* That's not to say you CAN'T do research- of course you can. But from personal experience you probably won't.
In my not so humble opinion...
From my own personal experience I've seen a bunch of people in the "research" specialties you listed who also didn't go off and do research. I've argued about this before, and I've made the same conclusion every time. Put up data that says some specialties are better than others at producing researchers or I don't think it's right to make comments like this. I've talked to people on all sides of the fence, research, clinical, ROAD specialties, the big 3 MD/PhD specialties, and it comes down to, it's all a matter of perspective and how someone sets up their own career. To say one specialty is "better" really irks me.
I've repeatedly heard my share of IM docs and Pathologists say "I wish I hadn't gone into such a CROWDED field". I've also heard twice now from IM docs "Radiology is a good field. I wish it was easier to cover my salary on my clinical work so I'd have more time for research." Another issue that keeps coming up is that many IM and Peds subspecialists scoff at their career prospects in the clinical world--i.e. with my fellowship I would make the same money doing clinical and work just as hard in Heme-Onc or Onc or Rheum or whatever. So why not stay in research?
It's good to have options. Unfortunately for the goal of producing researchers, the Radiologist or the Dermatologist might see that the 100% clinical world offers much more pay, much less stress, more vacation, etc etc etc versus the 100% research world. When you've been training beyond undergrad for 15 years and have a family, these things might just appeal to you. In the word of every PhD Radiology faculty I know "You'd have to be crazy to have a majority research career as a Radiologist". Does that mean if you're interested in Radiology/Radiology research you shouldn't pick Radiology because you'll have OPTIONS down the line? I don't think so. You might just find that making half the money for far more work while fighting to get grants well into your 40s doesn't appeal to you.
Now don't shoot the messenger. This is simply reality for any junior faculty. I think you should pick whatever specialty interests you and take the options you have available, which includes research in any specialty. If the clinical work happens to appeal to you more when you get there, there's nothing wrong with that. It may not what your MSTP director intended, but it's your life.
The funny thing is too that when it comes to Medicine, it then becomes a fellowship choice as well. All of a sudden GI and Cards are the ones that aren't "good" for research (for those of you who don't know, those are the two best paying specialties in IM). Hmmm, is it also because there's a good clinical gig down the line for those as well? Should we just not do research on those either? This is all sillyness IMO. In Pathology it's the AP is better than CP for research... I just keep hearing this stuff over and over again, and it just depends who you talk to and what they think. Since traditionally the big MD/PhD specialties are IM, Peds, and Path, their voice tends to be the loudest. The Path MSTP directors seem to pitch Path, the IM MSTP directors seem to pitch IM, but there's a bigger world out there I think everyone should strongly consider, and that doesn't just mean throwing in Psych and Neuro, but everything.
i was wondering if you guys/gals had any ideas about what you want to get into? If so, Id like to hear why and especially how condusive research is with it? Right now I like Heme/Onc, Rad/Onc or cardio, but that is me talking directly out of my ass.
Full disclosure: Assuming I match into it, I'm going into Rads. All MD/PhDs applying for something this competitive need to apply to a backup on the side, which typically ends up being IM or Path. What irks me is you never know who failed to match into their specialty of choice because match lists never show that sort of thing. Fail to match into anything becomes "post-doc". Fortunately I *THINK* this is rare. But it's something to be considered.
How condusive is it to research? I dunno. It's a hard question to answer. I got my PhD in a Radiology department, and there are many around the country doing such research. There's a lot of research residencies, including a national application pathway (Holman pathway). So the research obviously exists.
