What kind of research?

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

q123

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
73
Reaction score
0
hi, i'm a premed and i recently started working at a lab. i interviewed a bit, so i've visited many "cell biology" type labs. it's clinical research in a hospital and deals with cancer. but i notice all of these jobs are the same(even if the lab deals with immunology), basically manipulating cells to look for genes of interest,etc. and i post in this forum because i'm sure most of you work in research.

so my question is this: if say i do an m.d. and decide to pursue research during my post-grad education, will there be opportunities to do something more exotic? for example i am interested in sports and i am fascinated by the type of experiments where you knock out a gene in a mice and it starts getting stronger(or even better try some new gene therapy approaches for some muscular dystrophy disease which again has a similar effect). i realize there are publications of similar nature but would a med student have a realistic chance to do something similar, or there is no work for it? and even if you're allowed to work on this, you will rarely if ever develop any new techniques? i mean so far there aren't any effect gene therapy methods, so it seems like it's a waste of time. perhaps i would've had more freedom to be creative in chemistry type research? i.e. radiology/nmr people probably develop new techniques all the time?

Members don't see this ad.
 
hi, i'm a premed and i recently started working at a lab. i interviewed a bit, so i've visited many "cell biology" type labs. it's clinical research in a hospital and deals with cancer. but i notice all of these jobs are the same(even if the lab deals with immunology), basically manipulating cells to look for genes of interest,etc. and i post in this forum because i'm sure most of you work in research.

I share that feeling. I feel like 95% of research is the same techniques being applied over and over again to different cell lines or different genes. I find it all a big :sleep: so I went looking for something different.

so my question is this: if say i do an m.d. and decide to pursue research during my post-grad education, will there be opportunities to do something more exotic?

Sure. Keep in mind that very few MDs decide to persue serious research during their post-grad education. You should decide sooner or later if you want research or clinical to be your future life and go for that. Sure you can change your mind later and there will be oppertunities for research if you go the clinical path, but the types of projects you're talking about will require much time and skill to perform or maintain.
 
You're right, research is pretty repetitive! A lot of techniques are basically just tools you use over and over again to solve a problem. I think of it kind of like using the same hammer to build different houses. It's pretty repetitive for the carpenter/worker/whatever, but for the designer/architect it's a bit more varied.

So that's why I'm going to grad school (ie, MSTP). I want to think up all the experiments have my post-docs and graduate students do my bidding so I can orchestrate a series of experiments to gain new insights into biological problems.

I'll admit I'm not too familiar with this topic, but I think there isn't as much research into making people stronger or faster because there are many many problems with people getting sick. Yes, yes, I know stronger and faster would be useful research for patients with wasting/deteriorating-type diseases but hopefully you get what I mean.

Just my $00.02USD!

Neuronix pretty much covered the rest.

-X


hi, i'm a premed and i recently started working at a lab. i interviewed a bit, so i've visited many "cell biology" type labs. it's clinical research in a hospital and deals with cancer. but i notice all of these jobs are the same(even if the lab deals with immunology), basically manipulating cells to look for genes of interest,etc. and i post in this forum because i'm sure most of you work in research.

so my question is this: if say i do an m.d. and decide to pursue research during my post-grad education, will there be opportunities to do something more exotic? for example i am interested in sports and i am fascinated by the type of experiments where you knock out a gene in a mice and it starts getting stronger(or even better try some new gene therapy approaches for some muscular dystrophy disease which again has a similar effect). i realize there are publications of similar nature but would a med student have a realistic chance to do something similar, or there is no work for it? and even if you're allowed to work on this, you will rarely if ever develop any new techniques? i mean so far there aren't any effect gene therapy methods, so it seems like it's a waste of time. perhaps i would've had more freedom to be creative in chemistry type research? i.e. radiology/nmr people probably develop new techniques all the time?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
...so my question is this: if say i do an m.d. and decide to pursue research during my post-grad education, will there be opportunities to do something more exotic? for example i am interested in sports and i am fascinated by the type of experiments where you knock out a gene in a mice and it starts getting stronger(or even better try some new gene therapy approaches for some muscular dystrophy disease which again has a similar effect)...
Knockout experiments aren't all that exotic. I've done them. There's lots of labs that do this sort of work, so why not find one of them if that's your interest?

