what about research?

[suckermc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

what about the opportunities of doing research in podiatry?

i know scholl has a dpm/phd degree. but it is my experience that you do not need a phd to do research, as not every MD in a teaching hospital or affiliated college has one. But what about pods? Does the opportunity exsist? Has anyone done it, and how did they go about it? or did you have to get a combined degree?

thanks, kids.

m.c

 

[Podman]

what about the opportunities of doing research in podiatry?

i know scholl has a dpm/phd degree. but it is my experience that you do not need a phd to do research, as not every MD in a teaching hospital or affiliated college has one. But what about pods? Does the opportunity exsist? Has anyone done it, and how did they go about it? or did you have to get a combined degree?

thanks, kids.

m.c

there are quite a few DPMs out there with PhDs and graduate-level degrees but not everyone undergoes the structured combined programs - some will do their research prior to enrolling to DPM school while others would do it after. Research opportunities are great for DPMs and healthcare professionals/specialists in general because there is always room to improve and contribute - it is definitely something encouraged - and you will see that even during your career as a student, the schools will (at least should) promote the idea of research and enable you to participate in projects on different scales of course.

To do research in general, PhD degrees are not necessary but can be very helpful if you use your PhD knowledge and expertise right...for instance someone with a graduate degree in genetics can use their expertise in assessing wound healing or neurodegenerative disorders which affect the patient's gait (i.e. multiple sclerosis for example).

 

[Dr_Feelgood]

there are quite a few DPMs out there with PhDs and graduate-level degrees but not everyone undergoes the structured combined programs - some will do their research prior to enrolling to DPM school while others would do it after. Research opportunities are great for DPMs and healthcare professionals/specialists in general because there is always room to improve and contribute - it is definitely something encouraged - and you will see that even during your career as a student, the schools will (at least should) promote the idea of research and enable you to participate in projects on different scales of course.

To do research in general, PhD degrees are not necessary but can be very helpful if you use your PhD knowledge and expertise right...for instance someone with a graduate degree in genetics can use their expertise in assessing wound healing or neurodegenerative disorders which affect the patient's gait (i.e. multiple sclerosis for example).

I don't think that a PhD matters at all. There are plenty of researchers out there that don't have it or have an MS and too amazing things.

 

[lillytwig]

I don't think that a PhD matters at all. There are plenty of researchers out there that don't have it or have an MS and too amazing things.

.

 

[Podman]

I don't think that a PhD matters at all. There are plenty of researchers out there that don't have it or have an MS and too amazing things.

It depends on the research. Some projects would be better served with the expertise of a PhD for sure - as long as the work is relevant to the area of expertise. Meaning that it doesn't make sense for a guy with a PhD in Statistics to be doing research in neurological disorders. However, in the example that I mentioned previously - a PhD physician or podiatric physician working with his or her area of expertise will only add more wealth of experience to that project.

I'm not saying that one can only do research exclusively with a PhD - because I've seen great work by MS holders. However, I must disagree with your assesment that a "PhD doesn't matter at all", because this title represents more experience and expertise in a particular field of research - so surely, it can be used in many great ways in our field.

 

[PureBlue]

So what areas of podiatry are high priority for needed research?

 

[bdaddyjolley]

I don't think that a PhD matters at all. There are plenty of researchers out there that don't have it or have an MS and too amazing things.

It is true you can do great work with an MS. I have an MS in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and do research in the field for a living. However, I do work under a PhD who directs the whole lab that has other PhDs working in it. Going through a PhD program is a lot different from a masters program in regards to the expectations. A person in a PhD program will have much more exposure to different techniques since the program is longer and more in depth. And to be head of a department of research requires a PhD.
It is true though that one with a masters can learn all the techniques a PhD has through experience but without the title it is hard to be the head of research or compete with those who have PhDs already in trying to get into a lab unless a PhD would be overqualified for the duties required.

I feel that if you are big into research and want to go that route, a PhD would be the way to go, especially if you don't already have a lot of research experience. The PhD program will teach the necessary techniques to conduct successful research. Just my opinion.

 

[MrFeeties]

I'll be starting at Scholl fall 07 after working in research for a few years and finishing an MPH degree (in which I had an assistantship in the biochemistry department). I helped author 2 publications and I was initially thinking about doing a DPM/PhD but I'm leaning away from it.

