Preparation for MD/PhD: Have publications but no bench science

[LAtoDavis]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have found through doing a masters in pharmacology that I'd like to pursue a clinical/academic research career. So, I'm applying to MD/PhD programs this time next year (June 2016) and would like to ask you guys how my research preparation looks as it isn't really basic science-oriented.

1. My thesis is a published review on a receptor targeted pharmacologically and its modulation by drugs/endogenous compounds. I did a few lab rotations beforehand in basic science and computer labs. LORs from an MD/PhD and a Professor of Pharmacology.

2. Next year I'm going to a well known (UCSF or Johns Hopkins) domestic university to gain another 1st author publication (e.g. writing on the implementation of new imaging agents or drugs into clinical practice, etc). LOR expected from the PhD director of an institute.

Neither of these things are really basic science, and I didn't do any research as an undergraduate. I'll have 3-4 years of this type of research by the time I apply to MD/PhD programs in what I'd call non-basic science, pharmacology/translational medicine areas.

 

[Neuronix]

I'm confused.

"I did a few lab rotations beforehand in basic science"

"I didn't do any research as an undergraduate."

"I'll have 3-4 years of this type of research"

What type of research? You only mention writing review articles? Is that all you've been doing?

 

[LAtoDavis]

"I did a few lab rotations beforehand in basic science"
- Sure did. The first was in a molecular medicine group and I learned wet lab protocols. The second was in a pharmacology-based computational lab, but the person training me left for a private job 1 month into my stay and I had no choice but to leave.

"I didn't do any research as an undergraduate."
- Not really. I took honors coursework as an undergraduate and did a few write-ups on research.

"I'll have 3-4 years of this type of research"
- That's about right. 1st year of master's + this year + next year + the interview/glide year. During the interview/glide year, I'll be trying to publish again.

What type of research? You only mention writing review articles? Is that all you've been doing?
- The review is my MS thesis; I heard back from my mentor for research next year, and I'd be in their lab and writing another publishable item on a hypothesis-based project related to the clinical implementation of laboratory discoveries. I'd also be creating/presenting a poster.

 

[Neuronix]

What lab techniques have you been and will you be using?

 

[LAtoDavis]

What lab techniques have you been and will you be using?

I have used various wet lab protocols, such as western blots, Elisa, sds, spectrophotometry, pcr, etc; next year I'll be around radiochemistry equipment. Some of the graduate groups affiliated with the MD/PhD programs I'm looking at have chemistry-based PhD options, so hopefully I'll be able to work on something in imaging/cancer imaging related if I play my cards right. How hard do you think it will be to gain a mentor/PI in this field for the PhD component of the MD/PhD?

 

[Neuronix]

Where is the reset button on this thread?



From what you tell me... In contrast to the title of the thread, you do have bench science experience. It sounds like you will continue to perform basic science research. Radiopharmacology certainly seems like basic research to me. You can get a PhD in the area of molecular imaging at a number of MSTP institutions.

One of the things I'm trying to impress upon you, and this whole forum, is I don't care what you've published or what you're trying to publish. Publications (and very early applications) are incredibly overemphasized on SDN. What I care about is what you've done in the lab (techniques and independence), for how long, that you've made good relationships, and what level of understanding about your work and the field you've gained from it. Everything else is secondary. If you have 2+ years of fairly independent basic lab research, you're okay to apply in my book. So what exactly is your concern? If you're concerned that your research isn't basic enough, you need to describe better the research you've been doing and will be doing in the terms I'm interested in. From what I'm gathering, you sound alright.

 

[LAtoDavis]

Thanks for the reply; I am somewhat new to this, so knowing your opinions helps. I will work towards what you described (in addition to publishing items).

 

[Vikingwizardguy]

You actually seem quite prepared in terms of the PhD side, having letters from MD/PhDs is a huge boost as well. Maybe in your upcoming year, consider shadowing an MD-PhD who still does some clinic work (that was one of my biggest negative points when I applied, lack of clinical experience and exposure to MD-PhDs farther in their careers). I'm assuming your academics are in standing with the current MSTP standard...MCAT in the 33-36 range, GPA 3.85+. Having a masters can never hurt.

As for the importance of first author papers, when I applied in 2008, it didn't particularly matter. Now, it's seen as a big deal to have some kind of authorship (either first, not-first, or a pending authorship) before a school will accept you. This is more the rule at the bigger name places but is quickly becoming true at even the mid-tiers and some state MSTPs. Reason is this: When you apply for federal NRSA funding, the easiest way for a committee to trash your application is to say you lack authorships. I can speak for my batch in saying that if you were a male, non-minority applicant, you needed to have an authorship under your belt to get funding (I'm at a state MSTP program). That's why now, in 2015, when we interview applicants, we specifically look for authorships in addition to academics, research/clinical experience, etc. So, you're in great standing when it comes to that.

 

[LAtoDavis]

Thanks for all the replies; I'm curious about one thing, though. I've been offered a scholarship to a well known University/its teaching hospital for a 1 year masters that's strictly research/clinical research. Do you guys think that having two masters would be seen as peculiar?

 

[Noctámbulo]

You actually seem quite prepared in terms of the PhD side, having letters from MD/PhDs is a huge boost as well. Maybe in your upcoming year, consider shadowing an MD-PhD who still does some clinic work (that was one of my biggest negative points when I applied, lack of clinical experience and exposure to MD-PhDs farther in their careers). I'm assuming your academics are in standing with the current MSTP standard...MCAT in the 33-36 range, GPA 3.85+. Having a masters can never hurt.

As for the importance of first author papers, when I applied in 2008, it didn't particularly matter. Now, it's seen as a big deal to have some kind of authorship (either first, not-first, or a pending authorship) before a school will accept you. This is more the rule at the bigger name places but is quickly becoming true at even the mid-tiers and some state MSTPs. Reason is this: When you apply for federal NRSA funding, the easiest way for a committee to trash your application is to say you lack authorships. I can speak for my batch in saying that if you were a male, non-minority applicant, you needed to have an authorship under your belt to get funding (I'm at a state MSTP program). That's why now, in 2015, when we interview applicants, we specifically look for authorships in addition to academics, research/clinical experience, etc. So, you're in great standing when it comes to that.

@Vikingwizardguy what about publications in fields tangentially related to your intended field of study? Can they add anything to your application?

 

[Vikingwizardguy]

@Vikingwizardguy what about publications in fields tangentially related to your intended field of study? Can they add anything to your application?

Absolutely. Any publication in general will be a help to your overall application. It's actually a great conversation starter during interviews. The fact is that you have shown proficiency in writing within a specific field.

 

[Vikingwizardguy]

Thanks for all the replies; I'm curious about one thing, though. I've been offered a scholarship to a well known University/its teaching hospital for a 1 year masters that's strictly research/clinical research. Do you guys think that having two masters would be seen as peculiar?

It might be seen as peculiar as much as it is seen unnecessary. Why get a 2nd masters if it won't further your career as a clinician scientist? That would be the only odd part.

 

[Noctámbulo]

Absolutely. Any publication in general will be a help to your overall application. It's actually a great conversation starter during interviews. The fact is that you have shown proficiency in writing within a specific field.

One more question, out of curiosity: Does it only help to have publications within your field of study for NRSA funding applications, or do publications in general help?

 

[Vikingwizardguy]

One more question, out of curiosity: Does it only help to have publications within your field of study for NRSA funding applications, or do publications in general help?

Great question. It helps more to have publications in your own field but any publication should be enough for reviewers. It was only those students with absolutely no authorships that got trashed on NRSA applications.

A little trick that I see people using now is this: when you decide on a lab, have a discussion with your PI about wanting to do an NRSA and ask if there is any manuscript that the lab is ready to submit that you can be on. When you write the application, you can list that paper as "submitted" or "under review" or something. For reviewers who are reading through tons of these, only the keenest of reviewers will pick up on this subtlety. The rest will think you're published or just about ready and that should get you over the hump.