Thoughts on a 3-year MD following PhD

[Skott]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi,

I'm a second year PhD student working on identifying novel pathways of quorum sensing and metabolism related to innate immune responses, among many other things.

Someone I know brought up that they may be applying to MD/PhD programs - I offered up that "I'd consider it if I could get it in 3 years." Sure enough, I saw that Columbia University recently started offering MDs to PhDs in a 3-year program.

There are other schools doing this as well.

Please give your relatively blind, honest opinion on this idea, if your current perspective is MD preparation . . . if you want to know more information on my end, please ask. I just realized that it's 4 AM.

A followup question would be concerning studying for the MCAT (though that question hasn't been put together just yet).

Thank you guys

 

[Gut Shot]

Hi,

I'm a second year PhD student working on identifying novel pathways of quorum sensing and metabolism related to innate immune responses, among many other things.

Someone I know brought up that they may be applying to MD/PhD programs - I offered up that "I'd consider it if I could get it in 3 years." Sure enough, I saw that Columbia University recently started offering MDs to PhDs in a 3-year program.

There are other schools doing this as well.

Please give your relatively blind, honest opinion on this idea, if your current perspective is MD preparation . . . if you want to know more information on my end, please ask. I just realized that it's 4 AM.

A followup question would be concerning studying for the MCAT (though that question hasn't been put together just yet).

Thank you guys

First question: why do you want an MD?

 

[Skott]

First question: why do you want an MD?

There opportunities available to someone holding a MD/PhD are generally unavailable to people holding one or the other. A famous example would be Francis Collins, though I would rather not be a politician. The translational research that a PhD can propose is very minimal.

There are examples and counterexamples for every opinion, I'm sure. But the ability to carry out an entire "bench to bedside" project sounds like a good reason.

 

[notbobtrustme]

You have to have a real passion to pursue an MD. The debt you will go into will make you reconsider research, considering that Columbia explicitly says that you will pay 3 years tuition. If you have no real intention to practice medicine, then I wouldn't bother with an MD. The number of successful physician scientists is miniscule compared to the number of aspiring physician scientists. Many MD/PhD students start out in your position, wanting to do meaningful, translational research, and end up quitting science all together for a better paying, less stressful position as a physician.

 

[nysw]

There opportunities available to someone holding a MD/PhD are generally unavailable to people holding one or the other. A famous example would be Francis Collins, though I would rather not be a politician. The translational research that a PhD can propose is very minimal.

There are examples and counterexamples for every opinion, I'm sure. But the ability to carry out an entire "bench to bedside" project sounds like a good reason.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea of only MD/PhDs being able to do an 'bench to bedside'/translational research project entirely. Team Science is definitely emerging, seeing as how some of the top papers in some of the most prestigious journals are not published by one group alone, but as a collaboration with others. If you don't want to practice medicine but you're still interested in proposing and doing translational research, I'd suggest finding a postdoc position at a medical school that has a CTSA.

 

[TxResident]

Generally from the people I've spoken to, they are sold on the idea of "bench to bedside" ability, but from what I've gathered from asking a MD/PhD and a few other more mature/intelligent friends, they said you're basically pushed into only one part of the dual degree, so you're either practicing or doing research primarily, but not both. Theres just not enough time.

Edit: It also sounds like you're considering getting an MD just to get it too... Sounds like you're gonna have a baaaaaad time...

 

[Skott]

I'm not entirely sold on the idea of only MD/PhDs being able to do an 'bench to bedside'/translational research project entirely. Team Science is definitely emerging, seeing as how some of the top papers in some of the most prestigious journals are not published by one group alone, but as a collaboration with others. If you don't want to practice medicine but you're still interested in proposing and doing translational research, I'd suggest finding a postdoc position at a medical school that has a CTSA.

I'm not sold on the idea either.

I do understand that there could always be separate clinical and basic research performed by separate groups, and somewhere, at some point, the research comes together.

Here are two surveys:

Educating Future Leaders of Medical Research: Analysis of Student Opinions and Goals from the MD-PhD SAGE (Students' Attitudes, Goals, and Education) Survey

Are MD-PhD Programs Meeting Their Goals? An Analysis of Career Choices Made by Graduates of 24 MD-PhD Programs

Some conclusions: The majority of MD/PhDs surveyed spend the majority of their time on research. And, of that time spend on research, the most common avenue is basic research. The options for MD/PhD holders are varied and broad.

