Why do you need BOTH degrees?

[Garrison1]

---

Members don't see this ad.

How do you guys go about answering this question?
And what are some valid reasons to get bot the md and the phd?

 

[Circumflex]

How do you guys go about answering this question?
And what are some valid reasons to get bot the md and the phd?

First, I don't think anyone needs both degrees to do good science. I wanted both degrees because I wanted training to be a true physician-scientist. Again, both degrees aren't necessary for this route. But, a PhD provides protected time to really learn how to be a scientist, not just how to do research. I wanted to learn how to approach problems from a basic science as well as clinical perspective. I wanted to learn how to critically read the literature and know what is feasible. I wanted to learn how to design solid experiments that lead to new knowledge.

The great thing about PhD training is that you can make it what you want. You can pick a lab with some cool models that allow you to crank out data and papers. You can pick a lab (PI) that allows you to do safe and risky projects that lead to cool new discoveries. You can learn how to write grants, give effective talks, start collaborations, write papers, etc. You can also pick labs that work closely with clinicians doing translational work.

It is possible to have a meaningful reseach experience as a clinical fellow, but you will never have the protected time to spread your wings, be creative, take chances, and delve into the literature as you do during PhD training.

Having the perspective of a scientist and clinician is invaluable in tackling tough clinical problems in the lab to make discoveries for new diagnostics and therapies. Although we gain so much from animal models, nothing can come about without studying disease in patients.

 

[Hohenheim]

Some of the PhDs arent lab based research PhDs. My answer isnt so much the lab time, as being inculcated in the culture of theoretical thinking. Many ordinary Doctors just dont get theory. But if you are doing a social science PhD with your MD etc, you will come up against theory. I think the purpose of getting the MD along with the PhD is to expose yourself to the underlying philosophical aspect of practice.

 

[wildfocus]

this was the HARDEST question i was asked in my interviews and by other grad students. the vet field wants more DVM/PhDs (there is a national need for them everywhere - from food inspection to public heath departments to comparative med to conservation), but there aren't very many DVM slots to begin with, so how to convince them that i shouldn't go "just" PhD?

my answer was (still is) that i need to have the medical perspective and understanding for each of the species i will work with - to be able to diagnose and treat (where indicated). on a personal note, i have also been working at an animal hospital for 8 years as a tech and i LOVE vet med - wouldn't want to be away from it despite being devoted to research. it seemed, for me, that a joint program was a marriage of two things i enjoy doing most!

 

[wildfocus]

Although we gain so much from animal models, nothing can come about without studying disease in patients.

heehee - for me it's the opposite... we can apply human modeling (of how diseases naturally spread from person to person "in the wild"), but need to study it directly in animal populations to really understand the dynamics of disease transmission.

 

[philosopherdoc]

How do you guys go about answering this question?
And what are some valid reasons to get bot the md and the phd?

Garrison,

You should think of a good answer when considering this question. The road on this journey is long and hard, but you shouldn't do it because of it being difficult or prestigious. I'm not saying you are, but to seriously consider why a program such as this is worth it. (My two cents),

 

[greg12345]

You don't need both. It is somewhat of an advantage to do the traditional MSTP training track if you are going to pursue basic science research with a translational focus. Plenty of straight MDs do it just fine, although they will have a steeper learning curve during their fellowship years, particularly if they have never had any research experience/grant writing experience prior. I don't know if I would do it over again if I had the chance.

 

[toby jones]

because learning is fun 🙂

 

[Marquis_Phoenix]

Since we're on this point. Perhaps somebody can critique my plan.

MD/PhD, MD will provide an understanding of the potential markets and needs, PhD will lead to the hopeful discovery of something, make friends with MBAs that will go onto become venture capitalists later on in life, start up a biotech in my late 40's, and see the translation through. =)

A truly translational career? This is what MD/PhD was meant for =P

 

[SaltySqueegee]

Arguably the best comment so far. A small aside, we have a few attendings performing research in our lab in order to gain "research experience" to put on their applications for fellowships into sub-specialties. Sadly, most of their research experience consists of them observing us do our experiments, or them splitting the cells or extracting RNA from tissue samples. Very little, and I mean VERY little theoretical training and reasoning behind implementation of various methodologies is thrust upon MDs that did not also do a PhD in the Biomedical Sciences.

The PhD will give you the protected time to figure out what is feasible in science, and what is not, given the tools available.

First, I don't think anyone needs both degrees to do good science. I wanted both degrees because I wanted training to be a true physician-scientist. Again, both degrees aren't necessary for this route. But, a PhD provides protected time to really learn how to be a scientist, not just how to do research. I wanted to learn how to approach problems from a basic science as well as clinical perspective. I wanted to learn how to critically read the literature and know what is feasible. I wanted to learn how to design solid experiments that lead to new knowledge.

The great thing about PhD training is that you can make it what you want. You can pick a lab with some cool models that allow you to crank out data and papers. You can pick a lab (PI) that allows you to do safe and risky projects that lead to cool new discoveries. You can learn how to write grants, give effective talks, start collaborations, write papers, etc. You can also pick labs that work closely with clinicians doing translational work.

It is possible to have a meaningful reseach experience as a clinical fellow, but you will never have the protected time to spread your wings, be creative, take chances, and delve into the literature as you do during PhD training.

Having the perspective of a scientist and clinician is invaluable in tackling tough clinical problems in the lab to make discoveries for new diagnostics and therapies. Although we gain so much from animal models, nothing can come about without studying disease in patients.

 

[greg12345]

2 years of research time with an outstanding mentor during your fellowship who has a track record of letting their trainees take their projects once they move on and producing good investigators (and not all big shot researchers who publish a lot meet these criteria) would be just as valuable as a 3-5 year PhD with a mediocre mentor. The PhD definitely helps and gives you a huge advantage, don't get me wrong, but in my opinion 2 years of research time with the right mentor is sufficient to get you up to speed to compete on equal footing with PhDs. Plus you don't have to suffer through an MSTP, although I guess you will be looking at 200,000 in debt.

 

[toby jones]

Don't you guys get funded scholarships to do the PhD?

 

[hawkeey]

This is a question that you will be asked during the interview. The best answer is that there is some kind of synergy of having both degrees. You get both the breadth and the depth of knowledge. You can be a more informed, critically thinking doctor. You will have better insight as a scientist into pathologies, etc.