PhDs vs. MDs - who's more knowledgable?

[rocketbooster]

For example,
do you think a basic scientist with a PhD in ophthalmology is more knowledge than an MD ophthalmologist? Just wondering because most of our 1st 2 years are taught by PhDs, not MDs. Obviously it's flipped during the last 2 clinical years. If you ever have convos with MDs about basic science, you'd be surprised how much they have forgotten or seemingly outdated since basic science advances so quickly. The PhDs also teach our anatomy labs, teach us about different procedural techniques in lecture, etc.

Now, I know having the knowledge is different than having the practice of actually performing procedures on real patients. I'm sure part of the reason why I think PhDs are more knowledgeable is because I have not began clinical years. That's why I'm asking ppl's opinions on here. It would seem that PhDs could more easily adapt to a clinical setting than a MD could adapt to a research lab setting since the PhDs have the knowledge but just need the practice. The MDs are lacking the core knowledge in many cases due to years of only practicing the same procedure over and over and X amount of years since they had their basic sciences in med school.

What do you think?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[adaptation1]

we had a path review session where an md went over questions written by a ph.d. the md just kept on saying, "obviously the writer of these questions has no clinical experience. the cases just don't present like this, and are never this textbook." experience in dealing with real-life problems does account for something, that is, practical knowledge.

 

[rocketbooster]

we had a path review session where an md went over questions written by a ph.d. the md just kept on saying, "obviously the writer of these questions has no clinical experience. the cases just don't present like this, and are never this textbook." experience in dealing with real-life problems does account for something, that is, practical knowledge.

I agree with you, but like I said, I feel a PhD with the core textbook knowledge could more easily adapt to the clinical setting than a MD lacking much core basic science knowledge in a research lab.

 

[DrYoda]

Depends what we're talking about. I'd say in general PhDs will beat MDs in the narrow subject matter relating to their area of expertise/research. In breadth of knowledge I'm going to say MDs win on average.

A good MD also keeps up on progressions in their field btw.

 

[isoquin]

I think that's a rather broad generalization you're asking there. It's like asking whether fruits or veggies are "better." Are we talking asparagus or brussel sprouts? Avocados or peaches?

There are a number of reasons why PhDs teach preclinical years, including but not limited to timing, knowledge on the basic sciences topics, greater experience with the underlying theory, etc. How many surgeons remember the Krebs cycle? (or 4th year med students for that matter)

I think it's a bit shortsighted to assume PhDs can adapt to the clinical setting better than MDs can adapt to learning basic science, but you acknowledged your lack of clinical training. While it may seem that clinical knowledge is simply putting basic science into use, it's not that simple. It's one thing to understand how epinephrine works, but how much do you give during asystole? You can understand the concepts of ventilation, but can you intubate? What is first line therapy for high blood pressure, and at what dose?

Understanding of the concepts is at the core of practical use, but you still need to learn a lot about the practical use itself. Hope this gave a bit of a different perspective. Wait and see. =)

 

[Siverhideo1985]

This question is obsolete until you assign a scale or parameters based on which you want to judge each degree on.

Besides, what are you hoping to get out of this thread besides re-visiting the old SDN controversy over who's superio: an MD or PhD?

 

[abcxyz0123]

easy to answer: MD. an md graduate can do anything that an MD or a PhD can do (ie they can completely throw away the idea of becoming a clinician and do full time basic science research). A PhD graduate cannot say the same.

 

[jdh71]

I agree with you, but like I said, I feel a PhD with the core textbook knowledge could more easily adapt to the clinical setting than a MD lacking much core basic science knowledge in a research lab.

You'd be wrong.

There's a reason there is two clinical years in medical school followed by residency and often fellowship. A PhD stepping into the clinical environment would be completely out of his element (call him Donny)

Working in a lab does have it's own skill sets unique to assays being used in the lab, but that's not difficult to pick up. Writing grant proposals? Time consuming but the process can be learned easily enough. What MDs need to know about research can be picked up easily enough during advanced training with the right mentorship.

I'm not disparaging the PhDs and what they do - god bless them - but it's MUCH easier for the MD to move to the bench then it would be for the PhD to try and move to the clinical.

 

[Nasrudin]

Agree with these posts.

The methods of knowledge are just completely different. I hate phd lectures. F'n HATE them.

But I never think that they don't have expertise. With deep knowledge about their field.

And I'll also admit. That MD's can tend to be philistine in thought.

