool of people, this also puts many incompetent people on grant committees that reject good grants (and papers) by young PIs out of sheer ignorance or spite.
Well that goes without saying. BUT, look through the data and see who gets their grants rejected more often...I've seen the data, and just due to sheer inexperience, the young investigator's grant gets canned. Why? Because grant writing workshops teach you the basic backbone of the grant application. But it doesn't teach you the "inside tricks". For instance, did you know that you can find out who is likely to be on review committees? All it takes is a phone call or two. The more established investigators who are familiar with many more investigators can twist things in their grant application increase the likelihood of getting a higher score. The younger investigator is not likely to know all these tricks and are therefore at a disadvantage. Sure, if there is a smoking gun application from a young PI, then fine, he/she will get it accepted. But more often than not, the young PI should be prepared to submit a few grants and going through more involved revisions before getting that first RO1. I think your bolded statement is true but bit idealistic. If X = # quality grants from young investigators / total # young investigators and Y = # quality grants from senior investigators / total # senior investigators, Y is greater than X. I'm making a relative statement.I've seen the data through my contacts at the NIH and this simply isn't true. A young PI who submits a quality project is more likely than anyone but a graduate and/or medical student to have their research funded. Most grad programs require their students take courses in grant writing, thus the success so many have in being awarded grants. Personally, I've never known an MD only student to take a grant writing class in medical school (not saying it doesn't happen) so I wonder where could MD only student learn how to write a good grant?
Well, nobody actually GIVES PhD's away like candy, of course. But the attrition rate is quite low. For instance, take the grad student who works in the lab for 8 years without any publications. That student should not get a PhD. But graduate departments will frequently just give them the PhD just to get rid of them. Now, at the same time, the attrition rates for med schools are quite low...it takes effort to flunk out and not get the MD, it seemsJust a couple observations from the 'trenches":
1) I can't think of one single program where PhD's are "given away". IMHO, if getting a PhD were so easy I think there would be more MD/PhD graduates.
Sure makes the supply : demand ratio wacked! You're right, it is harder (not impossible) to get into one of these power labs as an American PhD...because the quality of your graduate work is more likely to be scrutinized by these PI's (remember, they don't need you...you need them!). Hence, this furthers the "natural selection" a bit; i.e., the guy with multiple publications in a 4 year grad school stint is more likely to get accepted into one of these labs over the 8th year grad student without any publications. Then the game intensifies once you're in this power lab environment because then you put these smart people together and stick 3 of them on the same project...and then the little game ensues where the PI says, "look to your right and to your left...FIGHT!...morrrrtallll kommmmbatttttt!"2) Getting a post doc in a well funded lab at a big time University isn't easy from what I've seen either due in large part I think to the large influx of foreign PhD's who are more than willing to do twice the work for half the pay.
Yeah, I've got this article hanging on my bulletin board too.. it's nice to know there are still some of us reading Cell.
There are far more programs with "seed money" for beginning investigators than there are for "established" ones. And the acceptance rates for young investigators is higher. I bolded the statement in my original post because even I with no Dr in front of my name, can't believe some of the things folks try to get away with in some of these grant proposals.I think your bolded statement is true but bit idealistic. If X = # quality grants from young investigators / total # young investigators and Y = # quality grants from senior investigators / total # senior investigators, Y is greater than X. I'm making a relative statement.!"
I don't know if I think a person who takes 8 years to finish a PhD shouldn't be allowed to finish because I getting 1) Getting a PhD is so subjective 2) Getting published is dam subjective. I also think the reason it takes 8 years has absolutely nothing to do with the "quality" of those who pursue PhD's. It's because the PI needs the cheap labor.Well, nobody actually GIVES PhD's away like candy, of course. But the attrition rate is quite low. For instance, take the grad student who works in the lab for 8 years without any publications. That student should not get a PhD. But graduate departments will frequently just give them the PhD just to get rid of them. Now, at the same time, the attrition rates for med schools are quite low...it takes effort to flunk out and not get the MD, it seems !"
