PhD Pathology vs (MD/PhD or MD/Pathologist)

[FWB]

Hello SDN, been long time reader & first post here

Sorry if my question relates to a different forum.

I have a major in mathematics and computer science and I got deeply interested in natural sciences (research side) I found many roads that take to what I wish for (LAB LIFE with lots of microscopes and stuff). As I'm a computer programmer, I only like to keep creating products and not to treat patients if you see what I mean.. I like the idea of creating new medicinal solution or a cure for something but I'm not interested in working directly with patients so the PhD in pathology/clinical/medicine road attracted my attentions but some told me that if I get it through an MD degree I will have the right to do clinical interactions with patients which I'm not into by any means. what will be the benefit from getting to pathology via an MD degree while all what I care about is receiving the biopsies and bacteria to research on my own.

The question is this: If all what I'm interested in is the LAB and what's under the microscope in research mode.. is there any advantages an MD Pathologist has over me in terms of LAB work? is there a research related task that he can do and I can't ?

Thank you in advance.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mad Jack]

For lab work, an MD can perform initial processing and interpretation of patient specimens for research purposes. So if you want research on actual patients currently suffering from actual pathology, the MD would be useful in that regard. If you just want to do lab work, the real advantage of the MD is marketability- many fields have more PhDs than they need, but there aren't a whole lot of physician-scientists out there. However, if you don't want to deal with patients, med school and intern year will be hell, so I don't know if I could recommend that route to you.

 

[Lucca]

Hello SDN, been long time reader & first post here

Sorry if my question relates to a different forum.

I have a major in mathematics and computer science and I got deeply interested in natural sciences (research side) I found many roads that take to what I wish for (LAB LIFE with lots of microscopes and stuff). As I'm a computer programmer, I only like to keep creating products and not to treat patients if you see what I mean.. I like the idea of creating new medicinal solution or a cure for something but I'm not interested in working directly with patients so the PhD in pathology/clinical/medicine road attracted my attentions but some told me that if I get it through an MD degree I will have the right to do clinical interactions with patients which I'm not into by any means. what will be the benefit from getting to pathology via an MD degree while all what I care about is receiving the biopsies and bacteria to research on my own.

The question is this: If all what I'm interested in is the LAB and what's under the microscope in research mode.. is there any advantages an MD Pathologist has over me in terms of LAB work? is there a research related task that he can do and I can't ?

Thank you in advance.

There is no laboratory research related task -- or research task for that matter, other than directly operating on or treating patients -- that an MD can do that a PhD cannot. From what you have described here, a PhD would be more appropriate. The benefit of the MD path into this type of research is that if the research career does not pan out, full time clinical care is always an option. However, as you have stated, this is not really preferable if you have no interest or desire to treat patients.

 

[FWB]

For lab work, an MD can perform initial processing and interpretation of patient specimens for research purposes. So if you want research on actual patients currently suffering from actual pathology, the MD would be useful in that regard. If you just want to do lab work, the real advantage of the MD is marketability- many fields have more PhDs than they need, but there aren't a whole lot of physician-scientists out there. However, if you don't want to deal with patients, med school and intern year will be hell, so I don't know if I could recommend that route to you.

Thank you for your response, and yes many I know told me about many benefits of being an MD Pathologist instead. Well do you mean that I can only research some diseases IF and ONLY IF I can interact directly with that subject ? Some told me that as a PhD I can totally receive biopsies performed by other MD(ies) for me and I don't have to do it on my own but I will nonetheless have my hand on those Hysto/Cyto data in the lab you see? am I wrong ? Do I really need to go the MD route to do some skin analysis attended with a certain disease ?

 

[Mad Jack]

Thank you for your response, and yes many I know told me about many benefits of being an MD Pathologist instead. Well do you mean that I can only research some diseases IF and ONLY IF I can interact directly with that subject ? Some told me that as a PhD I can totally receive biopsies performed by other MD(ies) for me and I don't have to do it on my own but I will nonetheless have my hand on those Hysto/Cyto data in the lab you see? am I wrong ? Do I really need to go the MD route to do some skin analysis attended with a certain disease ?

You can get samples from the MDs, but it kind of leaves you at the mercy of finding a collaborator. Which isn't the worst, it's actually a pretty normal arrangement in translational research, but it is the reason why PhDs are somewhat more expendable than MDs- there's just less research-focused MDs to go around.

And before anyone says something, yeah, I know DOs can do path too lol

 

[FWB]

There is no laboratory research related task -- or research task for that matter, other than directly operating on or treating patients -- that an MD can do that a PhD cannot. From what you have described here, a PhD would be more appropriate. The benefit of the MD path into this type of research is that if the research career does not pan out, full time clinical care is always an option. However, as you have stated, this is not really preferable if you have no interest or desire to treat patients.

