please advise: MD vs MSTP to get into academic medicine

[R_C_Hutchinson]

so here's my question: i'd like to end up as a professor who teaches and does clinical research (not lab-only research) and I think (as i've posted before) that an MSTP program would be best for me; i like concept, i like the range, and yeah, i like the money (im not a greedy guy, 20K a year plus tuition will more than pay for the cheeze on my whoppers). I'm pretty sure that with my stats and such i could probably get into med school or an MSTP program. I guess im just getting cold feet.
it is a huge time commitment and i'm wondering if just straight MD isnt a better option for me. I think im competitive in the MD arena, but as for MSTP, that's just horrifyingly intimidating; every person i know or have talked to in these kind of programs is on another level. I think i'd have a better range of options if i applyed just for med school alone and considering that i dont want to end up doing solely in lab research (which i do now and it's fun, but not something i'd like to dedicate my life to) i'm wondering if the dual doctorate thing is a bad idea. any thoughts?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hockebob]

just out of curiosity, what sort of research experience do you have that makes you think you want to do an MD AND a PhD, because you are right in saying that it is a significant commitment. i think most applicants (and nearly all program directors) would agree that that is really the most important factor when considering whether to apply MD/PhD or just MD. also, if you do apply, be prepared to answer that question because they will (of course) want to know.

as i say that, i'm a little confused about your last statement... so you don't want to do lab research the rest of your life? well, that's certainly fine in my opinion (neither do i necessarily) but it again begs the question then why MD/PhD and not just MD. i don't mean to diminish clinical research in any way but i really don't think you need 4 years of graduate training to be good at it. in my opinion, MD/PhD students should want to bridge that gap between lab and clinical science, but different schools have different views on it. for example, some schools allow you to do your graduate studies in epidemiology and other don't.

well, that was a pretty disjointed response but it's all i have on this early sunday morning.

best wishes for whatever you decide,
aaron

 

[nuclearrabbit77]

well if you know that you are interested in clinical, and sure that you don't want to do basic science, i would recommend that you look into several other available clinical training programs.

here are the links to a few of them:

doris duke: http://ddcf.aibs.org/medical/index.asp
Howard Hughes CTP: http://www.training.nih.gov/crtp/index.asp

there are opportunities to do basic science research as well, with one year fellowships such as,

Howard hughes cloister:http://www.hhmi.org/research/cloister/
howard hughes (non-cloister):http://www.hhmi.org/grants/funding/indiv/medcomp.html
sarnoff: http://www.sarnoffendowment.org/fellowship.shtml

this list is not exhaustive, obviously, and there are many other opportunities available for MD students who want to get some research training w/o the full Ph.D commitment.

Besides the training you can get during medical school, residency and post-residency offer an equal or greater opportunity to do research. there is a strong trend of "research" residency programs tacking on additional years of mandatory research and opportunities to take time out of residency to work on an individual project. in addition, there are post residency fellowships available as well.

I think the MSTP program has many benefits, but if you are somewhat hesitant already at this point and know that you don't want to do basic science, i'd strongly recommend that you think of different alternatives.

If you would like to know my personal decision process of why i didn't go MSTP, please PM me.

 

[R_C_Hutchinson]

just to reply as to what i do research on now:
i work in an epigenetics lab and my current project is looking for a de novo histone methylase in arabidopsis (mustard or "fast" plants) by screening a family of TDNA knockouts. the research is fun and i enjoy my lab, but i heard from an MDPHD here at UCLA that a "success" is a scientist who practices medicine 20% of the time and spends 80% of the time doing in lab work, and im not sure if i would want to do that for the rest of my life.

 

[hockebob]

yeah, the 20/80 figure is commonly cited. i've heard of some people doing 50/50 but those situations are rare and usually depend on very close integration of person's research and clinical practice and/or superhuman efficiency. also, only spending 50% of your time in lab has a significant impact on your ability to compete scientifically (for grants, results, etc), so that's something to think about. your current research sounds interesting and if you're enjoying it that's all that matters. i guess it's just a matter of whether you want to spend four to five years of your life doing that (read: research in the abstract sense) in graduate school. if you think you'll be ok with that, i would say go MD/PhD all the way. there is so much flexibility at the end of the program that i'm sure you'll find a career that's a good fit for you.

aaron

 

[superdevil]

who cares if someone says 20/80 is a success? i don't see why any ratio is better than another, as long as you're doing both well.

i work in a physiology lab at a medical school, and i asked a post-doc if i should go the MD/PhD route if i wanted to do clinical research. his exact words were, "f@#k the PhD." i'm not sure that has dissuaded me from applying at CD's, but its something i've heard before...for whatever that's worth. like hockebob said, there's plenty of options available to you if you choose to donate that much time to school. think hard and choose wisely--everything will turn out for the best.