Theoretical physics and medicine

[Darkknight27]

I have found a few MD/PhD programs that would let students do the phd portion in physics. I was curious if I got into such a program could my research be imploring methods used in theoretical physics to problems in physiology and medicine? By methods I mean using higher level mathematics and principles from physics, but again from a theoretical approach. For example, stuff like quantum biology, particle physics (I would assume that has some affects on cellular function at the subatomic level), or maybe even condensed matter theory. The article I attached gives some examples.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[kepler16b]

Biophysics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you do your PhD in physics, you will be in a biophysics lab. I doubt there is a MD/PhD director out there who would be eager to have a student study theoretical physics...

 

[Darkknight27]

Biophysics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If you do your PhD in physics, you will be in a biophysics lab. I doubt there is a MD/PhD director out there who would be eager to have a student study theoretical physics...

I was thinking like theoretical biophysics. I have found a few programs that do that.

 

[CrayonShinChan]

people applying to the biophysics program typically want to do like microscopy or imagining or something like that (that is my impression at least), because a lot of other physical aspects of biology could fall under bioengineering department and I think for more theoretical stuff, computational biology/mathematical biology are more likely to have what you are talking about.

I am also a mdphd applicant who wants to do my phd in a theoretical field rather than the traditional immuno/neuro etc. But I have struggled to come up with a coherent narrative to justify why I would need a md if what I want to do is theories rather than application. Personally I want to do md because it is immediately gratifying for me to help patients and see them do better, but the way I want to go about understanding their diseases is through a theoretical lens. I am not so sure how convincing this reason sounds like and it's certainly harder to justify your choice than people who want to do immunology/microbiology research to help with some public health crisis. So I think if you are able to talk convincingly about why you want to do theoretical, just look for a school that allows the phd in cs or math then you should be good.

 

[QuantumHerbs]

You are going to have a very difficult time convincing adcoms that a theoretical physics PhD is necessary for your career as a physician-scientist. Biophysics, medical physics, theoretical/computational biology, etc are better options, I think.

 

[Darkknight27]

Theoretical biophysics/mathematical biology is an option for an MSTP! But I really doubt you'll find a lab applying particle physics to biology research. I think biological processes occur at a very different length/energy scale compared to particle physics. Maaaaybe you could swing quantum biology, but if you don't know much about biophysics do you really understand what quantum biology entails?

I figured the particle physics thing was a pretty big stretch, but I wanted to ask to see if there was anything out there. I like what you said about theoretical biophysics/mathematical biology. I think programs like structural biology, biomath (UCLA), and biophysics would be something I should look into. I have found a few interdisciplinary biophysics programs where I could possibly have an advisor from the physics department, but the coursework would be a better fit towards med school than pure physics courses.
I want to clarify what I meant by "theoretical physics" in the context of biology. A good example is I found a paper where a mathematician used differential geometry/topology to model how proteins are misshapen in Alzheimer's disease. I also found a book on mathematical physiology that used differential equations and physics to model physiological processes. I basically want my research to be as math and physics heavy as possible! I hope that clears things up about what I was thinking! Thanks everyone for your responses!

 

[CrayonShinChan]

Not true at all. While many people in biophysics are interested in microscopy and imaging, the field encompasses much more than just that. For instance, structural biology (understanding the structure and function of macromolecules and macromolecular complexes) is a large branch of biophysics and is of interest to many MSTPs, including myself.

Biophysics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah definitely, I guess I always consider structural biology as a separate field rather than included under biophysics haha

 

[CrayonShinChan]

I figured the particle physics thing was a pretty big stretch, but I wanted to ask to see if there was anything out there. I like what you said about theoretical biophysics/mathematical biology. I think programs like structural biology, biomath (UCLA), and biophysics would be something I should look into. I have found a few interdisciplinary biophysics programs where I could possibly have an advisor from the physics department, but the coursework would be a better fit towards med school than pure physics courses.
I want to clarify what I meant by "theoretical physics" in the context of biology. A good example is I found a paper where a mathematician used differential geometry/topology to model how proteins are misshapen in Alzheimer's disease. I also found a book on mathematical physiology that used differential equations and physics to model physiological processes. I basically want my research to be as math and physics heavy as possible! I hope that clears things up about what I was thinking! Thanks everyone for your responses!

