Why MD/PhD if you can do research with MD

[IWANT2BMD]

I have an MD PHD interview in like 2 days, and I was told to prepare the answer to "why MD PHD if you can do plenty of resarch with MD?" Someone please help me. I have a general idea, however, I need a good, thorugh, convincing answer. Any have any advice? Also, can you state some benefits one may get out of completing an MD PhD in opposed to merely an MD?

THANKS!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TheRealMD]

Well, a MD/PhD is a formal research program that gives you time to focus on your research interests and work with a research prof at your med school. It's a lot better structured than getting your MD then PhD down the road or vice versa. I guess MD/PhD programs do a better job at integrating the two degree plans?

However, the other pertinent question is why do MD/PhD when a PhD is often just as viable?

 

[ohhowiwish]

However, the other pertinent question is why do MD/PhD when a PhD is often just as viable?

I thought this was the more common question (does it really make sense the other way around???) and they're still interviewing this late???

 

[TheRealMD]

I thought this was the more common question and they're still interviewing this late???

MD/PhD applicants have two sets of interviews, the second of which may be set at a later date.

 

[ohhowiwish]

MD/PhD applicants have two sets of interviews, the second of which may be set at a later date.

oh whoops i was thinking mstp

 

[Picklesali]

I have an MD PHD interview in like 2 days, and I was told to prepare the answer to "why MD PHD if you can do plenty of resarch with MD?" Someone please help me. I have a general idea, however, I need a good, thorugh, convincing answer. Any have any advice? Also, can you state some benefits one may get out of completing an MD PhD in opposed to merely an MD?

THANKS!

Why don't you tell us your general idea and we can evaluate from there?

(It's no fun if we give you OUR answers. I think everybody has different reasons...but you should have a pretty good rational, otherwise why would you commit so many years of your life to getting the PhD?)

 

[PleaseBelieveit]

I might mention the difference between preventative medicine (largely PhD work) and curative medicine (largely MD work) and how you want to play a role in both..then maybe talk about the benefits of receiving extensive laboratory training (along with your clinical training) and having a mentor.

 

[QofQuimica]

OP, two things:

1) Please do not cross post across multiple forums. I've consolidated your threads here.

2) This is not a question that anyone else can answer for you specifically, but in general, MD/PhDs are trained to do bench work rather than clinical research. If you want to do clinical research, the MD should be sufficient, particularly if you also get some clinical research-specific training. Good luck with your interview.

 

[Lshapley]

Well, a PhD alone means you would be entering an oversaturated field. PhD's are a dime a dozen, because universities have not had any incentive to stop minting brand new ones (there is no AMA for PhDs that makes sure there aren't too many). The big joke is that as a PhD, you will devote a ton of time (years!) to writing a thesis, and once it is done it will just sit on a library shelf somewhere and no one will ever read it.

As an MD, you actually have the chance to make a living through research. This is because you are able to enroll patients in clinical research trials and oversee these trials. A PhD cannot do this because the clinical trial is basically practicing medicine. There are many opportunities to conduct clinical trials and to do clinical research throughout your career as an MD. It is also a lucrative field (i.e., pharma companies are often paying you).

Now, as an MD/PhD, you would get the opportunity to immerse yourself in research to a level that someone who is an MD alone would never have the chance to. You will be taking a few years to write your thesis, etc. Then, when you are finished, you can actually count on having a job doing research because you will be able to enroll patients in clinical trials! You will have a better research background than someone who is only an MD and, once you have completed your residency years, can decide to no longer see patients but rather only do research.

So, basically, if you only want to do research and wanna make sure you have a job when you graduate, then go MD/PhD. If you would like to also see patients and do some clinical research in addition to this, than just MD.

 

[BozoSparky]

Well, a PhD alone means you would be entering an oversaturated field. PhD's are a dime a dozen, because universities have not had any incentive to stop minting brand new ones (there is no AMA for PhDs that makes sure there aren't too many). The big joke is that as a PhD, you will devote a ton of time (years!) to writing a thesis, and once it is done it will just sit on a library shelf somewhere and no one will ever read it.

As an MD, you actually have the chance to make a living through research. This is because you are able to enroll patients in clinical research trials and oversee these trials. A PhD cannot do this because the clinical trial is basically practicing medicine. There are many opportunities to conduct clinical trials and to do clinical research throughout your career as an MD. It is also a lucrative field (i.e., pharma companies are often paying you).

Now, as an MD/PhD, you would get the opportunity to immerse yourself in research to a level that someone who is an MD alone would never have the chance to. You will be taking a few years to write your thesis, etc. Then, when you are finished, you can actually count on having a job doing research because you will be able to enroll patients in clinical trials! You will have a better research background than someone who is only an MD and, once you have completed your residency years, can decide to no longer see patients but rather only do research.

