Stanley Pruisner's comments on MD/PhD's

[tr]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I don't want to belabor this point incessantly. The argument is moot. You don't have data showing that a PhD postdoc is more productive than an MD postdoc.

False; see below.

I've seen many great MD-postdocs (Nobel laureates) and many failed PhD postdocs. You can say the reverse is true as well. But, overall, I'm afraid the survey is just not done.

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/news/reports/mstpstudy/educational.html#research

The relevant figure is #5.

You can see that the relative success rate of MSTP and PhD graduates at obtaining grant support is on the order of 75%, while that of dropouts from MSTP programs (i.e., same ingoing talent but minus the PhD training) is more like 50%.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers (not trying to be inflammatory), but I suggest we talk again after you have put some time into your PhD.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

What is it that you hope to get out of a PhD? How to run a lab? They don't teach you that during grad school anyways. How to form a hypothesis and run an experiment? Oh man, I'm sorry if you can'd do that by now I suggest you just quit.

I guess I should've quit and dropped out of the MSTP a long time ago then 🙁

 

[1Path]

There is a lot of guidance in the PhD that you don't get in a postdoc. There is a system in place to ensure that you get feedback from multiple senior scientists besides your PI - people whose job it is to help you figure out how to think like a scientist. A PhD is for you to be trained. You can certainly try to do a postdoc without having been trained beforehand, but you will do a worse job than you would have otherwise..

👍

 

[beary]

If I can get my own jumbo grant and lots of minions to work for me NOW, I'd never ever do a PhD. But unfortunately nobody's willing to fund me until I have a track record, so I have no choice. It's simple as that.

sluox - I don't know you so I don't want to make assumptions, but I would think it very likely that you do not yet have the knowledge or skills to start running a lab and having lots of minions working for you. I just finished my Ph.D. Totally forgetting anything about CV/number of publications, I just am not yet ready to run my own lab. Say I had just gotten an MD and then done a 4 year postdoc - then I would have the same amount of research training as I do now. I'm just not ready yet. Maybe a few people are ready after a few years of research training in one lab (i.e. a postdoc after getting an MD), but I think that would be pretty rare.

 

[dl2dp2]

I want to apologize to everybody that I may or may not have offended. I don't want to be viewed as a bitter regretful MSTP, which I'm not. However, my opinion is a bit unorthodox, and it is very much liable for change in the future.

Just to clarify a couple of things. I'm not the only person who's ready to run a lab. I think everybody here is, that is, scientifically. Everybody here's capable of formulating new hypothesis, design new experiments and so forth. Now, if you are talking about person charisma and politics, then perhaps we do run into problems when we are too young. Do I think most people who are admitted into an MSTP can run a fortune 500 company? YES! But, that's not happening because, mostly, of senority (and politics and a variety of different factors unrelated to either your knowledge or your talent.)

So there are several (intrinsic) hurdles in running a lab. Money, experience, connections, age, etc. etc. that take time to culture. Extrinsic hurdles (your track record) obviously takes time too. But, I don't see a relative advantage in a PhD with regard to any of that compared to a post-doc, from a practical perspective. It's just not convinicing. Maybe my opinion will change after I finish my PhD, but I have a suspicion that it's not likely to occur. I think ultimately what matters isn't what degree program someone's enrolled in. It all boils down to the individual you are talking about. Some people thrive in some programs etc. If you read my article I have categorized degree programs to the type of individuals who are most fitted to go into that program. Personally, my personality is such that I would enjoy an MSTP much more compared to the other programs. However, to say that a PhD+postdoc program is ALWAYS better than an MD+postdoc for someone who aspires to a research career seems misleading and could be even dangerous. (although that's what has been recommended to many confused students by student guidance services etc.)

You can see that the relative success rate of MSTP and PhD graduates at obtaining grant support is on the order of 75%, while that of dropouts from MSTP programs (i.e., same ingoing talent but minus the PhD training) is more like 50%.

Yes, but this is not the right data. (You are looking at the right place though). I can't find the data at this minute. Basically NIH categorized what's called "late bloomers" and the assessment is that they are equally as effective in getting grants. Unfortunately I can't find the survey. People who dropped out of MSTP, I would guess, would have less incentive to persist in general along the research track to begin with.