(Based on the authors, some MD/PhDs research what MD/PhDs research.)

I'm not entirely sure why I replied.

 

[Skott]

Edit: It also sounds like you're considering getting an MD just to get it too... Sounds like you're gonna have a baaaaaad time...

Yes.

As I stated in the original post, I just realized that a MD seems well within the realm of possibility for me only a few days . . . I don't know what day it is. This idea is under development, hence me asking complete strangers for their opinions.

 

[nysw]

I'm not sold on the idea either.

I do understand that there could always be separate clinical and basic research performed by separate groups, and somewhere, at some point, the research comes together.

Here are two surveys:

Educating Future Leaders of Medical Research: Analysis of Student Opinions and Goals from the MD-PhD SAGE (Students' Attitudes, Goals, and Education) Survey

Are MD-PhD Programs Meeting Their Goals? An Analysis of Career Choices Made by Graduates of 24 MD-PhD Programs

Some conclusions: The majority of MD/PhDs surveyed spend the majority of their time on research. And, of that time spend on research, the most common avenue is basic research. The options for MD/PhD holders are varied and broad.

(Based on the authors, some MD/PhDs research what MD/PhDs research.)

I'm not entirely sure why I replied.

Right, the coming together would happen in multidisciplinary teams, with multiple PIs that do a lot of things. Of course, you could just have a huge lab and do all of the bench to bedside, but I'm under the impression that this is very very old school.

"Of those in academia, 82% were doing research and at least 61% had identifiable research funding. Whereas two-thirds devoted more than 50% effort to research, only 39% devoted more than 75% effort." - This is extremely strange to hear, considering how I've heard from several program directors that most MD-PhDs just quit research altogether. Essentially, only a few, extremely talented people manage to do a complete 50-50 split, with most doing 75-25, or some variation. I wonder how far along after graduation they were surveyed...

 

[Gut Shot]

There opportunities available to someone holding a MD/PhD are generally unavailable to people holding one or the other. A famous example would be Francis Collins, though I would rather not be a politician. The translational research that a PhD can propose is very minimal.

There are examples and counterexamples for every opinion, I'm sure. But the ability to carry out an entire "bench to bedside" project sounds like a good reason.

In a more perfect world people MDs because they are excited about the prospect of learning and applying clinical medicine, not so much as a utilitarian means to augment laboratory funding.

It's a bit like asking two students why the want to get PhDs; one says "because I love science and the process of discovery," and the other says "to avail me postdoctoral research opportunities, provided it takes no longer than 5 years."

Don't get me wrong, I've been there, and when you're in research it's fairly easy to frame all decisions in terms of opportunity cost vs. grant $$$. But you're only seeing a small piece of the equation. I would strongly suggest you get some shadowing experience, ideally with academic physicians who spend at least 25% time practicing. If that experience gets you gonads pulsating, well, perhaps this idea is worth further development.

 

[naixin]

Are there any other schools that have this kind of program for Ph.D. besides Columbia?

Hi,

I'm a second year PhD student working on identifying novel pathways of quorum sensing and metabolism related to innate immune responses, among many other things.

Someone I know brought up that they may be applying to MD/PhD programs - I offered up that "I'd consider it if I could get it in 3 years." Sure enough, I saw that Columbia University recently started offering MDs to PhDs in a 3-year program.

There are other schools doing this as well.

Please give your relatively blind, honest opinion on this idea, if your current perspective is MD preparation . . . if you want to know more information on my end, please ask. I just realized that it's 4 AM.

A followup question would be concerning studying for the MCAT (though that question hasn't been put together just yet).

Thank you guys

 

[alisvolatpropri]

.

 

[alpinism]

Huh never heard of this before.

Learn something new everyday.

 

[lumpyduster]

Curious. Would it be different if OP wanted to change careers and get an MD to see patients?

 

[lumpyduster]

Different in what sense? The need for the M.D or the 3 year timeline?
I think the 3 year timeline is set if you have a bioscience or engineering related PhD already( I think they assume a U.S PhD degree).
Regarding whether the M.D helps with research...I think it does in some areas and not in others. I don't know about the OP, but the main reason I am interested in it is because I really enjoy the clinical aspect, even if it may end up being only 25%.

Oh no sorry I just noticed people were really questioning OP's motives for the MD. Granted he seems like he just wants it for grant purposes.