Research and Medical School--A Different POV

[jtheater]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Ok, so first of all, I'm just bringing this up to get people's input on this... so please share your thoughts.

Many people on the board comment about how they've had no research experience before medical school or in medical school and how they don't think that it matters since they want to go into primary care. I would like to argue that at least some research experience (lab, clinical, arts/humanities) is essential for any clinician, regardless of your specialty.

First, as doctors, our entire lives will be devoted to some form of research. I am using the term broadly here. When you interview a patient or are trying to determine a differential diagnosis you are researching your patient and his or her illness. You use the same analytical process that one would use in a research project. 1) I have a problem/question 2) I develop a way to collect data (i.e. History and physical) 3) I collect data 4) I have lots of data... what is my conclusion? You develop questions and subsequent questions based on previous findings to answer the final question--what is wrong with my patient and how do I effectively intervene? This is exactly what you do in reesearch. Therefore, research experience, whether in lab science, clinical science, or even politics/humanities will help you gain the tools you will eventually be using with your patients.

Second, even primary care physicians must keep up-to-date on medical literature. Sure, you can just get by reading the abstracts or pharma publications that tell you what treatments to use or drugs to prescribe... but does that make you a good doctor? No, that makes you a lazy doctor. Instead, you should be critically examining important papers that are pertinent to your patient population. Part of your critique should include a critique of the methods and results, rather than just taking the conclusions at face value. All research is not equal. Just about anything can get published.

I would go as far as saying research experience (again, it doesn't have to be strict benchwork) should be a requirement for admission to medical school. It basically teaches you how to troubleshoot. Some people say that they have no interest in research. Well, who had interest in Orgo? But for some reason we still have to take it with for no better reason that anyone explains other than it weeds people out. I think research has much more value to your development as a physician than Orgo or Physics.

So I know people will vehemntly disagree. That's cool. Just adding my two cents Two cents, anyone? 🙂

 

[CTIL]

I agree, but for a slightly different reason. Research is important, as you said, because it allows you to hone valuable skills i.e. critical thinking, creative problem solving etc. I think there is another important and more obvious reason that all physicians should have some research experience: it shows that you are comfortable with and aware of the scientific basis for the art that you practice. Chemists should know physics, computer scientists should know mathematics, writers should know grammer and syntax. Similarly, physicians should know about science. Medicine is rooted in material explanations of disease, and research is a way of knowing about those material explanations.

 

[jtheater]

Originally posted by CTIL
Similarly, physicians should know about science. Medicine is rooted in material explanations of disease, and research is a way of knowing about those material explanations.

Yeah, even if you are focusing on an extremely small component (e.g., a small protein in a chain of rections) of a system, you have to know that system extremely well to do the research. You definitely learn a subject better when you are doing hands on work than just learning it in a book or through lecture. You probably learn more than you really need to know for clinical purposes(especially for a GP), so I think the skills you practice and hone are the real benefit to research for a clinician.

 

[Gaberman]

i agree with all said above...that research is an important experience that will add much depth to our understanding and practice of medicine.

however, i would hesitate to make it a requirement. the more requirements that are added on, the more people will be shut-out of the profession. not everybody has had it as easy as i have (or perhaps you). finding a research job (that probably doesn't pay too well, or maybe you're doing it for credit) in addition to a part-time job, school, perhaps a family, volunteering, etc is very tough and probably even harder for a non-trad. plus, research can always be conducted while IN med school, not necessarily before med school. we might as well make community service a requirement as well.

i guess my point is that the way it stands, med schools look favorably upon research experience. just as it looks favorably upon service. making it a requirement is a whole different story. the more rules we have the more people get shut out. let's take applicants more in context...and less as a checklist.