Possible to do research without being clinically super-specialized?

[DeadCactus]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I get the impression that the only practical way to be proficient both as a researcher and a clinician is to limit your clinical practice to a specialized niche relevant to your research. True or no?

 

[Anandamide]

All of the physician scientists I have met with do research related to their specialty. For instance, one is a neurologist doing molecular bio research on ALS; he also sees lots of ALS patients. That doesn't mean his entire clinical practice is ALS, though. Many of the docs I talked to see patients with completely different conditions outside of their disease of interest. The majority of their patients, however, do have the disease they research. This has been the case for both the clinical and basic science researchers I have met.

 

[Neuronix]

Careful with saying things like only. Obviously it makes it easier to stay on top of your clinical and research game when you super-sub-specialize and are able to merge your clinical and research areas. Not everyone is able to do this and others desire to do it only to a certain extent. For some types of practice you will still need to take general call, so you will still need to know the basics of your specialty. Thus, you will still train broadly and you need to have to have enough scope to have a patient base and fulfill clinical obligations.