I’m a 29M with diverse intellectual interests, who has been around health care and medical school for much of my 20s. I’ve taken time off to deal with family issues. I’ve been thinking about whether or not the medical field in general is still right for me. Operational efficiency is important to me—that is I don’t want to spend a decade or more of my life working under poor leadership, operational, logistical, and financial mismanagement that leaves all the staff effectively miserable, and the patients endlessly waiting.
I’m asking about specific skill sets in medical research or biomedical engineering, that are not obvious, setting people apart from the competition, and what hardships they must be willing to tolerate, permitting them to be in the top 10% percent.
According to my research the following traits are relevant:
—Understanding theory enough to interpret results, without needing statistical computation
—Understanding theory enough to improvise with fewer resources and meet deadlines
—Integrate 5–7 data types (genomic, clinical, environmental, etc.) per hypothesis, reducing time-to-insight by 89% compared to peers
—Strong overall communication and charisma skills
—Maintaining 3-5 viable solution pathways simultaneously during early problem framing phases, how they might coincide, accounting for major potential problems, resisting cognitive closure pressures
—Being able to switch between 3-5 concurrent projects without forgetting relevant information, or applying approaches that are relevant for one and not the other
—Presenting research and development setbacks as discoveries (unless they are so bad, its just incompetent)
—Starting research and development with incomplete information, and designing the process to yield valuable information regardless of the results
—Anticipating and planning for any issue with regulations/protocols and filing documentation accordingly
—Tolerance for +80 hour work weeks if ANY setbacks occur, and competing globally to accomplish the same things, with fewer resources, persisting through 5+ consecutive setbacks 89% longer than average researchers
—Tolerance for unpaid or underpaid work due to demand for extensive experience
—Candidates solving 70% of technical challenges instinctively then systematically addressing the remaining 30%
If anyone can expand on these with specific, insightful, no BS pointers, I would greatly appreciate it. I want a clear picture on whether or not someone should enter these fields.
I’m asking about specific skill sets in medical research or biomedical engineering, that are not obvious, setting people apart from the competition, and what hardships they must be willing to tolerate, permitting them to be in the top 10% percent.
According to my research the following traits are relevant:
—Understanding theory enough to interpret results, without needing statistical computation
—Understanding theory enough to improvise with fewer resources and meet deadlines
—Integrate 5–7 data types (genomic, clinical, environmental, etc.) per hypothesis, reducing time-to-insight by 89% compared to peers
—Strong overall communication and charisma skills
—Maintaining 3-5 viable solution pathways simultaneously during early problem framing phases, how they might coincide, accounting for major potential problems, resisting cognitive closure pressures
—Being able to switch between 3-5 concurrent projects without forgetting relevant information, or applying approaches that are relevant for one and not the other
—Presenting research and development setbacks as discoveries (unless they are so bad, its just incompetent)
—Starting research and development with incomplete information, and designing the process to yield valuable information regardless of the results
—Anticipating and planning for any issue with regulations/protocols and filing documentation accordingly
—Tolerance for +80 hour work weeks if ANY setbacks occur, and competing globally to accomplish the same things, with fewer resources, persisting through 5+ consecutive setbacks 89% longer than average researchers
—Tolerance for unpaid or underpaid work due to demand for extensive experience
—Candidates solving 70% of technical challenges instinctively then systematically addressing the remaining 30%
If anyone can expand on these with specific, insightful, no BS pointers, I would greatly appreciate it. I want a clear picture on whether or not someone should enter these fields.
Last edited:
