What is the point of research?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

jman128

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
78
Reaction score
1
If I wanted to research, I would go for a PhD. Its just mind boggling to me. Not only that, but you are wasting whomever's time in the lab who is teaching you. Then when you leave, they will have to train another pre-med who wants to just get into med school already.

Members don't see this ad.
 
If I wanted to research, I would go for a PhD. Its just mind boggling to me. Not only that, but you are wasting whomever's time in the lab who is teaching you. Then when you leave, they will have to train another pre-med who wants to just get into med school already.

:thumbup:

Very closed minded and ignorant way of looking at it, but this is exactly why I never did research ...
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Because some people may actually be interested in researching something in more depth/detail.
 
You're right. There is no need for any research in the medical field. We know everything about the human body, and we can cure eery disease with 100% success.


Research is only really required for top schools, which are designed to churn out "leaders" in medicine, people who will work at academic centers and do research. If you just wanting to go to a lower ranked school, and then in community practice, research really isn't required.
 
Ugh...this thread happens every 3 months.

Research gives you first-hand experience with the scientific method, and helps you understand how we gather the knowledge that becomes the backbone of medical science. Also, research-heavy schools like to see research because they like many of their medical students to conduct it during school/their career. Some people like creating new knowledge and pushing the boundaries of human knowledge and ability.
 
Ugh...this thread happens every 3 months.

Research gives you first-hand experience with the scientific method, and helps you understand how we gather the knowledge that becomes the backbone of medical science. Also, research-heavy schools like to see research because they like many of their medical students to conduct it during school/their career. Some people like creating new knowledge and pushing the boundaries of human knowledge and ability.

Haha, just copy and paste this same answer every three months then.

/thread ???
 
You're right. There is no need for any research in the medical field. We know everything about the human body, and we can cure eery disease with 100% success.


Research is only really required for top schools, which are designed to churn out "leaders" in medicine, people who will work at academic centers and do research. If you just wanting to go to a lower ranked school, and then in community practice, research really isn't required.


Haha, I think you're pulling what he said wayyy out of context. Not everyone researches at a cancer clinic.

I know of a few kids who did research in physics, math, sociology, etc and this are only peripherally related to medicine. They're untrained researchers who don't really do significant work and can barely explain what they're truly working on.

Am I willing to put up with a grouchy PI, doing research on something unrelated to what I really want to study, for free?

Does a PI really want to spend time training a student who isn't interested and doesn't care in the matter and is just using the lab as resume steroids for his application?

Now, people might become interested in research by doing this things, and thus, in turn, vis a vis, etc but I really disliked my time in all my college labs and wasnt going to take up anyone else's time knowing I wasn't really there for the right reasons
 
If I wanted to research, I would go for a PhD. Its just mind boggling to me. Not only that, but you are wasting whomever's time in the lab who is teaching you. Then when you leave, they will have to train another pre-med who wants to just get into med school already.

:laugh: Hah I can't help but feel this way sometimes :oops:
 
Haha, I think you're pulling what he said wayyy out of context. Not everyone researches at a cancer clinic.

I know of a few kids who did research in physics, math, sociology, etc and this are only peripherally related to medicine. They're untrained researchers who don't really do significant work and can barely explain what they're truly working on.

Am I willing to put up with a grouchy PI, doing research on something unrelated to what I really want to study, for free?

Does a PI really want to spend time training a student who isn't interested and doesn't care in the matter and is just using the lab as resume steroids for his application?

Now, people might become interested in research by doing this things, and thus, in turn, vis a vis, etc but I really disliked my time in all my college labs and wasnt going to take up anyone else's time knowing I wasn't really there for the right reasons
Uh what? Untrained researchers not doing significant work? Haha...The scientific method is pretty much the same no matter what field you're conducting research in...And I'm saying this as someone who did research in the biomedical sciences, no math, physics, etc.

Also, it's really easy to tell when someone is "doing research" just for the sake of beefing up their CV. In my experience, most premeds who do research actually don't conduct research; they run experiments for others, essentially do research tech work, etc. And that's fine. Until you truly show that you're interested in conducting independent research, most PIs won't throw a project your way.

It's also pretty easy to teach someone skills like Western blotting, culturing/harvesting cells, etc. The lab isn't really losing much "wasting" those couple of days teaching a premed these lab techniques. Most PIs (at least mid-to-late-career) will also not be teaching you much. It'll be the grad students/postdocs teaching you this stuff, most likely.
 
Playing with chemicals and fire is fun!!!!!!11111
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Haha, I think you're pulling what he said wayyy out of context. Not everyone researches at a cancer clinic.

I know of a few kids who did research in physics, math, sociology, etc and this are only peripherally related to medicine. They're untrained researchers who don't really do significant work and can barely explain what they're truly working on.

