Research in Field of Specialty?

[sdn4em]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello all,

I'm an MSTP student and I was wondering if anyone could give me their insights on this one: i've heard differing opinions that it is helpful to do research in the field in which one wishes to specialize in, and that otherwise, the research is not really ""helpful"" in applying to that specialty. I have two specific questions:

First, if I'm interested in basic processes and basic science research such that ex. molecular pathway would be applicable to any field, is this recognized???....even if elucidation of these universal pathways was done in a particular tissue system as is often the case??

Second, doesn't that mean that if we were to apply into, say, some surgical program with a research component, would this research count into that requirement?

I'm just trying to get an idea of the role of doing a project in the field of interest. I know interesting projects, good labs and supervisors, etc etc are important. I just don't know the extent of what implications there are in choosing or not choosing a project consistent with the field one plans to specialize in is (which I don't know either at this point).......thanks.

 

[BDavis]

Hello all,

First, if I'm interested in basic processes and basic science research such that ex. molecular pathway would be applicable to any field, is this recognized???....even if elucidation of these universal pathways was done in a particular tissue system as is often the case??

Before I entered graduate school, I did 6 months of clinical rotations which helped me narrow down the fields of medicine that I was interested in. However when I chose a lab in graduate school I choose a lab that had some relevance to disease, but not specifically to the field of medicine that I thought I was interested in (which was completely different from the field that I thought I was interested in after basic sciences). I think this seems to be a matter of personal preference; many of my classmates chose labs that have very little connection to human disease and thay are very happy as well.

For me I found that my interests changed as I had different clinical experiences so I was glad I did not pick a field based on what I had in mind right after basic sciences. I do not know how your program is set up, but if you have had very little clinical experience prior to graduate school your interests may change after clinics.

The MSTP students in our program that recently matched had a diverse array of thesis topics that did not always correlate with the field in which they matched.

 

[agp4]

I'm an MSTP that's been starting out too. What everyone's told me is to concentrate on getting good training more than making sure your research is "cool" or applicable to your future career goals. I think that if you get trained in science properly, you shouldn't have any trouble switching fields later on down the road. That said, I have absolutely no idea what my research is going to be, but I'm sure I will figure it in the next two years (hopefully! 🙂).

 

[leverp2000]

While the training can be equally good in an unrelated research field, I still think that switching will be harder down the line than continuing on the same path. As an applicant, I'm am first trying to find research opportunities that interest me and are in my currently planned field of specialty. If I can't find these, I would be perfectly happy doing research on an interesting topic in an unrelated field, because there are many connections between various fields (especially in molecular science) and I would rather be interested in my research than do something boring, but applicable.

 

[ears]

Possibly relevant thoughts:

1. I think it's difficult to have a serious idea about what specialty you plan to go into before you get into the clinical years. Certainly, I wouldn't let something like that limit your choices of a lab.

2. The success of your graduate school career is much more dependent on choosing the right advisor/lab. You want to find a place where people are excited, friendly, happy, and productive. You're more likely to be successful in finding such a place if you don't limit yourself by field or methodologies. (For example, protein biochemistry bores me silly, but I'd go to the lab of a great advisor with a good group of smart, happy people who were publishing, graduating, and going on to good jobs.)

3. The important part of a graduate education, especially for a physician-scientist, is knowing how to figure out the important questions, and figure out good ways to answer them. These will apply whatever field you eventually end up in.

4. If you're going to do a residency, it's probably going to be about five years (med school + residency) before you're thinking about taking up research seriously again. That's, like, thirty-five science years. ;-) Even if you're trying to get back into the exact same field, you'll be like a newbie again anyway.

5. When you're applying for a residency, you'll definitely want to be able to paint a picture of how whatever you did is relevant to things that the specialty is interested in. Fortunately, this is very easy. And most residency programs are impressed by your science PhD no matter what it was in.

My bottom line: I think the field of your graduate research matters little, and this is especially true for MD/PhDs. The process of finding the right lab for you is incredibly important, and you don't want put artificial limits on your search.