When/how did you know you wanted to do mainly research as a career?

[PurpleCow2016]

Hi everyone,

I'm currently taking a gap year and deciding whether or not to go MD or MD/PhD.
The 80/20 research clinical split and running a lab in the future is what I want to do the most, but I'm not sure whether or not I really love research enough to not quit/give up during the hard parts.

I say this because I've done bench research for 2 years in undergrad and I'm currently doing research over my 2 gap years, and I've had great experiences so far! I've been fortunate to work with great mentors, classmates, and feel like I have an idea of what its like to "do" research beyond just grunt work (designing experiments, seeing them through, trouble shooting, writing up results, presenting, etc).

I'm a little worried that with all of my positive experiences, I feel like I haven't really experienced the negative sides yet. Of course sometimes my experiments don't work out, but I've never felt the intense pressure of grant writing or publishing, as many, especially early career, scientists do.

Right now my dream job would be to do sensory/behavioral developmental neuroscience research pertaining to neurodevelopmental disorders. I know it's difficult to obtain this sort of dream, tenure-track, academia job, and it's not the ONLY thing I could see myself doing. I think I'd also be happy with a more clinical career, which is why I'm having doubts about going the MD/PhD path, as it seems that some people think that you must be 100% committed to research to make it.

I'd love to hear from people who've decided to go MD/PhD or have been through that route.
How did you know you loved research from your undergrad experience?
When/how did you know you wanted to fully commit to basically a full time research career? Or, if you applied and still had doubts, have you overcome them or do they still linger?

Thanks!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fencer]

About half of MD/PhD graduates do translational/clinical research. About 80% of MD/PhD graduates are involved in some research ranging from 100% to 1% FTE. If you pursue a MD/PhD route, followed by residency/fellowship (>95%) +/- research track, you will be facing that decision in about 15 years from now. There are many experiences and changes in your life that will make you do the best decision for you. During this gap year, focus on doing research while, if possible, shadow a few times in the year some clinician-scientists.

 

[PurpleCow2016]

About half of MD/PhD graduates do translational/clinical research. About 80% of MD/PhD graduates are involved in some research ranging from 100% to 1% FTE. If you pursue a MD/PhD route, followed by residency/fellowship (>95%) +/- research track, you will be facing that decision in about 15 years from now. There are many experiences and changes in your life that will make you do the best decision for you. During this gap year, focus on doing research while, if possible, shadow a few times in the year some clinician-scientists.

Thanks for your insight! Yeah I guess it's still a decision I don't have to make for a while haha. I'm just worried that I might go through the MD/PhD program and come out just wanting to do clinical research or no research at all, thus making the PhD years unnecessary. Basically, I'm trying to see if my level of commitment is normal for an MD/PhD applicant. Sometimes I get the sense from these forums that if you're not 100% committed to bench research, you shouldn't apply MD/PhD and I wonder if every applicant really felt 100% committed at the time!

 

[eteshoe]

Thanks for your insight! Yeah I guess it's still a decision I don't have to make for a while haha. I'm just worried that I might go through the MD/PhD program and come out just wanting to do clinical research or no research at all, thus making the PhD years unnecessary. Basically, I'm trying to see if my level of commitment is normal for an MD/PhD applicant. Sometimes I get the sense from these forums that if you're not 100% committed to bench research, you shouldn't apply MD/PhD and I wonder if every applicant really felt 100% committed at the time!

I didn't feel 100% committed at the start (maybe 90%) but then how can one be absolutely sure in their early 20s? You basically commit to a 15 yr training path with this pathway and a lot of things can happen in that time period (You really gotta roll with the punches,~4.5 yrs in and still going strong). The advantage though is that a PhD gives you some protected time to develop your research skills, make mistakes, and gives you an opportunity to see what it takes to be a (successful?) independent investigator (definitely apply for fellowships if you choose this path - it will open your eyes for real). I've had friends who have finished and decided no more research or no more medicine or gone into industry - it happens.

