What kind of research to do?

[tracerspiff]

Hello,

My school (UC) is letting me join any lab I want as I was recently awarded a rather significant amount of money to fund my research in whatever discipline I care to do involve myself with. I know that you can study clams or trees or cancer or anything you want and it won't matter, but if my only goal is to get into medical school (top 20), which research would be the most beneficial - in terms of letters of rec/potential for publication/vocabulary overlap with MCAT, etc. Any advice is appreciated, thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

The best, in earnest, is what you really find most morivating and interesting. You don't have to work in a cancer lab to get into med school.

Think about what makes you ask questions- a year of undergrad should help you figure out what TYPE of general subject interests greatly.

Pick a topic that makes you interested the most- what makes you google answers? Stop by your prof's office to ask? Then email said people's lab and see where it goes. It doesn't matter if it is collecting frogs for ecology research, organic chem synthesis, a cancer lab etc.

Why? Because no matter where you go, you will presumably learning how to think scientifically and do research. This is what med schools care about. If you pick something interesting to you, this will motivate and accelerate your research. Med schools will care much more about high quality research that you can talk eloquently and confidently about rather than how many western blots you ran in some lab you thought would look good to a medical school.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

Don't concern yourself too much with it complementing MCAT studying. Doing well in your courses will do that for you. Being engaged early and often in scientific literature reading will also help.

 

[gamieg]

I agree that your interests and passions come first, but I highly recommend clinical over basic science research

 

[Lost In Transcription]

I agree that your interests and passions come first, but I highly recommend clinical over basic science research

I strongly, strongly disagree.

"Basic research" will teach you how to think scientifically much more effectively AND let you lead a project rather than clinical research.

Translational/basic is much better for early UGs than clinical. And it is very difficult to get involved with good clinical research. Maybe further down the line OP could think about it.

 

[gamieg]

I strongly, strongly disagree.

"Basic research" will teach you how to think scientifically much more effectively AND let you lead a project rather than clinical research.

Translational/basic is much better for early UGs than clinical. And it is very difficult to get involved with good clinical research. Maybe further down the line OP could think about it.

I agree good clinical research is hard to come by, but I would argue that good basic research is as well. I haven't done specific research (haha no joke intended) on this, but the majority of students I've come across as both a premed student and premed advisor go into basic science research without understanding the projects they are working on and mindlessly pipette or do grunt work. of course OP may not fall into this category considering, but basic science research often takes so long that it's difficult to even see the fruits of labor.

it goes without saying that OP shouldn't go into research solely with the intention of publishing, but considering she/he is aiming for a top 20 med school, publications would give a heavy boost.

clinical research (assuming done correctly and hopefully within an academic medical center) would also give a great window into how research can really propel forward patient care. the learning curve is steep regardless.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

I agree good clinical research is hard to come by, but I would argue that good basic research is as well. I haven't done specific research (haha no joke intended) on this, but the majority of students I've come across as both a premed student and premed advisor go into basic science research without understanding the projects they are working on and mindlessly pipette or do grunt work. of course OP may not fall into this category considering, but basic science research often takes so long that it's difficult to even see the fruits of labor.

it goes without saying that OP shouldn't go into research solely with the intention of publishing, but considering she/he is aiming for a top 20 med school, publications would give a heavy boost.

clinical research (assuming done correctly and hopefully within an academic medical center) would also give a great window into how research can really propel forward patient care. the learning curve is steep regardless.

I would argue transl/basic research gets you published faster. Clinical resesrch is often many years long, and few positions for UGs to help in. They have no skills to provide.

Doing basic field/bench research with a good PI is much more valuable. Even regardless of publishing.

Premeds seem to think they should be allowed to avoid doing "grunt work"- but this is their training. You don't somehow get better at the basic skills of research magically..you have to do them. Obvioisly having a good mentor (postdoc, older undergrad etc) speeds this up, but these are things you have to do. It is best to start in research as early as possible to get adjusted to said learning curve you mentioned.