But put either in the other's shoes. And they'd be equally clueless.

My complaint with medical curriculum is that we should learn to critically evaluate the work of researchers--with better knowledge of their methods and the statistics they employ. Not study to be like them. First year of medical school is useless because of this. Walls of facts. With no clinical common sense to them. Become dusty, obtuse, relics of our fading memory. Useful only for regurgitating on phd-designed tests.

 

[CatFactorial]

An MD (or even an MD PhD) who works 80% in the lab and 20% in the clinic will likely possess much of the same topical knowledge a PhD in the same lab possesses. However, since the PhD probably has devoted the same amount of time to pure research (via thesis work and post docs) that the MD has to clinical training, I'd say the PhD has a much more nuanced view of the subject material.

Now, since the MD has the research info and clinical breadth you could say he knows "more" than the PhD (since the PhD would likely be more familiar with minutiae), but that's a pretty bogus comparison. Knowledge of the details could be more useful in basic science while clinical breadth could be more useful in the translational research capacity.

 

[surftheiop]

As mentioned before, it completely depends. A PhD is going to know their niche better than an MD. An MD is going to better at treating a disorder than a PhD would be. In most cases, PhD's probably understand the physiology/pathophysiology of their area of interest better than an MD in a related field.

 

[mvenus929]

Depends what we're talking about. I'd say in general PhDs will beat MDs in the narrow subject matter relating to their area of expertise/research. In breadth of knowledge I'm going to say MDs win on average.

A good MD also keeps up on progressions in their field btw.

This. Most PhD's have a very narrow view of their subject. They study one receptor on one cell in the body, and know absolutely everything about that receptor. MDs, on the other hand, will know very little about that single receptor, but will know very little about many other receptors in the body.

So the 'area' of knowledge may be the same for both, but the columns have different shapes. Just like primary care docs and specialists.

That said, my class is almost exclusively being taught by MDs. We still have PhDs teaching us (normal) histology and anatomy (the pathologists come in and teach abnormal), and sometimes teaching us physiology and pharmacology, but for the most part, our lecturers are MDs. I'm in my second year at a systems-based school, by the way.

 

[miui]

Someone with a PhD is more likely to be knowledgeable in a specific area of study. An MD, on the other hand, will be knowledgeable in more areas of study, but may not have as in-depth amount of knowledge in these areas.

It's a tradeoff between the two. You either know a lot about one thing(PhD), or know little("enough") about many things(MD).

 

[Lil Mick]

I think that it depends on the person. In my math program, you're expected to have a broad area of expertise in many areas of mathematics (relatives of algebraic theory, geometry/topology, analysis, and statistics). In the biology PhD option of our program, you have to pass competency exams covering all areas of biology in more depth than you get in medical school. In terms of depth of the field of study, the PhDs are probably better trained and more knowledgeable (hence, they do the basic science lectures).

However, most PhD programs don't emphasize clinical biology sorts of things, unless it's your chosen area of research. MDs probably know more about this than most PhDs, though some PhDsI know have self-taught whatever is relevant to their area of research. Even MD/PhD, I still don't feel very at home in clinical matters, as my extra time is spent on research and seminars...

 

[Asp]

MD > PhD

In this country the best minds don't go to graduate school, because the money isn't there.

 

[surftheiop]

MD > PhD

In this country the best minds don't go to graduate school, because the money isn't there.

Historically, the "best minds" generally aren't the ones who are massively obsessed with making a ton of money.

 

[CatFactorial]

Historically, the "best minds" generally aren't the ones who are massively obsessed with making a ton of money.

That's hard to justify. Providing incentives is a logical way of recruiting talented people.

 

[surftheiop]

That's hard to justify. Providing incentives is a logical way of recruiting talented people.

I don't disagree with that.

I was just pointing out that it is not valid to conclude that one profession is smarter than another because of a difference of salary.

 

[tiedyeddog]

MD > PhD

In this country the best minds don't go to graduate school, because the money isn't there.

I don't believe this is true at all. I'd say percentage wise, a greater number of "smarter" or, more likely, more driven people go to medical school. But it is still pretty competitive in many top 10 grad programs in many fields of study.

The smartest people who go to grad school, especially in the sciences, end up selling patents or leading companies and making way more than most M.D.s ever make.... There just aren't very many who do this.

 

[45408]

It would seem that PhDs could more easily adapt to a clinical setting than a MD could adapt to a research lab setting since the PhDs have the knowledge but just need the practice.

