I always thought that for an individual to use the title "Clinician/Scientist" the person had to have an advanced science degree (usually a PhD) and a clinical degree MD/DO/DVM/DDS. However, I noticed an MD using the term to describe her work without either the MS or PhD. This seems a little strange to me. I thought that if I never pursued a PhD in addition to an MD, I'd be a Physician doing research as opposed to a "Clinician Scientist". Another point is that I'm sure there are many PhD's doing clinical type reseach but I've NEVER heard ANY of them refer to themselves as "Clinician Scientist" as I'm sure MD's would be quite upset about that. Just my .02 Here's a quotes form the Canadian Journal of Cardiology Although different individuals mean different things when they use the term clinician scientist, all agree that it refers to a health researcher who has clinical training and who remains involved in clinical practice. In its broadest sense, the term applies to any health professional who practises their profession and engages in health research. The research can be basic, clinical or health related. In the narrowest sense, the term is used to refer to the clinically active physician who is engaged in translational research involving patients. Recently, clinician scientists have often been physicians who practise minimally, but who have trained and work in fundamental (basic) research. Often to be successful, these people have subspecialty training in their clinical discipline and a PhD in the basic discipline ? obviously a long and arduous training program.