Why choose an MD/PhD in Bioengineering/Biomedical Engineering?

[studentdoctornetwork]

I'm interested in pursuing bioengineering for my graduate program. I am not too interested in an extremely basic project and it seems that most of the more translational projects in topics such as tissue regeneration/drug delivery that I have an interest in fall under the bioengineering programs at the schools I'm interested in. I also feel like the coursework is more interesting, since I appreciate a quantitative approach to biological problems. I always wanted to do BME in undergrad, but decided not to since I wanted to preserve my GPA as much as possible... I'd also rather take graduate courses with math/CS instead of basic biology, especially after having already taken such classes during my first two years of medical school.

However, graduation time is definitely concern. I have talked to some program directors and they often recommend that students complete a related program with fewer requirements, but still work in a BME lab. If this is possible, I am wondering why doesn't everybody just do this? Why do people even pursue a BME PhD if you can do the same work as a biology PhD but without all the requirements. The only rational I can see is that if a school has similar course requirements for their more basic biology programs as well. In that case, if the program requirements are equivalent between BME and the life sciences, it might make sense to take coursework in a topic you're more interested in.

Otherwise, what's the point? For all the BME MD/PhDs out there... why did you choose BME, especially if you could have done the same work under a different department? Are you all working on projects that are heavily focused on biomechanics/bioprosthetics? Also, would your project have to be different depending on your program even if you work in the same lab. For example, as a BME your project could be focused on designing a system to deliver a drug... but if you worked in the same lab as a pharmocology student, would your project have to be focused on assessing the pathways affected by this drug?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[OxToCA]

Great screen name. I applied to BME over pharmacology programs this year since the field I'm interested in is pretty new/specialized like the ones you mentioned, and they have pre-existing grant support e.g. http://hst.mit.edu/academics/memp/training-programs/neuroimaging (which gives you more freedom in choosing a lab); here's an example of another with a concentration in imaging http://www.be.seas.upenn.edu/about-research/index.php versus its equivalent in the pharmacology department http://www.med.upenn.edu/ggps/admission.shtml. Also, PI's I've known in pharmacology departments with PhDs in BME were doing more technical and computer-related work compared to those with pharmacology and similar degrees, and I don't really like wet-lab work; technical/computer work and translational research are in high demand these days. To shorten your time in training and increase your candidacy, try to gain research experience beforehand. For the more competitive programs, its more or less required.

 

[eteshoe]

Nothing useful to add. Just how is it that NO one has picked that screen name in the last 17-18 years that SDN has been around (it's awesome though)?

 

[studentdoctornetwork]

Great screen name. I applied to BME over pharmacology programs this year since the field I'm interested in is pretty new/specialized like the ones you mentioned, and they have pre-existing grant support e.g. http://hst.mit.edu/academics/memp/training-programs/neuroimaging (which gives you more freedom in choosing a lab); here's an example of another with a concentration in imaging http://www.be.seas.upenn.edu/about-research/index.php versus its equivalent in the pharmacology department http://www.med.upenn.edu/ggps/admission.shtml. Also, PI's I've known in pharmacology departments with PhDs in BME were doing more technical and computer-related work compared to those with pharmacology and similar degrees, and I don't really like wet-lab work; technical/computer work and translational research are in high demand these days. To shorten your time in training and increase your candidacy, try to gain research experience beforehand. For the more competitive programs, its more or less required.

Right. Neuroimaging, I can understand why you would choose a BME PhD. But I'm wondering for folks interested in tissue engineering/drug delivery, isn't it better to choose to pursue pharmacology or cellular biology, instead of BME. Why would you choose BME in this scenario?

Personally, I am interested in optimizing therapeutics, rather than understanding all the pathways or how the specific way molecule X binds receptor Y. The way I see it, I can understand disease affect on a cellular level, but someone still needs to translate that knowledge into a useful therapeutic. I'd rather be the guy who figures out how to take what is out there and design viable therapeutic strategies. It's important to do this in an efficient, cost-effective way, so that it can be clinically relevant. From what I understand, this is sort of what bioengineering is, with the idea being to design systems with practical translational applications.

Is a focus in BME recommended in that case, vs one in pharm/biology, assuming I work in the same lab? Any feedback from people who focused on tissue regeneration/drug delivery/biomaterials/cellular engineering during their PhD?

And as far as the name, I'm not sure how it was still available when I chose it.

 

[tortuga87]

I was in a similar situation. I would suggest that you do BME simply because it is the last chance that you get. A BME PhD also gives your more opportunities in general. While your basic biology colleagues will be struggling to get K-awards post residency, you will be second guessing whether you should really be a professor post-PhD given the many attractive industry options which let you be less of a grant writer/teacher and more of an engineer. There is a reason why becoming a professor in engineering is easier than in the basic sciences in general.