So, basically, if you only want to do research and wanna make sure you have a job when you graduate, then go MD/PhD. If you would like to also see patients and do some clinical research in addition to this, than just MD.

a phd is not a waste of time if you are interested in basic science...not everything revolves around clinical trials.

 

[Neuronix]

I've thought up 3 answers to this:

1) You have to get the PhD type of training at some point if you want to continue doing basic science research. Whether that's a PhD or an extended post-doc, you'll have to put in the time somewhere. Given that, the MD/PhD gives two advantages:

2) Integration. From day one you should be able to think about how to combine medicine and research. By continuing to switch between research and medicine, even on a day to day basis, you can learn how to build bridges between medicine and research.

3) Finances. Nobody wants to bring this up but this is why the MSTP was created. Everyone knows medical school is extremely expensive and this is a barrier for people to go out and do things other than practice clinical medicine.

 

[Scottish Chap]

The big joke is that as a PhD, you will devote a ton of time (years!) to writing a thesis, and once it is done it will just sit on a library shelf somewhere and no one will ever read it.

Not true - most good PhDs use their thesis are practical verbatim for cut-and-pasting into publications.

As an MD, you actually have the chance to make a living through research.

Plenty of PhDs also make a comfortable living through research. If you're good, you'll never have to worry about opportunities or success. If you're not good, having MD after your name will not help you win or maintain a successful research job.

Now, as an MD/PhD, you would get the opportunity to immerse yourself in research to a level that someone who is an MD alone would never have the chance to. You will be taking a few years to write your thesis, etc. Then, when you are finished, you can actually count on having a job doing research because you will be able to enroll patients in clinical trials!

Actually, 99% of the MD/PhD programs train as basic researchers. No program director worth their salt is going to let a graduate student have free reign to learn how to maintain a highly-functional clinical trial. This skill is generally picked up on-th-job, and a PhD is a waste of time if this is the end goal.

Folks - do the MD/PhD for the couple of years of focused research training, for the free MD, or for interest, but please do not do it if you think it's the better way to make a good living or prepare yourself for research in clinical trials.

 

[Neuronix]

do the MD/PhD ... for the free MD

No, please don't do it for that either

 

[GWD]

I've always been of the opinion that if you plan on having a significant research component to your career, why not be formally trained as such?

As someone pointed out, purebread clinicians and PhDs often approach science with quite different mindsets. I think being exposed to each school of thought helps to create a gestalt through which you can better design your research and ultimately apply it to your practice.

At least that's why I'm doing it.

No, please don't do it for that either

If you've got the talent, I see no ethical dilemna in doing it for the free MD whatsoever. You could make the argument that such an act is selfish, and you are just taking up a seat that could go to someone with more genuine motivations. But at the same time, it certainly wouldn't hurt medicine to have more classically trained physicians running around either.

 

[Scottish Chap]

No, please don't do it for that either

It happens even though it should not be the major motivator. It's folds better than doing both degrees separately (like I did).

 

[Maxprime]

For me, a big aspect is time. There is not another great time to do a significant amount of bench research with the same setup you'd have in grad school. If you do it after residency, you're trying to get funding with no bench experience. The year or two during residency you may get is never really "time outside of the clinic" as they state it is. The summer between M1 & M2 is just long enough to really understand a problem and design a solid experiment, not actually do it. Grad students don't have to worry nearly as much about getting funding, taking care of patients, supporting a family, etc.

 

[Neuronix]

But at the same time, it certainly wouldn't hurt medicine to have more classically trained physicians running around either.

I don't understand this argument, mostly because I don't understand what you mean by "classically trained" physicians.

I don't think if you go off and practice mostly clinical medicine that PhD is going to benefit you one bit. Given that the reason the money has been put forward to produce scientists and there is tremendous, highly qualified competition for this money, I do see an ethical issue here if you go into the MD/PhD knowing you probably don't want a research career.

It happens even though it should not be the major motivator. It's folds better than doing both degrees separately (like I did).

Ahh, I just meant don't do it for the money alone I think it is a reason regardless, but it should be secondary to wanting to have a primary research career.

 

[neiborino]

I actually feel like I've been having the opposite problem. Because of my extensive undergraduate lab experience in tissue engineering, everyone keeps asking me why I'm NOT doing an MD/PhD, and just a straight MD. I've had several people try to talk me into it, and I feel that there's a sentiment of "what is wrong with her?" This could just be that I come from a chemical engineering undergraduate, and most people in the department are PhDs.