The "practice" takes 5-10 years to learn, so I'm not really sure how you figure that the PhD would really have a leg up.

 

[Polish Farmer]

PhD's advance science tremendously, however many MD/PhD's or MD's with sig dedication to research have advanced clinical medicine forwards. My experience is that PhD's can lose the forest for the trees; that is, without a background in patient care it is difficult to make "discoveries" that truly advance medicine.

That PhD stars from approaching a problem based on laboratory observations and may know everything there is to know about mouse anal cells and publish their research in the annals of mouse anus monthly; but the clinician asks: "how can my knowledge of mouse anal cells help that lady with a UC flare I just saw?" It's all about asking the correct questions.

 

[Asp]

What are these advancements in science you speak of?

As far as I can tell, nothing's significantly changed in like at least 10 years.

I have a tree analogy for you: the low hanging fruits have been picked. It's pretty depressing, really.

War on cancer? Failed. Herceptin extends life by like 2 months in terminal patients -- biggest success story of the decade, whoppity-do.
War on dementia? Failed. What's our treatment for Parkinson's again? Oh L-DOPA. Is this the 1980s still, oh wait, no.
Stem cells? Going nowhere fast.

 

[Siverhideo1985]

What are these advancements in science you speak of?

As far as I can tell, nothing's significantly changed in like at least 10 years.

you should probably pick up a Science, Nature, or NEJM journal at some point...if that's not digestible enough, I think there is a magazine called "popular science" or something...most clinicians should be able to understand what's written in that one 😉

 

[wegener]

War on cancer? Failed. Herceptin extends life by like 2 months in terminal patients -- biggest success story of the decade, whoppity-do.

Microarrays to determine breast cancer susceptibility to treatment.

War on dementia? Failed. What's our treatment for Parkinson's again? Oh L-DOPA. Is this the 1980s still, oh wait, no.

Deep brain stimulation.

Stem cells?

BMT?

 

[swamprat]

The "practice" takes 5-10 years to learn, so I'm not really sure how you figure that the PhD would really have a leg up.

I think this is the most intelligent thing said in this thread so far... I would have said it myself if I wasn't just a medical student.

I don't really have any evidence to back this up but it kinda does annoy me the amount of PhDs we have in the biomedical sciences and we can't figure out a cure to some of societies major health issues? AIDS, HPV etc. I don't need a speech about how its "not that easy" because z, y, z I get that but I'm just saying like one of the last posters said, when was the last major breakthrough? Polio vaccine? Every so often I see an article about another "break through" HIV/AIDS.. wellll people are still getting and dying from it. Don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for PhDs.. but still lets see some more results!

 

[jdh71]

you should probably pick up a Science, Nature, or NEJM journal at some point...if that's not digestible enough, I think there is a magazine called "popular science" or something...most clinicians should be able to understand what's written in that one 😉

Show me a cure in any of those journals.

We keep chipping away at things, but there really haven't been any huge or major breakthroughs in a long, long time.

 

[S6MD]

.

 

[mvenus929]

Every so often I see an article about another "break through" HIV/AIDS.. wellll people are still getting and dying from it. Don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for PhDs.. but still lets see some more results!

And yet it's not a death sentence anymore... it's another chronic disease now. in the 80s, people who were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS generally died within a couple years. Now they can live decades with the disease, provided they are adherent to their meds. That's a huge step forward. There are also many trials going on to figure out how to reduce transmission, how to stop seroconversion, etc. But a drug takes something like 10 years from the start of the process to actually make it through FDA trials to make it to market... it's a very slow process.

Most things aren't paradigm changers... they just refine the knowledge we already have.

 

[swamprat]

And yet it's not a death sentence anymore... it's another chronic disease now. in the 80s, people who were diagnosed with HIV/AIDS generally died within a couple years. Now they can live decades with the disease, provided they are adherent to their meds. That's a huge step forward. There are also many trials going on to figure out how to reduce transmission, how to stop seroconversion, etc. But a drug takes something like 10 years from the start of the process to actually make it through FDA trials to make it to market... it's a very slow process.

Most things aren't paradigm changers... they just refine the knowledge we already have.

Oh yeah I know that but i'd rather not have HIV because we have a cure or vaccine than have HIV and deal with drug side effects and possible transmission consequences...it still is life changing regardless of whether the life expectancy is approaching that of a non infected person. So what if its not a death sentence it still affects quality of life to some degree.. and if they had a cure for it but it was being run through all the FDA redtape we'd hear about it.. theres nothing been said. The major breakthroughs are always new ways we learn how the virus replicates or does this or we solved the crystal structure for that.. which are steps in the right direction for better treatments and possibly a cure but yeah the main thing I was saying was its not like major breakthroughs have happened in a lonnngg time.. most people don't care if scientists have the crystal structure of HIV protease or whatever.. they care about the end result which right now is nothing. Same thing can be said with doctors vs alternative providers.. patients don't care how many degrees you have and how smart you are if you can't help them and they can get relief from someone else with less education and no scientific backup to prove efficacy.

 

[collosalmockery]

When a MD does not know that much irrelevant details about a disease, that is exactly how it is supposed to be. MDs are not scientists. They need to understand the basic pathogenesis of disease and how those pathological changes in biological mechanisms can be treated. That's it. If you expect a MD to know every single detail of a protein that goes wrong in every disease within every sort of inflammatory cell involved in a disease, you are basically making a fool out of yourself. Yes, such knowledge is very important for finding new treatments and understanding the pathogenesis of disease. But what is its clinical relevance in helping the patient? Perhaps none.

In short, you appear quite short sighted and arrogant to dismiss MD's knowledge as less than basic.

And from real life experience, as an MD, lets say an internist, you do not give a crap how many genes HIV has in total, as long as you know how to diagnose, manage, find complications and treat them in an HIV/AIDs patient. You can always go back to the textbook and copy paste the genome size of HIV before your presentation to some snotty gunner med students.

 

[ToldYouSo]

If you're talking about an MD vs. a biomed PhD then I would say the MD. Even if a PhD has more theoretical knowledge it doesn't make up for the vast number of clinical hours MD's are required to have on top of the basic biomedical knowledge. If you're talking about any PhD then it varies wildly because studies aren't standardized in all the different fields. A PhD in a hard science may take a lot more work and studying than a degree in sociology of "Women's Studies"; but from the research I did that was overseen by a scientist with a PhD physics from Harvard, then yeah I am sure he'd run circles around you're average MD in terms of knowledge.

 

[spongioform]

When a MD does not know that much irrelevant details about a disease, that is exactly how it is supposed to be. MDs are not scientists. They need to understand the basic pathogenesis of disease and how those pathological changes in biological mechanisms can be treated. That's it. If you expect a MD to know every single detail of a protein that goes wrong in every disease within every sort of inflammatory cell involved in a disease, you are basically making a fool out of yourself. Yes, such knowledge is very important for finding new treatments and understanding the pathogenesis of disease. But what is its clinical relevance in helping the patient? Perhaps none.

In short, you appear quite short sighted and arrogant to dismiss MD's knowledge as less than basic.

And from real life experience, as an MD, lets say an internist, you do not give a crap how many genes HIV has in total, as long as you know how to diagnose, manage, find complications and treat them in an HIV/AIDs patient. You can always go back to the textbook and copy paste the genome size of HIV before your presentation to some snotty gunner med students.

I agree with the post above. I would also add in that MDs have far more responsibility than PhDs. The actions an MD takes, such as adjusting medication or operating on a patient, have implications to the life of the person, whereas for a PhD their work is not necessarily grounded in real people. Therefore, there is an element of impotence in them because they have never had to treat people. Also, I think that because MDs treat a diversity of patients and are always interacting with laypeople in clinic, they are better communicators and more confident in their interactions. These are benefits of training to be an MD that a PhD may never realize. I think what PhDs do in science is great, but there are many MDs that also do science. I think what differs is that there are far more PhD's who study things for the sake of studying, whereas with MDs they have that same spirit of curiosity but have turned it towards the betterment of fellow humans.

 

[miui]

Show me a cure in any of those journals.

We keep chipping away at things, but there really haven't been any huge or major breakthroughs in a long, long time.

It takes time. Just look at smallpox for example, and infectious disease that has a history dating back to "The earliest credible clinical evidence of smallpox is found in the Egyptian mummies of persons who died some 3000 years ago." and "The more severe form (variola major) is thought to have originated in Asia between 400 and 1600 years ago. Alastrim minor, a second form found in West Africa and the Americas, is thought to have evolved between 1,400 and 6,300 years ago." (Wiki) - Sorry about the wiki source.

With the vaccine being discovered in 1796.

