How is basic science vs clinical research viewed by PDs for competitive specialties? Do basic science publications hold more weight than clinical? I was planning to do mostly clinical research during M1 and M2. I have a research year in my program and am thinking of focusing on basic science research during then, and clinical research during my "working" years.
Rising M1, Question about research for competitive specialties
- Thread starter imlosinit
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,284
- Reaction score
- 10,684
Most see it no differently. What matters is numbers mainly. Quality matters too, but hard for students to be doing really high level work with the time they have. That said, having a little basic science experience can be nice especially if you’re interested in embedded research fellowships during residency. But basic science takes much longer to get to publication.
Most students have primarily clinical papers. The exceptions are phds who had time and resources to do some good lab work. If you just have a year, make sure you have a few pubs to show for it.
Most students have primarily clinical papers. The exceptions are phds who had time and resources to do some good lab work. If you just have a year, make sure you have a few pubs to show for it.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2005
- Messages
- 1,910
- Reaction score
- 13,147
Clinical is fine. I agree if you have that time you should be able to get something published. I was able to get a case report published in a pretty big ortho journal in a couple weeks between MS4 and when I started internship.
The most important thing in my opinion is to be able to understand your research and talk about it in an intellegent way during interviews. Youd be surprised...
The most important thing in my opinion is to be able to understand your research and talk about it in an intellegent way during interviews. Youd be surprised...
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2021
- Messages
- 4,923
- Reaction score
- 4,497
Basic science takes way too long for you to be productive
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2002
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 34
Hey there—really thoughtful question, and I love how you’re already thinking ahead about how to balance your research focus across different stages of med school.
From what I’ve seen (and discussed with a handful of PDs and mentors in competitive specialties like derm, ortho, and neurosurg), both basic science and clinical research can be impressive—but they serve slightly different purposes in the eyes of a program director.
Basic science tends to signal a certain depth: it often requires sustained focus, critical thinking, and can show that you’re comfortable working in complex, sometimes slow-moving systems. That said, unless you're applying to a program with a strong physician-scientist track, many PDs put more immediate value on clinical research, especially if it ties closely to patient outcomes or is published in specialty-relevant journals. It’s tangible, relevant, and easier to see how it connects back to being a strong future resident.
That doesn’t mean basic science doesn’t “count”—far from it. It can make your application stand out, especially if it’s high-quality, shows initiative, or connects to your long-term goals. If you’ve got a research year, that could be the perfect time to sink your teeth into basic science projects that require more upfront investment, while using M1/M2 to knock out more clinically relevant studies that help you build a publication base and learn the ropes.
Here’s a question to sit with: What story do you want your research to tell about you by the time you apply? If it’s about being a future innovator who thrives in bench-to-bedside thinking, your plan might actually highlight that nicely. If it's more about showing clinical curiosity and efficiency, you might adjust accordingly.
Also, consider what environments you thrive in—basic science can be a grind, and it’s important that your research year recharges and excites you rather than drains you.
Hope that gives some helpful perspective! Curious to hear how you’re thinking about shaping your research narrative as you go—this stuff is rarely one-size-fits-all.
From what I’ve seen (and discussed with a handful of PDs and mentors in competitive specialties like derm, ortho, and neurosurg), both basic science and clinical research can be impressive—but they serve slightly different purposes in the eyes of a program director.
Basic science tends to signal a certain depth: it often requires sustained focus, critical thinking, and can show that you’re comfortable working in complex, sometimes slow-moving systems. That said, unless you're applying to a program with a strong physician-scientist track, many PDs put more immediate value on clinical research, especially if it ties closely to patient outcomes or is published in specialty-relevant journals. It’s tangible, relevant, and easier to see how it connects back to being a strong future resident.
That doesn’t mean basic science doesn’t “count”—far from it. It can make your application stand out, especially if it’s high-quality, shows initiative, or connects to your long-term goals. If you’ve got a research year, that could be the perfect time to sink your teeth into basic science projects that require more upfront investment, while using M1/M2 to knock out more clinically relevant studies that help you build a publication base and learn the ropes.
Here’s a question to sit with: What story do you want your research to tell about you by the time you apply? If it’s about being a future innovator who thrives in bench-to-bedside thinking, your plan might actually highlight that nicely. If it's more about showing clinical curiosity and efficiency, you might adjust accordingly.
Also, consider what environments you thrive in—basic science can be a grind, and it’s important that your research year recharges and excites you rather than drains you.
Hope that gives some helpful perspective! Curious to hear how you’re thinking about shaping your research narrative as you go—this stuff is rarely one-size-fits-all.
Similar threads
