Should I stay or should I go?

[sixSigma]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I'm a rising 5th year MD/PhD student and have become quite disillusioned with the process. At this point, I am done with all the non-research duties related to being a graduate student besides actually completing the research. I'm entering my 3rd year in the lab and have had a number of projects go belly up during my time here. This is just a point where I have become especially disillusioned with the process and am considering whether to stick it out (with no end in sight) or if I should re-enter medical school with a master's degree. I would be more than happy to be a physician and don't think I want to have a large research component in my future (the opposite of my feelings upon entering the program).

Has anyone been in a similar place? Was there anything you were able to do to get things back on track? I just worry about being in this same position a year from now with no data or end in sight. It isn't late in the program yet but it definitely isn't early. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[tr]

Sorry to hear things aren't going well. I think it's a common place for both PhDs and MD/PhDs to find themselves, especially in that 3rd year slump. I'd say most of my peers in graduate school followed this pattern of having an extended period of unproductive work followed by finding a groove and accumulating all the data for their PhD in six months. Optimistically you could consider that they finally 'found their groove' where they were experienced enough to be productive and thereafter graduated quickly, or pessimistically you could consider that they were able to make it to graduation only once they struck a vein, which is to some extent a matter of luck that could occur in year 3 or year 7.

Personally I can say frankly that I entered my program absolutely set on a research career (I didn't apply to MD only and my backup plan was PhD only), had a pretty unproductive and miserable PhD which I considered quitting (but ultimately scraped out of with minimum requirements due to a number of political factors), was surprised to find I loved clinical work, and spent a number of years pretty sure I was just going to end up as a clinician. However I was ineluctably called back to the world of research and am currently back trying to make it to independent funding in a clinical/translational area that's quite far from my original PhD area, and which I like much better. Of course given current funding climate it's not clear whether that is going to work out in the end or not. Regardless of that, I can say I'm giving it the college try, and if I do end up going straight clinical I'm pretty sure I would be very happy with that too.

I am happy that I stuck out the dual degree (despite my frankly miserable graduate school experience) because it is a huge help to me now. Although I'm still struggling to cover the gaps in my CV from the subpar PhD and extended period of nonpublishing while in residency, I definitely find that the training in rigorous scientific thought gives me a huge edge over people in my department who trained strictly as clinicians. The creditability boost from the extra letters is good as well, and the lack of student debt is instrumental in allowing me to continue in the relatively lower-paid research positions without worrying about a huge loan burden.

Without knowing more about your situation it's hard to give you any specific advice. I think this is something you need to decide for yourself. However I wouldn't make the decision solely on the basis of having had three years of less-than-productive lab work, because that is *really* common. I would think more about where you want to be five or ten years from now. If you are 100% convinced you never want to do research again then it could make sense to quit. However it seems like it would be hard to know that since you don't have any clinical experience now (after all, you might hate that too). Also research has this way of magically starting to look so much more appealing once you get one or two good results.

Before making any final decisions, I'd talk to some senior students in your department to see what their trajectories have been like and if they have any advice for you on how to move things faster.

 

[StIGMA]

Most graduate students have been in your place. You have only been at this for 2 years- most straight PhD students don't have anything too significant even after 4 years. It is still feasible to find a project and finish in the next two years, which puts you at a still below-average 8 year MD/PhD.

Do you feel competent in what you are doing? Do you know most of the literature in your field- and for your specific project- do you know the literature better than your PI? If so, you should be able to figure out multiple potential research projects, including "highly likely to lead to a publication" projects that are obvious extensions of other peoples' work (which could still be high impact), are good exploratory topics (ie: global gene expression analysis or coIP/mass spec of something important), or "high risk high reward" projects that have less likelihood of success. Figure out a project that is less risky (but still important) and start working on that. Don't rely on your PI to hand you a stale project.

Once you have something, stick to experiments that are straightforward and will give you clear-cut results. Minimize the experiments you do that will not end up in a paper. Talk to senior students/post-docs about troubleshooting failed experiments- don't assume you know why something didn't work. Also consider collaborations. Figure out who else can contribute to your project in a way that you cannot.

Lastly, don't let months go by without doing anything productive. It happens- so be aware when you are in a rut and correct it.

 

[URHere]

I've been there, and so have most of the MD/PhD students I know. During my PhD, I spent a year spinning my wheels on a microscopy project, then moved to a "high risk" project on a topic where no one in my lab had expertise. After 6 frustrating months, I had what looked like groundbreaking data…until I realized that my intervention didn't work in animals and that other people in the field were starting to publish essentially the same thing. I tried to spin that project into something salvagable for about a year before giving up entirely. If you would have asked me about my career goals at that point in time, I would have told you that I would consider industry, but that I couldn't imagine myself in academic medicine anymore.

Eventually, I started taking on projects that were extensions of some very high impact work coming out of my lab. I got to the place where every experiment I was running was publishable, and I accumulated all of the data for my dissertation within about 9 months. I wrote a ton of papers, went to a conference every other month, and ultimately became one of the more productive students in my program. By the time I graduated, I wanted a research career again and I was very happy with how everything played out.