A PhD would be beneficial if you wish to do basic science research. I do this as a professional now in industry, but to do clinical research, it's unnecessary. The question to ask yourself is what do you really want to do or what do you intend to accomplish with a PhD. It will take you an extra 3 years of opportunity cost that you could be earning a much more substantial income with just a DPM. If you have a grandiose plan to change the world through science (my plan involves more, say, slapstick comedy than science), then by all means take the extra 3 years and do it. Keep in mind though that you don't need a PhD to be a researcher, much the same way that you don't need a music degree to be a musician.

 

[Dr_Feelgood]

I'll be starting at Scholl fall 07 after working in research for a few years and finishing an MPH degree (in which I had an assistantship in the biochemistry department). I helped author 2 publications and I was initially thinking about doing a DPM/PhD but I'm leaning away from it.

A PhD would be beneficial if you wish to do basic science research. I do this as a professional now in industry, but to do clinical research, it's unnecessary. The question to ask yourself is what do you really want to do or what do you intend to accomplish with a PhD. It will take you an extra 3 years of opportunity cost that you could be earning a much more substantial income with just a DPM. If you have a grandiose plan to change the world through science (my plan involves more, say, slapstick comedy than science), then by all means take the extra 3 years and do it. Keep in mind though that you don't need a PhD to be a researcher, much the same way that you don't need a music degree to be a musician.

👍

I also know of some researchers who have PhDs but don't have the creativity to think of viable projects. They lean on (steal) from their underlings.

A PhD is great in basic science or bench research but if you are doing clinical research I cannot say I think it is that beneficial.

 

[7385]

There are endless benefits to earning a PhD... but it is all relative to what you want to do, and where you want to do it. If you want to be in the world of academia anywhere outside of a school of podiatry, a PhD is beneficial. If you want to build your own PhD empire, write grants effectivly, or train others to do research, a PhD is beneficial. If you want to work only clinical podiarty, the time investead into extra years of scientific training might be over-achieving (which most of us are anyway). The term benefical cannot be used lightly in this situation...

I am considering a DPM/PhD because I have a background in research, want to have offical training, and set myself apart from others while specializing in aspects of clinical research. I spoke with a DPM/PhD during my interview at Scoll... he said that there is room to be a star in this field. I completly agree. That said, you do not need to have a PhD to do so. Again, decide what it is you want to do before jumping in feet first to a PhD. I have to keep asking myself... am I going to do a PhD to add more letters behind my name, or is it really my nack for scientific research and specific career goals??😕

 

[Dr_Feelgood]

There are endless benefits to earning a PhD... but it is all relative to what you want to do, and where you want to do it. If you want to be in the world of academia anywhere outside of a school of podiatry, a PhD is beneficial. If you want to build your own PhD empire, write grants effectivly, or train others to do research, a PhD is beneficial. If you want to work only clinical podiarty, the time investead into extra years of scientific training might be over-achieving (which most of us are anyway). The term benefical cannot be used lightly in this situation...

I am considering a DPM/PhD because I have a background in research, want to have offical training, and set myself apart from others while specializing in aspects of clinical research. I spoke with a DPM/PhD during my interview at Scoll... he said that there is room to be a star in this field. I completly agree. That said, you do not need to have a PhD to do so. Again, decide what it is you want to do before jumping in feet first to a PhD. I have to keep asking myself... am I going to do a PhD to add more letters behind my name, or is it really my nack for scientific research and specific career goals??😕

Most of the "big stars" in podiatric research do not have PhDs. Just an FYI.

 

[bdaddyjolley]

👍

I also know of some researchers who have PhDs but don't have the creativity to think of viable projects. They lean on (steal) from their underlings.

A PhD is great in basic science or bench research but if you are doing clinical research I cannot say I think it is that beneficial.

I think people getting PhD's in basic science to do research for podiatry would greatlry benifit the field. When you look at how research is done in the medical field, it's a combination of clinical research and the research in the basic sciences. This is because every malady goes back to the molecular level of basic biochemical reactions. To understand how to cure disease, one must learn how the disease operates. This is where those with PhD's will study the basic aspects of how diseases work and the biochemical processes behind it and why it affects us. After this initial knowledge is obtained, then clinical trials can be started to test for the most effective way to fight the disease. It is not very effective though to do a shot in dark clinical trials without some knowledge of the disease. A lot of the researchers where I work are PhDs studying biomedical problems such as cancer, diabetes, and recently stem cell research. They are the ones helping lay more ground work to find effective cures to big medical problems.

So my basic point is that in doing research, you want to know what your goal is. Do you want to do clinical research or the basic science research? If you want to do basic science research in podiatry then I think a PhD would be very benificial especially today with advances in Molecular Biology. If you want to do clinical research then maybe PhD isnt the best route for you. But I think podiatry needs both types of research just as other medical research already has. If I have mistated something, let me know.

 

[Dr. Gangrene]

Very well put, bbadjolley. It seems that a lot of people are out for as many letters behind their name as possible, as if the letters themselves mean something. Just as with anything in life, what you do with what you have is the key. DOING is the part that counts. As has been mentioned, many of the podiatrists making the greatest strides in research do not have a phd.

So, as you said, you must have whatever knowledge you need to be able to DO (there is that verb again) what you want. Clinical; dpm is great preperation. Basic science type research; ph.d. can definitely help IF you then use that knowledge to DO. 👍

 

[Dr. Gangrene]

Ha Ha Ha I just read 7385's post, and I pretty much repeated what he said. I guess great minds think alike 🙂

 

[Dr_Feelgood]

I think people getting PhD's in basic science to do research for podiatry would greatlry benifit the field. When you look at how research is done in the medical field, it's a combination of clinical research and the research in the basic sciences. This is because every malady goes back to the molecular level of basic biochemical reactions. To understand how to cure disease, one must learn how the disease operates. This is where those with PhD's will study the basic aspects of how diseases work and the biochemical processes behind it and why it affects us. After this initial knowledge is obtained, then clinical trials can be started to test for the most effective way to fight the disease. It is not very effective though to do a shot in dark clinical trials without some knowledge of the disease. A lot of the researchers where I work are PhDs studying biomedical problems such as cancer, diabetes, and recently stem cell research. They are the ones helping lay more ground work to find effective cures to big medical problems.

So my basic point is that in doing research, you want to know what your goal is. Do you want to do clinical research or the basic science research? If you want to do basic science research in podiatry then I think a PhD would be very benificial especially today with advances in Molecular Biology. If you want to do clinical research then maybe PhD isnt the best route for you. But I think podiatry needs both types of research just as other medical research already has. If I have mistated something, let me know.

This is my last post under this b/c we are going round and round. While a PhD maybe helpful; it has little to do with basic podiatric research. If you are in a large research lab you would hire a molecular biologist.

An example is at the CLEAR they are researching Charcot. Dr. Roger's does not have a molecular biology PhD but is working in the area of genetics, molecular biology, as well as surgical and biomechanical research. His not having a PhD has not hindered the process.

Dr. Harvey Lemont is a genius out of Temple no PhD. Dr. Gerald Yu was an amazing man who first describe pre-dislocation syndrome, no PhD. Dr. Jordan Grossman is another huge name who took over for Dr. Yu no PhD. Robert W. Mendicino is the head of West Penn, no PhD.

I'm sorry to say boys most of the stars in research do not have and do not need a PhD. Why? B/c experience for out weighs letters and credentials. If they do have a PhD, I would guess it is one of three things:

1) They truly love learning and the process of education (possible but I don't think this is the many reason);

2) They want more respect in the research and medical community (This is the main reason in my mind);

3) They are already doing research at a major university so they might as well apply to get a PhD for free.

I'm sorry but a PhD does not mean you are more qualified to look into a microscope. And as mention the breakthroughs in science are not part of your PhD training that is part of your self education so a PhD does not help as much as you might think. 99% of the stars in medicine and podiatric research do not have a PhD.

 

[whiskers]

what about the opportunities of doing research in podiatry?

i know scholl has a dpm/phd degree. but it is my experience that you do not need a phd to do research, as not every MD in a teaching hospital or affiliated college has one. But what about pods? Does the opportunity exsist? Has anyone done it, and how did they go about it? or did you have to get a combined degree?

thanks, kids.

m.c

Dear Daddy,

Summer camp is so much fun, I have met many new feidns and I lik my instructers. I hope mom is good

You sent me hear to do some research but they told me that you need to send me $$$ and something called 'funding?' in order for me to do it while I'm hear and that I have other things to learn and do.

They say that I can do it when I become a graduate of summer camp and you can give me the money and the time.

Well, I got to go we have another very important seminar ( my 5th this week) on onlylocosis to go to.

Honestly, you probably need a source of funding over a degree.

 

[suckermc]

Dear Daddy,

Summer camp is so much fun, I have met many new feidns and I lik my instructers. I hope mom is good

You sent me hear to do some research but they told me that you need to send me $$$ and something called 'funding?' in order for me to do it while I'm hear and that I have other things to learn and do.