There's many fields of medicine with different sets of tools. You could go into PM&R or sports medicine and use motion-capture to do gait analysis. Those fields would also use EMGs and EKGs. Radiology, like you mentioned, looks for new imaging modalities/applications, and these are very different than bench top techniques. With fMRI, you could also go into Psych and Neurology.

Most of the fellows I've worked with did not do the same type of research in fellowship that they did as an undergrad or med student. Post-residency can be a time to change if you want it.

There's lots of space in the house of medicine - you don't have to be pigeon-holed if you don't want to.
 
Yeah, I kinda share the same views with you and Neuronix. From my (relatively short) experience, all molecular research in biology is quite similar. ELISAs, blotting..etc. And the other worry I have (someone more experienced can correct me on this), is that you don't necessarily have to be creative and imaginative to get results and publish. Just test this and this gene or production of a molecule, until you get a result.

At the moment, I'm doing mostly psychophysical stuff in vision science, and I'm really enjoying it. Basically, you sit someone in front of a computer and show different simuli, and then get the subject's specific responses while tracking their eye movements. It gives you a lot of room to get imaginative and creative. Basically, you can design any stimulus you want in a way to let you conclude some things about how the visual system works. I haven't done fMRI experiments, but from my readings, it also seems quite challenging and interesting.
 
As a molecular bio student I can feel your pain. However, it's what can be done with field that keeps me personally interested - not the monotony of running gels all day.
 
Yeah, I kinda share the same views with you and Neuronix. From my (relatively short) experience, all molecular research in biology is quite similar. ELISAs, blotting..etc. And the other worry I have (someone more experienced can correct me on this), is that you don't necessarily have to be creative and imaginative to get results and publish. Just test this and this gene or production of a molecule, until you get a result.

At the moment, I'm doing mostly psychophysical stuff in vision science, and I'm really enjoying it. Basically, you sit someone in front of a computer and show different simuli, and then get the subject's specific responses while tracking their eye movements. It gives you a lot of room to get imaginative and creative. Basically, you can design any stimulus you want in a way to let you conclude some things about how the visual system works. I haven't done fMRI experiments, but from my readings, it also seems quite challenging and interesting.

The imagination comes when you design your experiments and appropriate controls, come out with what's the next step, and when you integrate all your results into an interesting story. The basic tools and techniques are the same but how you present and prove your data needs creativity. And the excitement actually comes when you discover something unexpected. But, I agree, sometimes it can get veeeery repetitive, :sleep:and exhausting. BTW, although a lot has to do with luck, is not that easy to publish (at least in top journals).
Just my grain of salt! ;)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I kinda share the same views with you and Neuronix. From my (relatively short) experience, all molecular research in biology is quite similar. ELISAs, blotting..etc. And the other worry I have (someone more experienced can correct me on this), is that you don't necessarily have to be creative and imaginative to get results and publish. Just test this and this gene or production of a molecule, until you get a result.

At the moment, I'm doing mostly psychophysical stuff in vision science, and I'm really enjoying it. Basically, you sit someone in front of a computer and show different simuli, and then get the subject's specific responses while tracking their eye movements. It gives you a lot of room to get imaginative and creative. Basically, you can design any stimulus you want in a way to let you conclude some things about how the visual system works. I haven't done fMRI experiments, but from my readings, it also seems quite challenging and interesting.

Certainly, you do not need to be Einstein to publish. But there is a big difference between a researcher and successful top notch researcher. The latter type is usually more creative, crazy, passionate,imaginative etc.

I do agree with you that much of research is a bit repetitive. BUt the methods do not matter at all. It is the the results, the analysis, the theories which constitute science. Methods and procedures are only means to an end.
 
perhaps i would've had more freedom to be creative in chemistry type research? i.e. radiology/nmr people probably develop new techniques all the time?

MR has so many possibilities for imaging, it's mind blowing. All you have to know is how the different molecules react to different radio frequencies, and you've got a new scan (okay, not really, but you get my point).
 
There is also a lot going on with animal models. Even though some people have their qualms with animal research, the benefits definitely outweigh the costs, in most cases. That said, keep animal models in mind. Besides just knockout studies, you can do RNAi, you can do pharmacological or environmental manipulation, and both biomolecular and behavioral assays at the same time. To me, that's where it's at.
 
Top