Lucca thanks.

Well I don't mind if the research route doesn't go well cause I'm software company owner and I make money from a completely different field than health care beside writing software for healthcare of course lol which was an amazing business for me. In fact if I get the PhD in pathology or related similar thing I'll be right into creating my own lab instead of being employed.. I stopped being an employee since ages now

 

[FWB]

You can get samples from the MDs, but it kind of leaves you at the mercy of finding a collaborator. Which isn't the worst, it's actually a pretty normal arrangement in translational research, but it is the reason why PhDs are somewhat more expendable than MDs- there's just less research-focused MDs to go around.

And before anyone says something, yeah, I know DOs can do path too lol

How about if I'm financially capable of creating my own Path lab (private lab) ? let me clarify more.. My aim is to learn how to create medicine that people buy in pharmacies.. I think that PhD in pathology can do that and if I succeed I'm about to start my own lab instead.

 

[Mad Jack]

How about if I'm financially capable of creating my own Path lab (private lab) ? let me clarify more.. My aim is to learn how to create medicine that people buy in pharmacies.. I think that PhD in pathology can do that and if I succeed I'm about to start my own lab instead.

Very hard to get the funding for such an endeavor, unless you already have a reputation as a superstar researcher.

 

[JustAPhD]

How about if I'm financially capable of creating my own Path lab (private lab) ? let me clarify more.. My aim is to learn how to create medicine that people buy in pharmacies.. I think that PhD in pathology can do that and if I succeed I'm about to start my own lab instead.

Way more complicated than just starting your own lab to do that. So is your end goal opening a company?

 

[FWB]

Very hard to get the funding for such an endeavor, unless you already have a reputation as a superstar researcher.

You didn't get me here !

I really mean it.. I own millions of dollars from my software company and I don't need any funding from anybody.

 

[FWB]

Way more complicated than just starting your own lab to do that. So is your end goal opening a company?

Exactly.. I wan't to start a lab that creates medicine that's it but I want to understand the what's going on so I want to learn it, the PhD will suffice and I don't need an MD.

 

[Mad Jack]

Exactly.. I wan't to start a lab that creates medicine that's it but I want to understand the what's going on so I want to learn it, the PhD will suffice and I don't need an MD.

You could achieve your goals with a PhD. You'll need a good idea and enough capital to make it happen, and even then, the average cost to bring a treatment to market is $2.6 billion, with most treatments ultimately never gaining FDA approval. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying know what you're getting into. This requires pockets that are deeper than all but the wealthiest of individuals possess.

 

[JustAPhD]

Exactly.. I wan't to start a lab that creates medicine that's it but I want to understand the what's going on so I want to learn it, the PhD will suffice and I don't need an MD.

Yes the PhD will suffice. It may also be worth it to brush up on the business side of things too. Some programs will let you get an MBA during the span of your PhD (might add a year onto your studies). Not entirely necessary but something to think about.

 

[FWB]

You could achieve your goals with a PhD. You'll need a good idea and enough capital to make it happen, and even then, the average cost to bring a treatment to market is $2.6 billion, with most treatments ultimately never gaining FDA approval. I'm not saying don't do it, I'm just saying know what you're getting into. This requires pockets that are deeper than all but the wealthiest of individuals possess.

Yes the PhD will suffice. It may also be worth it to brush up on the business side of things too. Some programs will let you get an MBA during the span of your PhD (might add a year onto your studies). Not entirely necessary but something to think about.

Thank you both for your answer and help.

Well I'm not aiming for umbrella corporation of course.. I have 3.x million on hand. I got informed somewhere and was told that I can commence as a third party lab and grow in 10 years to become main lab contractor but of course I'm not saying a multi billion dollar lab since day one neither 20 years from now but I like the idea and my software firm can generate enough to begin with.

I just wanted to know If the PhD pathology can put me on rails

Thanks

 

[kraskadva]

Thank you both for your answer and help.

Well I'm not aiming for umbrella corporation of course.. I have 3.x million on hand. I got informed somewhere and was told that I can commence as a third party lab and grow in 10 years to become main lab contractor but of course I'm not saying a multi billion dollar lab since day one neither 20 years from now but I like the idea and my software firm can generate enough to begin with.

I just wanted to know If the PhD pathology can put me on rails

Thanks

Dunno if you've ever priced lab equipment or have really looked into the drug design process, but 3mil won't go very far at all in starting up a lab, especially one for drug design that works with actual samples and not just computational modelling.

