Seriously considering research career, but very confused and lost. Please assist?

[Svetlana1227]

Hi everybody. I am currently a sophomore in college at a crossroads. I've always LOVED learning about medicine, particularly nutrition medicine and how that affects gene expression and outcome in humans (nutragenomics) and that hasn't changed in the slightest, but up until now I was sure I was going to be an MD or a DO. The thing is, direct patient care doesn't appeal to me AT ALL, and I'm sorry if that sounds uncaring. As an undergrad I've been writing scientific articles based off studies I read and I've just realized how much I appreciate research. For fun, I spend hours on Pubmed looking up stuff like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24750797 and wishing I could have been a part of it. The thing is, I still don't understand what exactly a research career entails! Will I work alone, with a team...? More importantly, would I be responsible for coming up with my OWN research and submitting grants for it, or will an employer direct me how what they want studied? If it's the former, that's very stressful. If I can't think of a new study I want to test, I'd be out of a job?

I was considering the MD/route with no residency, but I've been hearing two things. One: the MD will really help me secure a job, and two: the MD is a major waste of time, money, and resources if you solely want to do research with no patient interaction. I also heard that if I go for an MD/PhD, I would still need to do residency and unfortunately I'm late in completing my studies so don't have the time for even MORE extended study. I'm already in my early 20s where I should have completed my BA/BS, but instead I am just starting the science portion of it (already completed all my humanities). I'll need 2 to 2 1/2 before I get myself a BA or BS (biology).

Can anybody offer advice? Is a PhD a terrible idea with uncertain job security? Is most of it just really writing grants? I've also toyed with a PhD in Clinical Lab Science and even Biostatistics as other ways to be involved with research, but I'm not so sure if that's much better, particularly the former. I don't know if maybe it's *gasp* just a degree for administrators to profit more of students with a PhD offering not much advancement over a BS in Clinical Lab science. I love nutrition-related AND clinical trials, as my other career possibilities indicate.

PS: I've read some studies incorporating complex modeling and even differential equations for rigorous analysis. I would be lying if I said I wasn't intimidated by the math. Will I learn these methods in doctorate training since I won't have an engineering or heavy math background?

I'm all over the place mentally and have been 'researching' for hours and I feel no wiser for it. Any help/direction would be GREATLY appreciated! I don't know where else to go or what else to do!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pluto101]

First of all:
I'm really happy that you're interested in research! It's a hard field, full of disappointment and long hours, but I've so far found it incredibly rewarding. (2 years as a tech in a virology lab, applying MD/PhD. Also, I took a year off before college, did the humanities-to-bio switch, so I'm applying in my mid-20s - I think it's good to take your time to figure out what you want to do.)

Now, into the nitty-gritty.

You should do a few things:
Ask professors if you can volunteer in their labs. If you're at a small college w/o much labwork going on, look into volunteering at labs in a nearby university.
Look into summer research programs. They're incredibly helpful. By working 40 hours a week in a lab, you pick up so much. Getting a sense of the day-to-day work of a researcher, and the variety of research positions out there, is invaluable.

Also, look into shadowing physicians (even your own primary care doctor) and volunteering at a hospital.

In order to figure out a future path, nothing beats directly looking at a profession.


Next: Career paths.
In general, the PhD path looks like this: BA/BS -> (optional tech work) -> 5-7 years PhD -> 3-6 years postdoc -> PI (head of lab)

Job descriptions:
Tech: You do what your boss (postdoc, PI) says. Depending on the lab, you could be in charge of side projects, or even your own. You are encouraged to come up with ideas. You are executing experiments and learning technique.
PhD: Depends on the lab you're in, but you're a mentored, independent researcher. Your PI (boss) vets your ideas and/or suggests ideas, with the goal of giving you projects that are doable and result in publishable work. You often work with a postdoc, and in the early years assist her with their work. That gets you authorship on papers, and an up-close look at how research is done. You will most likely work in a team, though if you are in a smaller lab you might work on projects on your own. Towards the last few years your PI (if she's good) will encourage you to apply for training grants from the NIH, so that you can learn how that process works.
Postdoc: You are in a PI training program (although increasingly it's more like a holding spot while you boost your resume). Your PI has probably hired you to work on a topic of interest, but you are in charge of your work. You have techs and PhDs under your command (again, depending on the size of the lab). You are applying for grants for your work, but your day to day is consumed with research. Your goal is to publish papers, as many and as high quality as possible.
PI: You are manger of a lab. You decide what to research. However, you are a manager, so you don't really do benchwork anymore. Your primary job is ensuring your lab stays funded. This generally involves applying for grants, writing papers, and soliciting donations. You are also in charge of all the administrative duties that come with running a lab. If you are in academia, you are probably teaching on top of all this.