You can shadow clinical research or do it later on. It really is not as good training as other transl/basic research.

 

[aldol16]

I would argue transl/basic research gets you published faster. Clinical resesrch is often many years long, and few positions for UGs to help in. They have no skills to provide.

Depends on what your clinical research is, but this is generally a pre-med misconception. The exception is if your project involves mining the data and doing statistical analyses on outcomes. Then you can probably publish in a few months as long as you set your experiments up properly. In basic science, publications usually take >1.5 years to come by and that's if you get all the trial-and-error out of your way at the outset. Many pre-meds come into labs and we add them onto our projects and they might get published simply because they did several experiments at the tail end of our project. If this is the kind of publishing you're talking about, then you can get that sort anywhere whether it's basic or clinical. But if you're talking about having substantial input on your own project as a pre-med and designing your project from hypothesis down to writing up the manuscript, that will take >1.5 years, likely >2 years, as an undergraduate pre-med. You're better off getting involved in a clinical project that is mainly statistics-based so that you publish earlier and often.

 

[aldol16]

OP, the best kind you can involve yourself in is probably biomedical-type research. At least one top 20 school encourages research in the biomedical sciences. Plus, it makes it easier for you to talk about your research during interviews. Although you might get interviewed by someone who is an expert in your field so you would really have to know your project, which you should anyway.

 

[Lucca]

1. Find something that excites you.
2. Pick a PI you can work well with. Science is more or less an apprenticeship training pipeline. Work for someone you want to be like in the future.
3. Pick a productive lab that is publishing regularly.
4. Be honest with your intentions with your PI and make it known that you hope to work on something you can publish in the future if all goes well.
5. Talk to other students in the lab and ask what the environ is like (PhD students about to graduate are some of the most honest people on the planet, second only to drunk PhD students about to graduate).

 

[gamieg]

I would argue transl/basic research gets you published faster. Clinical resesrch is often many years long, and few positions for UGs to help in. They have no skills to provide.

Doing basic field/bench research with a good PI is much more valuable. Even regardless of publishing.

Premeds seem to think they should be allowed to avoid doing "grunt work"- but this is their training. You don't somehow get better at the basic skills of research magically..you have to do them. Obvioisly having a good mentor (postdoc, older undergrad etc) speeds this up, but these are things you have to do. It is best to start in research as early as possible to get adjusted to said learning curve you mentioned.

You can shadow clinical research or do it later on. It really is not as good training as other transl/basic research.

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you might be thinking more along the lines of prospective clinical research, which can take many years and a seemingly endless amount of red tape navigating IRBs etc. I'm talking more about retrospective clinical research, where there's a steep learning curve for medical terminology and chart review, but it tends to yield publications faster (not least because academic medical teams are very invested in them).

there is definitely value in doing grunt work, and that's not to say that it should be skipped or not included. but that seems to be what most premeds do the majority of the time in a basic science research lab and it's not very conducive to actually learning. a good PI who's a good teacher would perhaps mitigate this tendency, but it's also an understandable one considering premed students have a lot to learn and many experiments are sensitive.

ultimately it's up to OP and which UC he/she is attending. if it's UC Berkeley, for example, the chances of clinical research are significantly lower than basic sciences.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

Depends on what your clinical research is, but this is generally a pre-med misconception. The exception is if your project involves mining the data and doing statistical analyses on outcomes. Then you can probably publish in a few months as long as you set your experiments up properly. In basic science, publications usually take >1.5 years to come by and that's if you get all the trial-and-error out of your way at the outset. Many pre-meds come into labs and we add them onto our projects and they might get published simply because they did several experiments at the tail end of our project. If this is the kind of publishing you're talking about, then you can get that sort anywhere whether it's basic or clinical. But if you're talking about having substantial input on your own project as a pre-med and designing your project from hypothesis down to writing up the manuscript, that will take >1.5 years, likely >2 years, as an undergraduate pre-med. You're better off getting involved in a clinical project that is mainly statistics-based so that you publish earlier and often.

This is why I said getting involved early is best.

