The value of DVM in research

[sumstorm]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Pondering this question:

is there value in having a DVM instead or in addition to a PhD in research? I am not asking from a 'what would I need to do in research' but the theoretical 'is there any real benefit of the DVM in scientific research?' or 'what makes a DVM/PhD 'better' in research than just having a PhD?'

And by better, I don't necessarily mean superior...just what advantages or disadvantages does the DVM convey?

Does that make sense? I just had to turn an essay in on this, and not thinking it over some more.

 

[No Imagination]

Yes! I cannot believe how helpful only one semester has been to me in terms of the practical and clinical knowledge vet school affords you. My major as a PhD student was Biochemistry/Immunology. However, in ONE semester of Veterinary immunology, I've managed to tie some many loose ends up in both my head, and on paper for my dissertation.

Also, the clinical knowledge you gain as a veterinarian also opens up so many doors in terms of problems and research funding $$.

While I can only speak for myself, and my doctorate background, I now believe that all PhD students should get a year of professional level (be it MD or DVM) style education - something that is both hard and expensive for schools that don't have vet/MD schools associate with it.

In terms of employment - Can't really answer that yet. Certainly couldn't hurt however.

If you have anyother questions or need clarification for your essay let me know

 

[sumstorm]

No Imagination, you are saying what I was thinking...I don't have a PhD, but have a lot of research experience, and all I can think about is that the knowledge I have now may have provided perceptions and connections that I couldn't have obtained before. While I was an expert in what I was doing, I didn't have enough.....generalized (that isn't really the right term) knowledge to even ask the same questions I can now. I also feel the overarching entire animal/cross species knowledge of veterinary medicine can give a larger perspective and greater number of connections rather than burying in details on one aspect of research. Not sure if that makes sense, but I am glad you are finding something similar (since I don't have a PhD, I don't have that experience.... I completed master's level research then worked as a behavior researcher, and I keep being amazed at how many more things I want to investigate as I learn the physiology/anatomy/histology/etc!

 

[No Imagination]

Don't kid yourself, with 'only your Masters'. I know several people, my fiancé included, who put in more time and effort into their masters as I put into my PhD. - Well, not time=years, but time in effort.

While I am not saying a PhD = a Masters; the difference in the work load between a PhD and a (research based/Thesis) Masters is not nearly as large as people think.

If you did a research based Masters, and wrote and defended a thesis - then by all accounts, I am sure we have had very similar experiences. I actually find it amusing how much higher a PhD is placed over a Masters - when considering the work load, they are pretty close IMO.

The only reason I think Master lvl degrees are not as elevated, is because a lot of schools offer non-thesis, non-research level Master programs - where you put the time in, get the grades and leave with an MS. Kind of felt they dilute the pool of applicants a bit, and while sham PhD programs probably exist, they are not nearly as perverse.

 

[shelterURIgirl]

Hi Sunstorm,

Yes, for me, having a DVM in addition to my PhD is absolutely necessary. I am interested in feline infectious diseases, and I need a DVM for 2 main reasons. First, I want to teach and be involved in the vet med/shelter med field, and having a DVM provides me with the clinical and practical knowledge that I need to understand feline diseases. The second reason is that if I want to do a study where I compare the clinical signs of disease, say lower respiratory tract disease to a lesion found in a tissue sample, I need to be a vet in order to listen to the lungs and give a clinical rating.

There are additional reasons why I need both, but these are the main ones.

Pondering this question:

is there value in having a DVM instead or in addition to a PhD in research? I am not asking from a 'what would I need to do in research' but the theoretical 'is there any real benefit of the DVM in scientific research?' or 'what makes a DVM/PhD 'better' in research than just having a PhD?'

And by better, I don't necessarily mean superior...just what advantages or disadvantages does the DVM convey?

Does that make sense? I just had to turn an essay in on this, and not thinking it over some more.

 

[twelvetigers]

Hi Sunstorm,

Sumstorm - we had a whole thread about this about 9 months ago.

 

[sumstorm]

The second reason is that if I want to do a study where I compare the clinical signs of disease, say lower respiratory tract disease to a lesion found in a tissue sample, I need to be a vet in order to listen to the lungs and give a clinical rating.

There are additional reasons why I need both, but these are the main ones.

I am not disagreeing (because I really don't know) but I do know here our lab personnel can rate things like heart murmurs without DVM's.

I do agree that it helps greatly to be able to connect the clinical to the research.

So here is where I am with my essay, that I am not really enjoying, partly because I will be turning it into a PhD, and partly because this particular PhD seems to think research = biomedical research (while my interests are behavior and population research.)

-A DVM has an extensive education across species and systems, enabling researchers to connect ideas and concepts that might not be apparent in focused, specific research programs.
-A DVM may be able to connect clinical findings and applications to research while a PhD may be restricted to transmitting their findings through DVM's to manage clinical studies.
-A DVM's knowledge of physiology/behavior/etc of a species may make them more aware of subtle signs in an animal.
-A DVM's knowledge of physiology/systems/etc may enable them to see issues with research methodologies such as the effects of stress during sampling or differences in parameters of species dependent on environmental or individual factors such as age/diet/temperature/etc.

Any disadvantages? I know that for DVM's without PhD's, our instructor expressed a concern about understanding fundraising/grant applications/publish or perish, etc. Also, he expressed a concern that a DVM (with or without a PhD) that has clinical duties will struggle to have adequate time to also manage a lab/research/grant writing/etc.