 

[Vader]

The difference between graduate school and postdoctoral work has been covered in previous threads. They represent different stages of a career and the rules and expectations are completely different. Equating the two is terribly misleading and does a disservice to those pursuing graduate training (either as part of an MD/PhD program or a PhD program).

Most medical school courses simply do not provide any measure of scientific training. What they do provide (for the MD/PhD student) is a background fund of knowledge that can spur interest into specific biomedical research fields. Graduate school courses are completely different--much less focused on gaining a fund of knowledge and usually tuned for learning to read papers critically. Graduate school is all about learning to formulate questions and approaches for answering them, not to mention writing up and presenting your work.

Perhaps sluox is one of those rare people who can start up a lab and become a successful PI minus the graduate training. However, I suspect that he is more the exception than the rule. Running a lab takes not only the ability to formulate hypotheses and design experiments, but also skills of data interpretation, scientific writing, presentation, securing grants, associating/networking with other laboratories and investigators, knowledge of how to navigate the politics of science, how to hire people, mentorship, and other abilities. Some people are naturally gifted at some or all of these things. However, most are gained through experience. And that is something most of us frankly don't have enough of at this stage.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I want to apologize to everybody that I may or may not have offended. I don't want to be viewed as a bitter regretful MSTP, which I'm not. However, my opinion is a bit unorthodox, and it is very much liable for change in the future.

Just to clarify a couple of things. I'm not the only person who's ready to run a lab. I think everybody here is, that is, scientifically. Everybody here's capable of formulating new hypothesis, design new experiments and so forth. Now, if you are talking about person charisma and politics, then perhaps we do run into problems when we are too young. Do I think most people who are admitted into an MSTP can run a fortune 500 company? YES! But, that's not happening because, mostly, of senority (and politics and a variety of different factors unrelated to either your knowledge or your talent.)

So there are several (intrinsic) hurdles in running a lab. Money, experience, connections, age, etc. etc. that take time to culture. Extrinsic hurdles (your track record) obviously takes time too. But, I don't see a relative advantage in a PhD with regard to any of that compared to a post-doc, from a practical perspective. It's just not convinicing. Maybe my opinion will change after I finish my PhD, but I have a suspicion that it's not likely to occur. I think ultimately what matters isn't what degree program someone's enrolled in. It all boils down to the individual you are talking about. Some people thrive in some programs etc. If you read my article I have categorized degree programs to the type of individuals who are most fitted to go into that program. Personally, my personality is such that I would enjoy an MSTP much more compared to the other programs. However, to say that a PhD+postdoc program is ALWAYS better than an MD+postdoc for someone who aspires to a research career seems misleading and could be even dangerous. (although that's what has been recommended to many confused students by student guidance services etc.)

Look, you've made some observations with your own eyes after being in an MSTP program for a few years and you're questioning things. I'm not gonna fault you for that and I'm certainly not gonna be offended by your opinions.

The skillz that you mention in the above paragraph are definitely the mad skillz you need to be a successful PI. However, the learning curve is different for everyone. For some people, you may be right...the PhD is redundant with postdoctoral training. For others, like me, I thought the PhD was valuable. I've learned so much during those years--not only how to do science but about how to handle research competition and the politics regarding getting things published. My first project (that worked) thrust our lab in a new field where my PI was not an established figure. We were suddenly up against lots of competition and had to fight and fight and fight to get our first paper published in JCB. Not only did this push me to test my scientific limits but it also gave me experience with the politics of getting your results published amidst the competition. There are some really screwy stuff that goes on behind the scenes in science (science is not as impartial and objective as it's made out to be), and it was great to be exposed to some of that. I believe that experiences like these, which could easily be gained during a postdoc, will help me handle similar situations much more efficiently when I am a postdoc. I personally feel that I need to go through this several times before I would feel comfortable being the main go-to-guy (aka the PI) for handling these situations. I still feel that I need some guidance at this point. For others who are more talented and gifted, they may not need as much experience or guidance to get to their career destination.