They say that I can do it when I become a graduate of summer camp and you can give me the money and the time.

Well, I got to go we have another very important seminar ( my 5th this week) on onlylocosis to go to.

Honestly, you probably need a source of funding over a degree.

ah whiskers, i don't know why yr hatin life , things must be good for you, no?yes?

moving along..

thx to those who responded. I asked because i've been doing research at a medical school for many years now and was wondering about the whole phd/etc thing . all the responses have been informative.

esp. yours, whiskers. i'd offer to give you a man hug, but that would be...wierd.

 

[suckermc]

I'm sorry but a PhD does not mean you are more qualified to look into a microscope. And as mention the breakthroughs in science are not part of your PhD training that is part of your self education so a PhD does not help as much as you might think. 99% of the stars in medicine and podiatric research do not have a PhD.[/QUOTE]


--which is the bain of every phd--how come MDs,DOs (pick any doc) etc. can do research, go home early, and make "extra" money doing it while PHD's have to go thru years of post-doc with paltry pay , are more knowledgeable, etc..--with everything you gotta love it, i suppose.

 

[phpodguy]

I just have three points:

I would like to say that not all PhD's are created equally especially in regard to the program/school. A good PhD program teaches you to think creatively and to think around any pervasive scientific dogma of the moment to truly question what's happening in a respective field and to analyze how--and why--facts are derived from experiment; a bad program teaches you to be a glorified lab tech. It is the onus of the individual to become a better scientist despite a bad--or because of a good--program. That said, there are likely many DPM's without PhD's that utilize this creative approach already and thusly stand out as research scientists in the field because of it. Whether or not to earn a PhD depends on the individual and the program itself but by no means should not having a PhD stop you from doing research if that's your perogative.

Many of the basic research MD's that I know truly love--and focus primarily on--the research aspect but maintain a practice on the side in order to have the patient interaction that drew them to medicine in the first place not the other way around. I truly have no idea about the dynamics involved in clinical research so I won't comment on it.

Grants are usually hard to come by anyway, and I can't definitively say that having a DPM behind your name is truly more prohibitive for actually getting a grant than having an MD or PhD because I haven't met any research DPM's yet. From my experience, if the science behind a grant proposal is good science and has some relevance then the letters behind the person's name usually don't matter to a committee.

 

[krabmas]

I just have three points:

I would like to say that not all PhD's are created equally especially in regard to the program/school. A good PhD program teaches you to think creatively and to think around any pervasive scientific dogma of the moment to truly question what's happening in a respective field and to analyze how--and why--facts are derived from experiment; a bad program teaches you to be a glorified lab tech. It is the onus of the individual to become a better scientist despite a bad--or because of a good--program. That said, there are likely many DPM's without PhD's that utilize this creative approach already and thusly stand out as research scientists in the field because of it. Whether or not to earn a PhD depends on the individual and the program itself but by no means should not having a PhD stop you from doing research if that's your perogative.

Many of the basic research MD's that I know truly love--and focus primarily on--the research aspect but maintain a practice on the side in order to have the patient interaction that drew them to medicine in the first place not the other way around. I truly have no idea about the dynamics involved in clinical research so I won't comment on it.

Grants are usually hard to come by anyway, and I can't definitively say that having a DPM behind your name is truly more prohibitive for actually getting a grant than having an MD or PhD because I haven't met any research DPM's yet. From my experience, if the science behind a grant proposal is good science and has some relevance then the letters behind the person's name usually don't matter to a committee.

Getting a grant -

Grants most often come from NIH (other places too). To get a grant from NIH it is not just about the science. Even in science it is who you know and the name and reputation of your lab or institution. If your institution is known for producing great results, ethics and publishing you are more likely to get the grant.

Since NIH grants millions of dollars at a time they will not just give money to anyone. The DPM will not stop you from getting money but it will not necessarily help you either. Grant come from the different institutes within the NIH as well so it is really a lot about who you know in each institute. Some institutes are more liberal with giving out grant money than others as well.

 

[bdaddyjolley]

This is my last post under this b/c we are going round and round. While a PhD maybe helpful; it has little to do with basic podiatric research. If you are in a large research lab you would hire a molecular biologist.

An example is at the CLEAR they are researching Charcot. Dr. Roger's does not have a molecular biology PhD but is working in the area of genetics, molecular biology, as well as surgical and biomechanical research. His not having a PhD has not hindered the process.

