which research ..?

[nkool]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Hi All..
This is my first post. i'm thinking of doing the clinical or the basic research at mount sinai. In the clinical research you just collecet data, schedule appointment,directing study subjects, patient recruitment. and in basic you work in lab like cell culture preparation, northern, southern or western blots, gel electrophoresis and DNA sequencing.
so, my question is when filling apllication should i fill it as research experience? i'm soo confused...🙁
And which research would be best basic or the clinical one..?
Thank You..

 

[armybound]

It sounds like research experience to me... seeing as it's a research position.

You should do the one that interests you the most.

 

[nkool]

Thanks armybound...but what if they put me in a position of scheduling appointments. would that also be considered research experience? and then if i choose to do basic research ..would that be better than scheduling appointments?

 

[armybound]

are the appointments part of a process that's being done for research? if I were you I'd ask them what your role in the "research" would be, and if wouldn't be contributing in such a way that you could get your name on a publication, I wouldn't do it (if you're doing this simply for research experience)

 

[plsletmein]

Thanks armybound...but what if they put me in a position of scheduling appointments. would that also be considered research experience? and then if i choose to do basic research ..would that be better than scheduling appointments?

If you're just scheduling appointments, I don't think they will consider it research. If you put it on your application, and you're asked about it in interviews after listing it as "research" and you tell them you only scheduled appointments, I think they will just give you a weird look and there will just be an awkward moment

Try to do more than just scheduling appointments- be proactive and insist on more than just phone duty 🙂

and of course basic science research is better than scheduling appointments...

 

[pietachok]

Most likely there aren't going to be jobs for a volunteer where *all* you do is schedule appts. If that were the case, someone outside of research could to it. There is something about the appts that requires knowledge of the investigative visits/care...you will likely work with the patietns at visits to gain this knowledge.

I personally would take the clinical position, but also b/c that is more interesting to me. If you aren't planning on doing bench research after getting your MD, then it isn't as informative for you.

And to whomever said that you shouldn't take a research position unless you can get your name on a publication, that's bunk. It's nice to get your name on a publication, but a pre-med can get a lot out of a clinical research position without getting published. Even if you were promised a publication, it is quite likely it wouldn't be published in time for your application! Indeed, I'd probably rather have an extra close relationship with a well-respected professor of medicine at MSSM so s/he can write me a great LOR than have a publication. If the clinical research is pharmaceutical company sponsored, it is quite unlikely that any research assistants will get their name on it. You can always put on your AMCAS that you contributed to the data collection yielding publication X published by PharmaCompany-Y, and you worked on pharma-sponsored projects A, B, C...often this gives you far more scope of experience and the research is known to be highly organized and legit. Investigator initiated projects can often be a mess, sometimes don't get good enough results to publish, and if they do get published it can take a LONG time. If you're going to be happy doing volunteer research, you should value the experience and what you learn through it, not just the outcome!

 

[armybound]

And to whomever said that you shouldn't take a research position unless you can get your name on a publication, that's bunk.

re-read what I said.

 

[Caprica6]

Take the position your more interested in. I think med schools like to see either, the benefit of clinical research is that you have patient contact. How much patient contact would you have with this clinical position? From your post it sounds like you may be more behind the scenes. Having bench research is also great, as long as your not just washing test tubes. I have 3+ years full time bench work and I definately wouldn't trade it for something else.

I think armybound was trying to say its research if the contribution your making could potentially get your name on a publication. That is beneficial. That's different than actually getting a publication. Which contrary to the posts on here, most people applying to medical school don't have. Oh, I'm sure there are some people who have first authors in a top tier journal, but those 2nd/3rd authors, 1st authors in a crap journal, postor presentations at regional conferences where all the undergrad schools are invited, not that impressive.

 

[pietachok]

re-read what I said.

I did. And I still don't agree with you. You can do the clinical research b/c you are interested in improving your patient contact, or interested in seeing more how physician researchers balance their day to day practice without being particularly interested in the topic of the research. And...you can't always predict what will interest you before you are immersed in it.

I took a job in gastroenterology research b/c it was the only option I had to get out of another job. I assumed it would be unappealing to be dealing with bowel disorders and doubly so to manage stool samples. Of course there's nothing pleasant about the latter, but the job has been more informative, motivating, etc. than I ever could have predicted before I took it.