Which research position looks better?

[jsmith1]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Does it matter what type of research you do in undergrad? I am currently deciding between doing research in a lab that studies insects or in a child psychology lab. For the insect lab I would just collect data but it seems to involve a lot more "hard science" than a psychology lab. I would also just be doing data collection for the psych lab. Are med schools less impressed with psych research since it is "hard core science"?

 

[NotAsking4Much]

Honestly, whatever gets your name on a paper/abstract/journal/award/grant/etc.

If I had to rank them: bench science paper > clinical paper (if of equal value and number...though it's much harder and riskier to get a good bench science paper out) >>> no paper.

 

[Lollygag]

If you are talking about child psychology in a neuroscience/biological/clinical research way then it may be okay. If its child psychology as in you ask some people some questions, gather the data and then make a graph (as in no real science stuff) then I don't think it is "valued" as much as research done in a lab or in a "science" setting.

If you are going to publish in child psychology tho and you want to show adcoms how you aspire to be a pediatrician.. Then that may be up for debate.

 

[Si Se Puede]

The MAIN thing you need to ask yourself is "DO I WANT TO BE A TOOL??"

If you are doing nothing but data collection, then you are nothing more than a tool. Whenever I scouted out research labs, I was very direct about their expectations and my expectations and what I would be doing in the lab. It is OK to be a tool while you learn but make sure the PI will give you room for advancement and eventually your own project. Obviously almost all undergrads must "pay their dues" before receiving their own project...just make sure the PI will not hold you back in the long run.

A good researcher is not one who can collect data, but one who has the capacity to steer a project, troubleshoot, and analyze the data and fit it into the bigger picture. My eight year old daughter could do the bench work... 😀

 

[IslandStyle808]

The one thing that really annoys me is this ideology among pre-meds and med students that only a publication matters. A publication is not only a privilege but a RESPONSIBILITY.

As soon as you put your name on that paper, you share responsibility that comes with the paper. For example, if your professor or your colleagues fudge or misrepresent the data on the paper, don't think that they will only get the blame. You will also share this burden because you put your name on the authors list (not as heavily but to some degree). This "red mark" will follow you if you apply for PhD programs and employment at universities as a post-doc (I can't make a statement on medical schools or residency programs but it definitely affect one's placement in academia). It is always good to know what has been done at each point of the study. This will show you whether or not the paper has been done with accuracy and quality.

The better way to look at it is that your name on that paper is your stamp of approval. If that paper becomes invalid, your stamp loses its value.

 

[Ruhroh]

The MAIN thing you need to ask yourself is "DO I WANT TO BE A TOOL??"

If you are doing nothing but data collection, then you are nothing more than a tool. Whenever I scouted out research labs, I was very direct about their expectations and my expectations and what I would be doing in the lab. It is OK to be a tool while you learn but make sure the PI will give you room for advancement and eventually your own project. Obviously almost all undergrads must "pay their dues" before receiving their own project...just make sure the PI will not hold you back in the long run.

A good researcher is not one who can collect data, but one who has the capacity to steer a project, troubleshoot, and analyze the data and fit it into the bigger picture. My eight year old daughter could do the bench work... 😀

Most scientists are 'tools' for years at the beginning of their careers. The project is steered by someone who likely has years more experience in a field, and 99% of the time knows better than you possibly could how to get results for a certain question. At this stage in our young lives, there is no shame in doing bench work with only a minor cerebral input into the project. With time and proficiency in whatever techniques, you will move on and gain and more responsibility, but that takes years.

 

[lobo.solo]

IMO, I think it matters more that you do something you're genuinely interested in.

 

[NotAsking4Much]

The one thing that really annoys me is this ideology among pre-meds and med students that only a publication matters. A publication is not only a privilege but a RESPONSIBILITY.

As soon as you put your name on that paper, you share responsibility that comes with the paper. For example, if your professor or your colleagues fudge or misrepresent the data on the paper, don't think that they will only get the blame. You will also share this burden because you put your name on the authors list (not as heavily but to some degree). This "red mark" will follow you if you apply for PhD programs and employment at universities as a post-doc (I can't make a statement on medical schools or residency programs but it definitely affect one's placement in academia). It is always good to know what has been done at each point of the study. This will show you whether or not the paper has been done with accuracy and quality.

The better way to look at it is that your name on that paper is your stamp of approval. If that paper becomes invalid, your stamp loses its value.

Ok true, but hopefully you have the sense not to work for someone you think is clearly fudging data. Why publications matter: one guy can work for "6 yrs" in a lab which can mean he sat around and did nothing or washed dishes. Having a name on something implies you had some responsibility and initiative.