And that was just for a viral infection, so even then it took time, a lot of it, to actually get to something "significant".

It's a slow process, silly to expect anything major being developed in only a matter of years. Especially if you consider ****ed up stuff like Cancer and HIV/AIDS, that are far greater in terms of mechanism of action, varied ways of being developed. Hell, there are numerous amount of research labs that focus on one tiny protein out of 100s just to figure out what the hell is going on.

The PhDs aren't resting, they are just facing stuff that are far more complex.

 

[jdh71]

It takes time. Just look at smallpox for example, and infectious disease that has a history dating back to "The earliest credible clinical evidence of smallpox is found in the Egyptian mummies of persons who died some 3000 years ago." and "The more severe form (variola major) is thought to have originated in Asia between 400 and 1600 years ago. Alastrim minor, a second form found in West Africa and the Americas, is thought to have evolved between 1,400 and 6,300 years ago." (Wiki) - Sorry about the wiki source.

With the vaccine being discovered in 1796.

And that was just for a viral infection, so even then it took time, a lot of it, to actually get to something "significant".

It's a slow process, silly to expect anything major being developed in only a matter of years. Especially if you consider ****ed up stuff like Cancer and HIV/AIDS, that are far greater in terms of mechanism of action, varied ways of being developed. Hell, there are numerous amount of research labs that focus on one tiny protein out of 100s just to figure out what the hell is going on.

The PhDs aren't resting, they are just facing stuff that are far more complex.

Really?

I had no clue.

Learn something new everyday I always say.

 

[Morsetlis]

[GVIDEO][/GVIDEO]

Show me a cure in any of those journals.

We keep chipping away at things, but there really haven't been any huge or major breakthroughs in a long, long time.

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells was a pretty major breakthrough, I thought. Before, you needed real fetuses to get stem cells (or clones of them). Now, you can get stem cells from living people. It'll take a decade or so before therapies become effective, though.

 

[Siverhideo1985]

Show me a cure in any of those journals.

We keep chipping away at things, but there really haven't been any huge or major breakthroughs in a long, long time.

I had expected better from you. If you've worked in benchtop science you know that the breakthroughs only happen because hundreds and thousands of people are chipping away at them each day.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/PublicHealth/17594

http://hken.ibtimes.com/articles/96675/20110101/top-10-scientific-discoveries-in-2010.htm

http://news.discovery.com/human/discoveries-of-the-decade.html

Google also works if nature/science use words too big for you.

 

[Siverhideo1985]

Oh and the cure you were looking for

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1103849

Or if you don't have access to NEJM via ur institution

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/11/health/la-he-0811-cancer-therapy-20110811

 

[notbobtrustme]

I've had the pleasure of interacting with MD and MD/PhDs at my PhD program in Micro/Immuno. MDs, by far, know more than PhDs. I studied for a PhD for 4 years before trying to go to med school. I can tell you that an MD knows more practical knowledge in just about everything. I can tell you a thousand facts about MHC-II-TCR interactions, the biochemistry, the kinetics, the energies in bonding, message transmission, etc etc, but I don't know anything to be honest. All my knowledge is esoteric, geared towards finding the next small, incremental piece of the puzzle.

IMO, the best comparison I heard at my program was this. An MD is like a mechanic, knows a bunch of useful skills, can diagnose problems and knows enough to know when he's out of his element. A PhD is like an arts major; knows a lot about nothing but thinks they knows much more than they really do know. They also have very few practical skills.

 

[jdh71]

Google also works if nature/science use words too big for you.

Go **** your mother before you deign condescend to me *******

You must have a real problem with reading comprehension and/or understanding of the english language.

Most of your links were related to astrophysics or some other kind of nonsense - good for them.

And your NEJM article shows a remission for one type of cancer. We've been kicking the ass of many leukemias and lymphomas for a long, long time - nothing new. Small cell lung cancer - cure that. Make spinal cords work again. Give sight back to the blind. Transplant an organ that won't reject. Something big. It's simply NOT there. Don't get all righteous indignant because I point out the truth.

As "excited" as I am that doctors have "harnessed information technology" (#2 on your "medical" breakthrough list), call me underwhelmed when science has been completely and totally impotent is curing just about anything. There are ZERO break throughs on the level of a polio vaccine, penicillin, first organ transplants, dialysis, or mechanical ventilation. And yeah, I get it - people are still working on stuff, it takes time. As someone who has worked in a basic science lab and is published because of that research, I promise I understand the small steps. Do you want a ****ing prize for being able to grab the low hanging obvious fruit?

