Traditional vs. Multidisciplinary PhD

[MSTPbound]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Would like to know everyone's opinion on the following matter:

I think we might all agree that the trajectory of biomedical research inevitably causes the lines between basic sciences to become more and more obscure, hence terms like "structural biology," "biophysics," "chemical biology," "bio-organic chemistry," "biochemistry (not so new)", "molecular biology", and a host of other terms that I certainly am not able to perfectly distinguish from one another.

That said, I believe each traditional discipline, i.e. biology, chemistry, and physics, offers its unique set of tools, methodology and perspectives for probing medical and biological questions.

For an MD/PhD student, do you think it makes more sense to pursue one's PhD degree in a multidisciplinary area, or to pursue that degree in a traditional area?

I ask because while PhD and MD training are distinct educational pathways, I wonder if there is any redundancy in pursuing one's PhD in, say, "molecular physiology", that might otherwise be remedied by a more separate and, perhaps, complementary degree in physics, chemistry, mathematics, or other traditional areas.

Thanks for your thoughts!

-MSTPbound

 

[klpitter23]

Personally, I'm much more attracted to multi-disciplinary type projects rather than projects that are more traditional (i.e. pure genetics, or pure biochemistry). As a result, I've asked several people a very similar question to the one you ask, and the most common response is:
"what you do your PhD in isn't really all that important, what's important is that you are doing work that interests you, and that you learn how to do independent science".

I'm not 100% sold on the idea, but in general I think it makes sense, and I've heard the same type of answer from a lot of people in research, MD/PhD and PhD alike. My plan is to join a group that has a multi-disciplinary approach, that way, regardless of what my PhD is "in", I'll get a solid exposure to a variety of techniques and trains of thought....but who knows, plans change.

 

[Circumflex]

It really doesn't matter what department you go through unless certain departments have different degree requirements. With regard to techniques, it's not like you have to take a "Biochemistry techniques" class if you get your PhD in Biochemistry. As you said, the lines are blurred. Just pick the lab that does the research that you are most interested in and you will learn those techniques. The great thing about grad school is that you can go down the hall to another lab and learn a technique that your lab doesn't do.

I did my PhD in Biochemistry, but my PI was a developmental biologist - he just happened to be on faculty in that department. Even though I was doing transfections, PCR, blots, etc., I wanted to learn electrophysiology to go in a different way with my research. So, I found a lab that did patch-clamp, and I learned it.

Later, no one will care what you got your PhD in - they will be interested in your specific research. You just have to enjoy your work. Be creative and create your own blend of techniques - that always makes for a fun experience.

 

[MSTPbound]

Later, no one will care what you got your PhD in - they will be interested in your specific research. You just have to enjoy your work. Be creative and create your own blend of techniques - that always makes for a fun experience.

I suppose not... but in several of the seminars I've attended, the training of the scientist seemed to bear significant relevance on both the research question and approach, i.e. "Such and such is a chemist by training..."

I can see where several techniques in molecular biology can be learned in a relatively short time... I've learned to run gels and PCRs, culture cells, prepare plasmids, etc., in a relatively short time, but what about organic synthesis of biologically important molecules? or structural analysis of proteins? wouldn't an organic chemist and a physicist or mathematician, respectively, bear some distinct advantage in these aspects of biomedical research? And all the more so with the medical training to broaden and deepen the biological implications/applications?

 

[Circumflex]

I suppose not... but in several of the seminars I've attended, the training of the scientist seemed to bear significant relevance on both the research question and approach, i.e. "Such and such is a chemist by training..."

I can see where several techniques in molecular biology can be learned in a relatively short time... I've learned to run gels and PCRs, culture cells, prepare plasmids, etc., in a relatively short time, but what about organic synthesis of biologically important molecules? or structural analysis of proteins? wouldn't an organic chemist and a physicist or mathematician, respectively, bear some distinct advantage in these aspects of biomedical research? And all the more so with the medical training to broaden and deepen the biological implications/applications?

Maybe I'm not sure what you're asking. If you want to do organic synthesis of molecules, then perhaps you should do a PhD in chemistry. Although, there are people in Biochemistry and Pharmacology that do similar work.

Just be careful. An advantage of doing the MSTP is that you take very little coursework (because it is medically relevant and you have taken a lot of med school classes). If you want to get a PhD in chemistry, physics, or math (not even sure if this is allowed through MSTP), you will have to take a ton of courses in these fields because you will not have taken any in med school. Therefore, your PhD will likely be 5-6 years long.