Job security is pretty good for all of these positions except PI. There are far more PhDs than there are tenure-track faculty positions, and even if you're ok with working in non-profit research facilities or pharmaceutical positions, funding is tight. (Though there's a decent chance that'll change in 10 years. The funding situation is often cyclical.)

MD/PhD:
BA/BS -> tech work (2-4 years) -> MD/PhD program (8 years) -> Residency/Fellowship/Postdoc (3-7 years) -> PI or MD
Same job descriptions. MD/PhD program is 2-3 years of med school, 4 years of PhD, then finishing up med school.

Note that as an MD/PhD, in most instances you are going to be a PI four days a week, and a clinical physician one day a week. There are advantages to having the MD - clinical research is easier, as you have access to samples from real human beings. If your funding runs dry, you can also simply practice medicine.

If you want to do research, think about what kind of research you want to do. Basic research? Translational research (taking basic research and developing drugs)? Clinical research (examining the effectiveness of treatments)?


I'm sure I've gotten a few things wrong here. There are definitely more career paths than this (I once worked with a 10 year tech who was very happy, had many 2nd author publications, and felt PhD programs were all scams.) If anybody wants to elaborate on the MD/PhD stuff in particular, I'd appreciate it. Hopefully this is helpful.


PS - as far as the math? Clinical work often requires advanced statistics, but that's why labs hire statisticians. It's a huge selling point if you know the math, but biologists are notorious for being math-ignorant.

 

[Svetlana1227]

What a mountain of an answer; I can't thank you ENOUGH! I really, really appreciate it!


I have a much better picture in my mind of what to expect with a PhD career in bioscience. It seems up my alley, but I'm just terrified of job security! I'm hearing there is more supply than demand as I peruse this forum. I'm not sure if that spells doom for bioscience PhDs in general, or certain subgroups? I like to think nutrition is always a hot topic, so there is a better chance there (?) Well, I'll take your word for it that the job security for PhDs isn't THAT bad. I also live in the NYC area, so that's a plus I suppose.

Another question: Based on the shaky job security, I know many are recommending the MD/PhD route or just an MD with research on the side. Is the ONLY advantage to this the better job security or do MDs actually get paid more? I know they get paid a lot more in *general*, but if you're doing 100% research as an MD, do you still automatically get paid more, or do you get paid the same as the PhD doing full research?

Sorry again if these questions seem obvious. No one around me has even a remotely similar career path to mine so I don't really speak to anyone about these matters in person. Searching for these seemingly basic questions online too is proving to be elusive :s


And again, thanks a lot for the support!


(Thinking out loud: I'm wondering if one can do both basic research and clinical. I love theoretical but I also like testing patients and seeing the outcome of a nutritional intervention.)

First of all:
I'm really happy that you're interested in research! It's a hard field, full of disappointment and long hours, but I've so far found it incredibly rewarding. (2 years as a tech in a virology lab, applying MD/PhD. Also, I took a year off before college, did the humanities-to-bio switch, so I'm applying in my mid-20s - I think it's good to take your time to figure out what you want to do.)

Now, into the nitty-gritty.

You should do a few things:
Ask professors if you can volunteer in their labs. If you're at a small college w/o much labwork going on, look into volunteering at labs in a nearby university.
Look into summer research programs. They're incredibly helpful. By working 40 hours a week in a lab, you pick up so much. Getting a sense of the day-to-day work of a researcher, and the variety of research positions out there, is invaluable.

Also, look into shadowing physicians (even your own primary care doctor) and volunteering at a hospital.

In order to figure out a future path, nothing beats directly looking at a profession.