Unless you are a PD for residencies who is getting annoyed at my advice, I can say in most cases, advisors and residents have told me getting something meaningful (implying you have something to show) goes well and beyond anything. Heck, when you apply for residency, you submit a CV. Research experience doesn't mean much but quantity/quality in that publication means very much.

 

[Ansar]

The MAIN thing you need to ask yourself is "DO I WANT TO BE A TOOL??"

If you are doing nothing but data collection, then you are nothing more than a tool. Whenever I scouted out research labs, I was very direct about their expectations and my expectations and what I would be doing in the lab. It is OK to be a tool while you learn but make sure the PI will give you room for advancement and eventually your own project. Obviously almost all undergrads must "pay their dues" before receiving their own project...just make sure the PI will not hold you back in the long run.

A good researcher is not one who can collect data, but one who has the capacity to steer a project, troubleshoot, and analyze the data and fit it into the bigger picture. My eight year old daughter could do the bench work... 😀

Me gusta tu username 👍

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If you are talking about child psychology in a neuroscience/biological/clinical research way then it may be okay. If its child psychology as in you ask some people some questions, gather the data and then make a graph (as in no real science stuff) then I don't think it is "valued" as much as research done in a lab or in a "science" setting.

If you are going to publish in child psychology tho and you want to show adcoms how you aspire to be a pediatrician.. Then that may be up for debate.

🙄

Science is the process by which you develop new understandings of the world, as long as something uses the scientific method at its core, then it is science. That being said field research is also important for many fields, animal behavior, evolutionary/ecology biology, and many social research laboratories turn to field work to see how things really work. It's similar to how bench work in a petri dish shows some effect, and yet fails horribly in field trials.

Also the second notion is absurd. Lets remember that the importance of research as an experience for an undergraduate, is not based within the material or field, but rather in learning how science works in a practical setting.

IMO, I think it matters more that you do something you're genuinely interested in.

As with all things, do something you're particularly interested in doing. If it somehow coincides with your personal goals for the future, then +1. But seriously, I would rather gut myself than work in a molecular biology lab running PCR on an industrial level.

 

[Lollygag]

🙄

Science is the process by which you develop new understandings of the world, as long as something uses the scientific method at its core, then it is science. That being said field research is also important for many fields, animal behavior, evolutionary/ecology biology, and many social research laboratories turn to field work to see how things really work. It's similar to how bench work in a petri dish shows some effect, and yet fails horribly in field trials.

Also the second notion is absurd. Lets remember that the importance of research as an experience for an undergraduate, is not based within the material or field, but rather in learning how science works in a practical setting.



As with all things, do something you're particularly interested in doing. If it somehow coincides with your personal goals for the future, then +1. But seriously, I would rather gut myself than work in a molecular biology lab running PCR on an industrial level.

But in reality, when you are faced with an adcom member who does extensive research in a laboratory setting, I've heard that they would appreciate the laboratory science more.

I hear it all the time on SDN how some members of an adcom prefer laboratory research over clinical research even though clinical research is still medically related. If they could feel that way about a form of research in their own field I can only imagine how they would feel about research in an entirely different field that is often (whether true or not) judged to be easier than lab research.

I'm not saying an adcom would not appreciate the psych research so I apologize if I came off that way. I'm saying that its likely they will appreciate the lab research more.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

But in reality, when you are faced with an adcom member who does extensive research in a laboratory setting, I've heard that they would appreciate the laboratory science more.

Your ADCOM could also be an ethicist who writes books. So you should also write a book about ethics? And again, most research laboratories in psychology are lab based, not field work. Yes, they do not involve you injecting wells with proteins, but they look for valid data in controlled experiments.

I hear it all the time on SDN how some members of an adcom prefer laboratory research over clinical research even though clinical research is still medically related. If they could feel that way about a form of research in their own field I can only imagine how they would feel about research in an entirely different field that is often (whether true or not) judged to be easier than lab research.

They prefer it over clinical work mostly because clinical work is applied. There is somewhat of a thing between bench work researchers and applied researchers. I.e one thinks the other is stupid because they study something small and worthless, while the other thinks the other is stupid because the other one doesn't really know anything and to the benchwork guy they might not consider it research evem. It's less to do with the field per say as the same occurs in every field from psych to audiology/hearing science to physical science. etc.

I'm not saying an adcom would not appreciate the psych research so I apologize if I came off that way. I'm saying that its likely they will appreciate the lab research more.

As I've said, this work is lab work. It's just not biological lab work, which is fine.

 

[Lollygag]

As I've said, this work is lab work. It's just not biological lab work, which is fine.