 

[FWB]

Dunno if you've ever priced lab equipment or have really looked into the drug design process, but 3mil won't go very far at all in starting up a lab, especially one for drug design that works with actual samples and not just computational modelling.

3 or 4 years from now till I get a PhD at least, besides what my firm will generate, I think I'll be able to settle some deal with the Bank. But Why are you thinking high-end multi-dimensional quantum mechanisms lol, Yeah I know some prices.. in fact some digestive machines can cost up to 4 million per piece I'm aware of this, a high-end microscope can cost up to 350K/450K dollar I know.. but as you can see I'm planning and gathering info and that's why I'm talking in SDN and doing research online. Be sure that if I see a huge constraint I'll stop.. my goal is not a fantasy but a desire to run such a lab and achieve a scientific invention using it and I wanted to know how I could reach that.. that's it.. and anyways I still thing is feasible.

 

[Sardinia]

You didn't get me here ! I really mean it.. I own millions of dollars from my software company and I don't need any funding from anybody.

 

[FWB]

@Sardinia,

as far as I know 3+ million dollars is money anyway unless you come from God knows where. I said that to clarify myself and my situation not to brag about anything. So if you have something useful to say, please say it and I'll thank you about it like the rest.

Your post is infantile.

 

[FWB]

If you mean a metaphor of a guy who thought himself rich but turned out to be out of place then apparently yeah I'm , Lab equipment are so expensive indeed.

 

[kraskadva]

3 or 4 years from now till I get a PhD at least, besides what my firm will generate, I think I'll be able to settle some deal with the Bank. But Why are you thinking high-end multi-dimensional quantum mechanisms lol, Yeah I know some prices.. in fact some digestive machines can cost up to 4 million per piece I'm aware of this, a high-end microscope can cost up to 350K/450K dollar I know.. but as you can see I'm planning and gathering info and that's why I'm talking in SDN and doing research online. Be sure that if I see a huge constraint I'll stop.. my goal is not a fantasy but a desire to run such a lab and achieve a scientific invention using it and I wanted to know how I could reach that.. that's it.. and anyways I still thing is feasible.

I'm not (to the bolded question). I'm thinking that I do the initial basic bench research that will (hopefully) eventually lead into drug design and that you don't really sound like you have any idea of what you're trying to get into, how the whole process works, or how much it costs. Not to shoot down dreams or anything like that, but you should do a lot more reading into the process before you try to head down that road.

For example, I research RNA secondary structures. These secondary structures can be drug targets for chemotherapeutics and will (hopefully) be taken by someone else, who then would design a drug to match that structure.
In my research (part-time, for my masters) over the last 2 years I've used ~50k in consumable supplies. The equipment that I use in my research (pipetmen, centrifuges, thermocycler, capillary electrophoresis, water purification system, autoclave, computers, freezer/fridge) comes to over 500K to purchase. And that's just to get the initial secondary structure. The tertiary structure would require extensive NMR work or cryo-EM, with either of those pieces of equipment coming in at a purchase price of easily 500K or more, and 50K+ per year to maintain and operate. Then you have a workable structure.
That structure would then need to be matched with a possible drug. The most effective way is with high throughput drug screening, but that's a multi-million dollar piece of equipment. Computer modelling is the cheapest way to start (just the price of the computer and the salary of the researcher), but then potential drug candidates need to be tested for effectiveness. Surface Plasmon Resonance would be a good choice here for measuring binding (300K for the equipment, $250/sample to run). Could also use NMR. Then have to test the effectiveness in vitro & in vivo. Cell culture is a good way to go (~1mil to set up, 50-75K a year to run, plus microscopy costs).
Then, if everything seems viable, you could move into clinical trials, starting with animal models and working up to people (100s of millions - billions for this process)

So my point is that you seem to have a pie in the sky idea of setting up your own lab to create drugs and bring them to market, and little to no awareness that 3mil is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of actually doing that. Which is why you pretty much never see individuals doing this. You work within an organization (either academia or industry) that will foot the bill for these major pieces of equipment to be shared by multiple researchers. OR you set up a lab that specializes in doing one small piece of that process, and help other researchers move their projects forward. Because unless you're a multi-billionaire, you can't afford to do all of it on your own. And no degree (MD or PhD) will give you the training to do all aspects of that process.

 

[FWB]

you don't really sound like you have any idea of what you're trying to get into

Of course I don't, for now I'm just a computer programmer with some potential and a little bit of cash; I have a will but I'm not arrogant and I'm getting educated about the whole subject bit by bit as I can.. and thank you so much for the insight. your message is well informative.