They wanted to know what the most stellar kind of research is- significant lead in a project where you take about 3 years to accomplish.

Again, it is very difficult to get young UGs involved with clinical research. I would say this is a low-yield chance whereas getting into bench research with a good mentor and a fast paced type of research would be much more likely.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you might be thinking more along the lines of prospective clinical research, which can take many years and a seemingly endless amount of red tape navigating IRBs etc. I'm talking more about retrospective clinical research, where there's a steep learning curve for medical terminology and chart review, but it tends to yield publications faster (not least because academic medical teams are very invested in them).

there is definitely value in doing grunt work, and that's not to say that it should be skipped or not included. but that seems to be what most premeds do the majority of the time in a basic science research lab and it's not very conducive to actually learning. a good PI who's a good teacher would perhaps mitigate this tendency, but it's also an understandable one considering premed students have a lot to learn and many experiments are sensitive.

ultimately it's up to OP and which UC he/she is attending. if it's UC Berkeley, for example, the chances of clinical research are significantly lower than basic sciences.

I see, and yes, I was thinking of the IRB heavy research, which is what I was surrounded by haha.

I don't think that type of research really teaches you science though....but if you only want medicine it's okay I guess. But I would encourage all oremeds to try out bench/field research to see if they like it more. That's what happened to me.

I think getting away from geunt work has to do with the passion and motivation of the premed. If you just wait to have a project handed in your lap, of course that takes forever. If you are a proactive premed and show you want to work independently...that is different. Premeds often expect good research to be handed to them (and good grades, etc).

 

[Lost In Transcription]

1. Find something that excites you.
2. Pick a PI you can work well with. Science is more or less an apprenticeship training pipeline. Work for someone you want to be like in the future.
3. Pick a productive lab that is publishing regularly.
4. Be honest with your intentions with your PI and make it known that you hope to work on something you can publish in the future if all goes well.
5. Talk to other students in the lab and ask what the environ is like

This.

Make sure you look at various labs. It is important to find someone who you feel you can work easily with, and who publishes regularly.

I also advise people to look for younger, twnure track investigators. They are often more exciting and mentoring, and NEED to publish often.

 

[aldol16]

Again, it is very difficult to get young UGs involved with clinical research. I would say this is a low-yield chance whereas getting into bench research with a good mentor and a fast paced type of research would be much more likely.

Again, it depends on the clinical research. Many pre-meds have published and/or presented clinical research. Many fewer do that with basic science research because the timescale on which we operate is so much longer. Statistical analysis-based clinical research is an easy area for pre-meds to get involved in and in fact I highly recommend it if you have any computer ability. Pre-meds can also enroll participants in clinical trials and perform the daily labor there, on top of analyzing outcomes at the end of the study. You don't have to be the one prescribing the medication or performing the operation to be involved in clinical research.

Because the time-scale of bench research is longer and pre-meds typically do not spend much meaningful time in lab (10 hours a week doesn't cut it), the chance of a pre-med publishing in bench research is more variable. It's impossible to tell whether it's higher or lower than in clinical research because there's too much variability. Science doesn't operate on human schedules. For every successful project, there are dozens of failed ones. I make this very clear to any pre-med who works with me - if you want to be on a publication, you're going to have to be there for the successes as well as the failures. You must have substantial input into the design and execution of the project. Don't expect to be put on an author list just by doing a few experiments at the end or cleaning the dishes. You only get acknowledged for that.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

Again, it depends on the clinical research. Many pre-meds have published and/or presented clinical research. Many fewer do that with basic science research because the timescale on which we operate is so much longer. Statistical analysis-based clinical research is an easy area for pre-meds to get involved in and in fact I highly recommend it if you have any computer ability. Pre-meds can also enroll participants in clinical trials and perform the daily labor there, on top of analyzing outcomes at the end of the study. You don't have to be the one prescribing the medication or performing the operation to be involved in clinical research.

