Psych Research vs Bench Work

[MedHopeful09]

So I'm currently working in a psych research lab and I have learned much more than I thought I would. I learned how to use various computer programs to record physio and I learned how to score data and run participants through the experiment. I'm only planning on doing this for a year, so I would have around ~300 hours by the end. I was thinking about how medical schools would interpret this experience. I had a brief stint working in a wet lab and felt that both positions were quite similar, but I feel that wet lab work is more favored among the sdn community. I've read in many places though that all they do is western blots and other menial tasks. That doesn't interest me, which is why I opted to do something more interactive. I understand that sometimes people get to do their own projects in a wet lab, but is that really common? As I said before, I learned a great deal from this experience and found it interesting, but it's not something that provided me with much substance, if that made any sense. I just wanted to hear what people thought and their experiences applying with psych research experience in lieu of wet lab work. Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pyrrion89]

The mantra here is that it doesn't matter what research you do; it's all about if you understand the research you did, can explain it well, and had some creative or analytic involvement in the research (not just menial work).

That being said, as someone who did psych research (and no wet lab bench research), there were 1 or 2 experiences where my interviewer essentially told me they did not respect psych research because it's not "real science." (JHU and WashU) I am sure these kinds of people are also on admissions committees and will also mark you down a bit. Some won't, and weigh psych research just as equally, but that's a reality.

I still think that if you know your research well and had cognitive involvement in the work, then that looks much better than doing menial wet lab work. But the reality is that the gold standard for med school apps is to have creative involvement in basic science wet lab research. I think if you like the psych research a lot, though, you should just go for that. Following your passions (and demonstrating them) is still the best way to shine in admissions.

 

[karayaa]

So I'm currently working in a psych research lab and I have learned much more than I thought I would. I learned how to use various computer programs to record physio and I learned how to score data and run participants through the experiment. I'm only planning on doing this for a year, so I would have around ~300 hours by the end. I was thinking about how medical schools would interpret this experience. I had a brief stint working in a wet lab and felt that both positions were quite similar, but I feel that wet lab work is more favored among the sdn community. I've read in many places though that all they do is western blots and other menial tasks. That doesn't interest me, which is why I opted to do something more interactive. I understand that sometimes people get to do their own projects in a wet lab, but is that really common? As I said before, I learned a great deal from this experience and found it interesting, but it's not something that provided me with much substance, if that made any sense. I just wanted to hear what people thought and their experiences applying with psych research experience in lieu of wet lab work. Thanks!

Do you know the difference/relative value/relevance/applicability/impact between basic science research and clinical/translational research? (I'm not talking about the sdn opinion)

 

[MedHopeful09]

Thanks! At this point, I like psych research more than wet lab work, but I hope to do research in med school. I feel that I'll be in a better position to pursue these opportunities, especially after completing 2+ years of classes and connecting with possible mentors. Fingers crossed it all works out!

@karayaa: Honestly, it's been a long day and I'm not even sure I understand your question haha. Clarify? 🙂

 

[sunflower18]

My primary research project has been cognitive neuroscience through my school's psych department. I haven't received any negative feedback on it 🙂 i do have two other bench experiences as well, but nobody has commented that they prefer seeing one vs the other.

 

[karayaa]

Thanks! At this point, I like psych research more than wet lab work, but I hope to do research in med school. I feel that I'll be in a better position to pursue these opportunities, especially after completing 2+ years of classes and connecting with possible mentors. Fingers crossed it all works out!

@karayaa: Honestly, it's been a long day and I'm not even sure I understand your question haha. Clarify? 🙂

Haha sure no problem!

So, your original question was

I was thinking about how medical schools would interpret this experience. I had a brief stint working in a wet lab and felt that both positions were quite similar, but I feel that wet lab work is more favored among the sdn community. I've read in many places though that all they do is western blots and other menial tasks. That doesn't interest me, which is why I opted to do something more interactive.

It seems like you've done both clinical and bench research, and you don't want to do bench, but you're worried that clinical only will impact your application, partly because sdn favors bench research.
Just like @pyrrion89 said, you should follow your passions, because ultimately that should translate to more involvement/investment and better results and more enthusiasm at your interview and a better LOR
But he (she?) also pointed out that wet lab research is the gold standard
So my question was basically, do you know what you're missing (in adcom's eyes) if you avoid lab research? Do you understand the difference between lab and clinical research, and why they are valued differently by adcoms? It involves differences in scope of the work, impact, etc.
As long as you understand the difference, and what you might be missing (from the adcom perspective) if you stick with clinical research, and don't care, then continue. I'm just suggesting that you consider the costs and benefits.

 

[WillburCobb]

The mantra here is that it doesn't matter what research you do; it's all about if you understand the research you did, can explain it well, and had some creative or analytic involvement in the research (not just menial work).

That being said, as someone who did psych research (and no wet lab bench research), there were 1 or 2 experiences where my interviewer essentially told me they did not respect psych research because it's not "real science." (JHU and WashU) I am sure these kinds of people are also on admissions committees and will also mark you down a bit. Some won't, and weigh psych research just as equally, but that's a reality.

I still think that if you know your research well and had cognitive involvement in the work, then that looks much better than doing menial wet lab work. But the reality is that the gold standard for med school apps is to have creative involvement in basic science wet lab research. I think if you like the psych research a lot, though, you should just go for that. Following your passions (and demonstrating them) is still the best way to shine in admissions.

This. I had 2+ years of cog neuroscience and social psych research and being able to articulate what I did, what was being studied, and its implications came off in a positive light at all of my interviews. I had one interviewer grill me a bit about quantifying what we were studying in the social psych lab, but I was able to explain how we did that, and after a few more questions he seemed fine with my response. Depending in the PI you can get you own projects in a psych lab as well.