To each his own.

N.B. About committee meetings, I thought they're kinda overrated. You spend all this time trying to organize it and get 5 busy people in the same room at the same time...then you give your presentation...half of them fall asleep...the other half say, "that's fine" at the end. Ultimately, it's you and your PI who decides when you're done.

 

[dl2dp2]

To each his own.

indeed. let's wait a few years and see how everything goes. I haven't been active with this forum for the past couple of years.

Thanks everybody for all the excellent posts.

 

[j8131]

Do I think most people who are admitted into an MSTP can run a fortune 500 company? YES! But, that's not happening because, mostly, of senority (and politics and a variety of different factors unrelated to either your knowledge or your talent.)

!!!!!!! I was actually taking your posts seriously until I read this. I may be the only one reading this forum who's worked in business and let me say, you have no clue. I'm sorry if that comes across as rude -- I'm sure you're a decent guy -- but to someone who's worked in business that comes across as unbelievely arrogant and ignorant. I'm not even going to go into all the reasons why, though let me point out that many very bright, hardworking docs seem to have a lot of trouble running their own practices.

To anyone out there considering PhD vs. MD/PhD: Don't make the mistake I nearly did. Get an MD or get out of medicine/medical research. At bottom, the reason is simply this: Most MDs, though good people in many ways, are very difficult to work with if you're not a member of the "sacred club".

 

[tr]

!!!!!!! I was actually taking your posts seriously until I read this. I may be the only one reading this forum who's worked in business and let me say, you have no clue. I'm sorry if that comes across as rude -- I'm sure you're a decent guy -- but to someone who's worked in business that comes across as unbelievely arrogant and ignorant.

Ditto j8131; I had the exact same reaction to this. First of all, running a Fortune 500 company takes a completely different kind of talent than being a biomedical researcher, and it's not surprising that many bright people would have one talent but not the other. There are a lot of different ways to be clever; the thing is to find where your particular talents will be most useful. Second of all, nobody who is only a few years out of college is ready to run a Fortune 500 company, or a lab for that matter; I don't care how clever he is. There are a lot of important factors besides intelligence that contribute to success (people skills, risk-taking behavior, attention to detail, etc., etc.), and many of them can only be honed by putting in the time.

Sluox clearly has little respect for the value of experience; but give him some time. Since he is the only one in this discussion who has yet to begin his thesis research, perhaps it is not surprising that he doesn't have the same perspective as those of us who have. IMHO, there is absolutely no substitute for experience. The more you do something, the better you get at it; and this holds across all fields of human endeavor.

And while I'm here,

People who dropped out of MSTP, I would guess, would have less incentive to persist in general along the research track to begin with.

Of course that is true; but that is a different issue, treated in Figure 4 on the same page. The data I presented had to do with the rate of success, regardless of the total number of applications. That is, given that an individual applies (i.e. is persisting in research, regardless of degree), how likely is he to get the grant?

 

[dl2dp2]

I find it amusing that you are agreeing (see below) with me while claiming I'm both arrogant and ignorant.

Again, I don't want to restate my world view, and I have no intention of getting into a debate. I do believe that anybody on this board (that is, who succeed in getting into a MSTP, or for that matter, a PhD) has the ability and potential to become a leader in any field that they may have taken an interest in. This may be politically incorrect, but I don't think each person has a specific talent. Each person has specific interests. Each person may have a specific set of potential abilities. The interests are shaped by the socio-cultural milieu. There's a difference between not WILLING to become a CEO and not ABLE to be one. I think everybody here's ABLE to become one.

This is not arrogance. In fact I think it's a very evil logic that is perpetuated that "everybody is special" and that "you just gotta find your own talent" etc. etc. if one does not qualify this. We are running into the whole nature vs. nuture debate here. And to address specific questions regarding CEOs, as far as I know, offsprings of CEOs of private companies do often start running the bussiness very young, without much experience. And they don't necessarily do any worse. In fact a recent NYTimes article says that despite the high number, CEOs coming out of Havard B-school actually yielded worse performance compared to average.