Because the time-scale of bench research is longer and pre-meds typically do not spend much meaningful time in lab (10 hours a week doesn't cut it), the chance of a pre-med publishing in bench research is more variable. It's impossible to tell whether it's higher or lower than in clinical research because there's too much variability. Science doesn't operate on human schedules. For every successful project, there are dozens of failed ones. I make this very clear to any pre-med who works with me - if you want to be on a publication, you're going to have to be there for the successes as well as the failures. You must have substantial input into the design and execution of the project. Don't expect to be put on an author list just by doing a few experiments at the end or cleaning the dishes. You only get acknowledged for that.

Yup. I did a clinical research project and presented at a national conference. Start to finish was only about 5-6 months. I might have been able to carry it through to a publication with some extra time but I didn't. I've been working on something more translational for about a year, and I just wrote the manuscript.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

Again, it depends on the clinical research. Many pre-meds have published and/or presented clinical research. Many fewer do that with basic science research because the timescale on which we operate is so much longer. Statistical analysis-based clinical research is an easy area for pre-meds to get involved in and in fact I highly recommend it if you have any computer ability. Pre-meds can also enroll participants in clinical trials and perform the daily labor there, on top of analyzing outcomes at the end of the study. You don't have to be the one prescribing the medication or performing the operation to be involved in clinical research.

Because the time-scale of bench research is longer and pre-meds typically do not spend much meaningful time in lab (10 hours a week doesn't cut it), the chance of a pre-med publishing in bench research is more variable. It's impossible to tell whether it's higher or lower than in clinical research because there's too much variability. Science doesn't operate on human schedules. For every successful project, there are dozens of failed ones. I make this very clear to any pre-med who works with me - if you want to be on a publication, you're going to have to be there for the successes as well as the failures. You must have substantial input into the design and execution of the project. Don't expect to be put on an author list just by doing a few experiments at the end or cleaning the dishes. You only get acknowledged for that.

It also depends on the basic research...

Though I get what you're saying.

I would still advise to find an amiable basic lab that publishes quickly. I think this is better because it gets you away from medicine and helps you figure out if you want to do resesrch more or medicine more ( if you're inclined to both). I think the scientific process is incredibly important for premeds to learn, which is better taught through basic and transl resesrch. Additionally, if they wanted to go MSTP, they would need to have done basic research.

Publishing is important but not THAT important. I would think having a reslly good grip of science/research mindset is more valuable even with only a few posters or a simple coauthor, where you led your own project, rather than a million publications of easy peasy computer punching.

It is blown out of proportion how much med schools look for publications. It helps yes, but they would be more impressed by motivated, independent research than easy publications. This advice comes from the NIH advisors BTW not just my brain.

Just my two cents.

 

[aldol16]

I would still advise to find an amiable basic lab that publishes quickly. I think this is better because it gets you away from medicine and helps you figure out if you want to do resesrch more or medicine more ( if you're inclined to both). I think the scientific process is incredibly important for premeds to learn, which is better taught through basic and transl resesrch. Additionally, if they wanted to go MSTP, they would need to have done basic research.

Yes, figuring out whether you want to do medicine or research is important and so is the scientific process. I think those are two very good reasons to pursue basic research, in contrast to the time required to publish.

However, I'm pretty sure that MSTP programs don't require basic research and clinical research is fine, although you might get more credibility if you've pursued basic research.

Publishing is important but not THAT important. I would think having a reslly good grip of science/research mindset is more valuable even with only a few posters or a simple coauthor, where you led your own project, rather than a million publications of easy peasy computer punching.

You should tell residency programs that. In academia at least, quantity over quality. It's a sad state, of course, but it's also difficult to judge quality unless a paper is egregiously bad or if the judge is an expert in the field. But yeah, publications aren't too important for MD admissions, although they don't hurt.

It is blown out of proportion how much med schools look for publications. It helps yes, but they would be more impressed by motivated, independent research than easy publications. This advice comes from the NIH advisors BTW not just my brain.