@kraskadva how about genetics(dna research/mutation/etc..) using animals.. how much would that cost for a fully fledged production ready laby ?

 

[kraskadva]

Of course I don't, for now I'm just a computer programmer with some potential and a little bit of cash; I have a will but I'm not arrogant and I'm getting educated about the whole subject bit by bit as I can.. and thank you so much for the insight. your message is well informative.

@kraskadva how about genetics(dna research/mutation/etc..) using animals.. how much would that cost for a fully fledged production ready laby ?

It would depend on the animal model and what you wanted to do with it. A lot of initial genetics research is actually done in fruit flies because they're cheaper. To set up the fly part of the lab would probably be in the 200K neighborhood, if you went with budget equipment and not top of the line, and ~30K a year to maintain. But that's just the flies, not the cost of the space or the lab equipment.
A mouse lab would run probably 2 mil easily to start, and then is in the 50K+/year neighborhood to maintain (feed, licensing, replacement mice) for a small-ish setup. But again, not counting space and lab equipment costs.
For basic genetics research, you could do most of it with: pipetmen, thermocycler, centrifuges, gel boxes, gel imager, microwave, fridge/freezer, incubator, shaker, computer. All together that equipment would be in the 200K neighborhood, plus ~100K a year in consumables for an active, but small-ish lab. Some aspects (sequencing, heavy biochemical tests, structural analysis) would have to be outsourced.
So with that you can do basic bench research, maybe find some mutations or interesting genetic loci, and then hand it off to the next person who would take your findings to the next level.

At my school, there's a genetics lab (fly lab) that does this. They found the interesting mutation, ran some of the in vitro/in vivo mutation analysis, and came up with a hypothesis about the role of the mRNA in a particular pathway. I am part of their outsourcing, in that I do the structure analysis of their mRNA, give them back data that they use to refine their hypothesis and perform more mutation studies in vitro/vivo. Then they send it back to me for further structural analysis and we repeat.
Their lab was ~200K to set up, plus ~5mil in equipment that the school bought for "departmental" use, but is mainly theirs, and they spend ~100K a year in consumables and summer research stipends. So most of the labor is free (undergrads and grad students) and the major pieces [confocal microscope, capillary electrophoresis (that I also use), environmental chamber, microinjector, fume hoods, etc.] were underwritten by the university. Without those big pieces, they would have had to outsource a lot more, or beg time at another university lab nearby, or not have gotten as far in the last 5 years with results as they have.
It's a long, time/money intensive process. And remember that we are working on a single mRNA to get it's structure/function relationship established. We will not be developing any drugs for it and we will not make any money off the endeavor (beyond faculty salaries & summer research student stipends). The biggest reward we will all get out of this is publication, and academic advancement (tenure for faculty, grad/professional school acceptance for students).

I do know a few (very few) scientists who make money off their research. But they are the ones who rose through academia, piggy-backed off institutional funding to develop a drug or technique, had the bright idea (and legal latitude) to patent that discovery (some universities/companies won't let you do this independently), and then were able to either get the loans to start a production company or sold the patent rights to pharma.
But those people all had a particular combination of chemical brilliance, fortuitous placement (at universities/companies with the equipment they needed and that let them go independent), and opportune timing with both the open market and the race to discovery (nobody beat them to publication/patent). It doesn't happen for the vast majority of researchers.

 

[JustAPhD]

So it sounds to me like you're still way early in the process and you really need to gain experience before deciding what path to pursue. Why do you want to start your own lab rather than just be a PI at either an existing company or in academia? I'm not seeing any compelling reasons that tell me that you would be better off founding a company/lab rather than doing the above.

The poster above has done a good job showing how expensive this process is. In all likelihood you will be much more productive and successful by not founding your own company.

 

[Goro]

PhD all the way, baby.

Hello SDN, been long time reader & first post here

Sorry if my question relates to a different forum.

I have a major in mathematics and computer science and I got deeply interested in natural sciences (research side) I found many roads that take to what I wish for (LAB LIFE with lots of microscopes and stuff). As I'm a computer programmer, I only like to keep creating products and not to treat patients if you see what I mean.. I like the idea of creating new medicinal solution or a cure for something but I'm not interested in working directly with patients so the PhD in pathology/clinical/medicine road attracted my attentions but some told me that if I get it through an MD degree I will have the right to do clinical interactions with patients which I'm not into by any means. what will be the benefit from getting to pathology via an MD degree while all what I care about is receiving the biopsies and bacteria to research on my own.

The question is this: If all what I'm interested in is the LAB and what's under the microscope in research mode.. is there any advantages an MD Pathologist has over me in terms of LAB work? is there a research related task that he can do and I can't ?

