Research and clinical fields quite different?

[mercaptovizadeh]

Ever heard of MD/PhDs or other physician scientists working in totally different research and clinical fields? E.g. anesthesiologist who studies hepatitis or cardiologist who studies malaria?

How feasible is this from the department/hiring perspective? I imagine you could esconce yourself into a more general overarching department (e.g. cardiology and infectious diseases both fall under medicine) but it would be difficult to sell yourself to the NIH and funding agencies if your clinical practice differs markedly from your research expertise?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[uniqenam]

We had a physician scientist (not sure if he was MD/PhD or just MD) that talked to my research seminar once, he was an ENT doctor (who I think also did plastic surgery?) but did some sort of plant bio research...so definitely feasible.

 

[Neuronix]

If you bring enough research funding, you can research whatever you want, just about wherever you want. If not, you need to have a very understanding chair, plus you will take a big hit on salary if you have any protected time. Even then it's a big maybe if they'll let you do research outside your clinical area instead of just seeing more patients.

Whether it makes any sense whatsoever to try to do this is up to you. I would argue that getting established as a physician-scientist is so hard in today's environment, that you need every advantage in order to get there. It's certainly an advantage to be a clinical expert with your own patients in an area, and then to research those patients and/or that clinical area. If you don't have this advantage, you're competing with every other PhD-only who is 100% dedicated to research and completely desperate for funding/jobs. Thus, to me it makes little sense.

Though very often someone says they want to do research and clinical work that are unrelated, but it turns out there's a pretty good connection. That's a different story.