Yes, being able to talk intelligently about your research and your role is much better than not knowing anything about a publication on which you are author. In fact, the latter reflects poorly on you. But that's not the true comparison, is it? The best case is having a publication in which you have a substantial role in the design and execution - that comes across well whether that publication is in the basic or clinical sciences.

 

[LizzyM]

However, I'm pretty sure that MSTP programs don't require basic research and clinical research is fine, although you might get more credibility if you've pursued basic research.

MSTP programs want to know that you will find a lab on campus in which to do your PhD research. The PI of that lab will be responsible for your funding that will cover your tuition and stipend so you can bet they want someone who can contribute to the work of the lab.

 

[aldol16]

MSTP programs want to know that you will find a lab on campus in which to do your PhD research. The PI of that lab will be responsible for your funding that will cover your tuition and stipend so you can bet want someone who can contribute to the work of the lab.

Yes, I know how PhD admissions works, having gone through that process. Prior experience in a field is advantageous, but even if you're doing basic science as an undergrad, the skills don't transfer any more so than if you had been doing clinical research if your basic science research is in a different field. Doing chiral separations won't help you much in an immunology lab. So the true advantageous factor is if you have had prior demonstrated knowledge of and experience in a PI's field. Those skills are directly transferable. Saying that basic science research is required is too broad a statement.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

Yes, I know how PhD admissions works, having gone through that process. Prior experience in a field is advantageous, but even if you're doing basic science as an undergrad, the skills don't transfer any more so than if you had been doing clinical research if your basic science research is in a different field. Doing chiral separations won't help you much in an immunology lab. So the true advantageous factor is if you have had prior demonstrated knowledge of and experience in a PI's field. Those skills are directly transferable. Saying that basic science research is required is too broad a statement.

The best transferrable skill is knowing how to design and execute research even if you are unfamiliar with it- how to read literature and efficiently do experiments that are designed well. That is best taught in basic resesrch.

 

[aldol16]

The best transferrable skill is knowing how to design and execute research even ifnyou are unfamiliar with it- how to read literature and efficiently do experiments that are designed well. That is best taught in basic resesrch.

There's nothing in this statement that suggests that these skills are best taught in basic research. I think that's just your opinion. If you do clinical research, you will still have to read the literature and figure out ways to test hypotheses. In fact, some clinical studies are more difficult to design than basic science studies (and this is coming from someone who spent years in basic science in grad school) because you don't have complete control over a patient and his/her environment as you do in the lab. I can control everything from what goes into my reaction vial to the ambient temperature and pressure that vial is in. I can't do that with a patient - even if I could control environment, I couldn't control their physical characteristics.

 

[Goro]

This is SO untrue.

What a PI will look for is someone with lab skills. I don't if one of my grad students doesn't know how to do westers, if all they've ever done is qPCR and SNP types...they know how to make solutions, read and generate data, make tables, make solutions and know how to pipette.

And most of the PIs I personally have known who run labs with MD/PhD candidates in them still do basic research. This includes seven Nobel Laureates.

Further, the students pick the labs, not the other way around.

but even if you're doing basic science as an undergrad, the skills don't transfer any more so than if you had been doing clinical research if your basic science research is in a different field. Doing chiral separations won't help you much in an immunology lab. So the true advantageous factor is if you have had prior demonstrated knowledge of and experience in a PI's field. Those skills are directly transferable. Saying that basic science research is required is too broad a statement.

 

[Goro]

It doesn't matter..you could study clams in the South Seas. Just be productive.

Hello,

My school (UC) is letting me join any lab I want as I was recently awarded a rather significant amount of money to fund my research in whatever discipline I care to do involve myself with. I know that you can study clams or trees or cancer or anything you want and it won't matter, but if my only goal is to get into medical school (top 20), which research would be the most beneficial - in terms of letters of rec/potential for publication/vocabulary overlap with MCAT, etc. Any advice is appreciated, thank you!

 

[aldol16]

This is SO untrue.

What a PI will look for is someone with lab skills. I don't if one of my grad students doesn't know how to do westers, if all they've ever done is qPCR and SNP types...they know how to make solutions, read and generate data, make tables, make solutions and know how to pipette.

