Want to do research, but not MD/PHD

[Buddhasmash]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

My dream career would be something like this: work as an MD with patient contact about 80% of the time, and do research about 20% of the time. I know that the typical route for a medical researcher is to pursue an MD and a PhD. I have no interest in taking the additional 3-7 years of school to get that PhD, though.

The type of research I'm interested in doing is neuroscience related. Specifically, I want to find ways to cause artificial electronic components to interact with the human nervous system, with the eventual goal of being able to create artificial limbs which interface with the nervous system as well or better than the original organic limb.

So I have two questions: 1) Is it possible to gain the qualifications necessary to do this type of research without getting a PhD? 2) If so, would you be better prepared for this type of research by pursuing a residency in neurology or neurosurgery?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

tons of MDs do research, either exclusively or in addition to clinical work. and 80/20 clinical/research split though, isn't exactly conducive to what you want to accomplish. be realistic, you think you can really create revolutionary prostheses with 20% of your workweek?

many academic residencies include "protected research time" for you to pursue research, and you can gain a lot of experience as a med student provided you are in the right institution. i'm not expert on the subject but neurology is an internal medicine discipline, and since you're expressing interest in the more biomechanical aspects, neurosurgery is probably a better bet..

 

[Evergrey]

I had similar concerns as you, and thought about pursuing MD/PhD programs for a while. However, I think the research MD is the best fit for you. Probably most of the top 40 "research" med schools on the US News rankings have the programs and support for medical students to pursue medical research within the MD curriculum.

Here's a few ways that you can make it work without the PhD:

1) Take a year off to do funded research during medical school before or after your 3rd year. There are several programs for medical students, including HHMI, NIH Cloister, Sarnoff, etc. Of course, it isn't too hard to just arrange something with a researcher independent of any formal program. You should receive a modest stipend for the year off, and you can focus on anything from basic to clinical research.

2) Research tracks within the medical school. For instance Yale, Case Western, etc. require their medical students to do significant independent projects as a curriculum requirement.

3) Pursue protected research time during residency or especially fellowship -- you need to do your training at the right program for this.

4) Do a post-doc to get research training.

5) Apply for training grants after residency/fellowship to fund research (I don't know too much about this, but the NIH does give training grants for physicians and I know it's possible to work with established researchers to make this work)

6) There's always the option to get a MS or PhD after you graduate from medical school. Some programs allow you to pursue these degrees during residency, others may allow you after. Yale has a pretty prominent fully-funded physician-only PhD program, for example. My understanding is there aren't too many formal programs, but there are many ways to make this work informally.

I would recommend you direct your questions to the Physician Scientist/Medical Research forum, because they know a lot more than I do about this type of thing. I see my career exactly as you described though, and I am gonna go to a research-oriented med school and just do research during my M1/M2 summer, as well as get some time during 4th year (maybe 2 months?). I always have the option to do more research if I take a year off, or do a research-oriented residency/fellowship. Just getting the MD is nice because you have a lot of options and you're not locked into any specific training path. If you do decide to seriously pursue research in order to be a medical scientist, that would entail getting quite a few more years of mentored research training. The downside though is you owe money for your MD degree, whereas the MD/PhDs (or the lotto winners at CCLCM or Pitt PTSP) do not.

Whatever you decide, best of luck

 

[muhali3]

tons of MDs do research, either exclusively or in addition to clinical work. and 80/20 clinical/research split though, isn't exactly conducive to what you want to accomplish. be realistic, you think you can really create revolutionary prostheses with 20% of your workweek?

many academic residencies include "protected research time" for you to pursue research, and you can gain a lot of experience as a med student provided you are in the right institution. i'm not expert on the subject but neurology is an internal medicine discipline, and since you're expressing interest in the more biomechanical aspects, neurosurgery is probably a better bet..

neurology is its own specialty, not a fellowship of IM. https://www.aamc.org/students/medstudents/cim/specialties/63776/cim_pub_neurology.html

To OP: I'm not in any position to say whether neurology/neurosurgery would be a better fit. This is something you should figure out once you're actually in MS, and by then you might have your eyes on something else that is completely different.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

neurology is its own specialty, not a fellowship of IM. https://www.aamc.org/students/medstudents/cim/specialties/63776/cim_pub_neurology.html

To OP: I'm not in any position to say whether neurology/neurosurgery would be a better fit. This is something you should figure out once you're actually in MS, and by then you might have your eyes on something else that is completely different.

vascular/plastic surgeries are their own categorical residencies as well, but i would call those surgical disciplines..

 

[muhali3]

vascular/plastic surgeries are their own categorical residencies as well, but i would call those surgical disciplines..

Oh ok...I think I misinterpreted what you said. I guess with a certain definition of IM you could say it is an IM discipline, but it's not exactly a fellowship of IM, which is what I thought you meant.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Oh ok...I think I misinterpreted what you said. I guess with a certain definition of IM you could say it is an IM discipline, but it's not exactly a fellowship of IM, which is what I thought you meant.

word i should have phrased it better

 

[your mother]

My dream career would be something like this: work as an MD with patient contact about 80% of the time, and do research about 20% of the time. I know that the typical route for a medical researcher is to pursue an MD and a PhD. I have no interest in taking the additional 3-7 years of school to get that PhD, though.

The type of research I'm interested in doing is neuroscience related. Specifically, I want to find ways to cause artificial electronic components to interact with the human nervous system, with the eventual goal of being able to create artificial limbs which interface with the nervous system as well or better than the original organic limb.

So I have two questions: 1) Is it possible to gain the qualifications necessary to do this type of research without getting a PhD? 2) If so, would you be better prepared for this type of research by pursuing a residency in neurology or neurosurgery?

From my experience with 4 MDs running labs doing research - They all work in the clinic 1 day/week and then in the lab/office 4 days a week. An 80%/20% split in the other direction. As others have said, research takes a lot of time to do correctly. Take this FWIW because my sample size is pretty small.

 

[Therecanbeonlyo]

The qualification you need to do research in any capacity is an M.D. after your name. A lot of MD's at academic institutions have their own research labs.

 

[obscurehero]

My dream career would be something like this: work as an MD with patient contact about 80% of the time, and do research about 20% of the time. I know that the typical route for a medical researcher is to pursue an MD and a PhD. I have no interest in taking the additional 3-7 years of school to get that PhD, though.

The type of research I'm interested in doing is neuroscience related. Specifically, I want to find ways to cause artificial electronic components to interact with the human nervous system, with the eventual goal of being able to create artificial limbs which interface with the nervous system as well or better than the original organic limb.

So I have two questions: 1) Is it possible to gain the qualifications necessary to do this type of research without getting a PhD? 2) If so, would you be better prepared for this type of research by pursuing a residency in neurology or neurosurgery?

OP.

As many have said, doing research as an MD is COMPLETELY doable. In fact, many medical schools will jump at the chance to help you have protected research time. The other posters have really described this well for you. Just peruse many of the medical schools you're looking at applying to and you'll see the different options available to you.

As to your research idea and research plan, you can do whatever you want so long as you've got someone willing to back you. With only 20% research, you'll likely be collaborating on someone else's project. Most MD's that are PI's that I know, spend 80/20 (research/clinic) just like an MD/PhD would do. However, I know plenty of MD's who do research on the side <20% and they do this under another PI. For example, there is a pathologist who collaborates with our lab but primarily works in pathology and works <20% of the time on research. A friend is in peds critical care but works in time doing pediatric TBI research under another PI. They both still publish, but not as many first-author publications and certainly not something as ambitious as you've outlined.

You should google your current field of interest, because people are already doing what you're describing (at least similarly). What you want to do requires scientists from many disciplines, so 20/80 might work just fine for you on a large collaborative project.

Just be realistic, and take it one step at a time.

 

[Neuronix]

An 80%/20% split in the other direction. As others have said, research takes a lot of time to do correctly.

Agree with this. 20% research is not enough time to get anything accomplished in the lab. You don't need a PhD in that case, because you won't be doing serious research anyway.

 

[obscurehero]

Agree with this. 20% research is not enough time to get anything accomplished in the lab. You don't need a PhD in that case, because you won't be doing serious research anyway.

Not to be completely disagreeable, but I'd like to play semantics.

I think you can do serious research 20% of the time. I know people who do. Now, if serious is putting out at least 3 articles a year... then you can hardly do serious research with that little time. However, there isn't just one right formula for a clinician to do research. There's a big push right now to DISPEL the myth that you need to devote 80% of your time to your research if you want to be serious. At least, in my experience, there is.

Getting a PhD would be a waste of my time if I were doing that little research. Agreed.

 

[Neuronix]

Not to be completely disagreeable, but I'd like to play semantics.

I think you can do serious research 20% of the time.

This isn't really semantics. This is a conceptual career structuring argument that I will strongly disagree with you on. If you want to be a PI of a lab bringing in your own grants in a basic research or translational research lab, you need to devote a majority of your time to research.

I know people who do.

Clinical research/outcomes studies, yes. Providing samples or consulting to a lab, yes. Being the principal investigator on grants and having your own lab space, no.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

Not to be completely disagreeable, but I'd like to play semantics.

I think you can do serious research 20% of the time. I know people who do. Now, if serious is putting out at least 3 articles a year... then you can hardly do serious research with that little time. However, there isn't just one right formula for a clinician to do research. There's a big push right now to DISPEL the myth that you need to devote 80% of your time to your research if you want to be serious. At least, in my experience, there is.

Getting a PhD would be a waste of my time if I were doing that little research. Agreed.

I have to agree with Neuronix. If you're spending 1 day/week in the lab (20%), you're not really going to get anything significant accomplished.

Maybe you can pull off clinical research, which doesn't require as much time in the lab, but I definitely cannot see someone conducting meaningful basic science research while spending 1 day/week in the lab.

Edit: Damn, Neuronix beat me to it while I was typing!

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

There's a big push right now to DISPEL the myth that you need to devote 80% of your time to your research if you want to be serious. At least, in my experience, there is.

Also, I've never heard of this "myth" or the push to dispel it. Can you clarify what you're talking about and what organizations are trying to dispel this myth?

Good basic science/translational research takes a lot of time and effort. I spend 10hrs a day (usually) in the lab during the workweek and go in for several hours on the weekend. And this doesn't include the hours I spend at home catching up on literature either. Even with this schedule, I still feel like I need to put more hours in the lab to really do meaningful work. I cannot think of a reason as to why someone would say that devoting 80% or more of your time for research is a myth. Maybe some people can pull it off, but I would say they're the exception rather than the rule. I personally (anecdote I know) have never seen an MD spend 20% of his or her time in a basic science lab; the few MDs I see in the labs are there pretty much every single day (ie. the majority of their time is spent in the lab). Maybe you're thinking of MDs doing clinical research?

 

[obscurehero]

Clinical research/outcomes studies, yes. Providing samples or consulting to a lab, yes. Being the principal investigator on grants and having your own lab space, no.

^^This is what I was talking about. You can get serious research done without being a PI or having your own grants, etc. etc. I'm not saying that you will publish often, and I'm certainly not saying it will be easy to get grants. I'm just saying that you can do research for a minority of your time, that is "serious". This is what I was referring to when I wanted to differ 'semantically'. Does that make sense?

I think it's helpful to make sure people know that just because you're not a slave to the lab doesn't mean your research is bad.

Yes, I agree with both of your points...but I think the point about the research being 'serious' was the one I was making.

From what I've heard at national and international conferences (I've only attended two), and from what I've heard at the research hospital I work at, there is a substantial push to encourage physicians to engage in research, even if its only part-time. I'm not sure if it's the "myth" I painted it to be, but that's the impression I felt.