Going with a straight MD and taking a research year during med school or tacking some additional research years during residency/fellowship can also result in similar training albeit a steeper learning curve and less room for error. As @Fencer said focus on your research for now and shadow - there's plenty of time (at least before things reach a critical point). If your doubts continue, apply MD only since there's more than one way to become a physician scientist (though realistically speaking it's a long path regardless of how you skin that cat) and the dual degree path can be grueling.

 

[SurfingDoctor]

I didn't go down the MD/PhD route, so I suppose I have a slightly different perspective. I have done research in undergrad through an biology honor program, in medical school through a summer research fellowship, but honestly, while I enjoyed those experiences (for the most), I didn't really get into research till residency. The irony of that being that I really didn't do research in residency (just a small clinical project). I think I went into school thinking that medicine was all about problem solving. Someone comes to you with complaint "X" and you figure out it disease "Y" and treat. However, I soon recognized during residency there was very little problem solving in that. The obvious things are usually obvious and relatively easy to treat (and nowadays tend to be protocolized in their treatments which means it requires no thought) and the hard things tend to be so hard, that modern medicine doesn't have a treatment for them (at least in the ICU setting). So you aren't left with much daily problem solving and often when you are presented with a very complex clinical problem, either the answer is elusive based on current knowledge or the process is not treatable. Research has the ability to fulfill those gaps for me. You get to think up questions constantly, you get to test them and then see if you are right. If you aren't, well that's okay because troubleshooting a problem is half the fun, and if you right (or if you hypothesis leads you to a different, albeit truthful, conclusion) than you get to add to the medical knowledge and maybe, just maybe, discover something really cool. Nowadays, I can't imagine not doing research... but if the coffers run dry, the MD always allows for a fallback.

 

[OxToCA]

but if the coffers run dry, the MD always allows for a fallback.

Interesting point. Someone with finance experience should project out the coffers for the next 10 years, IMO; e.g. since we know what proportion of the $25 billion NIH budget https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget MDs and MD/PhDs receive versus PhDs (30% https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/04/27/does-your-degree-matter/ per ), and PhDs will continue to outpace MDs and MD/PhDs for basic science grant applications as more of them graduate than MDs and MD/PhDs and in turn submit grant applications per , based on decreased basic science (can someone find this?) and increased translational research funding from the NIH https://www.genomeweb.com/policy-legislation/president-obama-signs-21st-century-cures-act-law ($1.4 billion for precision medicine, $1.8 billion for cancer nanotechnology & immunology, and $1.6 billion for translational neuroscience, $500 million to the FDA for regulatory science http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/) you could estimate basic science versus translational research funding likelihoods for MDs and MD/PhDs versus PhDs similar to .

By doing so, we wouldn't "have to fight tooth and nail for it, give up a lot of salary, be ready to move anywhere, anytime, and struggle to have even a chance at a research career as you push age 40+" https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/mid-tier-md-phd-vs-top-tier-phd.1232459/#post-18441093 after jumping blindly into certain research areas.

MD/PhDs in basic science are right to be worried; look at the trends for the increase in grant applications versus the decline in their success rates by degree type and, from what appears to be coming in the future, decreased basic science funding from the NIH that @Neuronix has been alluding to https://forums.studentdoctor.net/th...-programs-program-size.1235061/#post-18456407 & https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/mid-tier-md-phd-vs-top-tier-phd.1232459/#post-18441093 e.g. https://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx.

Additionally, with Trump's election people think that biotech stock performance will increase and create a market for translational research products http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/...rs-big-gains-for-biotech-stocks/#5a1e55726c9c, which will more or less synergize with NIH/FDA translational research funding. There are also a lot of private sector investments in the same areas occurring (e.g. areas the OP wants to do research in http://www.caltech.edu/news/caltech...te-launch-major-neuroscience-initiative-53124).

 

[gbwillner]

If you've been doing solid research for 4 years now and think it is great, you will probably be fine. Go for it.