Plus, if organic synthesis is your interest, you need to be able to explain to the admissions people how you see this fitting in with your future medical career.

 

[MSTPbound]

Maybe I'm not sure what you're asking.

My original intention was to solicit opinions about pursuing a PhD in a traditional area vs. a more multidisciplinary one. I think you answered my question, in part, here:

An advantage of doing the MSTP is that you take very little coursework (because it is medically relevant and you have taken a lot of med school classes).

So I guess, essentially, MST programs count on redundancy of coursework?

I suppose requiring an additional couple of years might make the PhD a less attractive option?

I guess my question was more philosophical, regarding what best prepares a scientist for a particular area of research in a world where scientists who are trained differently seem, as a result, to approach the same problems differently.

Therefore, your PhD will likely be 5-6 years long.

I may not have considered the practical case of "how long" that preparation takes, but I considered it somewhat moot considering that MSTP students tend to average 7-10 years total before fellowship and/or residency anyway.

Plus, if organic synthesis is your interest, you need to be able to explain to the admissions people how you see this fitting in with your future medical career.

I can think of at least one Queen who probably has some good ideas about how this might be done. 😉

I recently had a conversation with David Lawrence from AECOM about some of the distinct challenges faced by chemists who "do" biology, and biologists who "do" chemistry. Suffice it to say that I see plenty of room in genomics and protein biology for medically trained physical scientists. In the clinic, I can only imagine that sub-disciplines like radiology, pathology, anesthesiology, and endocrinology, to start, can all be well informed if not enhanced by formal training in chemistry or physics.

a PhD in chemistry, physics, or math (not even sure if this is allowed through MSTP)

I know Mt. Sinai's MSTP has a PhD in biomathematics... but that sounds like one of those "multidisciplinary" areas again! Cornell, through Rockefeller seems to offer degrees in straight physics, and mathematical biology - I think NYU's Courant Institute of Mathematics also participates in this. I don't know of other programs personally without looking into it, but I would have to imagine that a number of MSTP institutions are happy to accomodate a PhD in mathematics... I mean does it really get any more fundamental than this?

 

[Vader]

Would like to know everyone's opinion on the following matter:

I think we might all agree that the trajectory of biomedical research inevitably causes the lines between basic sciences to become more and more obscure, hence terms like "structural biology," "biophysics," "chemical biology," "bio-organic chemistry," "biochemistry (not so new)", "molecular biology", and a host of other terms that I certainly am not able to perfectly distinguish from one another.

That said, I believe each traditional discipline, i.e. biology, chemistry, and physics, offers its unique set of tools, methodology and perspectives for probing medical and biological questions.

For an MD/PhD student, do you think it makes more sense to pursue one's PhD degree in a multidisciplinary area, or to pursue that degree in a traditional area?

I ask because while PhD and MD training are distinct educational pathways, I wonder if there is any redundancy in pursuing one's PhD in, say, "molecular physiology", that might otherwise be remedied by a more separate and, perhaps, complementary degree in physics, chemistry, mathematics, or other traditional areas.

Thanks for your thoughts!

-MSTPbound

It makes the most sense to pursue whichever area interests you the most. The purpose here is to get good scientific training, not necessarily to learn a particular technique.

I would worry about the particular area of research more when applying for residency and/or fellowships (if you go this route), as this will determine your career trajectory.

 

[MSTPbound]

Personally, I'm much more attracted to multi-disciplinary type projects rather than projects that are more traditional (i.e. pure genetics, or pure biochemistry). As a result, I've asked several people a very similar question to the one you ask, and the most common response is:
"what you do your PhD in isn't really all that important, what's important is that you are doing work that interests you, and that you learn how to do independent science".

I'm not 100% sold on the idea, but in general I think it makes sense, and I've heard the same type of answer from a lot of people in research, MD/PhD and PhD alike. My plan is to join a group that has a multi-disciplinary approach, that way, regardless of what my PhD is "in", I'll get a solid exposure to a variety of techniques and trains of thought....but who knows, plans change.

I hear you. I'm not 100% sold on the idea either. I mean, like I might have suggested earlier, perhaps what you get the degree "in" doesn't matter as much when you're pursuing it in a number of fields that sort of look, feel, and sound the same at the end of the day. I'm still trying to figure out what the difference is, if there is any beyond semantics, between a biochemist and a chemical biologist.