Am I willing to put up with a grouchy PI, doing research on something unrelated to what I really want to study, for free?

Does a PI really want to spend time training a student who isn't interested and doesn't care in the matter and is just using the lab as resume steroids for his application?

Now, people might become interested in research by doing this things, and thus, in turn, vis a vis, etc but I really disliked my time in all my college labs and wasnt going to take up anyone else's time knowing I wasn't really there for the right reasons

Which is fine. If you are actually interested in undergrad research, I highly doubt you are interested in a career doing research in medicine. In which case, you can get be perfectly fine but not doing research, and going to a -slightly- lower ranked school. The OP asked why people should do research, not specifically for himself. He made it seem that it was pointless for any premed to do research. So I told him that a lot of premeds plan to do research as a Doctor.
 
If I wanted to research, I would go for a PhD. Its just mind boggling to me. Not only that, but you are wasting whomever's time in the lab who is teaching you. Then when you leave, they will have to train another pre-med who wants to just get into med school already.

Well research drives medicine forward, also a lot of physicians research and find various ways to perform a certain procedure.
 
It's also self-gratifying to present your research to PhD's and actually be able to teach them something for once. Plus if you get published, that's a tremendous accomplishment. So for someone who is especially goal-oriented, research is lots of fun. ;)
 
I enjoy chemistry and would very much like to have lab experience aside from following a cookie cutter program like you get in class. I know I won't be contributing much innovation-wise, but I would like to at least be part of the work.

So it is both a resume boost and something I want to do.
 
I enjoy chemistry and would very much like to have lab experience aside from following a cookie cutter program like you get in class. I know I won't be contributing much innovation-wise, but I would like to at least be part of the work.

So it is both a resume boost and something I want to do.

Same here. And hands-on experience, despite how meaningless, is more satisfying than reading a textbook all the time.
 
I think that research experience gives you the background necessary to understand and evaluate medical literature - if you don't comprehend the limitations of the methods being used, you'll have a hard time keeping up.
 
pubs to acheive to impress med schools and residency directors and fellowship directors and healthcare companies who will hire you to be their consultant due to your research success = $$$
 
I think that research experience gives you the background necessary to understand and evaluate medical literature - if you don't comprehend the limitations of the methods being used, you'll have a hard time keeping up.
Eh, I wouldn't say that having an understanding of bench research methods will help you critically read clinical literature (which is likely what you'll be reading as a physician...you won't be translating in vivo mouse studies into clinical practice without the guidance of clinical trials). I do think that the stats curriculum in med school is nowhere near enough for the avg student to be able to really analyze the literature though. I'm assuming residency includes more of this in order to make you competent.
 
yeah who needs research? we've discovered everything anyway lololololol
 
Eh, I wouldn't say that having an understanding of bench research methods will help you critically read clinical literature...

Why wouldn't it?

If you are conducting disease centered research, there is a lot of useful information in literature. Now, I wouldn't intensely read literature for the sake of being a better clinician. But to say it not at all useful, that would be incorrect.
 
Why wouldn't it?

If you are conducting disease centered research, there is a lot of useful information in literature. Now, I wouldn't intensely read literature for the sake of being a better clinician. But to say it not at all useful, that would be incorrect.
My statement was talking about, and was in response to, research methods, first of all; sorry if that wasn't clear. Will understanding how to do a Western blot help you understand the design of a clinical trial? Will knowing how to culture cells and run PCR help you interpret the results of clinical literature?

With that being said, unless you're really interested in the basic science, why would you read the basic/translational literature? At least in my experience, it's been incredibly rare to find a pure clinician who keeps up with the latest basic science literature. From what I gather, they tend to stick to UpToDate and any relevant clinical literature. And these articles tend to cover the general idea of the basic science rationale behind the treatment anyways. So I don't really see a reason for pure clinicians to stay abreast with basic science literature. And other than statistics, I haven't found that having an extensive understanding of basic science experimental methods helps me interpret the results of clinical studies in the field I conduct research in (other than getting a better sense of the mechanistic rationale behind the clinical study).

Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. This is all based on my experience and not any hard evidence.
 
From what I can tell, people who do research develop better critical thinking skills. And medical schools like people who are critical thinkers because they make better doctors. When I say research, I mean involved in the design and implementation of projects, not hanging around a lab and doing chores for a prof.
 
What's the point of taking a test to get into medical school that has 2 sections that aren't even about medicine? I'm not going to be evaluating philosophical literature or writing essays about politicians.

Focusing on the minutia makes you miss the big picture.
 
also, if you are an undergrad, sometimes you just get trapped doing the same technique and things over and over for a certain grad student/PI/post-doc. In that case, you need to be creative and try to come up with something that you can work on yourself. That's the whole point of the scientific method. If you can't get your own project, at least try to continually remember what part you're taking in the big picture.
 