I know, right?Then the game intensifies once you're in this power lab environment because then you put these smart people together and stick 3 of them on the same project...and then the little game ensues where the PI says, "look to your right and to your left...FIGHT!...morrrrtallll kommmmbatttttt!"
Are you sure you were MD/PhD????
It seems like most of them come out this way, although they don't intend to. They just get burned out by research and never want to see a pipet again. Of course, most of these folks don't go into Path. They seem to end up in surgical specialties.
/or were you being sarcastic???
Dork.
There was a point in my not too distant past when that I thought that ANY MD/PhD who didn't spend some time doing research was a sell out. Not anyomore. There is no "loyalty" to anything anymore as far as I'm concerned, other than to your family.I'm trying to just consider the MD/PhDs in my own program.
Last year: One pure academician, one who went private for big money.
Current 4th years: Three of them. All going private. Two of them haven't even done any projects during their training.
Current 3rd years: One, who is CP only and research bound.
Out of this n of 7, only two academicians among them.
They are sellouts! Just kidding.There was a point in my not too distant past when that I thought that ANY MD/PhD who didn't spend some time doing research was a sell out. Not anyomore. There is no "loyalty" to anything anymore as far as I'm concerned, other than to your family.
Still I think in 20 to 30 years down the line, we're going "to pay" for not making a career in scientific research more attractive.
Takes one to know one.
ZING!!!!
Get back to runnin those bowels autopsy boy.
You two have to engage in verbal fistacuffs on SDN? But you guys are at the same institution, same department. Can't you just razz each other in person? Or perhaps you can resort to send prank pages, or maybe even email?
P.S. Do you guys actually run the bowel as in cleaning the ****? Or does someone else scoop the **** out and then you examine the cleansed bowel walls? Oh yeah, I heard some institutions require one to find all 4 parathyroids during the autopsy? Do you guys have to go through that miserable exercise?
You two have to engage in verbal fistacuffs on SDN? But you guys are at the same institution, same department. Can't you just razz each other in person? Or perhaps you can resort to send prank pages, or maybe even email?
P.S. Do you guys actually run the bowel as in cleaning the ****? Or does someone else scoop the **** out and then you examine the cleansed bowel walls? Oh yeah, I heard some institutions require one to find all 4 parathyroids during the autopsy? Do you guys have to go through that miserable exercise?
Well, some of us are actually working this month on surg path (me) and some of us are spending our days eating outside in the beautiful weather over on the Corner (not me), so I have to get my digs in whenever possible.
As for your other questions:
-Yeah, in general, the secondary resident on a case will take care of the bowel while the primary resident is paying attention to the in situ exam and pitching in with the evisceration. I've developed a pretty good system that allows me to have the bowel run in just a couple minutes, so it's not too big a deal.
-The director of Autopsy pays us 5 bucks for every parathyroid candidate that actually turns out to be a parathyroid. Personally, I still don't spend much (any) time looking for them, b/c I just want to get the case over as quickly as possible (so that I too can go for two hour lunch breaks over on the Corner).
I hate when the original cyst measurements don't get noted down on the bucket.Yeah, the tissue procurement folks are always circling like vultures. Heck, when a frozen hits the window, tissue procurement knows before I do. I like to make'em sweat by acting like I'm dunking everything in formalin. "Oops! You really wanted a piece of that super rare tumor that we get once a year?"
it's difficult enough doing "little r" research of the USCAP variety and attempting to get it published during residency, without taking on the basic science monster. The majority of residents I know who present at path meetings do it so that they can travel to conferences for free, and because they think it's important for fellowships, or maybe because an attending had a bee in their bonnet one afternoon - not necessarily out of the desire to do research.
Frankly, as an interested eavesdropping vanilla MD, it's difficult enough doing "little r" research of the USCAP variety and attempting to get it published during residency, without taking on the basic science monster. The majority of residents I know who present at path meetings do it so that they can travel to conferences for free, and because they think it's important for fellowships, or maybe because an attending had a bee in their bonnet one afternoon - not necessarily out of the desire to do research.
Overheard: "If I wanted to work so hard, I would have gone into surgery."