When I talk to my classmates, most of them have similar stories. There is a lot of uncertainty during a PhD, and it is absolutely awful at times. The third year is especially brutal because in theory you know enough to succeed…but you just can't. Learning how to choose projects and make contingency plans is a difficult skill and many students end up more depressed than they realize while they're trying to figure it out.

What you ultimately do is up to you, but just know that your experience is a very common one. If you're anything like I was, this is not the right time for you to make big decisions about your degree program or your future. Just keep learning from your experiences (both successes and failures) and keep moving forward. Many people before you have made it through this slump, and you can too.

 

[sixSigma]

I really needed to hear this. Both that it happens to a lot of people and especially the comments by StIGMA to get my butt in gear if I feel like something is wrong. I've been choosing high-risk, high-reward projects and plan on starting a new one along similar lines that is more descriptive. Having a project that delivers interesting information whether your hypothesis is correct or not seems like a good way to regain footing and making sure to structure experiments so that they are all relevant to a future publication.

Thank you.

 

[vife]

Agreed with the others. It does happen a lot but as I keep hearing from a lot of people, the key is not to "excel" PER se but to FINISH so you can then explore and move on and grow and then find what you really want to do (and have the freedom to keep switching). I'm in the same way and filled some of my time with outside things to do. But luckily, I've been able to move forward on projects. One thing I also suggest is to see what other projects you can join and collaborate on. Much of my enjoyment and success has come from that.

 

[Petypet]

I don't recall the statistic given at my entrance meeting for my PhD program but they mentioned like 60-70% of a students published research isn't obtained until the last year or two of their time in lab (and I may be underestimating that a bit). Further, some students GET NOTHING out of research, other than spinning their wheels and going through to motions and that is OKAY. Its hard to accept the fact that you aren't getting anything, but by going through the motions you are learning a lot and you won't realize that until you are against your peers that do not have the PhD. Trust me and trust the advice above. Certainly PI's don't want to throw money down a tube with no publications resulting, but the reality is that a lot of research is pointless and some of it is never publishable. Have faith in the system and your advisors and you will pull through just fine.

From a mentor stand point, do some easier experiments, hell repeat previous students experiments to gain faith in yourself. During my PhD, I had to repeat previous student's research for almost 8 months until I was full trusting of my lab technique. Its like see one, do one, teach one motto. However, in research, the "do one" can take a while to master.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

You will be OK. I had to switch labs twice during my PhD. 1st time after ~4 months was my own doing, from a very toxic lab environment and area of study I could never see myself tangentially using later on. 2nd time was the mentor leaving the university to go to a community hospital nearby (he had a fallout with his academic colleagues). So I lost 1.5 years, and at the point of my switch, I was at my lowest point in years. I had done well in my masters and my PhD was going bad, so this made things harder to understand.

Long story short, I switched into a much better lab environment, played around with some projects that were unpublishable for ~0.5 years. Then towards ~2 years into the PhD program, I started a "safety" project that would be publishable however the results went. Several months after that, I started a much more high risk project which panned out nicely. I haven't been the most productive student, for sure, as I'm getting out my 3rd 1st author paper only now (in first year of residency), but things did turn out OK in the end.

Don't quit, keep on plugging along, things will come together in the next 0.5-1 years, trust me they will.

 

[QofQuimica]

On top of the good advice that you've already received above, I would suggest that you start working on 2-3 projects at a time. One should be a "sure thing" that is basically an extension of already successful work, and the other 1-2 can be your high risk, high reward type. That way, when the high risk projects don't pan out, you still have the sure thing to write up, and you can stay on track to graduate. This is what I did during my PhD. FWIW, none of my high risk projects worked out either, and I'd argue that this is the norm for projects like that. And that's why we say they're high risk, right? 🙂

 

[StIGMA]

On top of the good advice that you've already received above, I would suggest that you start working on 2-3 projects at a time. One should be a "sure thing" that is basically an extension of already successful work, and the other 1-2 can be your high risk, high reward type. That way, when the high risk projects don't pan out, you still have the sure thing to write up, and you can stay on track to graduate. This is what I did during my PhD. FWIW, none of my high risk projects worked out either, and I'd argue that this is the norm for projects like that. And that's why we say they're high risk, right? 🙂

I didn't mention this because it is better to have an established project before you branch out. (If you are still trying to find a project, working on multiple ideas until something works can be a good thing). Don't dilute yourself until you have something substantial on one project- unless your field allows you to quickly (~ <1 week) tests hypotheses and you don't get too distracted. I've seen too many younger PhD students not get anything significant accomplished because they tried to balance 2-3+ projects at the same time and ended up doing squat on all of them.

 

[animula]

we all have been there. My advice - stick it out! Maybe consider changing a lab to find safer project if you can, but I can promise you will regret if you leave - just like one of the students here. Nothing went her way in the lab, despite help and encouragement, but that happens. She quit, but now two years down the line she regrets. Just play a nice Sesame Song about not giving up and it will be fine 🙂

 

[Elixir6]

As someone who is having research difficulties at the moment, I found this thread to be very comforting (almost inspiring, except its not the right word as my PhD has been doodoo and I mostly just find great comfort that successful people such as yourselves also had a mediocre feeling grad school experience).

Mainly, I want to say thank you to all who have posted. It means a lot to me, and I think to all us lowly grad students.