But I just wonder about some of these other fields that are more anomalous pursuits among MSTPs, possibly because of some of the reasons Circumflex mentioned (e.g. takes too long). Besides just being "non-traditional" PhD options, I am curious about whether these pursuits might better prepare someone for some of the goals of, for example, biophysics, than even a PhD in biophysics would.

Maybe I'm just making something of nothing - and I'll stop if it amounts to nothing - but I think I'm asking a legitimate question here.

Anyway... off to sleep. Gotta be at Kaplan in 8 hours if I want a fighting chance at even being in a position to make any of these decisions for myself next year.

-MSTPbound

 

[Circumflex]

My best advice to you (MSTPbound) is to try and find some people who are doing the kind of work that you would like to do (search PubMed, google, or your local schools). Email them or set up meetings and ask them about their career paths and what adviced they have to offer. This is the best info you can get.

I am a big fan of using "non-traditional" approaches in research - a different perspective can lead to some cool discoveries. But, there are also some practical considerations like length of training, family, desired clinical specialty, etc. that have to be considered (depending on individual circumstances). Best of luck to you!

 

[gbwillner]

I would argue that the "traditional" approaches you speak of no longer exist. At my institution, there is no PhD in "biology". This is because the term is far too general now and means nothing. You choices are "human genetics", "molecular and cellular biology", or even "cellular and molecular biology (!)".

I would argue, however, that it DOES matter what your PhD is in. Not for getting a residency so much. But for accomplishing your desire of becoming a physician-scientist. If you would like to become a pathologist, then your PhD training may help you a lot. If you would like to be a pediatrician, getting a PhD in genetics may take you very far. Its about whom you know a majority of times.

 

[MSTPbound]

I would argue that the "traditional" approaches you speak of no longer exist. At my institution, there is no PhD in "biology". This is because the term is far too general now and means nothing. You choices are "human genetics", "molecular and cellular biology", or even "cellular and molecular biology (!)".

I would argue, however, that it DOES matter what your PhD is in. Not for getting a residency so much. But for accomplishing your desire of becoming a physician-scientist. If you would like to become a pathologist, then your PhD training may help you a lot. If you would like to be a pediatrician, getting a PhD in genetics may take you very far. Its about whom you know a majority of times.

I don't think I ever said "traditional approach"... or if I did, what I intended to say was "traditional discipline." Certainly, there is a difference between getting a PhD in biochemistry, or getting a PhD in Chemistry, no? Or say the difference between in a PhD in "biophysics" vs. "physics"? I think what I was getting at is that all approaches in biomedicine are necessarily interdisciplinary, but not all PhD training has to be... a Physicist need not know a thing about Physiology... but if that physicist also earns an MD, I would think that puts one in a really interesting position for doing multidisciplinary research... don't you think?

All speculation. Truth is I'm really enjoying these basic fields so much, and appreciate what they lend to biomedical research that I wonder if I might opt to go one of these routes instead of the usual "biomedically relevant" areas MD/PhDs tend to pursue.

 

[MedRower]

So, I was browsing the forums and came upon this thread from over a year ago.

I think it is pretty interesting. For a while I have been thinking about a non-traditional PhD (physics), but had come to the conclusion that I would have to give up either that or medicine.

I wonder if people have any input? MSTPbound swore off SDN, but if they hadn't I would love to ask whether they still think similarly and what had changed in the last year.

Any new thoughts?

 

[Maxprime]

Multidisciplinary, definitely. Doing a pure PhD (IMO) takes a lot longer because there has been so much activity in that area. But it's obviously an individual thing - personally, I really love new technologies and techniques so I like being involved with multiple departments.

 

[MedRower]

Does anyone know if there's ever been a person to hold an MD/PhD with a PhD in theoretical physics?

 

[MudPhudHopeful]

Does anyone know if there's ever been a person to hold an MD/PhD with a PhD in theoretical physics?

Dr. Sandor Kovacs at WashU received his PhD in theoretical physics from Caltech prior to his MD from the University of Miami. He is a cardiologist and does research involving building mathematical models of the heart. You may want to check out his lab website: http://dbbs.wustl.edu/rib/KovacsSanJ.

 

[RxnMan]

Does anyone know if there's ever been a person to hold an MD/PhD with a PhD in theoretical physics?

No, but depending on your focus, a degree in biophysics won't be far off. Or O-chem. Or P-Chem.

Which is why it's kinda ridiculous to worry about the particular name on the degree. Yes, it might help your guests at your next mulled wine party figure out what type of geek you are, but it doesn't have much to do with your science.