Research freedom for epi PhDs?

[InATree]

I am getting more and more interested in epidemiology -- every interesting research question I can come up with is epidemiological in nature, so it seems like a really good fit...

What worries me is that I'm not sure how much freedom epi people *without* medical degrees get to come up with their own research questions and studies. For example, if an epi PhD wanted to compare skin mite levels in people with and without acne, are they able to be the PI for that (and collaborate with licensed medical folks to get and analyze the skin scrapings) or would someone need to be an MD to be trusted to come up with ideas like that, and an epidemiologist would just be working under them and not allowed to come up with/be the PI for such a study?

Also, how much freedom do epi folks have to change interests within their field? For example, could someone who had been focussed in mental health epidemiology do a lot of reading on skin diseases and then be considered qualified to do epidemiological studies of skin diseases?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PointEstimate]

A reasonable amount. Science is very much a team sport and PhD epidemiologists often (but are not required to) collaborate with medical colleagues. Look at faculty lists and you'll see quite a few professors without MDs after their name and clearly they are doing just find holding their own in this field.

Just to help you get started.....
http://www.jhsph.edu/departments/epidemiology/faculty/
http://www.sph.umich.edu/iscr/faculty/dept.cfm?deptID=3
http://depts.washington.edu/epidem/fac/facListReg.shtml
http://epi.berkeley.edu/Faculty1.html

 

[MolBio]

I am getting more and more interested in epidemiology -- every interesting research question I can come up with is epidemiological in nature, so it seems like a really good fit...

What worries me is that I'm not sure how much freedom epi people *without* medical degrees get to come up with their own research questions and studies.

Two key considerations here.

1. In order to really become an independent investigator, you will have to get a faculty position - not necessarily tenure track professor, but some kind of faculty position. For example some schools have a non-tenure scientist track. To get these competitive jobs, it is publications and secondarily, teaching experience, that is most important. With that in mind, universities like to hire professors who have a coherent and clear research vision. A mental health professor candidate who publishes 10 papers on post-traumatic stress disorder, each of which explores a deeper and more nuanced sub-aspect, is going to be far more appealing than a candidate with a smattering of papers in PTSD, a smattering in dermatology, where the search committee (and future colleague) is left wondering what type of researcher they are getting. As an academic candidate it's in your best interests to be "known" for something specific, it's the most logical way to sell yourself.

2. What really defines your freedom of research topics isn't an abstract notion of "academic freedom" based on the letters after your name. It's cold, hard cash in the form of research grants: no grant money, no project, how else you plan to pay for your study? Yes, definitely when applying for a research grant the funders want their money used to the best possible extent. So if they have one application to a derm RFA from a prof with a strong track record of specialized publications in dermatology, and one from a mental health professor with little or no dermatology experience, the funders will have much lower confidence that the latter has the expertise to maximize their monetary investment. [NIH people correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a CV section and a "expertise" section you have to fill out?]

That being said. Depending on the university, there is a fair amount of possibility, even encouragement, to collaborate on areas of academic synergy, even between fields that don't traditionally work together. If your expertise on mental health as an obvious added value to a project, you may even convince (with sufficient goodwill and/or a track record of collaborating) a research group to add you to their existing grant. However there would need to be some common thread of interest. Like, i don't know...the mental health effects of having acne, to use your example (are kids more depressed? more bullied? what about after treatment? ) Just completely jumping from one field into another field entirely is not how academia works, IMHO...IMO, when you get your PhD you are generally making a declaration about the field that you intend to specialize in for your long-term career.

Option the third. You don't really want to become an independent investigator, you can become sort of a "freelance" epidemiologist for hire - you will always work for somebody else, but you can do a series of postdoctoral positions on epidemiologic studies with faculty on vastly different topics. You have some leeway to ask research questions within the study that already exists, but you don't own the study, you don't really design it and you don't get the bottom line credit for the overall study. This is more for your personal interest and given my earlier points, not very conducive to landing a full time professor job. Not recommended.