I always think it is sooo sad when premeds comlain about research. Research is essential to medicine, and claiming otherwise only betrays naivety. Here are a few reasons:

1. Medicine is never static. The knowledge doctors use is never static. where do you think doctors get their knowledge - is it handed down by God? We are constantly revising our understanding of disease, medicine, and the human body through research. I shadowed some clinical research pepps this summer - and every decision they made went back to "in 2006, person X published Y paper on this disease, therefore we should treat THIS way." "No, I think we should treat THIS way because in 2008 there was this other paper..." the doctors made all their decisions based on research, and as physicians we need to have the capacity to interpret and critically examine scientific findings since we will base our practice on this knowledge. We can't blindly accept all that we are told, or make life-changing decisions based on rumor; we must test fact and truth. All that we know about the body is painstakingly tested and rigorously studied through RESEARCH. Research holds our knowledge to the highest standard. It is the fountain of medical knowledge, and our only source. Shouldn't we try to understand it?

2. Tomorrow's doctors are expected to carry the standard of the practice into the future. If our doctors aren't equipped to build on old ideas by asking new scientific questions, the field of medicine won't move forward at all. Research training teaches us how to ask questions about disease, how to examine disease, and how to think critically and apply what we know. Research is a way of thought and a practice and a study. Research is the way to tomorrow's future... and the only way to move medicine forward.

So in summary, our lives as patients literally depend on research and the knowledge created by research. Our careers as doctors depend on research. The field of medicine rests on research. In fact, all knowledge is built on research.

Now, given how essential research is to the practice of medicine, imagine throwing together a bunch of naive people who have never ever entered a lab in their lives, and asking those people to make life-changing decisions based on something that is COMPLETELY esoteric and foreign to them. If we can't speak the language of research, and understand research, we will never be able to interpret its findings and apply them to our lives.

Now imagine throwing together the same group of people and asking them to move medicine forward, to make new medical inventions and new applications to treat diseases. Are they going to make their inroads at random? Oh, we've never seen this disease before, why don't we just try random drug A. Of course those people would have to first take random drug A to the lab, PROVE that it works, and to do that they will need to know how to do science. That same group of naive people will do nothing for the field of medicine if they don't have a solid grasp of where their knowledge is coming from and what they plan to do with it.

Research is not a dumb job you have to do for your resume. It is a practice of education, a study essential to medicine, and all life-changing decisions you will ever make in medicine is built upon it. Research is our only hope for progress. Without an understanding of research, we will never understand medicine, or reach our full potential as doctors.
 
Last edited:
I'm not saying that research isn't important. I am saying it shouldn't be something expected of students who want to be doctors as in clinicians.

I think laboratory classes in our regular science classes do the job of showing the scientific method. I mean, I get it, research is good, scientific method is good.

Scientists have a job and physicians have a job. if you want both, then do MD/Phd.
 
I'm not saying that research isn't important. I am saying it shouldn't be something expected of students who want to be doctors as in clinicians.

I think laboratory classes in our regular science classes do the job of showing the scientific method. I mean, I get it, research is good, scientific method is good.

Scientists have a job and physicians have a job. if you want both, then do MD/Phd.
Hypothetically if you had to pick between two candidates and they are fairly equal in almost all respects except that one has his name attached to 3 published studies and the other has no research, would that impact your choice?

To me it shows you can handle an even greater workload and have actually contributed to science where doing laboratory work for a regular class only contributes to yourself(ie your knowledge and understanding).

I would think of it as a kind of volunteer work although instead of helping the needy or sick, you have helped science which indirectly does help those groups.

Plus it is just cool to say you were published. :)
 
I think laboratory classes in our regular science classes do the job of showing the scientific method. I mean, I get it, research is good, scientific method is good.

i guess you've never done research because laboratory classes are mostly for learning techniques, not for developing critical thinking skills (aka learning the scientific method).
 
He made it seem that it was pointless for any premed to do research.

He wanted to know why medical schools want pre-meds to do research when most of them don't care about it.
 
Now, people might become interested in research by doing this things, and thus, in turn, vis a vis, etc but I really disliked my time in all my college labs and wasnt going to take up anyone else's time knowing I wasn't really there for the right reasons

questionmarkguy.jpg
 
more research = more interviews = ????? = profit?
 
You do it to understand how knowledge is created, even if you don't plan to do it as a career. Medicine requires an understanding of the processes behind what you're saying, how new hypothesis are put forward, how they are tested, how they come to be in textbooks and in your drugs. You don't have to do it, but that's the best way to understand it.

It doesn't have to be biomedical research either. Some of my research was in other non-biology areas and I gained a lot more from that - because it interested me.
 
