Research only an MD/PhD can do

[PfNO22]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Elsewhere in this forum, there seems to be a silent consensus that MD/PhD research is translational medicine. In a lot of cases, it seems to me that the work of an MD/PhD could also be done by a collaboration between an MD and a PhD.

Can you think of examples of research that is uniquely suited to an MD/PhD? are there physician-scientists that are outstanding examples of this for you?

Especially today, basic scientists like to say that they are doing translational science. Is the definition becoming blurred?

 

[soundnin]

Elsewhere in this forum, there seems to be a silent consensus that MD/PhD research is translational medicine. In a lot of cases, it seems to me that the work of an MD/PhD could also be done by a collaboration between an MD and a PhD.

Can you think of examples of research that is uniquely suited to an MD/PhD? are there physician-scientists that are outstanding examples of this for you?

Especially today, basic scientists like to say that they are doing translational science. Is the definition becoming blurred?

imho, i don't think there is such thing as research that only a md/phd can do. and i agree that a lot more basic science researchers are trying to present their work in a translational light.

 

[wuhanese]

http://www.rockefeller.edu/research/faculty/labheads/RobertDarnell/

http://www.med.cornell.edu/research/mgkaplitt/index.html

http://www.mskcc.org/prg/prg/bios/640.cfm

basically, find a niche

 

[SilverBvllet]

Translational research is a buzz word imo. People probably use this in grants more than MD-PhD applicants in their essays lol.

Also I know physician-scientists that are MD-only (usually older folks) that do highly translational work. The MD-PhD really allows you to do basic, translational, and clinical research, so all types of research. I don't think there's a particular field that ONLY MD-PhDs are "qualified" to do, but they may be better equipped. You have the flexibility and training to do whatever and that's awesome.

 

[gbwillner]

Translational research is a buzz word imo. People probably use this in grants more than MD-PhD applicants in their essays lol.

Also I know physician-scientists that are MD-only (usually older folks) that do highly translational work. The MD-PhD really allows you to do basic, translational, and clinical research, so all types of research. I don't think there's a particular field that ONLY MD-PhDs are "qualified" to do, but they may be better equipped. You have the flexibility and training to do whatever and that's awesome.

I agree with this post.
I would also say that the major advantage of the MD/PhD is inspiration. You don't have to ask anyone how you may be able to apply some new technology- your MD training will answer for you. On the flip side, your research training will help you tackle a clinical question from a basic science perspective.
I have seen lots of basic science PhDs who are briliant, but go into "translational" projects because of their contacts in the clinical realm, not knowing there were WAY better ways to use their skills (i.e., they did not know other, more relevant clinical problems that were better suited for their study). I have also seen MDs attempt to to do translational research but attack a problem back asswards because they did not understand fundimental concepts in approaching the problem.

 

[PfNO22]

You don't have to ask anyone how you may be able to apply some new technology- your MD training will answer for you. On the flip side, your research training will help you tackle a clinical question from a basic science perspective.

To me, this doesn't necessarily sound like a good thing. I mean, on going peer review and exchanging ideas and collaborating is for me a hugely important part of science and also a more enjoyable part too.

 

[SilverBvllet]

To me, this doesn't necessarily sound like a good thing. I mean, on going peer review and exchanging ideas and collaborating is for me a hugely important part of science and also a more enjoyable part too.

Nobody said you having expertise in medicine + your PhD field removes the need to collaborate, or forbids you to collaborate. I would argue it would even make for more fruitful/productive collaborations because you, the MD-PhD, understand both how doctors and scientists think/communicate and you can therefore lead more effective collaborations. I cannot tell you how many meetings I've been in where a basic science lab collaborates with a group at a medical school and during meeting things are just rockin because the docs pretend they know what the basic scientists are talking about (i.e. the classic "nod-hmm-ok" routine), but afterwards everyone is like "so uh...what are we doing?" Obviously this is not true of all collaborations, but I think the MD/PhD makes both individual and collaborative pursuits more effective. And as gbwillner put more eloquently than I had in my head, the whole inspiration thing is just awesome...it is freedom imo.

 

[soundnin]

... and during meeting things are just rockin because the docs pretend they know what the basic scientists are talking about (i.e. the classic "nod-hmm-ok" routine), but afterwards everyone is like "so uh...what are we doing?"

 

[Lil Mick]

I'd say that we help disjointed areas work together (for instance, a PhD in math and an MD--neither can talk about the project to the other unless there is someone who can translate it). I think we can improve efficiency and collaboration in such joint research. Mathematicians don't think of many medical confounders in a study, for instance, but someone versed in both can help determine the best methodology, tease out relationships...

 

[PfNO22]

(for instance, a PhD in math and an MD--neither can talk about the project to the other unless there is someone who can translate it)

We have several physicists at our institute, doing biophysics and modeling; the biologists have no idea what's going on... glassy eyes.