I believe this game of becoming a tenured professor that we are playing is just like any other game in life. Are leaders born or made? Haha, I don't know. There's a heck of a lot of confusion in all of this. Do you trust yourself with just a PhD? I won't. Maybe that's just because of my petit bourgeois risk averse personality. I need the MD to feel safe. Obviously j8131 had a bitter taste of what I wanted everyone to avoid. I don't even know why I'm writing this...I should be studying for the boards right now.

To anyone out there considering PhD vs. MD/PhD: Don't make the mistake I nearly did. Get an MD or get out of medicine/medical research. At bottom, the reason is simply this: Most MDs, though good people in many ways, are very difficult to work with if you're not a member of the "sacred club".

 

[1Path]

To anyone out there considering PhD vs. MD/PhD: Don't make the mistake I nearly did. Get an MD or get out of medicine/medical research.

There is some absolutely fantastic insight in this thread to anyone like myself, who hasn't completed a thesis and are willing to listen. I seriously weighed starting a PhD program fulltime this fall hoping to transfer into the MD/PhD program later, until I presented a poster at the USCAP (United States and Canadain Academy of Pathology) meeting this past March. There was so many aspects of this meeting out of reach to me as a lowly grad student I can't count them all, not to mention the many clinicians/academicians who outright told me to get clinical training, MD or DO, as well. So, I FINALLY decided to give up my "sure thing" research project so as not to risk the the possibility of being "stuck" in a PhD program unitl I finished (which is taking upwards of 6-7 years for most folks) and will apply MD/PhD this year so I can be "in the loop" as opposed to being just a bystander.

At bottom, the reason is simply this: Most MDs, though good people in many ways, are very difficult to work with if you're not a member of the "sacred club".

Once again USCAP was highly educational. While I don't think this attitude is necessarily intentional, it's there just the same.


Andy, Tr, j8131, keep the good advice coming. 👍 I'm listening.....................

 

[milliardo_L]

There was so many aspects of this meeting out of reach to me as a lowly grad student I can't count them all, not to mention the many clinicians/academicians who outright told me to get clinical training, MD or DO, as well.

Could you write more about this?

Andy, Tr, j8131, keep the good advice coming. 👍 I'm listening.....................

ditto 👍

 

[1Path]

Could you write more about this?:

Gladly!!!

Speciality conferences particularly the housestaff specialty conferences, short courses, attendance at companion meetings would have all been a huge learning expereince especially since I'm interesed in a rare type of cancer, but without any relevant clinical training (ie as a med student/resident or fellow) I would have been for the most part lost attending any of these gatherings. Furthermore, many of them were not open to grad students as were many of the awards. So at the end of the day when the folks from my group were talking about the infamous pathologists they had met/heard lectures from, all I could do is dream of what that must of been like. 🙁

And anyone who has attended a "clinical" meeting easily sees how med/students easily slip into their own "language" and being able to communicate in that "language" would have made my experience much more useful and enjoyable.

Finally, I don't care what anyone says, for the few lectures I was able to attend without leaving with a headache, I could so easily point out those with MD/PhD training because the depth of their questions/comments. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I like knowing what the hell I'm talking about in situations like these.

 

[John Lysander]

Hi Sluox,

I just want to support your stance on the MD-postdoc pathway. Although I will be an MS1 of an MSTP in the fall, I am seriously thinking about how MD/PhD training would really benefit me over the MD-postdoc pathway. Like you, I strongly believe that PhD research involves quite a few instances of grudge work and if only I have 1 or 2 techs during my PhD training, I would be more effective and would get out quicker. The MD-postdoc pathway really cuts out the 3 or 4 years of a PhD and the sooner I can run my lab, the earlier I can do the thinking and not having to worry about technical difficulties. It has also recently dawned upon me that because of the nature of the PhD (i.e. getting data for publication in ANY journal), one is often very hesitant in doing the kind of high-risk, high-yield experiments necessary for publication on Nature or Science. The PhD, while encouraging creativity, has a double edge in that it does not necessarily inspire one to dip hands in outrageous projects that can cause a paradigm shift. I just think that doing a post-doc after an MD, I can take the high-risk/high-reward pathway since I know that regardless of the failure, I still make enough money to support myself. Such a backup plan is invaluable. While it is true that desperation may result in brilliant insight, I personally like to hedge all my risks. I have no doubt in myself that I would prefer research over clinical practice. It is just that we live in the real world and we need to balance the pursuit of idealism with consideration for praticality. So, to summarize my point:1) having an MD really allows one to take on high risk projects that also promise high reward and 2) the earlier one can do this (i.e. by skipping PhD training and going straight to a postdoc after medical school), the earlier in one's life one can obtain the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

Good luck on your Step 1, Sloux. I have read your article, too, and like it a lot.