Pretty sure anybody with clinical or basic science experience knows how to read and generate data and make tables. Knowing how to pipette is something you pick up quite quickly. It's something biologists make a fuss over for no reason. PIs look for people who can think like a researcher. The skills you need, you pick up or learn from senior grad students. I taught most of the grad students in my lab the basic techniques we use in the laab when they were first-years. They came in with very specific experience, of course, but everything they need to know to do research in my field was taught to them - not necessarily something they brought in. Basic science skills is what is looked for - the ability to read and interpret data, to present data, to set up experiments well, etc.

 

[Goro]

I fuss over it because I've had people spend an entire summer or rotation merely learning how to pipette and nothing else. Working in the lab require developing some muscle memory and having some common sense, which not all people who want to work in a lab have. The thinking like a researcher part comes with your training, especially once you master a technique and learn to troubleshoot, and then thinking about what your data means, followed by what to do next.

Pretty sure anybody with clinical or basic science experience knows how to read and generate data and make tables. Knowing how to pipette is something you pick up quite quickly. It's something biologists make a fuss over for no reason. PIs look for people who can think like a researcher. The skills you need, you pick up or learn from senior grad students. I taught most of the grad students in my lab the basic techniques we use in the laab when they were first-years. They came in with very specific experience, of course, but everything they need to know to do research in my field was taught to them - not necessarily something they brought in. Basic science skills is what is looked for - the ability to read and interpret data, to present data, to set up experiments well, etc.

 

[aldol16]

I fuss over it because I've had people spend an entire summer or rotation merely learning how to pipette and nothing else. Working in the lab require developing some muscle memory and having some common sense, which not all people who want to work in a lab have. The thinking like a researcher part comes with your training, especially once you master a technique and learn to troubleshoot, and then thinking about what your data means, followed by what to do next.

Really? It sounds to me like those people shouldn't have been admitted to the graduate program because if you take that long to learn how to pipette, there bigger problems here. Yes, the troubleshooting is a huge part of research and that is one area that clinical research people perhaps have less experience in because for them, both positive and negative results can be meaningful. But again, this is something that you learn during your graduate studies. To expect someone to come in already knowing all of those things is to high a bar. It's more reasonable to expect an applicant to demonstrate the capacity to learn those things and I believe that can be demonstrated through involvement in any kind of scientific research.

 

[Goro]

Now aldol, you should know that it's a buyer's market for grad students. And even with MD/PhD, there are time it can be hit or miss. In my post-doc lab, we had a guy named Vince who used to fall asleep during lab meetings. He was transferred into regular MD track pretty quickly.
Anyway, I can sense that we're starting to talk past each other, and that for the most part, both of us are right. So I'll just stop and say Merry Xmas.

Really? It sounds to me like those people shouldn't have been admitted to the graduate program because if you take that long to learn how to pipette, there bigger problems here. Yes, the troubleshooting is a huge part of research and that is one area that clinical research people perhaps have less experience in because for them, both positive and negative results can be meaningful. But again, this is something that you learn during your graduate studies. To expect someone to come in already knowing all of those things is to high a bar. It's more reasonable to expect an applicant to demonstrate the capacity to learn those things and I believe that can be demonstrated through involvement in any kind of scientific research.

 

[aldol16]

Now aldol, you should know that it's a buyer's market for grad students. And even with MD/PhD, there are time it can be hit or miss. In my post-doc lab, we had a guy named Vince who used to fall asleep during alb meetings. He was transferred into regular MD track pretty quickly.
Anyway, I can sense that we're starting to talk past each other, and that for the most part, both of us are right. So I'll just stop and say Merry Xmas.

Quite the buyer's market and that's the problem! Also very related to why I'm now pursuing medicine instead of a cushy tenured position in academia. I'm surprised that MD/PhDs can also have such problems with candidate selection. I had always assumed that since the applicants were of higher quality, so would be the matriculants.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

 

[Goro]

A very odd thing about the MD/PhD students at my grad school were that 50% of saints, and 50% were absolute pricks. Go figure.

