please tell me I don't have to do research

[frikarika]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So I've done my fair share of research as an undergrad, 2 years biochem research ( 5 abstracts, 4 poster presentations, awards, ect). I am now working at the NIH as a post bacc, finishing up a paper on which I will be first author. I will be starting med school this July, and I couldn't be more excited. I am so sick of research I never want to do it again. I swear to god if I have to clone plasmids one more time I will vomit. But I hear that it is a "de facto" requirement to do research in med school if you want a competitive residency. I am interested in internal medicine...but I don't know for sure yet, I mean what if I do want to specialize, is research really a must have? And if I did research, do residency directors prefer clinically based research vs bench research?

 

[OncoCaP]

No, it's not required. You can stop worrying about that.

 

[Bushido416]

I feel your pain I've done over a year of full time research for the Army. I've got a couple of manuscripts in preparation 1 i'm first author on and the rest I'm second or third. Publications and outside interests I believe is what residency programs look for and with a year of research and papers that should definately be more impressive than med student working in a lab for a summer. Publications = way better than research participation. My school requires research from us. But I'm getting exempt on the count of paying my dues already. Instead I'm going to do more clinical work and try and figure out what specialty I want to go into. Above all else I know I don't want to pippette another d**m thing in my entire life.

 

[njbmd]

Moved to the General Residency Forum as this is a question related to general residency research requirments.

 

[Winged Scapula]

So I've done my fair share of research as an undergrad, 2 years biochem research ( 5 abstracts, 4 poster presentations, awards, ect). I am now working at the NIH as a post bacc, finishing up a paper on which I will be first author. I will be starting med school this July, and I couldn't be more excited. I am so sick of research I never want to do it again. I swear to god if I have to clone plasmids one more time I will vomit. But I hear that it is a "de facto" requirement to do research in med school if you want a competitive residency.

It can be, but you have done more than most medical students and what you have done will qualify if you should choose a competitive specialty.

I am interested in internal medicine...but I don't know for sure yet, I mean what if I do want to specialize, is research really a must have?

While some of the more competitive IM fellowships may look for applicant research, it is not a requirement. For most of these programs more important aspects will be LORs, intraining exam scores, evaluations, etc. More academic places will look for research and if that's the way that you are heading you can certainly do some projects while in residency.

And if I did research, do residency directors prefer clinically based research vs bench research?

Neither, its personal prefence. Most students have bench research but I don't think it really matters. Probably more important that its relevant to the field you are entering.

 

[Options]

According to the NRMP and the document on the website, "Charting outcomes in the match"; if you were a U.S. Senior in the match, having research had no impact on your match if you were going for a competetive specialty. They do state that it has a positive impact on your match if you are and independent applicant, however.

Check it out and make yourself feel better..

http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2007.pdf

Particularly page 19.

 

[WallowaWanderer]

Sounds like you already have some great research experience. You might find later that you really dig clinical research, as it is much different. It is the rare person who can do good research in medical school, because relevant research usually requires large blocks of time. Some people take a year off, but you don't need to in order to get into a competitive residency in most specialties (including IM).

I would say you are in an ideal position. You have a strong research background which will really stand out on your CV. You can really sell that when it comes time to interview for residency positions. It doesn't matter if you did the research before or during medical school. In fact, it's much better that you did it before because now you can focus on med school. There might be some exceptions in the really competitive specialties like plastics, optho, derm - if you go into those you should ask around.

If I were you I would focus on developing some other aspects of your CV . . . maybe more clinical stuff like volunteering to coordinate the local free clinic. Or more leadership things like co-president of a student group. Or maybe something that doesn't have to do with medical school at all. You will gain only a little bit from adding more of the same research type stuff to your resume, but much to gain from adding something new (because it shows you are well rounded).

When it comes down to it, competitive programs in competitive specialties do want people with research experience, but clinical aptitude is a much higher priority for them. Do not underestimate the importance of clinical grades and USMLE step 1. Also, key to have a great personality, be someone other people want to work with, and have some outside interests.

Good luck to you. I hope you enjoy medical school.

 

[hippiedoc13]

Sounds like you already have some great research experience. You might find later that you really dig clinical research, as it is much different.

Definitely agree with above. You certainly do not HAVE to do research in med school. Just keep in mind, clinical research can be very different from basic science research...no plasmids to clone, and not a pipette in sight!

Good luck to you.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

According to the NRMP and the document on the website, "Charting outcomes in the match"; if you were a U.S. Senior in the match, having research had no impact on your match if you were going for a competetive specialty. They do state that it has a positive impact on your match if you are and independent applicant, however.

Check it out and make yourself feel better..

http://www.nrmp.org/data/chartingoutcomes2007.pdf

Particularly page 19.

That survey does not take into account the type or level of research involvement. They don't differentiate between 2 weeks of clinical research vs 2 first authors in PNAS. I'd speculate that if they examined the impact of first author publications they'd find a nice positive correlation.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

Definitely agree with above. You certainly do not HAVE to do research in med school. Just keep in mind, clinical research can be very different from basic science research...no plasmids to clone, and not a pipette in sight!

Good luck to you.

Clinical research is mostly paperwork and easier to do than basic science. Thus it is more common and will be of less value than true basic science research.

 

[Finding Chi]

Clinical research is mostly paperwork and easier to do than basic science. Thus it is more common and will be of less value than true basic science research.

I'm not sure this is totally true, having done both. Bench work requires a certain skill set (i.e. learning to do PCRs, cell cultures etc), but the training is usually pretty quick, and the schedule is predictable. Enrolling patients in a clinical research trial can be incredibly time consuming, and unpredictable (being called in on weekends because an appropriate pt has popped up in the ER, and needs to be enrolled before receiving x/y/z treatment).

I think what programs care about is meaningful outcomes. RCTs, typically clinical, are like the holy grail of IM. Being involved an a good one would undoubtedly earn you cred.

That said, most IM programs are not especially research focused. My experience at my program is we look at the whole picture. Research can be a feather in your cap, but so can a lot of other things. On the other hand, I have not known anyone who matched in ENT or Derm who did not do some amount or research.

 

[Pinkertinkle]

I'm not sure this is totally true, having done both. Bench work requires a certain skill set (i.e. learning to do PCRs, cell cultures etc), but the training is usually pretty quick, and the schedule is predictable. Enrolling patients in a clinical research trial can be incredibly time consuming, and unpredictable (being called in on weekends because an appropriate pt has popped up in the ER, and needs to be enrolled before receiving x/y/z treatment).

I think what programs care about is meaningful outcomes. RCTs, typically clinical, are like the holy grail of IM. Being involved an a good one would undoubtedly earn you cred.

That said, most IM programs are not especially research focused. My experience at my program is we look at the whole picture. Research can be a feather in your cap, but so can a lot of other things. On the other hand, I have not known anyone who matched in ENT or Derm who did not do some amount or research.

I was referring to the usual case report/case series medical student fodder. I would guess that about zero medical students take the lead in running a RCT. And being 50th author on one is still of marginal value. And although it is time consuming it doesn't require the type of investigational thinking that basic science projects do.