 

[link2swim06]

Go **** your mother before you deign condescend to me *******

You must have a real problem with reading comprehension and/or understanding of the english language.

Most of your links were related to astrophysics or some other kind of nonsense - good for them.

And your NEJM article shows a remission for one type of cancer. We've been kicking the ass of many leukemias and lymphomas for a long, long time - nothing new. Small cell lung cancer - cure that. Make spinal cords work again. Give sight back to the blind. Transplant an organ that won't reject. Something big. It's simply NOT there. Don't get all righteous indignant because I point out the truth.

As "excited" as I am that doctors have "harnessed information technology" (#2 on your "medical" breakthrough list), call me underwhelmed when science has been completely and totally impotent is curing just about anything. There are ZERO break throughs on the level of a polio vaccine, penicillin, first organ transplants, dialysis, or mechanical ventilation. And yeah, I get it - people are still working on stuff, it takes time. As someone who has worked in a basic science lab and is published because of that research, I promise I understand the small steps. Do you want a ****ing prize for being able to grab the low hanging obvious fruit?

I think the field of imaging is as significant, if not more significant that many items you have named above. We may have not be able to cure a injured spinal cord, but within a few seconds we can come up with a near definitive diagnosis more a large number of diseases. This simply wasn't here 20+ years ago like it is today.

Without physicists and bench science, your 64-slice CT scanner wouldn't be available at moments notice.

Edit... what about internal pacemakers, defibrillators, etc... those are nearly up there on saving a crapload of people?

 

[isoquin]

I think this is the most intelligent thing said in this thread so far... I would have said it myself if I wasn't just a medical student.

I don't really have any evidence to back this up but it kinda does annoy me the amount of PhDs we have in the biomedical sciences and we can't figure out a cure to some of societies major health issues? AIDS, HPV etc. I don't need a speech about how its "not that easy" because z, y, z I get that but I'm just saying like one of the last posters said, when was the last major breakthrough? Polio vaccine? Every so often I see an article about another "break through" HIV/AIDS.. wellll people are still getting and dying from it. Don't get me wrong I have a lot of respect for PhDs.. but still lets see some more results!

Have you done research before? To demand progress be made regardless of the setup is shortsighted. And why mention HPV when we have a relatively new vaccine against common strains of it? If you think we haven't had a major breakthrough in medicine since the polio vaccine, it leads me to believe you have not hit your clinical years.

 

[tomsmith2010]

In my opinion is PhD is better

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

Go **** your mother before you deign condescend to me *******

You must have a real problem with reading comprehension and/or understanding of the english language.

Most of your links were related to astrophysics or some other kind of nonsense - good for them.

And your NEJM article shows a remission for one type of cancer. We've been kicking the ass of many leukemias and lymphomas for a long, long time - nothing new. Small cell lung cancer - cure that. Make spinal cords work again. Give sight back to the blind. Transplant an organ that won't reject. Something big. It's simply NOT there. Don't get all righteous indignant because I point out the truth.

As "excited" as I am that doctors have "harnessed information technology" (#2 on your "medical" breakthrough list), call me underwhelmed when science has been completely and totally impotent is curing just about anything. There are ZERO break throughs on the level of a polio vaccine, penicillin, first organ transplants, dialysis, or mechanical ventilation. And yeah, I get it - people are still working on stuff, it takes time. As someone who has worked in a basic science lab and is published because of that research, I promise I understand the small steps. Do you want a ****ing prize for being able to grab the low hanging obvious fruit?

So you are asking the PHDs to make all the advancements? You also didn't include sequencing of the human genome which was done very recently or transplantation of synthetic organs.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8Olhw609Q&sig2=WKyCVhjJnz-DNvszm7ZZ0w&cad=rja

You also say STEM cell research is going nowhere fast which leads me to believe that you don't even read the literature on STEM cell research.

 

[ArcGurren]

Go **** your mother before you deign condescend to me *******

You must have a real problem with reading comprehension and/or understanding of the english language.

Most of your links were related to astrophysics or some other kind of nonsense - good for them.

And your NEJM article shows a remission for one type of cancer. We've been kicking the ass of many leukemias and lymphomas for a long, long time - nothing new. Small cell lung cancer - cure that. Make spinal cords work again. Give sight back to the blind. Transplant an organ that won't reject. Something big. It's simply NOT there. Don't get all righteous indignant because I point out the truth.