I think the core difference between MD and MD/PhD programs is really the basic science research component. The MD/PhD places a focus on training people for doing medically-oriented basic science research, and I don't know many MD/PhDs that finish, do their residency, and then go off to do clinical work. Additionally, because of the sheer time investment, many students I know that have completed the MD/PhD say they wish they had chosen either one or the other, and that the benefit of the double program is outweighed by the time, unless they're really hardcore researchers.

 

[JimblyUK]

If you're good, you'll never have to worry about opportunities or success. If you're not good, having MD after your name will not help you win or maintain a successful research job.

I take it you haven't been watching the grant funding situation lately? I know plenty of good researchers (define good) who are struggling to get grants. Go talk to some PIs....the only ones I've met who don't worry about opportunities or success are HHMIs. At least MDs don't have to worry about career options if their research goes belly up. You have to remember that research isn't just about being "good" - there is an element of luck involved too - just ask the discovers of ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis or aquaporin.

If you're interested in medicine and research I would just do an MD. In fact, I advise people not do do a PhD if they're remotely interested in medicine and want to do research. Early on in your research career they throw money at you if you have an MD, and there are far more grants to choose from (since some are not available to PhDs). It's also easier to get a faculty position with an MD, since clinical departments prefer to hire people who can see patients in addition to doing research. Many MDs do research and never see patients too, so that is an option. And if you are "good", you can still get into non-clinical departments.

To give an example, I have 2 friends who are MDs who both had their pick of faculty positions at several top 20 research institutes with extremely generous start-up packages, despite having less than 5 years of lab experience and a handful of publications in average (impact factor <7 journals, 1-2 first author, a couple of reviews and 1-2 minor authorships). Try doing that with a PhD!

 

[Scottish Chap]

I take it you haven't been watching the grant funding situation lately? I know plenty of good researchers (define good) who are struggling to get grants. Go talk to some PIs....the only ones I've met who don't worry about opportunities or success are HHMIs. At least MDs don't have to worry about career options if their research goes belly up. You have to remember that research isn't just about being "good" - there is an element of luck involved too - just ask the discovers of ubiquitin-dependent proteolysis or aquaporin.

Cool your jets, fellow alumnus. Yes, I am infinitely aware of the present situation at the NIH level. I still do independent research. I think it's important to separate the two points you are making which are quite distinct from a major point under discussion in this thread - whether the possession of an MD confers a significant advantage in securing grants. It doesn't.

So I worked beside one of the notable aquaporin discoverers and I'm quite familiar with what's good and what isn't. Yes, luck plays a part in discoveries of such magnitude, but brute force, connections, and hard slog go a long way toward research success. I'm not buying that an MD contributes to research success. If your major thesis is that MDs can jump ship and work as MDs if their research money dries us, that's common sense, and I agree.

If you're interested in medicine and research I would just do an MD. In fact, I advise people not do do a PhD if they're remotely interested in medicine and want to do research. Early on in your research career they throw money at you if you have an MD, and there are far more grants to choose from (since some are not available to PhDs). It's also easier to get a faculty position with an MD, since clinical departments prefer to hire people who can see patients in addition to doing research. Many MDs do research and never see patients too, so that is an option. And if you are "good", you can still get into non-clinical departments.

I don't agree with this at all. Nothing beats the protected research time to develop oneself scientifically like formal training as a PhD will. You cannot rush quality training. I've had my fair share of working with MDs who do a 'tailor-made, ready-to-run' stint in the basic science lab with a well-known person on the tail end of their clinical fellowship and that gets them into a high-impact journal because their advisor is politically-connected, but very few of them come out the same way as the struggling PhD student will who has shed blood, sweat, and tears over their independent, hypothesis-driven research for the last few years. Yes, there are exceptions, but not many people are going to be that exception so it's better to call it what is is. MD training and PhD training are night and day.

As for it being easier for an MD to secure a faculty position: that may be true, but that's not the same as keeping that position. You still need the research training to get the papers and secure the grants, and win tenure; MANY institutions will throw money at the appearance of pedigree research-trained MDs at the tail end of their fellowship, but wait and see how nasty that same hand becomes if you can't bring in the grants. Don't believe me? I've seen it a dozen times. An MD won't magically relieve you of that responsibility. In addition, doing clinical medicine for any length of time is just not conducive to basic research productivity unless you have a suped-up postdoc. or data-hungry graduate student who works independently to get you the stellar data.

Ultimately, however, it's like doing two full-time jobs and unless you're one of the few talented exceptions, you'll be mediocre and/or dissatisfied at one or both jobs. It may even cost you your marriage (I've seen that more than once, too). I've seen many examples of this. The system just is not set up for MD researchers with any amount of clinical responsibility to be productive in basic science. If you want to be a researcher, get a PhD. If you want to see patients, get an MD.

 

[GWD]

I don't understand this argument, mostly because I don't understand what you mean by "classically trained" physicians.

