Undergraduate Research Topic & Lab Selection

[waddle]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hi all,

I am an undergraduate student, 3rd year, majoring in biochemistry at a master's-granting public institution. Having previously done some volunteer work (past two summers) at a lab in another institution, I am looking to join a research lab at my home campus.

However, due to being chronically timid and having been unable to find a faculty member in the biological sciences with a research program suiting my interests, I have held off on joining a lab until now. Needless to say, I screwed up.

In the past quarter, I've become very interested in studying environmental (bio)chemistry at my home institution. In particular, two faculty I've identified with whom I'd love to work study atmospheric-physical-analytical chemistry and redox hydrogeochemistry. I am on the verge of joining either of these labs, but am now starting to doubt myself. A few questions I have been unable to answer follow.

--

long version

--1--

definition of a basic science
​

I have a problem similar to that of Bend, posted previously in this thread. However, I'm posting this here because I'm interested in what SDNers have to say about undergraduate research topics, not potential PhD subjects (I'm keeping an open mind regarding graduate studies).

The consensus seems to me that most MD/PhD programs are looking to train basic science researchers rather than translational science, which is perfectly understandable to me. But what fields of research are encompassed within the definition of a basic science? I interpreted "basic science" to mean research that is done for the sake of advancing knowledge, and not for the purpose of applying it in practical situations. However, reading about this on SDN, I get the impression that "basic" is interpreted as including only research in topics of biomedical significance, e.g. cancer biology or cell signaling.

What exactly is the definition of basic science, in the view of an MD/PhD program? Does it include traditional (non-biological) physical chemistry? What about environmental microbiology/toxicology?

--2--
appropriateness of undergraduate non-medical/biological research
​

I am at a loss as to whether to do research in more biomedically-relevant labs at my home campus (which I either find uninteresting or not currently accepting undergrads), or to pursue research in a non-medical area. I have done some research in molecular biology over the last two summers at a nearby prestigious institution's medical school, and as it looks now, I will be heading back there to the same lab on an internship this summer.

My concern is that MD/PhD admission committees would view a long-term research experience in environmentally-relevant chemistry unfavorably, even as a complement to 9 months (maybe more) of research in the same lab studying cancer biology. I don't want to bungle my chances any more than I have already, but I'd still like to do research in a lab and area with which I'd be happy. Would this be a real problem, or am I just dreaming this issue up?

(To clarify, any environmental chemistry research I would be doing would be entirely laboratory-oriented, i.e. bench. I would not actually be studying environmental samples; rather, I'd be developing methods of detection specific to the target compounds--which can be applied to many types of sample, not just those obtained from the environment.)

--3--
which lab to join?
​

Assuming that doing the above-mentioned research will not cripple my application, I'm undecided as to which lab to join. Here is a breakdown:

Professor A:

Does redox hydrogeochemical research, Geology Dep't. Small research group (2 grad students), with a number of outside collaborators. Usually no lab meetings, only 1-on-1. Is probably one of those professors who actually have to do some lab work themselves. Slim possibility of publication or poster, though Prof. A publishes more often (1 per year) than Prof. B since Prof. A is still an assistant professor. Was awarded $90k from the NSF last year.
​

Professor B:

Does atmospheric chemistry research (physical-analytically-based), Chemistry Dep't. 8-person research group (undergrad & grad). Weekly lab group meetings. Has sponsored many undergrad theses and sat on quite a few thesis committees. Probably no publication in sight; possibly a poster. Has a $100k grant from the NIGMS, among some other sources.
​

Neither are stars in their respective fields, and my school isn't known for its research anyway. In either case, I would be working on an undergraduate thesis (through the honors program in the Chemistry Department) based on the research done, and even if I worked with Prof. A, my primary thesis advisor would still be Prof. B (must be in the department). However, I feel that in that respect, working in Prof. B's lab would be much more helpful in the process of developing and defending the thesis (some of Prof. B's lab meetings are practice thesis defenses)--albeit a lesser chance of publishing.

Would doing an undergrad honors thesis be sufficient to offset not having any publications or posters to show for the research experience? And based on the above information, with which PI would you recommend I do research?

--

condensed version

1. What fields does "basic science" encompass? Does it refer only to molecular biology, or to any sort of fundamental research (e.g. traditional physical or analytical chemistry)?
2. Would non-biomedically relevant research (e.g. environmental chemistry) be discounted by MD/PhD admissions committees?
3. Which professor would you recommend I work with (see above)?

I am aware that time is quickly running out for me, and I've tried to do my homework before posting here. If anyone could provide advice regarding the concerns raised above, I'd be eternally grateful. 😀

waddle

 

[KD1655]

Interesting post; It seems as though I was in a similar position several years ago. As a third year undergraduate in biomedical engineering with hopes of going to medical school (not MD/PhD). To that end, I had quite a bit of clinical experience (5+ years of paid/volunteer EMS) but limited research experience (2 months with a physician scientist). Today, as a graduate student (not yet in MD/PhD program), my focus has completely changed. I was FORCED into research as a part of my senior design project for biomedical engineering. My research WAS NOT what most would consider basic sciences in that we utilized a rather common polymer/metallic corrosion materials characterization technique to probe the properties of neural tissue. Don't get me wrong, this technique has been used for biomedical applications but not as readily as in some other industrial fields. Anyways, to make a long story short, I ended up falling in love with the research and decided to continue it as a masters student. At this point, I really began actively considering MD/PhD programs. I chose to puruse Materials Science and Engineering/ Phyics for my masters degree. I realize that this degree may not look as good to MD/PhD committees as molecular biology but I really love the thrill and challenge of engineering. To be honest, if I had done a masters in something like neuroscience or molecular biology (which was certainly possible because I am collaborating with a neuroscience/molecular biol professor), I don't think that I would be as satisfied or have done as well in my graduate classes as I have done. As for the research, I am still in love with it and am about to send out two first author manuscripts for review/publication. The point that I am trying to convey to you is that you should conduct research/pursue a degree in a field that interest you and not one that necessarily looks good to MD/PhD committees. As a graduate student, I see alot of pre-meds rotating through my lab to "get research experience" and they do just enough work to get a mediocre LOR but not enough to get anything out of the research. Why spend time doing something that doesn't interest you for the sole purpose of getting a LOR or impressing a MD/PhD comittee? Therefore, my advice is to pursue the research that interests you the most with the professor that you are most comfortable with. In the end, you will get much more out of that experience than you would essentially putting on a show for a comittee.