That's why I'm trying to assure the OP, that just because he might not want to do 80/20 doesn't mean he can't do 'serious' research. Does that make sense? He can do clinical research, or collaborate with basic science projects...as you've said already.

A professor I had in my undergrad said MD/PhD's weren't real scientists (not real PhD's)...it was a comment in passing, but it stuck with me. I'm just trying to make sure that the OP doesn't have a similar experience.

 

[wuhanese]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature06996.html

the amount of training that it takes to do 'hardcore' neuroscience research such as that will require a PhD, which i take is what you are interested in.

what's your rationale for not wanting a PhD? If you have no interest in pursuing it, you should dispel the notion that you will do high caliber basic science.

 

[obscurehero]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature06996.html

the amount of training that it takes to do 'hardcore' neuroscience research such as that will require a PhD, which i take is what you are interested in.

what's your rationale for not wanting a PhD? If you have no interest in pursuing it, you should dispel the notion that you will do high caliber basic science.

This I do agree with. You can, however, collaborate or contribute to someone else's project.

 

[StIGMA]

This I do agree with. You can, however, collaborate or contribute to someone else's project.

Obscurehero, and I do say this kindly - serious (basic science) research in the academic community means competing for R01 grants with your own ideas and your own experiments. It cannot be done with 20% effort. What you describe, yes, is contributing to serious research, but it is not 'doing' serious research. You will not 'get serious research done,' as you so naively say, without being a PI because you are not the lead investigator, you are not using your own ideas, and you are not getting big-time grants. What you define as serious research is not the goal that MST programs have for their graduates, and it is not the definition that people consider real research. You will not be investigating your own hypotheses, running a lab, and competing for grants on the minority of your time, and thus you will not be doing serious research.

 

[Charles_Carmichael]

^^This is what I was talking about. You can get serious research done without being a PI or having your own grants, etc. etc. I'm not saying that you will publish often, and I'm certainly not saying it will be easy to get grants. I'm just saying that you can do research for a minority of your time, that is "serious". This is what I was referring to when I wanted to differ 'semantically'. Does that make sense?

I think it's helpful to make sure people know that just because you're not a slave to the lab doesn't mean your research is bad.

Yes, I agree with both of your points...but I think the point about the research being 'serious' was the one I was making.

From what I've heard at national and international conferences (I've only attended two), and from what I've heard at the research hospital I work at, there is a substantial push to encourage physicians to engage in research, even if its only part-time. I'm not sure if it's the "myth" I painted it to be, but that's the impression I felt.

That's why I'm trying to assure the OP, that just because he might not want to do 80/20 doesn't mean he can't do 'serious' research. Does that make sense? He can do clinical research, or collaborate with basic science projects...as you've said already.

I'm a little confused; what is your definition of serious research?

I don't think anyone's saying that your research will be "bad" if you don't spend the majority of your time in the lab. Realistically though (at least, in my experience), you do have to spend a significant portion of your time in the lab if you want to conduct high-caliber research (ie. the kind of research that will make a meaningful contribution to the field you're working in). I could be wrong though. /shrug

 

[SaltySqueegee]

Just something I've figured out along the way...

PI Physician-scientist with grant funding --> 80% or more protected research time.

Co-PI or fulfilling a sub-aim on a grant as a contractor --> somewhere between ~40% and >5% or more protected time for research. But, in my experience, many departments treat these individuals as having 0% protected research time. My guess is because these individuals tend to have such sporadic research funding from cycle to cycle, it is essentially as though they don't have it at all.

Physician-scientist without grant funding or lapsed bridging --> 0% protected research time, and get your ***** back into the clinic and starting billing. Sure, anytime outside of this can be devoted to your own personal research, but how can you do that after a 70-80 hour work week, or more, plus taking call?

Hence why it seems as though it can only be all (>80% protected) or none (0% protected). It always comes down to who's gonna foot the money for your pay check.