Fair enough *waiving white flag*

Just for clarification-- this is how top tier research schools view the subject as well?

 

[NotAsking4Much]

Fair enough *waiving white flag*

Just for clarification-- this is how top tier research schools view the subject as well?

No not really.
I know this is cliche but it all comes down to passion.

Bench science is just done more because there's less of a entrance barrier. Clinical science often involves stats, some medical knowledge, trials, procedure techniques, basic epi, etc that a student in undergrad might not have yet. It doesn't take much to learn how to follow a protocol or cut mice open after watching a few times.

In bench science, it's so specific that what you are researching is probably unheard of outside that field anyways, aka the guy interviewing you has no idea.

It's really simple. Do what you find most interesting, has a good mentor!!!, and will have something to show for it in the end. You can weave a story on anything. Even if it's child psych, there's no reason why you can't tell interviewers a story on why you're interested in child psych. As long as it's good research with some sort of faculty, no one will fault you for it.

If I had to do it all over again, I would totally do clinical work.

 

[Praefectus]

Do both. At the same time.

 

[lobo.solo]

No not really.
I know this is cliche but it all comes down to passion.

Bench science is just done more because there's less of a entrance barrier. Clinical science often involves stats, some medical knowledge, trials, procedure techniques, basic epi, etc that a student in undergrad might not have yet. It doesn't take much to learn how to follow a protocol or cut mice open after watching a few times.

In bench science, it's so specific that what you are researching is probably unheard of outside that field anyways, aka the guy interviewing you has no idea.

It's really simple. Do what you find most interesting, has a good mentor!!!, and will have something to show for it in the end. You can weave a story on anything. Even if it's child psych, there's no reason why you can't tell interviewers a story on why you're interested in child psych. As long as it's good research with some sort of faculty, no one will fault you for it.

If I had to do it all over again, I would totally do clinical work.

This^. I had the opportunity to get on a stem cell lab, but chose to do public health instead, which is something I'm interested in as a career path. Clinical research and or child psychology research for that matter could be more relevant to your job as physician, if you learn how to interview, how to do focus groups, collecting other sorts of data. Again this my opinion, but like I said; I would recommend do something you're interested in and enjoy

 

[MSTPlease]

Most scientists are 'tools' for years at the beginning of their careers. The project is steered by someone who likely has years more experience in a field, and 99% of the time knows better than you possibly could how to get results for a certain question. At this stage in our young lives, there is no shame in doing bench work with only a minor cerebral input into the project. With time and proficiency in whatever techniques, you will move on and gain and more responsibility, but that takes years.

You're right, the PI or the Post-Doc is going to have much larger input than any undergrad ever will but the point about "not being a tool" is still very valid. When I interviewed people to replace me at the research job I had before starting my MD/PhD, there was one candidate who really exemplified the idea that they were just a tool (I prefer to call them "a set of hands"). The guy had listed that he had experience in a genetics lab, so I asked him to tell me about it:

Him: "We did PCR."
Me: "Ok, but what were you looking at?"
Him: "Well we were running PCR on different genes."
Me: "...What genes were you looking at?"
Him: "Well I was assisting a graduate student so we were looking at the genes he was studying."

I'll spare you the rest. Needless to say this kid had no idea what was going on. I'm sure if you handed him the materials he could efficiently perform a PCR but the fact is he was just an extra set of hands for some grad student. He had zero input and in fact did not even know what he was actually doing. He could not explain what or why he did anything. Obviously he didn't get the job.

As an undergrad, your goal is to learn how research is performed. It's ok if every decision is made/approved by someone else but you have to be involved in the process. You should at least be able to tell me why every decision is made and even if you would be wrong, you should be able to at least give a somewhat reasonable answer to questions about designing/furthering the project. Real scientists do take years to train but by the end of undergrad you should be able to handle small scale project planning (e.g. figuring out the next step based on your results). If you are at this level, you will certainly not sound like the guy above.

A good LOR from your prof will do way more than a paper. Papers are certainly nice but there is so much out of your control that goes into it that it's not what defines an experience. For example I worked for 2 months as a data analyst using data from a clinical trial. The paper to publish that clinical trial took 6 years from the start of the trial until the paper was ready to submit, but the epidemiology work I did on data from the entry questionnaires generated 2 papers in 2 months. Since the 2 papers I was on used data from the clinical trial, they couldn't be submitted until the clinical trial was accepted. There was some administrative issue with the clinical trial such that the 2 papers with my name on it didn't get submitted until recently (5 years after we finished drafting them).

As long as you sound like you were involved in the planning and analysis of the research, the experience will help with your app. What field or type you do doesn't really matter.