Program directors want you to graduate early, so they can submit nice statistics to the NIH for their grant renewals. This may run counter to your interests of becoming the best bioengineer you can with protected time. Many BME people do just complete a basic biology PhD; this strategy however only really benefits people with prior bioengineering training. You might want to seriously consider whether doing what is essentially a basic biology undergrad and then a basic biology PhD would really make you a bioengineer. Expect your PhD to take longer than you basic biology counterparts because you will have more catching up to do.

CS and math are immense fields. It is very hard to just study it all on your own without any background knowledge. What will happen is probably this - you will buy some good books from Amazon, and then go through them very slowly. Then you will doubt whether you have truly learned the material when you are finally done with the book, e.g., because you find some course webpages online whose HW assignments are very difficult. Hence, with this strategy, you will be learning longer in the long run.

Either you do a basic biology PhD, have to take some useless biology classes + interesting CS/math classes, or you do BME the right way by taking BME courses. Think about it carefully according to what you want to do. It seems that your research fits neatly into a BME program however, just from what I have read.

 

[Lucca]

I was in a similar situation. I would suggest that you do BME simply because it is the last chance that you get. A BME PhD also gives your more opportunities in general. While your basic biology colleagues will be struggling to get K-awards post residency, you will be second guessing whether you should really be a professor post-PhD given the many attractive industry options which let you be less of a grant writer/teacher and more of an engineer. There is a reason why becoming a professor in engineering is easier than in the basic sciences in general.

Program directors want you to graduate early, so they can submit nice statistics to the NIH for their grant renewals. This may run counter to your interests of becoming the best bioengineer you can with protected time. Many BME people do just complete a basic biology PhD; this strategy however only really benefits people with prior bioengineering training. You might want to seriously consider whether doing what is essentially a basic biology undergrad and then a basic biology PhD would really make you a bioengineer. Expect your PhD to take longer than you basic biology counterparts because you will have more catching up to do.

CS and math are immense fields. It is very hard to just study it all on your own without any background knowledge. What will happen is probably this - you will buy some good books from Amazon, and then go through them very slowly. Then you will doubt whether you have truly learned the material when you are finally done with the book, e.g., because you find some course webpages online whose HW assignments are very difficult. Hence, with this strategy, you will be learning longer in the long run.

Either you do a basic biology PhD, have to take some useless biology classes + interesting CS/math classes, or you do BME the right way by taking BME courses. Think about it carefully according to what you want to do. It seems that your research fits neatly into a BME program however, just from what I have read.

If a career in industry as an engineer is more appealing, why bother with the MD? I interpreted the question as being why anybody does an *MD* /PhD in BmE. Obviously there are many good reasons to get a PhD in BME as a non-engineering undergrad

 

[daolso]

Right. Neuroimaging, I can understand why you would choose a BME PhD. But I'm wondering for folks interested in tissue engineering/drug delivery, isn't it better to choose to pursue pharmacology or cellular biology, instead of BME. Why would you choose BME in this scenario?

Personally, I am interested in optimizing therapeutics, rather than understanding all the pathways or how the specific way molecule X binds receptor Y. The way I see it, I can understand disease affect on a cellular level, but someone still needs to translate that knowledge into a useful therapeutic. I'd rather be the guy who figures out how to take what is out there and design viable therapeutic strategies. It's important to do this in an efficient, cost-effective way, so that it can be clinically relevant. From what I understand, this is sort of what bioengineering is, with the idea being to design systems with practical translational applications.

Is a focus in BME recommended in that case, vs one in pharm/biology, assuming I work in the same lab? Any feedback from people who focused on tissue regeneration/drug delivery/biomaterials/cellular engineering during their PhD?

And as far as the name, I'm not sure how it was still available when I chose it.

It's true, tissue engineering (my research field) is often done outside of BME. But it can be as quantitative and physical as you want it to be. Biomechanics and material properties plays a huge role in cell behavior. And those are topics a BME PhD will definitely encompass. Whether or not you want to get into the physical modeling (I do not) a stronger knowledge of polymer physics, synthesis, reaction kinetics, transport phenomena, etc can be helpful in experimental design. Knowledge of computer science and devices too.

Even if not, they are fun to learn! There is nothing wrong with focusing on the biology. And many biologists are very competent at the mathematical side of things. But just like the MD/PhD theoretically helps interfacing between medicine and research, training in biomedical engineering allows you to work between biology and engineering. The lab I work in has collaborations with basic stem cell biologists, mathematical modelers, pharmaceutical and engineering companies and startups.

Being in a BME department is just a convenient way to surround yourself with like-minded individuals and to learn a different view of biomedical science. The course load is (a bit) higher. I think we have to take four full, 3-credit-hour classes? A few other odd things (seminar, literature analysis, ethics, stats, etc). To be honest, I haven't minded (I always wish I could take more!), but I can imagine it has reduced my productivity somewhat as compared to someone with less occupied time.