Thank you in advance.

 

[FWB]

It would depend on the animal model and what you wanted to do with it. A lot of initial genetics research is actually done in fruit flies because they're cheaper. To set up the fly part of the lab would probably be in the 200K neighborhood, if you went with budget equipment and not top of the line, and ~30K a year to maintain. But that's just the flies, not the cost of the space or the lab equipment.
A mouse lab would run probably 2 mil easily to start, and then is in the 50K+/year neighborhood to maintain (feed, licensing, replacement mice) for a small-ish setup. But again, not counting space and lab equipment costs.
For basic genetics research, you could do most of it with: pipetmen, thermocycler, centrifuges, gel boxes, gel imager, microwave, fridge/freezer, incubator, shaker, computer. All together that equipment would be in the 200K neighborhood, plus ~100K a year in consumables for an active, but small-ish lab. Some aspects (sequencing, heavy biochemical tests, structural analysis) would have to be outsourced.
So with that you can do basic bench research, maybe find some mutations or interesting genetic loci, and then hand it off to the next person who would take your findings to the next level.

At my school, there's a genetics lab (fly lab) that does this. They found the interesting mutation, ran some of the in vitro/in vivo mutation analysis, and came up with a hypothesis about the role of the mRNA in a particular pathway. I am part of their outsourcing, in that I do the structure analysis of their mRNA, give them back data that they use to refine their hypothesis and perform more mutation studies in vitro/vivo. Then they send it back to me for further structural analysis and we repeat.
Their lab was ~200K to set up, plus ~5mil in equipment that the school bought for "departmental" use, but is mainly theirs, and they spend ~100K a year in consumables and summer research stipends. So most of the labor is free (undergrads and grad students) and the major pieces [confocal microscope, capillary electrophoresis (that I also use), environmental chamber, microinjector, fume hoods, etc.] were underwritten by the university. Without those big pieces, they would have had to outsource a lot more, or beg time at another university lab nearby, or not have gotten as far in the last 5 years with results as they have.
It's a long, time/money intensive process. And remember that we are working on a single mRNA to get it's structure/function relationship established. We will not be developing any drugs for it and we will not make any money off the endeavor (beyond faculty salaries & summer research student stipends). The biggest reward we will all get out of this is publication, and academic advancement (tenure for faculty, grad/professional school acceptance for students).

I do know a few (very few) scientists who make money off their research. But they are the ones who rose through academia, piggy-backed off institutional funding to develop a drug or technique, had the bright idea (and legal latitude) to patent that discovery (some universities/companies won't let you do this independently), and then were able to either get the loans to start a production company or sold the patent rights to pharma.
But those people all had a particular combination of chemical brilliance, fortuitous placement (at universities/companies with the equipment they needed and that let them go independent), and opportune timing with both the open market and the race to discovery (nobody beat them to publication/patent). It doesn't happen for the vast majority of researchers.

@kraskadva Thank you so much for taking the time in writing and explaining all of that to me I really thank you for it. I spent the whole night researching some of it by the way.
Anyways, I need to focus on which way to go first. Some asked me about why I wanted to pursue another degree while I have a running company based on another lol, the decision came from a computer programmer's mentality, I hate managing something that I don't/can't understand and when I wished for running my own lab I started looking around for the necessary skill @kraskadva Thank you again.

 

[FWB]

So it sounds to me like you're still way early in the process and you really need to gain experience before deciding what path to pursue. Why do you want to start your own lab rather than just be a PI at either an existing company or in academia? I'm not seeing any compelling reasons that tell me that you would be better off founding a company/lab rather than doing the above.

The poster above has done a good job showing how expensive this process is. In all likelihood you will be much more productive and successful by not founding your own company.

@JustAPhD, I've been running my own business for a very long time now and I don't think that I'll be capable to work as an employee while owning a (moral person) apart at least from a legal perspective in where I live And aside from that, even those BigPharma/Corpo started small one day remember ? not really small to the -5 mill size but anyway.

 

[Mad Jack]

@JustAPhD, I've been running my own business for a very long time now and I don't think that I'll be capable to work as an employee while owning a (moral person) apart at least from a legal perspective in where I live And aside from that, even those BigPharma/Corpo started small one day remember ? not really small to the -5 mill size but anyway.

Most of these companies were founded in decades past when there weren't the rigorous standards that currently exist for drug testing and development, nor was such expensive and extensive technology required. The small startup biotech companies usually start off as college research projects that get spun off and paid for by venture capitalists, but still start within the framework of academia. On the corporate side, it's largely only the giants that have the cash for development.