Success stories of physician scientists without PhDs

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

jsydc

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
I'm currently a 1st year MD-PhD student who is now strongly considering not doing the PhD in favour of an MD only with a research oriented fellowship. There is a 10 page list of factors at play, but I don't want to get into that in this thread. I already have a Master's degree and have more time in and am more confident in my experiences than many people going into the PhD in an MD-PhD program.

What I would like to know is if there are any success stories you know of personally of PIs who are MD only or MD/MSc who are excellent researchers. Not someone you've read about, but someone you've worked with long enough to say that they ask meaningful questions, have a sound research methodology, are successful in grants, publications, and are actually able to supervise students adequately (whatever that means to you, obviously these are all highly subjective criteria). Even better, if you are such a person or something close to it, would you do things the same way again if given the choice?

Members don't see this ad.
 
I'm currently a 1st year MD-PhD student who is now strongly considering not doing the PhD in favour of an MD only with a research oriented fellowship. There is a 10 page list of factors at play, but I don't want to get into that in this thread. I already have a Master's degree and have more time in and am more confident in my experiences than many people going into the PhD in an MD-PhD program.

What I would like to know is if there are any success stories you know of personally of PIs who are MD only or MD/MSc who are excellent researchers. Not someone you've read about, but someone you've worked with long enough to say that they ask meaningful questions, have a sound research methodology, are successful in grants, publications, and are actually able to supervise students adequately (whatever that means to you, obviously these are all highly subjective criteria). Even better, if you are such a person or something close to it, would you do things the same way again if given the choice?

Yes, my three previous PIs and my current PI are all MD-only's. In fact, I've never worked for an MD/PhD and the experience with PhDs I've had have generally been bad (the one notable exception was a physical chemistry PhD, but I think people in the physical sciences are more laid back in general than those in biology).

I think MD only's are more relaxed because their income and very career is not as grant/publication dependent as a PhD who can't fall back on clinical income. I think they're a bit less pressured that way and are less inclined to pressure you and will let you go at your own pace (within reason, of course).

Also, the questions they ask are almost always oriented towards clinical relevance. The work that some PhDs do is astoundingly detailed, focused, and has little or nothing to do with the clinic. Mechanism is paramount. I think that's a mistake in all but the most basic fields, in which case those researchers probably shouldn't be attempting at clinical relevance and should just go strait with C. elegans and Drosophila and yeast and should just focus on the most basic conserved biology.
 
. . .What I would like to know is if there are any success stories you know of personally of PIs who are MD only or MD/MSc who are excellent researchers. Not someone you've read about, but someone you've worked with long enough to say that they ask meaningful questions, have a sound research methodology, are successful in grants, publications, and are actually able to supervise students adequately (whatever that means to you, obviously these are all highly subjective criteria). Even better, if you are such a person or something close to it, would you do things the same way again if given the choice?

My mentor/PI was an MD only and he is an excellent researcher. I consider myself fortunate to have done my PhD training with him. There are 2 advantages to having the PhD in addition to the MD:

1) It means (hopefully) that you have aquired the scientific training neccessay to eventually function as an independent research scientist. Sounds like you feel you already have those skills, however; so this advantage may not hold that much sway for you.

2) It is a major academic accomplishment that you have on "your record." Granted, there are many more important things to accomplish which will demonstrate you to be a capable researcher (publications, etc.). However, it is still advantageous, in my opinion, because it is a form of what you might call "peer-reviewed certification."

All that to say that you can do the MD only and be just as successful as if you did MD/PhD. It just depends on what you want or what is best for you.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
What I would like to know is if there are any success stories you know of personally of PIs who are MD only or MD/MSc who are excellent researchers. Not someone you've read about, but someone you've worked with long enough to say that they ask meaningful questions, have a sound research methodology, are successful in grants, publications, and are actually able to supervise students adequately (whatever that means to you, obviously these are all highly subjective criteria). Even better, if you are such a person or something close to it, would you do things the same way again if given the choice?
You can definitely be successful as an MD-only researcher. My PI falls in this category, and he is a publishing and grant-getting machine. That being said, I agree with mercapto that you will probably be doing more clinically-oriented work as opposed to straight basic science if you go this way. Not that you can't do hard-core basic research as an MD, but it's just not as common, IMO. Best of luck. :)
 
Bert Vogelstein. Did a lot of the early work on p53, one of the most cited (if not the most cited) researchers of all time.

He's proof positive that it can be done (or at least, it could be done a long time ago), but his personal opinion is that it can't really be done anymore. In fact, he suggests that students interested in researcher do a PhD, not MD-PhD.

But he has almost all MD-PhD students in his lab. :laugh:
 
kandel and agre are two md only's who did ok that come to mind.

however, they both trained fairly extensively in basic science, especially kandel, before starting their own labs.

funny tidbit: agre got a c in high school chem (according to him). so much for gpa.
 
Bert Vogelstein. Did a lot of the early work on p53, one of the most cited (if not the most cited) researchers of all time.

He's proof positive that it can be done (or at least, it could be done a long time ago), but his personal opinion is that it can't really be done anymore. In fact, he suggests that students interested in researcher do a PhD, not MD-PhD.

But he has almost all MD-PhD students in his lab. :laugh:

I think this brings up an important point:
MSTP programs started in the 60's... with only a very few to start with. I think maybe Northwestern and NYU were the first? Anyway, being an MD/PhD was a novel career choice and yielded very few physician-scientists for quite some time. That meant that A- most clinically-oriented researchers were MDs and B- "Phycisian-Scientist" was NOT a defined career pathway.

Now things are clearly different. How many MSTPs are there now? When I applied (1999) there were only 31... most had 3-5 spots. Point is, i bet it's a lot more now. This is now the expected pathway for those who want to have clinically-oriented translational as well as basic research careers.

So to answer the question: can you have a successful scientific career with only an MD? Absolutely, but it will become increasingly harder for you. Meanwhile, your MD/PhD colleagues will have things handed to them on a plate after graduation- it will all be expected of them, if they can make it through the rigorous (and painfully long) training. they will generally get the residencies of their choice and money and comittments (funding) up-front much of the time.
 
I also agree with the above posters. As I said in a previous post somewhere, in the 30-40ish generation, in basic/translational fields, I'm beginning to see a lot of rising superstars who were the product of the 80s/early 90s generation MSTPs, when the population started booming.

In certain fields, it's almost required now for a director/dept. head level position to be a MD/PhD, esp. if the department has a substantial number of both PhDs and MDs.

This is why I usually (controversially) encourage students who want to go into basic biomedical research to get an MD/PhD if they are at all interested in medicine. As far as MD-only, I think the issue is one of money/funding. Fewer and fewer MDs are willing to go deeply into debt, and many are starting as late as an MD/PhD. My gut feeling is almost that since the arrival of MD/PhD, the MDs are increasingly REMOVED from academic research. Very few MDs in my class are even INTERESTED in research. More commonly they tell me that they HATED research when they did it in undergrad as part of the implicit admission package. I think this trend will only continue.
 
I'm currently a 1st year MD-PhD student who is now strongly considering not doing the PhD in favour of an MD only with a research oriented fellowship. There is a 10 page list of factors at play, but I don't want to get into that in this thread. I already have a Master's degree and have more time in and am more confident in my experiences than many people going into the PhD in an MD-PhD program.

What I would like to know is if there are any success stories you know of personally of PIs who are MD only or MD/MSc who are excellent researchers. Not someone you've read about, but someone you've worked with long enough to say that they ask meaningful questions, have a sound research methodology, are successful in grants, publications, and are actually able to supervise students adequately (whatever that means to you, obviously these are all highly subjective criteria). Even better, if you are such a person or something close to it, would you do things the same way again if given the choice?
The man who convinced me to go into medicine is in one of the top departments of his field. He has a MD, as do most of the people in that department. Though he told me once that if he could go back he'd get a PhD! :laugh: He does all of the things you're talking about, and he's an amazing clinician to boot.

In addition, I have a MS and I'm a third-year MD student (my story's in one of the FAQs). I do not want a PhD - I made the decision awhile ago that it wasn't worth the effort and pain of working a thesis through a committee. I haven't been able to ask meaningful questions yet - I'm not in my clinical field yet, so I wouldn't know what questions to ask - but I can design and execute methodologically sound experiments, I can get a proposal through IRB approval, I'm very good at teaching/presenting my work, and I can apply for grants (though I have not yet been successful :laugh:). I need to make an extra effort to get the same skills that the PhDs have when they graduate, but I'm on a long training path anyways, and I pick things up as I can get them. So far, I believe I made the right decision.
 
...Fewer and fewer MDs are willing to go deeply into debt, and many are starting as late as an MD/PhD. My gut feeling is almost that since the arrival of MD/PhD, the MDs are increasingly REMOVED from academic research. Very few MDs in my class are even INTERESTED in research. More commonly they tell me that they HATED research when they did it in undergrad as part of the implicit admission package. I think this trend will only continue.
A few things - I don't like it that 90% of my classmates don't care a bit about research. Worse still, they did it only to get into MD school. :mad: Oh well, more for me. :laugh:

Two, PhDs are a bonus to residency applications, but they still aren't as important as clinical grades and Step I scores (by most articles polling PDs). By the NRMP data, PhDs are only significant positive predictors of Match success when applying to the highly competitive fields (Dermatology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Plastic Surgery, and Radiation Oncology). Note that most of the residency programs that cater to MD/PhDs are in IM, Path, and Peds. A PhD's helpful, but don't blow it out of proportion.
 
A few things - I don't like it that 90% of my classmates don't care a bit about research. Worse still, they did it only to get into MD school. :mad: Oh well, more for me. :laugh:
Most of them will probably be clinicians anyway. They only need enough research experience to understand how it's done and appreciate those of us who do it. ;)

Two, PhDs are a bonus to residency applications, but they still aren't as important as clinical grades and Step I scores (by most articles polling PDs). By the NRMP data, PhDs are only significant positive predictors of Match success when applying to the highly competitive fields (Dermatology, Orthopaedic Surgery, Otolaryngology, Plastic Surgery, and Radiation Oncology). Note that most of the residency programs that cater to MD/PhDs are in IM, Path, and Peds. A PhD's helpful, but don't blow it out of proportion.
I'd argue that it depends on the program. Even in fields that are not traditionally research-oriented, there are residencies that have been created specifically to train physician scientists. Logically, one would expect that those programs would value grad degrees highly. Not that the other things you mentioned won't also matter, just that research residencies will care more about research background than most residencies do.
 
.....I'd argue that it depends on the program. Even in fields that are not traditionally research-oriented, there are residencies that have been created specifically to train physician scientists. Logically, one would expect that those programs would value grad degrees highly. Not that the other things you mentioned won't also matter, just that research residencies will care more about research background than most residencies do.
Agreed 100%. You are correct. I'm interviewing for residency positions right now, and I promise you that it makes a difference. The best of the best programs look for MD/PhDs and, if a residency candidate is actually capable of conducting and serious about conducting research, it gets their attention. This is assuming there are no red flags in medical school file, of course.
 
...Not that the other things you mentioned won't also matter, just that research residencies will care more about research background than most residencies do.
I'll restate my punch line for emphasis:
...A PhD's helpful, but don't blow it out of proportion.
I am involved in APSA, and I talk to MD/PhD students all the time. A lot of them believe that their PhD will "save" them from an average (or lower) board score and clinicals, and that they will still be granted passage into the best of the best residencies.

It's a lot like kids who like to brag they got 99s on their Step I.

I'm not saying that research residencies won't look for PhDs or research-minded students - that's silly. But a PhD is not a carte blanche, and I think it's unrealistic to think so. If landing a competitive residency is all one cares about, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there are more time-effective ways of getting one. The OP asked for opinions against PhDs, and as a student with a similar background, I gave him one.
 
.....I talk to MD/PhD students all the time. A lot of them believe that their PhD will "save" them from an average (or lower) board score and clinicals, and that they will still be granted passage into the best of the best residencies.
I hate to say it, but there is actually some truth to this. It will save them. I know multiple examples, and they are not outliers. Again, if there are red flags (failed courses, barely passing the Step exams, pass in one or more rotations in the specialty that you want to enter), it's a problem and it's not going to impress the elite programs. One should aim to be strong in everything. This is common sense. However, the research training actually does make up a lot of ground, and there's no getting past that.
 
I'll restate my punch line for emphasis:
I am involved in APSA, and I talk to MD/PhD students all the time. A lot of them believe that their PhD will "save" them from an average (or lower) board score and clinicals, and that they will still be granted passage into the best of the best residencies.

It's a lot like kids who like to brag they got 99s on their Step I.

I'm not saying that research residencies won't look for PhDs or research-minded students - that's silly. But a PhD is not a carte blanche, and I think it's unrealistic to think so. If landing a competitive residency is all one cares about, as has been mentioned elsewhere on this thread, there are more time-effective ways of getting one. The OP asked for opinions against PhDs, and as a student with a similar background, I gave him one.
I think we're actually in agreement here. A PhD is neither necessary nor sufficient to match well, but it *is* helpful to have a PhD if one hopes to match at a research residency in any field. That being said, you definitely still need to have adequate USMLE scores and grades even if you have a PhD.

You mentioned the match stats. When you look at the NRMP data, there are always a few lower-than-average outliers. So something besides grades and USMLE scores is helping those people. Maybe it's connections in some cases, and maybe it's research in others.
 
Top