JL

PS. I welcome and am very grateful for anyone who would help me look at things from a different perspective. I am trying to figure out things for myself and it is great to hear from someone who would differ in opinions from me.

I find it amusing that you are agreeing (see below) with me while claiming I'm both arrogant and ignorant.

Again, I don't want to restate my world view, and I have no intention of getting into a debate. I do believe that anybody on this board (that is, who succeed in getting into a MSTP, or for that matter, a PhD) has the ability and potential to become a leader in any field that they may have taken an interest in. This may be politically incorrect, but I don't think each person has a specific talent. Each person has specific interests. Each person may have a specific set of potential abilities. The interests are shaped by the socio-cultural milieu. There's a difference between not WILLING to become a CEO and not ABLE to be one. I think everybody here's ABLE to become one.

This is not arrogance. In fact I think it's a very evil logic that is perpetuated that "everybody is special" and that "you just gotta find your own talent" etc. etc. if one does not qualify this. We are running into the whole nature vs. nuture debate here. And to address specific questions regarding CEOs, as far as I know, offsprings of CEOs of private companies do often start running the bussiness very young, without much experience. And they don't necessarily do any worse. In fact a recent NYTimes article says that despite the high number, CEOs coming out of Havard B-school actually yielded worse performance compared to average.

I believe this game of becoming a tenured professor that we are playing is just like any other game in life. Are leaders born or made? Haha, I don't know. There's a heck of a lot of confusion in all of this. Do you trust yourself with just a PhD? I won't. Maybe that's just because of my petit bourgeois risk averse personality. I need the MD to feel safe. Obviously j8131 had a bitter taste of what I wanted everyone to avoid. I don't even know why I'm writing this...I should be studying for the boards right now.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

The PhD, while encouraging creativity, has a double edge in that it does not necessarily inspire one to dip hands in outrageous projects that can cause a paradigm shift.

Well that's why you should be working on multiple projects at the same time--some are conservative, some are really reaching. I never really understood the "putting all your eggs in one basket mentality." That's too risky.

 

[uproarhz]

Hi Sluox,
Like you, I strongly believe that PhD research involves quite a few instances of grudge work and if only I have 1 or 2 techs during my PhD training, I would be more effective and would get out quicker. The MD-postdoc pathway really cuts out the 3 or 4 years of a PhD and the sooner I can run my lab, the earlier I can do the thinking and not having to worry about technical difficulties.

The issue of the Nobel prize away 😉 , I think this is not the best mentality to have for becoming the PI. I do agree that a lot of being a PhD student or for that matter being a post doc is doing grudge work and figuring out the technical difficulty of things, but as a PI one needs to have a reasonable expectation of what these limitations might be.
In my own experience, some PIs I have worked with who have risen to power too quickly sometimes altogether lose their touch with reality and they don't seem to have any idea of how long things may take. It might not be too bad to have a little sympathy for the people who will be working for you. After all, IMHO a supportive PI is a much better inspirer than a non-supportive one who DEMANDS results without being able to give suggestions on how to get around the technical difficulties. Remember that the people working for you, at least initially when your lab is small, will be coming to you for advice. Even if you have the best ideas, but you don't know how to get the actual experiment done you will have a rocky beginning unless you get completely lucky.
I personally think, the best way to cut some time is not to totally forego of the PhD, but maybe rather do your PhD in the specific field/subfield you know you would want to continue in during your post doc and your career.

 

[1Path]

the earlier in one's life one can obtain the pinnacle of scientific achievement.

How does one define the "pinacle of scientific achievement"? A Nobel Prize? Multiple first author pubs in Science? A patent for a million dollar discovery?

In developing a simple method for distinguishing a benign neoplasm from a malignant one, I feel that I've already in many ways achieved the "pinacle of scientific achievement" because what I've done can ultimately save lives!! If I NEVER do another important thing in science or medicine, I'm OK with that because I was never in it for the recognition or rewards.

So please tell me that this concept isn't completely lost on the MD/PhD crowd. Or perhaps there just too many future MD/PhD's looking for acolades, financial rewards, and patents instead of looking to conduct research that will ease the pain, suffering, and death from disease.

 

[1Path]

I personally think, the best way to cut some time is not to totally forego of the PhD, but maybe rather do your PhD in the specific field/subfield you know you would want to continue in during your post doc and your career.

Although I'm concerned about the "limitations" of getting a PhD in pathology as opposed to a field like cell biology, this is pricesly my thinking about why it's my first choice PhD program. I also work with pathology resident MD/PhD's that also have PhD's in pathology. Seems a bit redundant but highly useful. 👍

 

[Vader]

Just to get the word out, when Harold Varmus (Nobel prize winner) came to speak with us at our MSTP retreat, he mentioned that they are starting a new graduate program in cancer biology at Sloan-Kettering in New York with the goal of providing some clinical exposure in the training of basic biomedical researchers. It is geared for those individuals who know they don't want to practice clinical medicine who might otherwise consider an MD/PhD program. The idea is that a dedicated pathway for biomedical researchers who do not have patient contact may provide a more rapid career pathway.

UCSF has something akin to this--the Biomedical Sciences (BMS) graduate program. BMS is geared toward more general basic biomedical research.

This is to emphasize that the MD/PhD pathway is certainly not for everyone and depending on one's interests, there are a variety of options available.

 

[John Lysander]

How does one define the "pinacle of scientific achievement"? A Nobel Prize? Multiple first author pubs in Science? A patent for a million dollar discovery?

In developing a simple method for distinguishing a benign neoplasm from a malignant one, I feel that I've already in many ways achieved the "pinacle of scientific achievement" because what I've done can ultimately save lives!! If I NEVER do another important thing in science or medicine, I'm OK with that because I was never in it for the recognition or rewards.

So please tell me that this concept isn't completely lost on the MD/PhD crowd. Or perhaps there just too many future MD/PhD's looking for acolades, financial rewards, and patents instead of looking to conduct research that will ease the pain, suffering, and death from disease.

1Path,

Congratulations on your assay for distinguishing a benign neoplasm from a malignant one!

What I mean by pinnacle is that if one were to peruse the history of science, one sees many instances where a scientist was not given the proper recognition for his or her work. I just would hate it if that happens to me, that's all. The question here is not a single-minded focus on accolade. It is rather being pragmatic enough to make sure that your achievement gets the recognition it deserves.

Moreover, I am not against optimizing techniques or trying to figure out a way to make something work better. However, my undergraduate experience in research has convinced me that there are better ways to have a productive research career than trying to repeat an experiment many times, hoping that you have somehow performed better this time. It is just better to have a technician, who specializes in certain procedures, to make the process work better for you.

Lastly, I don't think it is immoral to focus on accolade or recognition. Without such a motivation, or moreover, with just a simple desire to better the lot of humanity, many scientists would become disillusioned and bitter at the world. Life is about evolution. Let's play that game and have fun, that's all.

 

[1Path]

What I mean by pinnacle is that if one were to peruse the history of science, one sees many instances where a scientist was not given the proper recognition for his or her work. I just would hate it if that happens to me, that's all. The question here is not a single-minded focus on accolade. It is rather being pragmatic enough to make sure that your achievement gets the recognition it deserves.

My all time favorite example of a scientist not receiving timely recognition of her work is the case with Rosalinf Franklin. Talk about a sham! But asuming you're a male and a white one at that, you're far less likely to have this happen to you in your career than say me, an African American woman. However, I imagine if I put too much thought into not receiving credit for my work (which happenedd a LOT when I was an undergrad) I might just opt out of the "game" altogehter. For this reason it's good to be motivated by the work itself since you can't always control it.

Moreover, I am not against optimizing techniques or trying to figure out a way to make something work better. However, my undergraduate experience in research has convinced me that there are better ways to have a productive research career than trying to repeat an experiment many times, hoping that you have somehow performed better this time. It is just better to have a technician, who specializes in certain procedures, to make the process work better for you.

With all due respect I don't know of too many undergrad experiences that even remotely compare to what gets done in a doctoral level program. I haven't been an undergrad in over 10 years so unless things have changed, this is still true. However, having a technicin do all the "scut" work as a grad student teaches you absolutely nothing.. And I've never personally been comfortable with seeing PI who knows the theory behind experiments VERY well, but can't help you troubleshoot when problems arise because they've never actually done it for themselves. I imagine that I'll be one of those PI's that every now and then get's my hands dirty to stay on top of things.

Lastly, I don't think it is immoral to focus on accolade or recognition. Without such a motivation, or moreover, with just a simple desire to better the lot of humanity, many scientists would become disillusioned and bitter at the world.

Once again, I'll have to play the gender/race card. I can't count the numer of bitter and/or disillusuioned women and/or minority researchers I've seen and truth be told, I almost became one myself. It's extremely easy to do at most institutions and a count of the number of tenured people of these demographic speaks volumes. But ultimately you have to decide to gut it out not for recognition and not even for the possibilityof making some great contribution to science. No, you gut it out because 1) The future of people in the field who look JUST LIKE YOU depends greatly on your presence and most importantly like most peoeple who pursue this ardous career path, you simply can't imagine yourself doing ANYTHING else.

 

[QofQuimica]

I just waded through all of the last few pages of comments and read sluox's paper. I was interested in something he said that no one has discussed yet. He seems to be suggesting that biology PhD programs, but not physical science ones, are less useful for training academic scientists. And somehow our relative required coursework figures into this.

I find that to be an interesting perspective, because I'm finishing my chemistry PhD, and I feel pretty much like I'm about the only biomedical science-oriented researcher on the planet who DOESN'T have a biology degree. 😛 I feel a bit split-personality because of this. My friends in biological fields have a clear-cut way to meld their medical and research interests, but how to do this in my case is not so immediately obvious to me. It's true that I did have to take a full year of physical and quantum chemistry courses in graduate school, and they were interesting subjects to study, but I have not found them to be terribly relevant to my research life as a synthetic organic chemist. So I'm not sure if that means that my extensive coursework doesn't really provide an edge, or that I'm just not talented enough to recognize how to make use of my p. chem edge.

Have any of you others earned your PhDs in a non-biological field, or do you know people who have? What have they gone on to do with their MD/PhDs? I have to confess that I am thinking that perhaps a pharmaceutical industry job would ultimately be more sensible for someone with my qualifications rather than academic medicine.

 

[dl2dp2]

Taking a break from board studying:

When I visited UCSD, I talked to David Kleinfeld, who did a lot of good work in somatosensory cortex. I told him I'm not gonna do a physics PhD. He told me he's using femtosecond lasers, and gave me a three minute lecture of how that's related two second order degenerative perturbation theory.

Last year's Nobel in medicine (not this year, i.e. Richard Axel) was for MRI, and both were physicists. DNA were discovered by physicists/chemists. Mullis, Walter Gilbert were both trained as chemists. Basically chemists invented molecular biology and biologists learn how use it.

Pauling is a chemist. Great pharamacologists like Black are basically chemists (they are often trained in bioorganic chemistry/protein kinetics.) Have we covered most of the Nobels in medicine already? And bare in mind, most of the rest are given to CLINICIANs.

I personally think that a bread and butter biologist can do a lot of good work, certainly. But the truly important work is often done by cross-diciplinary people. In addition, a physicist and a chemist can always do physics and chemistry in ADDITION to biology. The reverse is almost never true. Now that you are in med school already, your bio (breadth) background is stronger than most bio phds anyways.

I wouldn't restrict myself if I were you. Instead, I'd come up with creative ideas of integrating p. chem into your research projects. Think about it, if anything's "obvious" and "clear-cut", it'd not be too interesting.

I just waded through all of the last few pages of comments and read sluox's paper. I was interested in something he said that no one has discussed yet. He seems to be suggesting that biology PhD programs, but not physical science ones, are less useful for training academic scientists. And somehow our relative required coursework figures into this.

I find that to be an interesting perspective, because I'm finishing my chemistry PhD, and I feel pretty much like I'm about the only biomedical science-oriented researcher on the planet who DOESN'T have a biology degree. 😛 I feel a bit split-personality because of this. My friends in biological fields have a clear-cut way to meld their medical and research interests, but how to do this in my case is not so immediately obvious to me. It's true that I did have to take a full year of physical and quantum chemistry courses in graduate school, and they were interesting subjects to study, but I have not found them to be terribly relevant to my research life as a synthetic organic chemist. So I'm not sure if that means that my extensive coursework doesn't really provide an edge, or that I'm just not talented enough to recognize how to make use of my p. chem edge.

Have any of you others earned your PhDs in a non-biological field, or do you know people who have? What have they gone on to do with their MD/PhDs? I have to confess that I am thinking that perhaps a pharmaceutical industry job would ultimately be more sensible for someone with my qualifications rather than academic medicine.

 

[John Lysander]

If you are white and male, you can still get screwed: Oswald Avery. This man is personally my hero and should have won the Nobel Prize - if only those dudes at Rockefeller were a little bit less vicious.

In my case, if I win the Nobel Prize, I would still be just a white guy.

In your case, 1Path, you may be the first African American Woman to do so. Of course, the stack is against you but the potential for reward is incomparable. So, keep the faith and best of luck.

My all time favorite example of a scientist not receiving timely recognition of her work is the case with Rosalinf Franklin. Talk about a sham! But asuming you're a male and a white one at that, you're far less likely to have this happen to you in your career than say me, an African American woman. However, I imagine if I put too much thought into not receiving credit for my work (which happenedd a LOT when I was an undergrad) I might just opt out of the "game" altogehter. For this reason it's good to be motivated by the work itself since you can't always control it.


With all due respect I don't know of too many undergrad experiences that even remotely compare to what gets done in a doctoral level program. I haven't been an undergrad in over 10 years so unless things have changed, this is still true. However, having a technicin do all the "scut" work as a grad student teaches you absolutely nothing.. And I've never personally been comfortable with seeing PI who knows the theory behind experiments VERY well, but can't help you troubleshoot when problems arise because they've never actually done it for themselves. I imagine that I'll be one of those PI's that every now and then get's my hands dirty to stay on top of things.


Once again, I'll have to play the gender/race card. I can't count the numer of bitter and/or disillusuioned women and/or minority researchers I've seen and truth be told, I almost became one myself. It's extremely easy to do at most institutions and a count of the number of tenured people of these demographic speaks volumes. But ultimately you have to decide to gut it out not for recognition and not even for the possibilityof making some great contribution to science. No, you gut it out because 1) The future of people in the field who look JUST LIKE YOU depends greatly on your presence and most importantly like most peoeple who pursue this ardous career path, you simply can't imagine yourself doing ANYTHING else.

 

[1Path]

If you are white and male, you can still get screwed: Oswald Avery. This man is personally my hero and should have won the Nobel Prize - if only those dudes at Rockefeller were a little bit less vicious.

In my case, if I win the Nobel Prize, I would still be just a white guy.

In your case, 1Path, you may be the first African American Woman to do so. Of course, the stack is against you but the potential for reward is incomparable. So, keep the faith and best of luck.

Thanks for the vote of confidence and best wishes to you too!!! 👍

However, between my time at NIH and Hopkins, I realized that there are so many OTHER factors that play a role in who succeeds than I EVER imagined. Pedigree seems to play a VERY important role but having had a very bitter taste of that, I think I'm going to one again put my familial responsibilites first, and choose a place that's best for ALL of us and not just myself.

In the end, I'm just hoping that wherever I end up permanently, I'll have reasonably ethical classmates/professors who take pleasure in working hard and doing great science.