Also, notice I said physician-scientist (not just MD/PhD). It's all about the time, effort and experience, not (always) the letters after your name. There is a large group of (primarily) old school MD-only types that went through the NIH in-house training/fellowships. But note that they essentially put in the same time as it would have been for a PhD.

Time, effort and who's gonna fund your paycheck...

 

[URHere]

As others have said, it would be extremely unlikely for an MD to run a lab conducting competitive, independent research in this sort of bioengineering-heavy neuroscience field with only 20% of his time.

That being said, are you dead-set on being a PI? If you would be content to participate in research through an established lab, and you have some sort of background in this type of research, I think that many labs would be glad to have you. Personally, I come from a lab that employs two very part-term MDs. Our group designs anti-microbial agents, and they offer invaluable insight when it comes to designing clinically usable drugs. You may be able to find a similar niche in artificial limb science just by the merit of knowing which physiological problems may arise from messing with certain anatomical structures.

If that sort of role would interest you, then all you need to worry about for the time being is familiarizing yourself with the field of research, and discovering what interests you clinically. You can gain research experience at any stage of the game (undergrad, medical school, fellowship, etc), but papers and/or recommendations from people in your chosen field would be very helpful down the line.

As for specialty, I don't think that you should choose your clinical fate based on a 20% research interest. Just choose what you enjoy, and find some way to make it work with research later.

 

[obscurehero]

I'm a little confused; what is your definition of serious research?

I don't think anyone's saying that your research will be "bad" if you don't spend the majority of your time in the lab. Realistically though (at least, in my experience), you do have to spend a significant portion of your time in the lab if you want to conduct high-caliber research (ie. the kind of research that will make a meaningful contribution to the field you're working in). I could be wrong though. /shrug

I could be wrong too. I think what I'm trying to say is that you can do research that is 'serious' as a physician. I guess for me serious research is actually testing hypotheses and contributing to the community. It might be a lot harder to find money to support your research, and it certainly will be harder to make progress let alone publish...but its possible. I just think a lot of people like to paint life in such definite colors when in fact there are multiple paths and multiple ways to do things.

In addition, you might be publishing once every three years in low-impact factor journals, but you are still doing research...

I could be wrong, but I see no sense in quenching someone's desire for research simply because their idea isn't 'typical'. Certianly, we should be realistic and offer up the significant challenges to doing such a non-traditional, harder road. As well as the fact that he might never be able to meaningfully contribute much to a highly advanced idea.

Anyway, I was trying to be the devil's advocate and give the guy a bit of hope. 🙂

If serious is competing for R01's and publishing frequently in high-impact factor journals, than no, he won't have a snowflake's chance in hell at being serious with that little research time. If serious is testing real hypotheses and discovering real things about how the world works...than yes, he'll have a fair shot at being serious.

That all being said, I think Salty's comment was VERY helpful without being terribly discouraging.

 

[mercaptovizadeh]

How much of this "not-enough" aspect for, say, 50:50 clinical:research, is due to the gaps in research days versus raw time spent? To phrase this mangled question better, is 50% research not enough when it is 2.5 days/week every week but is enough when it is 2 weeks/month?

Additionally, people do delegate and have lab slaves. I know an ENT (MD only) at my school who has an army of postdocs and slaves and she's physically close to her lab (her office is not even on the same floor) only when she has the monthly lab meeting. Name is on all the articles, of course. Granted, there's more time spent writing and blabbing about "her" work, but somehow I suspect one of her glorified PhD postdocs/lab slaves is writing the bulk of the grants too.

 

[medbunny56]

The qualification you need to do research in any capacity is an M.D. after your name. A lot of MD's at academic institutions have their own research labs.

Can you do the same with a D.O. degree?

 

[formerF1DO]

Can you do the same with a D.O. degree?

It's a "yes, but", type of answer.
If you are competent to do so, you can and will.
Behind all this smoke and mirrors about holistic, OMM, primary care, we get less opportunities in research, especially lab research.
Time is limited, and time has to come out of somewhere, right?
That's my observation.