As "excited" as I am that doctors have "harnessed information technology" (#2 on your "medical" breakthrough list), call me underwhelmed when science has been completely and totally impotent is curing just about anything. There are ZERO break throughs on the level of a polio vaccine, penicillin, first organ transplants, dialysis, or mechanical ventilation. And yeah, I get it - people are still working on stuff, it takes time. As someone who has worked in a basic science lab and is published because of that research, I promise I understand the small steps. Do you want a ****ing prize for being able to grab the low hanging obvious fruit?

lol @ internet rage

Anyway in terms of the actual topic... MDs and PhDs have very different realms of understanding... an MD can't describe the molecular/genetic basis of some sort of pathology as well as a PhD can but a PhD can't really manage the treatment and diagnosis as well as an MD can. Also as an MD your training requires you to have a much much greater breadth of knowledge than a PhD so you aren't limited to a tiny field of knowledge.

 

[Siverhideo1985]

Go **** your mother before you deign condescend to me *******

Someone needs a hug.

Sorry for offending your sensibilities; I was merely trying to point out that breakthrough's in science have been plentiful, including in medical sciences (see genome mapping, SC research, genetic engineering, etc). Have they solved all our medical problems? no. But to make the argument that science hasn't brought forth some amazing technologies and treatments in the last decade is just plain ignorant. Especially coming from people that work in a field based on the very ideas and discoveries of science.

Oh and please don't insult my mom again. She's a saint.

 

[jdh71]

Without physicists and bench science, your 64-slice CT scanner wouldn't be available at moments notice.

When, if anywhere, did I make any statement to the contrary?

Edit... what about internal pacemakers, defibrillators, etc... those are nearly up there on saving a crapload of people?

last - ten - years

 

[jdh71]

So you are asking the PHDs to make all the advancements?

Where did I say that?

You also didn't include sequencing of the human genome

And? We sequenced the genome. Ok.

Which was done very recently or transplantation of synthetic organs.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...8Olhw609Q&sig2=WKyCVhjJnz-DNvszm7ZZ0w&cad=rja

Now this is very cool and has real potential - though most patients don't need a trachea. They need a lung, or a heart, or liver, or a kidney, or a pancreas . . . It's still not an advancement on the level of a polio vaccine.

You also say STEM cell research is going nowhere fast which leads me to believe that you don't even read the literature on STEM cell research.

Where did I say that? Are we even having the same discussion?

Two strawmen, one non-point, and one good point. That's still a net -1 by any reasonable scoring system.

 

[jdh71]

lol @ internet rage

Anyway in terms of the actual topic... MDs and PhDs have very different realms of understanding... an MD can't describe the molecular/genetic basis of some sort of pathology as well as a PhD can but a PhD can't really manage the treatment and diagnosis as well as an MD can. Also as an MD your training requires you to have a much much greater breadth of knowledge than a PhD so you aren't limited to a tiny field of knowledge.

lol @ obvious statements (Nooooooooooo? Reallllly? Since when?!?!?11?)

have you ever made a statement in here that wouldn't win the the "captain obvious" award? serious question

 

[jdh71]

But to make the argument that science hasn't brought forth some amazing technologies and treatments in the last decade is just plain ignorant.

Where did I make that argument?

Reading comprehension is going to help you a lot in medical school. I suggest you work on it.

 

[Laryngophed]

Everybody has a role. A PhD's job is to tease out the minutia and illustrate nature to the rest of us. MD's take the knowledge gleaned from research and apply to clinical problems. One doesn't function without the other, as the physician can't practice without the information PhD's produce and PhD's wouldn't produce much without it being clinically applicable (because there would be no funding, y'all) and we wouldn't care as much about it.

As far as being an instructor during the first two years, they are both more than adequate. There is huge variation and my experience is that clinicians tend to be much more direct and enthused (because they remember that they went to medical school to learn medicine, not a pure science) but I've met some PhD's who were excellent as well. My guess is that any PhD could step into the clinical arena and understand the language, but they wouldn't be proficient much outside of discussing the issues at hand. I think that any clinician would have a similar experience in most labs. But I would also put my money on the MD learning lab techniques and learning them well before I'd guess the PhD can pick up the 2/6 systolic murmur over in the left 3rd intercostal space.

Just my $0.02.