Quite the buyer's market and that's the problem! Also very related to why I'm now pursuing medicine instead of a cushy tenured position in academia. I'm surprised that MD/PhDs can also have such problems with candidate selection. I had always assumed that since the applicants were of higher quality, so would be the matriculants.

Anyway, Merry Christmas!

 

[freak7]

In my post-doc lab, we had a guy named Vince who used to fall asleep during alb meetings.

Our lab's sleepyhead just fell asleep on the ethidium bromide bench face-first.

 

[Goro]

This is why my lab uses SybrSafe.

Our lab's sleepyhead just fell asleep on the ethidium bromide bench face-first.

 

[freak7]

This is why my lab uses SybrSafe.

We had to switch to GelStar because of that dude.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

This is why my lab uses SybrSafe.

Sybr weirdly stains everything though.

Still better than EtBr, though everyone blows its carcinogenic properties out of proportion. That said, wouldn't eat it still.

 

[aalamruad]

I would argue transl/basic research gets you published faster.

This is completely backwards

 

[LizzyM]

Yes, I know how PhD admissions works, having gone through that process. Prior experience in a field is advantageous, but even if you're doing basic science as an undergrad, the skills don't transfer any more so than if you had been doing clinical research if your basic science research is in a different field. Doing chiral separations won't help you much in an immunology lab. So the true advantageous factor is if you have had prior demonstrated knowledge of and experience in a PI's field. Those skills are directly transferable. Saying that basic science research is required is too broad a statement.

You have a future as a pre-med advisor.

 

[aldol16]

You have a future as a pre-med advisor.

Trust me, if medicine doesn't pan out, I'd much rather do my post-doc and take my chances with the pharma industry.

 

[LizzyM]

Trust me, if medicine doesn't pan out, I'd much rather do my post-doc and take my chances with the pharma industry.

Your advice is so typical of a pre-med advisor.

 

[aldol16]

Your advice is so typical of a pre-med advisor.

I don't see that many similarities between your advice and mine, so probably not typical at all.

 

[LizzyM]

I don't see that many similarities between your advice and mine, so probably not typical at all.

I'm an admissions committee member; not a pre-med advisor. Your advice, in my opinion, is ill-advised, much like reports here of advice given by pre-med advisors. I just see some similarities.

 

[tracerspiff]

Thanks for all the suggestions! ....and uh, the rest of that stuff too.

 

[Goro]

Your advice is so typical of a pre-med advisor.

 

[aldol16]

I'm an admissions committee member; not a pre-med advisor. Your advice, in my opinion, is ill-advised, much like reports here of advice given by pre-med advisors. I just see some similarities.

And yet you give advice on here to pre-meds. My advice is to pursue some sort of scientific research if one wants to do an MSTP program, whether that research is clinical or basic. My advice is based on my own interactions with the MSTP program as a graduate student who has worked closely with MSTP students and PIs who accepted those students (or rather recommended their acceptance). You are, of course, free to judge it as you wish.

 

[freak7]

@Goro just dropped an Emma Stone gif bomb. I can die happy now

 

[TexasSurgeon]

Hello,

My school (UC) is letting me join any lab I want as I was recently awarded a rather significant amount of money to fund my research in whatever discipline I care to do involve myself with. I know that you can study clams or trees or cancer or anything you want and it won't matter, but if my only goal is to get into medical school (top 20), which research would be the most beneficial - in terms of letters of rec/potential for publication/vocabulary overlap with MCAT, etc. Any advice is appreciated, thank you!

If you're like me, you'll find a lot of research in many areas to be interesting. I would say that the hot fields right now are: infectious diseases (ex. Ebola, HIV, Chikungunya, etc.) , cancer, genomics, and neurological disorders (ex. Alzheimer's). People may disagree with me. So you might want to look into those labs. But you need to basically find what you're interested in.