Because as a medical doctor you're expected to get involved with research in your field eventually. Most of these people with Phds don't do much except waste funding. They need real doctors to step in and tell them some logical direction to take. You see a lot of older doctors involved in the research community for this reason.
 
The same reason why we have labs attached to our lectures, hands-on experience! With the exception of Ochem obviously, that is just there to slowly kill us inside.
 
Because as a medical doctor you're expected to get involved with research in your field eventually. Most of these people with Phds don't do much except waste funding. They need real doctors to step in and tell them some logical direction to take. You see a lot of older doctors involved in the research community for this reason.

picard.jpg
 
If you actually did something substantial (as opposed to just doing bench work), you would have come away with a lot more.
 
My statement was talking about, and was in response to, research methods, first of all; sorry if that wasn't clear. Will understanding how to do a Western blot help you understand the design of a clinical trial? Will knowing how to culture cells and run PCR help you interpret the results of clinical literature?

With that being said, unless you're really interested in the basic science, why would you read the basic/translational literature? At least in my experience, it's been incredibly rare to find a pure clinician who keeps up with the latest basic science literature. From what I gather, they tend to stick to UpToDate and any relevant clinical literature. And these articles tend to cover the general idea of the basic science rationale behind the treatment anyways. So I don't really see a reason for pure clinicians to stay abreast with basic science literature. And other than statistics, I haven't found that having an extensive understanding of basic science experimental methods helps me interpret the results of clinical studies in the field I conduct research in (other than getting a better sense of the mechanistic rationale behind the clinical study).

Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong. This is all based on my experience and not any hard evidence.

I agree. There isn't much to understand behind a western blot or PCR. I see what your getting at now.
 
I had asked a doctor (Johns Hopkins graduate) that I know quite well, a similar question. He currently works at a top research school, and had sat for several years on their admissions board. My question was "why is it necessary for pre-meds to have research experience when most MD students don't go into research?"

His answer was "the admissions boards are made up of academic doctors that are into research and want to accept students that are just like they are. They want to propagate themselves."
 
Because as a medical doctor you're expected to get involved with research in your field eventually. Most of these people with Phds don't do much except waste funding. They need real doctors to step in and tell them some logical direction to take. You see a lot of older doctors involved in the research community for this reason.
You serious, bro?
 
He wanted to know why medical schools want pre-meds to do research when most of them don't care about it.
I wasn't aware that any medical school had research as part of its prereqs. You will still see people without any research background getting into the academic powerhouse schools.

If you don't like research, don't do it. It's that simple. Like I said previously though, in my experience, most premeds don't conduct research. They run experiments for the grad students, postdocs, etc, without really contributing to the project intellectually. I can definitely see people thinking that this is research and hating it. But that's not research though.

Edit: This post wasn't directed at you circulus, just at the latter part of your statement about "why medical schools want premeds to do research."
 
Last edited:
I had asked a doctor (Johns Hopkins graduate) that I know quite well, a similar question. He currently works at a top research school, and had sat for several years on their admissions board. My question was "why is it necessary for pre-meds to have research experience when most MD students don't go into research?"

His answer was "the admissions boards are made up of academic doctors that are into research and want to accept students that are just like they are. They want to propagate themselves."


Although I thoroughly enjoy the research I attempt to participate in, I have to say, this guy is a genious!!!!!!! Hilarious and remarkably insightful.
 
Although I thoroughly enjoy the research I attempt to participate in, I have to say, this guy is a genious!!!!!!! Hilarious and remarkably insightful.

well you seem pretty easy to please
 
well you seem pretty easy to please

Oh I am! In fact I got myself on SSRI's to help with this because it has become a little bit of a problem. For some reason they seem to slow me down... now were talking at least 10 seconds
 
Like it or not, the research thing doesn't go away for awhile. Residencies want it, Residency directors will push you to publish (a lot of really presitious programs now require a research year), fellowships want you to have reserached in Residency, etc. You pretty much have to have reached you terminal degree and have decided on a career outside of academia to get away from that nagging feeling that you should be doing some research rather than just thinking about it.

The theory is that every Physician should also be a basic clincial investigator, advancing the field as well as practicing in it. It's not entirely without merit: I have definitely seen individual surgeons run and publish small trials which ultimately led to larger trials and ultimately changed the way that people do Surgery. That doesn't mean you need to do research to match into your specialty of choice, though.
 
Research experiences vary depending on your PI, your prior background in the area, your determination and problem-solving abilities, your funding, a million other things.

I had a good research experience: months of sustained effort on a few interesting problems, resulting in a several presentations and a publication. Collaborative work. Shared ideas. Interesting perspectives.

Personally, I think that research is absolutely crucial to the preparation of physicians. But as I said, experiences vary. Hopefully you have a good research experience; you may have a bad one.
 
Top