Next: Career paths.
In general, the PhD path looks like this: BA/BS -> (optional tech work) -> 5-7 years PhD -> 3-6 years postdoc -> PI (head of lab)

Job descriptions:
Tech: You do what your boss (postdoc, PI) says. Depending on the lab, you could be in charge of side projects, or even your own. You are encouraged to come up with ideas. You are executing experiments and learning technique.
PhD: Depends on the lab you're in, but you're a mentored, independent researcher. Your PI (boss) vets your ideas and/or suggests ideas, with the goal of giving you projects that are doable and result in publishable work. You often work with a postdoc, and in the early years assist her with their work. That gets you authorship on papers, and an up-close look at how research is done. You will most likely work in a team, though if you are in a smaller lab you might work on projects on your own. Towards the last few years your PI (if she's good) will encourage you to apply for training grants from the NIH, so that you can learn how that process works.
Postdoc: You are in a PI training program (although increasingly it's more like a holding spot while you boost your resume). Your PI has probably hired you to work on a topic of interest, but you are in charge of your work. You have techs and PhDs under your command (again, depending on the size of the lab). You are applying for grants for your work, but your day to day is consumed with research. Your goal is to publish papers, as many and as high quality as possible.
PI: You are manger of a lab. You decide what to research. However, you are a manager, so you don't really do benchwork anymore. Your primary job is ensuring your lab stays funded. This generally involves applying for grants, writing papers, and soliciting donations. You are also in charge of all the administrative duties that come with running a lab. If you are in academia, you are probably teaching on top of all this.

Job security is pretty good for all of these positions except PI. There are far more PhDs than there are tenure-track faculty positions, and even if you're ok with working in non-profit research facilities or pharmaceutical positions, funding is tight. (Though there's a decent chance that'll change in 10 years. The funding situation is often cyclical.)

MD/PhD:
BA/BS -> tech work (2-4 years) -> MD/PhD program (8 years) -> Residency/Fellowship/Postdoc (3-7 years) -> PI or MD
Same job descriptions. MD/PhD program is 2-3 years of med school, 4 years of PhD, then finishing up med school.

Note that as an MD/PhD, in most instances you are going to be a PI four days a week, and a clinical physician one day a week. There are advantages to having the MD - clinical research is easier, as you have access to samples from real human beings. If your funding runs dry, you can also simply practice medicine.

If you want to do research, think about what kind of research you want to do. Basic research? Translational research (taking basic research and developing drugs)? Clinical research (examining the effectiveness of treatments)?


I'm sure I've gotten a few things wrong here. There are definitely more career paths than this (I once worked with a 10 year tech who was very happy, had many 2nd author publications, and felt PhD programs were all scams.) If anybody wants to elaborate on the MD/PhD stuff in particular, I'd appreciate it. Hopefully this is helpful.


PS - as far as the math? Clinical work often requires advanced statistics, but that's why labs hire statisticians. It's a huge selling point if you know the math, but biologists are notorious for being math-ignorant.

 

[dl2dp2]

One thing you need to be aware of before you start any of these training careers: being a full time researcher (i.e. PhD) IS really just writing grants all the time. So if you don't think you'll enjoy writing grants, I would stop right there and not get a PhD.

 

[Neuro244]

What a mountain of an answer; I can't thank you ENOUGH! I really, really appreciate it!


I have a much better picture in my mind of what to expect with a PhD career in bioscience. It seems up my alley, but I'm just terrified of job security! I'm hearing there is more supply than demand as I peruse this forum. I'm not sure if that spells doom for bioscience PhDs in general, or certain subgroups? I like to think nutrition is always a hot topic, so there is a better chance there (?) Well, I'll take your word for it that the job security for PhDs isn't THAT bad. I also live in the NYC area, so that's a plus I suppose.

Another question: Based on the shaky job security, I know many are recommending the MD/PhD route or just an MD with research on the side. Is the ONLY advantage to this the better job security or do MDs actually get paid more? I know they get paid a lot more in *general*, but if you're doing 100% research as an MD, do you still automatically get paid more, or do you get paid the same as the PhD doing full research?

Sorry again if these questions seem obvious. No one around me has even a remotely similar career path to mine so I don't really speak to anyone about these matters in person. Searching for these seemingly basic questions online too is proving to be elusive :s


And again, thanks a lot for the support!


(Thinking out loud: I'm wondering if one can do both basic research and clinical. I love theoretical but I also like testing patients and seeing the outcome of a nutritional intervention.)

I would love an answer to this as well!

 

[dl2dp2]

Another question: Based on the shaky job security, I know many are recommending the MD/PhD route or just an MD with research on the side. Is the ONLY advantage to this the better job security or do MDs actually get paid more? I know they get paid a lot more in *general*, but if you're doing 100% research as an MD, do you still automatically get paid more, or do you get paid the same as the PhD doing full research?

This question is hard to answer because it depends too much on specific circumstances. MDs with a residency in general get paid more than PhDs even if they do 100% research. However, this is not always the case, and not because a hospital would automatically pay you more because you have an MD.

Even within people within the same strata of training (i.e. same subspecialty training, same research training, same academic seniority), salary can vary 100-200k depending on some very specific factors that are often outside of your direct control. To give you an example, we have academic physicians in a specialty working for a facility and do 80-90% research, but doesn't have own grant. Salary ~ 110-130k. Another physician who's actually a few years younger working for the same exact facility doing 80-90% research, but also moonlight at a different facility working about 5-10 hours a week on a fairly procedurally heavy area total salary = 300k.

This may seem very confusing, but you need to get out of your head the idea that you go to school, get a degree, and get a job and a fixed salary. The lifestyle of an academic physician scientist is essentially one of an entrepreneur. You raise money to do various things you want to do--research, clinical work, administration, (even actual traditional entrepreneurship when MD/PhDs start companies or manage and grow large divisions in large companies) etc. You can think of the academic medical center as a shopping mall that provides a basket of services (shops) and you are a shop owner. You sell your ideas and skills to your customers (i.e. funding agencies, patients), and operate a team to execute these goals, and your salary mainly depends on how successfully you can translate yours service into revenue and objective metrics of performance. As you can imagine, some shops in a mall are much much more successful than others even though they sell the exactly same things, and for reasons other than quality or competence in a strict sense.

 

[Neuro244]

This question is hard to answer because it depends too much on specific circumstances. MDs with a residency in general get paid more than PhDs even if they do 100% research. However, this is not always the case, and not because a hospital would automatically pay you more because you have an MD.

Even within people within the same strata of training (i.e. same subspecialty training, same research training, same academic seniority), salary can vary 100-200k depending on some very specific factors that are often outside of your direct control. To give you an example, we have academic physicians in a specialty working for a facility and do 80-90% research, but doesn't have own grant. Salary ~ 110-130k. Another physician who's actually a few years younger working for the same exact facility doing 80-90% research, but also moonlight at a different facility working about 5-10 hours a week on a fairly procedurally heavy area total salary = 300k.

This may seem very confusing, but you need to get out of your head the idea that you go to school, get a degree, and get a job and a fixed salary. The lifestyle of an academic physician scientist is essentially one of an entrepreneur. You raise money to do various things you want to do--research, clinical work, administration, (even actual traditional entrepreneurship when MD/PhDs start companies or manage and grow large divisions in large companies) etc. You can think of the academic medical center as a shopping mall that provides a basket of services (shops) and you are a shop owner. You sell your ideas and skills to your customers (i.e. funding agencies, patients), and operate a team to execute these goals, and your salary mainly depends on how successfully you can translate yours service into revenue and objective metrics of performance. As you can imagine, some shops in a mall are much much more successful than others even though they sell the exactly same things, and for reasons other than quality or competence in a strict sense.

What if for instance you go to UCLA Medical school and then finish a residency in Neurology in a California medical school. Then, you want to mostly teach a neuroscience class at a research intensive/non-intensive medical school in california, would this be possible/what are the exact steps necessary? Also, can you do your own research on the side while teaching the neuroscience class, or how would that factor into it? What would be the entry level salary at this poiint, and would you have to focus towards research that's more clinically applicable/funded by grants, such as neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimer's, parkinsons, or can you focus on something you find more interesting such as the neural basis of consciousness? What would be the best possible steps to take to come out with and MD and teach neuroscience courses to med students as well as dive into your own subject of interest in terms of your research?

Thank you and God Bless

 

[dl2dp2]

What if for instance you go to UCLA Medical school and then finish a residency in Neurology in a California medical school. Then, you want to mostly teach a neuroscience class at a research intensive/non-intensive medical school in california, would this be possible/what are the exact steps necessary?

Teaching makes no money as I said in the other thread. Expect 50k 40 hours a week.

Also, can you do your own research on the side while teaching the neuroscience class, or how would that factor into it?

Teaching makes no money. Research is conducted based on grants.

What would be the entry level salary at this poiint, and would you have to focus towards research that's more clinically applicable/funded by grants, such as neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimer's, parkinsons, or can you focus on something you find more interesting such as the neural basis of consciousness?

You can focus on whatever you can convince the funding agencies to fund.

What would be the best possible steps to take to come out with and MD and teach neuroscience courses to med students as well as dive into your own subject of interest in terms of your research?

MDs as a rule don't teach. In order to do what you want to do, you need to apply for grants to support your work. It's doable but you'll probably need 3-5 additional years of training after residency.