Research Oriented Programs

[Dishevelled Doc]

While I have found the postings on this thread both interesting and useful, I'm hoping that someone out there can give me a better idea of how the various programs stack up in terms of the type and quality of research the residents in the program are able to do and the subsequent positions they get in academia. From previous postings, I have some clue - places like Harvard, Chicago, Vanderbilt, seem like good options - but I'm still not too sure. Basically, if my long-term goal is to run a lab studying radiobiology at an academic medical center, which residency programs are going to best prepare me for that sort of a career?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[stephew]

moved from Radonc ranking thread.

 

[Gfunk6]

In my opinion, if you truly want become a physician scientist, the following programs will give you the best shot (in no apparent order): Harvard, Vanderbilt, Penn, Stanford, Chicago, MDACC, Michigan.

Other programs which can give you strong research training: Beaumont, Buffalo, Jefferson, UCSF.

There are a few programs that I haven't mentioned (notably MSKCC and Wisconsin) b/c they have excellent research opportunities for junior faculty but not so much for trainees.

This list is non-exclusive, other should feel free to add their input as well.

 

[radiodog]

I like GFunk's list. I would also add Wash U b/c they now give a full year of elective, have a new research oriented chair, and are expanding their research facilities. Also NIH although I do not understand how their residency works. Yale is probably moving up to in terms of opportunites and has a long history of research excellence.

Not sure if UCSF is the best for lab training in radiobio, but still an excellent program. MDACC and Stanford are probably better for clinical and translational research although one could have excellent radiobio training at both these programs if they choose.

For the pure physican-scientist Vanderbilt is a great option. From what I heard just about all of their residents are Holman and most obtain NIH funding during residency, they interview only MD/Phds with few exceptions. Michigan has a long track record of training academically oriented residents. Harvard has an unlimited number of mentors to work with and may be the best in the country for training physician-scientists.

 

[stephew]

i would look at places with active holman pathways involved.

 

[kimplera]

I'll add, somewhat shamelessly, that UNC has become a very good place also. They have a new chair who is a strong translational researcher. From a basic science perspective they have a very strong track record of NIH funding. They have more NIH roadmap grants than any other university in the country. I think just as importantly for anyone interested in basic/translational research, they have been very supportive of junior faculty and as a university, they have one of the highest percentages of all the NIH K awards in the country.

Disclaimer: Currently I am a resident at UNC.

 

[john24]

UT Southwestern also promotes research.

 

[deleted4401]

UPMC. You get 9-12 months during your PGY-4 year. This can be used for basic science or clinical research.

-S

 

[cab]

MSKCC has plenty of research opportunties for residents (basic and clinical)

 

[Adawaal]

There are clearly programs with a history of strong research and those without. Frankly though, if you're sufficiently dedicated and self-motivated, you can find success just about anywhere. Nobody in a million years would consider my program research-oriented, and I would whole-heartedly agree.

That being said, I've made clinical research my mission, and I've accomplished quite a bit in a year-and-a-half. I am submitting abstracts to all the major meetings, have a couple of oral presentations coming up (including at ASCO in June), have several papers which will be submitted before the end of the calendar year, and have written two prospective clinical trials, one of which will be multicenter. I've already had folks from a couple of the "big name" research places talk to me about plans after graduation.

This is not to brag about anything (I've been very fortunate), but simply to show that if you're disciplined and committed to research, it really doesn't matter where you are. Do I wish I had the resources of an Anderson/Penn/Harvard/etc.? Of course, but I'm doing what I can and hope than when interview time for a staff position comes around, people will see what I'm capable of doing. And if I can accomplish this in an environment with no institutional commitment to research, what would it be like with support and resources?

 

[stephew]

ad: youre doing better than most, trust me.

 

[Adawaal]

ad: youre doing better than most, trust me.

Well, I don't know about all that, but I just wanted to try to make the point that while being at a research mecca makes things easier, a dedicated person can be successful and get quality research done just about anywhere.

Besides, I was lucky to have a certain superMOD as an example to follow....