You then want to join a lab that will give you the right amount of freedom to pursue your own project, but also be supportive. Labs are different and this is largely about the fit of the lab to your personality. In college, I interviewed with about 4-5 PI's once I knew what I was interested in and just picked the one that I felt would be very supportive. This PI spent a lot of time with me initially explaining the cancer research his lab was doing and then explained to me very clearly what my role would be, and how I would fit into the lab. PI's are generally looking for time commitment. The first thing my PI ever asked me was how long I would plan to stay in the lab because lets be honest: training someone is a lot of time and effort and you want that time to yield results down the line.

You also want to join a lab that will help you develop techniques and skills. This includes: basic bench work (PCRs) all the way to using confocal microscopes, flow cytometry, whatever. You'll get to do this if you're in a lab that lets you be independent and also gives you a project to work on. This way you will be forced to learn new things and try out new experiments as you inevitably run into issues of your own. It's important to learn how to analyze data and understand how to read scientific papers. Yes it can be boring but you'll get better at it the more you do it. All these skills will be transferable when you move into med school and do research or whatever.

Clinical research tends to be very different from bench. If this is your first time doing research, I would start with bench research for the above reasons. Clinical stuff can vary a lot. Some clinical/translational labs will publish a lot, some will be in the middle of a trial and you might not get luck. Clinical labs I've heard tend to publish more often though. But I think you can learn a lot more from a wet lab.

Most important IMO is to make sure your mentor is good. Pay attention to how much time they spend with you, and speak to the lab members to honestly get their opinions because it'll either be a really great lab or it'll be fiercely territorial where everyone works against each other.


edit: lol also welcome to SDN, where everyone feels the need to one-up everyone else and constantly use sarcasm.

 

[aalamruad]

I would say that the hot fields right now are: infectious diseases (ex. Ebola, HIV, Chikungunya, etc.) , cancer, genomics, and neurological disorders (ex. Alzheimer's).

This seems like an odd suggestion to me, there's important research going on in every field, and OP most likely isn't qualified to deal with the current biggest and baddest diseases and disorders anyways, no?

 

[Lost In Transcription]

This is completely backwards

No...?

LEADING clinical research...you know, a first author pub, is a decade long process normally (though was earlier pointed out that it is not necessarily IRB based research). It is long and difficult you cannot lead project.

By contrast, an undergrad can lead a paper about purifying and charaterizing some recombinant mutant protein in 3 years total, including beginners training.

 

[Lost In Transcription]

There's nothing in this statement that suggests that these skills are best taught in basic research. I think that's just your opinion. If you do clinical research, you will still have to read the literature and figure out ways to test hypotheses. In fact, some clinical studies are more difficult to design than basic science studies (and this is coming from someone who spent years in basic science in grad school) because you don't have complete control over a patient and his/her environment as you do in the lab. I can control everything from what goes into my reaction vial to the ambient temperature and pressure that vial is in. I can't do that with a patient - even if I could control environment, I couldn't control their physical characteristics.

The fact that one DOESN'T have cintrol over many variables in clinical resesrch is what makes it a not good basis for research experience, as a rule of thumb in my mind. It is more complicated and less about science than good epidemiology.

Basic and transl is what teaches you the fundamentals best because it can be controlled, and can be straightforward.

 

[aalamruad]

No...?

LEADING clinical research...you know, a first author pub, is a decade long process normally (though was earlier pointed out that it is not necessarily IRB based research). It is long and difficult you cannot lead project.

By contrast, an undergrad can lead a paper about purifying and charaterizing some recombinant mutant protein in 3 years total, including beginners training.

There are many types of clinical research, and they don't all take nearly as long as you seem to think they do. For example, retrospective chart reviews or meta-analyses are clinical but could often be done in half a year by just about any bright undergrad with a bit of motivation to discover something important.

 

[TexasSurgeon]

This seems like an odd suggestion to me, there's important research going on in every field, and OP most likely isn't qualified to deal with the current biggest and baddest diseases and disorders anyways, no?

Yeah I just named a few but regardless I'm not saying OP should find the cure to cancer or anything but can still get involved in some form of project.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile