Surgical Oncology MD-PhD

[galbii]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I know that this is a question that is frequently asked and my searches here have only revealed conflicting answers.

I'm about to be apply to medical schools and I am faced with a very common debate: do I just an MD or an MD-PhD. I also know that my specialty interest can wildly change. But this is a decision I need to make now.

I know the traditional balance for a physician scientist is 80% research and 20% clinic. Let's say that I'm interested in a surgical field. Can I go into surgical oncology and split my time 50/50?

One one hand, I hear it's impossible to do both well and I will eventually be forced to choose one. On the other I hear that it's feasible. If it is poddible, is the extra 4+ years worth since the surgical residencies are already so long.

Looking around, most surgeons seem to be pure MDs and the research they do are almost always translational or clinical. Is basic research that hard to do meaningfully as a surgeon, even in a research heavy field like surgical oncology? Thanks!

 

[Endoxifen]

I know that this is a question that is frequently asked and my searches here have only revealed conflicting answers.

I'm about to be apply to medical schools and I am faced with a very common debate: do I just an MD or an MD-PhD. I also know that my specialty interest can wildly change. But this is a decision I need to make now.

I know the traditional balance for a physician scientist is 80% research and 20% clinic. Let's say that I'm interested in a surgical field. Can I go into surgical oncology and split my time 50/50?

One one hand, I hear it's impossible to do both well and I will eventually be forced to choose one. On the other I hear that it's feasible. If it is poddible, is the extra 4+ years worth since the surgical residencies are already so long.

Looking around, most surgeons seem to be pure MDs and the research they do are almost always translational or clinical. Is basic research that hard to do meaningfully as a surgeon, even in a research heavy field like surgical oncology? Thanks!

I did a lot of research into MD/PhD programs when I was deciding what I wanted to do. I had the opportunity to talk to a few very successful MD/PhDs and the general sentiment that I got was that you will need to choose which is more important to you. I met one person that does something like the 50/50 split that you were talking about and it was clear that in spite of his clear brilliance, the split takes a toll on both productivity and quality of research. It basically kept him from starting is own lab.

If you get a PhD too, it should apply directly to your practice as an MD. So, by definition, it should be translation

 

[galbii]

I did a lot of research into MD/PhD programs when I was deciding what I wanted to do. I had the opportunity to talk to a few very successful MD/PhDs and the general sentiment that I got was that you will need to choose which is more important to you. I met one person that does something like the 50/50 split that you were talking about and it was clear that in spite of his clear brilliance, the split takes a toll on both productivity and quality of research. It basically kept him from starting is own lab.

If you get a PhD too, it should apply directly to your practice as an MD. So, by definition, it should be translation

Wait so would you recommend ? It sounds like I should probably end up choosing one or the other?

 

[Endoxifen]

Wait so would you recommend ? It sounds like I should probably end up choosing one or the other?

It really depends on the type of research and the amount of clinical you want to do. If what you want to do can only be done in a lab and you want to spend most of the time in the lab, then you should do MD/PhD. But, you will have to keep in mind that research will likely be your primary. Considering that surgeons need to be in the OR consistently, this could limit you success in surgery. If what you want to do can be done out of the lab, just get an MD. Then you will be able to spend a lot of time in the OR and the rest doing research. It's really what you want to prioritize.

 

[Lucca]

I have met one surgeon MD/PhD who both did the degrees simultaneously and does something like "50/50" although it's more like "80/80". This doc is a neurosurgeon and their "lab" is split between theoretical work done with imaging and computers and between the operating room as he mostly studies neuronal circuitry with live recordings during surgeries. So he is quite literally being a surgeon and being a scientist at the exact same time; operating and doing an experiment. While there are surgical fields known to have more MD/PhDs than others (neurosurgery as opposed to gen surg ) this is a very niche thing to do that also does not necessarily require a PhD to participate in or learn how to do. He also works A LOT.

If the choice for you is "MD or MD/PhD" and especially since you are particularly interested in surgery, I would say skip the PhD. If you still want to contribute to science as a surgeon, there will be many opportunities to do so that you can pursue that will most likely not require the background of a basic science PhD.

Edit: I encourage you to email current md PhD students and faculty who are surgeons and describe to them your research interests and career goals.

 

[eteshoe]

To be dead honest, you'd be better off just doing the MD. Most surgical residencies will have built in research years and the path you're proposing with both degrees would be close to 20 yrs. If you don't plan on having a life outside of the lab and clinic then fine but I cannot recommend the dual degree path for what you're interested in.

 

[galbii]

It seems like the consensus is that I should just stick to MD. I guess it makes sense that I shouldn't waste time for something that I probably won't do to my fullest especially when time is already a commodity in surgery

 

[Lucca]

It seems like the consensus is that I should just stick to MD. I guess it makes sense that I shouldn't waste time for something that I probably won't do to my fullest especially when time is already a commodity in surgery

At the NIH there were some labs that were run by basic science and engineering PhDs who collaborated with MD faculty at the Clinically Center to develop materials and devices for patient care. So you could one day be a "surgeon scientist", contributing to grant funding, without being directly involved in the running of the lab / hiring and mentoring of postdocs and grad students. If you want to be primarily on the science end of this deal as opposed to the surgery side, a PhD in engineering or basic science might be better suited.

 

[bdeschne]

You can absolutely do this. Major academic medical centers are looking for someone to do exactly something like a 50/50 split. You would be very competitive.