It looks like our interests are very similar! I am interested in mathematical modelling and want to study evolutionary dynamics. I know stanford and harvard both have great biophysics departments that have faculties who work on very math-y stuff, I think in harvard there is even a track called mathematical biophysics, so worth taking a look at.

Not very common to find people who are interested in this field and also want to pursue MD-PhD, wish you best of luck in your applications!

 

[ClimbsRox]

Theoretical physics is a big part of advancing biological application of NMR/MRI. Definitely a possibility with an MD/PhD. Systems biology is another option. A lot of that field is working to develop physical theories and models to explain life. 2 of the people in my cohort plan on doing their PhDs in computational chem so non-traditional biomedical sciences definitely have their place in MD/PhD programs.

 

[chemphysicsinstructor]

I have found a few MD/PhD programs that would let students do the phd portion in physics. I was curious if I got into such a program could my research be imploring methods used in theoretical physics to problems in physiology and medicine? By methods I mean using higher level mathematics and principles from physics, but again from a theoretical approach. For example, stuff like quantum biology, particle physics (I would assume that has some affects on cellular function at the subatomic level), or maybe even condensed matter theory. The article I attached gives some examples.

Yes! You will have to do some selling of the idea since a lot of the med folks don't have a super strong physics background. Be assured, there is a lot of physics (and math too!) going on behind the scenes in medicine.

Personally, I did a research project applying statistical mechanics (diffusion/transport theory) to tumors as imaged by MRI and CT. It was very interesting.

 

[Neuronix]

Just drop the word theoretical. That implies equations on chalkboards and stuff that's difficult to prove and/or apply. Usually subatomic particles and astrophysics stuff.

What you want is applied physics/biophysics or even bioengineering. Where I trained the physics and math departments had tons of teaching and coursework requirements that would guarantee a very long PhD.

Biophysics was different. That's the kind of department where you want to aim at all these projects people are describing in this thread.

 

[spoopydoopy]

^Just to hop onto Neuronix's good advice in case it's not enough for you (maybe you have a good reason), I think you'll find there's zero benefit and lots of potential harm in being open about your interest in theoretical anything while applying. You don't win points for having a unique research interest with most of the adcoms I've talked to, and even with the ones who are "impressed," you'll fight an uphill battle to convince them you are not incredibly high-risk as a student. What if you don't get into a graduate program or you have a super difficult time finding a supervisor who will take an MD-PhD student to do a project that falls in the extra limited space that you've defined? What if your PhD takes forever because of non-overlapping graduation requirements or an unsympathetic thesis committee? What kind of higher-level repercussions are there for a program whose students increasingly go down distinctly non-clinical research directions? With these concerns floating around, why should they give you a spot over someone with clearly articulated research interests that easily fit within the mission of the program?

When I applied, I had a hard time *not* talking about my interests in physics to basically everyone who interviewed me. But I tried very hard to not set off red flags while doing so. Some examples that may already be obvious to you:

1) Coming off like you think you're the first person to ever think of combining physics with ______. You're not, probably not even within that year's applicant pool.
2) Making adcoms feel like you care more about the image of being an MD-PhD studying Physics than the actual research. This seems to me like a really common issue for people with "unique" PhD ideas.
3) Not being able to point to concrete examples in your own work where you've used physics to study ______ and it was *different* because of the physics. Just finding a paper that's representative of the work you want to do isn't a super strong argument, you have to show that *you* can do the work and that *you* enjoy doing it.

If you can't avoid these kinds of issues, it's really not a great idea to talk about a Physics PhD in your application - you might still get in, but why take the risk? Focus on the work you've done that's prepared you for MD-PhD training. Once you're accepted, it's a different story and you can start thinking and talking about what you want to do next. Telling a program director that you want to do physics at revisit (vs. interview day) seems totally fine to me - I did, and I found that many were open to the idea at that stage. Those conversations helped me choose a program that would let me do what I wanted.