I do appreciate all the answers..... it is making me think a bit more. The experience did not match the class description, so I was feeling pretty 'sour' about it (I really hate being in windowless lab looking at cells or subcellular stuff...I am all about populations, behavior, etc.) and this is helping me reframe my attitude a bit more positively.

 

[JosephKnechtDVM]

DVM is or should be mostly directed toward solving known problems in the species you will cover in your clinical career. PhD for a DVM is the only way to get the research training in the basic disciplines to solve unknown problems or discovery of new knowledge. If discovery is mostly your incentive, the PhD is better.

Most biomedical research in industry and academia now requires multidisciplinary teams from basic discovery to clinical applications of said discovery. Different roles all working together in the process to bring something to clinical approval.

Food for thought though from the Nobel Prize site. Discovery of major histocompatibility antigens important in transplants etc was from Peter C Doherty who studied vet medicine in Australia because he could not study biology and only practiced about 2 yrs as vet before going mmostly into research. He won medicine prize in 1996. The causative agent of scrapie, BSE and CJD in man was discovered by Stanley Prusiner, a physician, in 1997. He started looking at sheep in his research in the early 70s.

Joe

 

[JosephKnechtDVM]

Error

Stanley Prusiner won the prize in 1997. Research started in early 70s. Only had NIH fellowship and research in med school for his research training.

Joe

 

[JosephKnechtDVM]

If interested in studying mostly populations and disease, a PhD in epidemiology might be the best.

Michael Osterholm PhD of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at UMinn has Phd in epidemiology and seemingly a go to guy for most government commissions.

Nathan Wolfe PhD , very renowned expert in viral zoonotic diseases, PhD from Harvard or Stanford in immunology and infectious diseases. Founded the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative (www.GVFI.org) getting alot of support from federal government, Gates Foundation, National Geographic.

My point being is that the more your interests lie away from clinical medicine on any species, the better off you are pursuing more basic science training.

Joe

 

[sumstorm]

If interested in studying mostly populations and disease, a PhD in epidemiology might be the best.

My point being is that the more your interests lie away from clinical medicine on any species, the better off you are pursuing more basic science training.

Joe

Actually, my interests are in populations and behavior. Different beasts. Though part of my frustration is again the entire idea that all research in animals must be biomedical...I appreciate how that was illustrated! 🙂

In behavior of companion animals, I actually think the disconnect between behavior research, vets, animal professionals, TV personalities, and the average pet owner is a huge problem...and needs to involve vets in research.... much like psychology needs the involvement of medical doctors.

 

[JosephKnechtDVM]

Sunstorm,

You might want to see if there are opportunities for research in your area outside of the vet school. I graduated from NCSU in '88 in zoology and alot of my interests in neurology, behavior and pharmacology were due to an animal behavior course taught by George Barthalmus. He is no longer teaching but a few years ago was in administration at College of Ag and Life Sciences. One of the true "teachers" I had at NCSU who was interested in teaching students and developing their strengths.

I would see what Ag and Life Sciences might have in the Zoology department for research/possibly job during the summer. It would probably be a nice break and allow you to exercise the "research" part of your brain that does not get much exercise during the veterinary school curriculum.

Joe

 

[Bill59]

Stanley Prusiner won the prize in 1997. Research started in early 70s. Only had NIH fellowship and research in med school for his research training.

In 1976 Gajdusek won the Nobel prize in medicine for his work on the first human prion disease, Kuru. Many people think William Hadlow should have shared this because he was the first to recognize the similarities between Kuru and scrapie, in a 1959 letter the Lancet. He recognized the data suggested a genetic predisposition and suggested transmission studies by inoculating nonhuman primates with brain suspensions from kuru patients, which is what Gajdusek did.

Hadlow was a DVM.

 

[nyanko]

If you did a research based Masters, and wrote and defended a thesis - then by all accounts, I am sure we have had very similar experiences. I actually find it amusing how much higher a PhD is placed over a Masters - when considering the work load, they are pretty close IMO.

Found this thread because I was thinking about how to best elucidate my answers to the very question sumstorm's asking if it comes up in my interview, and wanted to say that I somewhat agree with this. Sumstorm didn't do a MS though, just always says she did MS-level research.

I'd be interested in hearing any other viewpoints people have on this topic. It's difficult for me to express why I will be most effective as an investigator and thus will contribute the most to the field with a DVM as well as an advanced graduate degree.

My field is companion animal genetics, and my overall goal is to develop genetic methods to evaluate potential breeding animals beyond the limited tools available to companion animal breeders now like disease tests. I have become very interested in the phenomenon of inbreeding depression and think that it's an important thing to examine, and since it is a very complex phenotype I feel like more in-depth whole organism knowledge is necessary to properly identify the reasons why it occurs beyond "deleterious recessive alleles." I'd also like to be able to identify clinically significant effects at both the individual and population levels, and to counsel breeders based on their individual animals. It's hard for me to really put that into words, though, and I am still unsure if I am being really unclear when I say it.

 

[sumstorm]

Actually, that sounded really good! And it made sense!

And you are right to question my position; I did NOT put any emphasis on my research experience (except that the PI who was in charge of the master's program did one of my LOR's); my emphasis was what my career enabled me to bring to the table in vet med. However, we have at least two PhD's in my class, and at least double that in Master's students. We also have another handful completing Master's in conjunction with vet med (forensics, business, ecology, genetics) and those are just the ones i know about.