Dr. Harvey Lemont is a genius out of Temple no PhD. Dr. Gerald Yu was an amazing man who first describe pre-dislocation syndrome, no PhD. Dr. Jordan Grossman is another huge name who took over for Dr. Yu no PhD. Robert W. Mendicino is the head of West Penn, no PhD.

I'm sorry to say boys most of the stars in research do not have and do not need a PhD. Why? B/c experience for out weighs letters and credentials. If they do have a PhD, I would guess it is one of three things:

1) They truly love learning and the process of education (possible but I don't think this is the many reason);

2) They want more respect in the research and medical community (This is the main reason in my mind);

3) They are already doing research at a major university so they might as well apply to get a PhD for free.

I'm sorry but a PhD does not mean you are more qualified to look into a microscope. And as mention the breakthroughs in science are not part of your PhD training that is part of your self education so a PhD does not help as much as you might think. 99% of the stars in medicine and podiatric research do not have a PhD.

You have a good point about hiring a molecular biologist if that's what the lab needs. This last post of yours makes a lot of sense. If you lack an expertise in a certain area, hire someone who does.

 

[FootFetish]

A PhD is def. not required. Dr. Armstrong at Scholl is one of no more than 10 in with world with that degree combination. I am very active in research at Scholl with several people. I have been working on a microbiology/sterilization project as primary author with a DPM/MS and I'm starting a project with Lee Rogers (mentioned above) on vascular perfusion.

However....especially at Scholl, with the influence of David Armstrong, the be-all-end-all of research is in diabetic footcare, wound healing, and limb preservation. There is no shortage of topics to explore in that area.

 

[Dr_Feelgood]

However....especially at Scholl, with the influence of David Armstrong, the be-all-end-all of research is in diabetic footcare, wound healing, and limb preservation.

This is debatable UT is still a big player in the game of diabetic research. I may agree that CLEAR is #1 but I would never say it is the be-all-end-all. UT has a fellowship in limb salvage and is doing a lot work that is not being done at the CLEAR lab (surgical approach).

 

[Podman]

This is debatable UT is still a big player in the game of diabetic research. I may agree that CLEAR is #1 but I would never say it is the be-all-end-all. UT has a fellowship in limb salvage and is doing a lot work that is not being done at the CLEAR lab (surgical approach).

UT is definitely up there, not to mention West-Penn who also work on limb salvage. There are quite a few active researchers but it seems that Dr. Armstrong is fully monopolizing the diabetic foot research market.

 

[Dr. Agape]

UT is definitely up there, not to mention West-Penn who also work on limb salvage. There are quite a few active researchers but it seems that Dr. Armstrong is fully monopolizing the diabetic foot research market.

Who is Dr. Armstrong?

 

[Dr. Agape]

Who is Dr. Armstrong?

Never mind..I figured out who he is.

 

[Dr_Feelgood]

Who is Dr. Armstrong?

He is the face of probably the most successful podiatric research lab. n my opinion his greatest asset is the people he has in his group; He is not the great researcher, he is the great promoter. He gets the credit for everything that comes out of CLEAR b/c he created CLEAR. He is too busy traveling the world speaking and networking, which is really the role he has taken in the CLEAR. It works out well b/c he generates a ton of money for their research.

 

[doclm]

UT is definitely up there, not to mention West-Penn who also work on limb salvage. There are quite a few active researchers but it seems that Dr. Armstrong is fully monopolizing the diabetic foot research market.

You should see the stem cell research that Dr. Armstong, Dr. Rogers, and the others CLEAR members are working on. If it works out, it would be some amazing steps forward in Diabetic Wound Care.

 

[Dr_Feelgood]

Dr. Rogers came and talked about their work. I'm interested in the work but I am not sold on a lot of their ideas.

I've heard that Dr. Wu is the real brains behind CLEAR. I'm not sure what she works on but I've heard some rumors that she is money.

 

[FootFetish]

This is debatable UT is still a big player in the game of diabetic research. I may agree that CLEAR is #1 but I would never say it is the be-all-end-all. UT has a fellowship in limb salvage and is doing a lot work that is not being done at the CLEAR lab (surgical approach).

When I said "be-all-end-all" I meant that at Scholl, we are lead to believe the the pinnacle of podiatric research is limb salvage/diabetic footcare, not that Scholl/CLEAR were the be-all-end-all of limb salvage/diabetic footcare. I know my ideas of podiatric research are biased because I do research here and go to school here, but I know there is a lot more to research than diabetic stuff. That's all I meant.