Yeah, I don't know what that means either. What I meant to describe were physicians with formal training in the basic sciences.

IMO, medicine can only benefit from practioners with an intimate working knowledge of what goes on at the bench. Plus, PhD trainees are cheap labor. The student gets a free MD, and the PI gets a skilled technician at bargain basement blowout prices. Everybody wins.

To me, fiscal concerns are a legitimate factor in deciding to go MD/PhD. I wanted to have my med school paid for, and I wasn't interested in joining the military, so MD/PhD just made sense. As a physician I used to shadow rightfully pointed out to me, you'd be hard pressed to find a physician 4 years out of med school that is debt free. So why not pick up a PhD along the way?

Now, I am committed to research, and I will put my PhD to proper use, but I had more than one mentor encourage me to just go MD. I would always have the opportunity to do the kind of research I was interested in with just that degree alone. My thinking is that a duel-degree will only enrich what I am looking to do with my career, but the prospect of having med school paid for (and paid to do it no less) is nothing to scoff at.

Bottom line is, if someone wants to do MD/PhD just for the free MD, and they are talented enough to win the seat, I see nothing wrong with that. If you do, that's cool, but I don't.

 

[Shunwei]

Plenty of PhDs also make a comfortable living through research. If you're good, you'll never have to worry about opportunities or success. If you're not good, having MD after your name will not help you win or maintain a successful research job.

No, Shapley is right in his/her assessment. There are indeed way too many Ph.D.'s, not only from endogenous production but also a flood of foreign personnel since there is no barrier of any kind for this. Hence, Ph.D. salaries are indeed driven down for this in a drastic way. Even for the "good" ones, compensation, either in academia or industry is absurdly low given the hours worked and years of education involved. In academia, even if one can get an appointment as an assistant professor, the starting pay is ~45k/yr, and provided that this person can get tenure after seven years of incredibly hard work, would rise to about 60k/yr; this does not even bring in the ultra-competitiveness to even secure the assistant professor position in the first place. Even in industry, the pay for a Ph.D. level research scientist usually starts at about 60k/yr at an established company, and about 50-55k/yr at a startup. I think this compensation is still too low for ~10 yrs. worth of education, and furthermore these jobs are notoriously unstable (the average tenure of a biotech job is about 2-3 years nowadays), and if (or once) you get laid off past the age of 40 it gets to be near impossible to find another similar job. Don't buy into the stories about how you can strike it rich in biotech--I dare say that the field is 90% hype (after all, I have such a job right now).

So, it really has very little to do with how "good" you are. There are plenty of talented individuals in the field, but the great majority of these have stagnated careers either because the project in which they invested their lifeblood did not work out, had a bad PI, were in the wrong startup, could not get enough papers to secure tenure, etc. etc. Look around you in the university labs--how many 40+ yr.-old postdocs do you see around you. I certainly see a lot--these are walking graveyards of souls who once harbored grandiose and noble ambitions.

Therefore, I think Shapley is right in that if you like research, simply get a M.D. and then do a postdoc. From where I sit, I think the field is switching more and more into clinical research to address practical problems, and I think that is the right thing to do (I mean, how much practical information is there in pure questions like how a protein might fold in Arabidopsis?). Given this, a M.D. doing research can study a question he/she likes, and at the same time afford a decent living that is not possible for 95% of the Ph.D.'s out there.

The most dangerous thing about research education is that universities and professors never tell you ahead of time the truth about the state of the field. All they say to the youths that are looking at a research career is how exciting reseach is, how cutting edge biomedical research can be, and how job opportunities abound for folks who go into the field. Heck, a popular statistic they throw out frequently is that the national unemployment for Ph.D.s is only 2%--until discriminating individuals start to realize that 95% of those employed are actually "underemployed," in enslaved positions like postdocs, meaningless jobs like research/adjunct assistant professorships, and career-enders like research associates (usually a terminal position for 45+ yr. old postdocs). As a result, many students are taken for a ride before they realize the truth behind the smoke.

 

[sirrileydog]

In academia, even if one can get an appointment as an assistant professor, the starting pay is ~45k/yr, and provided that this person can get tenure after seven years of incredibly hard work, rise to about 60k/yr; this does not even bring in the ultra-competitiveness to even secure the assistant professor position. In industry, the pay for a Ph.D. level research scientist usually starts at about 60k/yr at an established company, and about 50-55k/yr at a startup. However, these jobs are notorious unstable (the average tenure of a biotech job is about 2-3 years nowadays), and if (or once) you get laid off past the age of 40 it gets to be near impossible to find another similar job. Don't buy into the stories about how you can strike it rich in biotech--I dare say that the field is 90% hype.

These figures are way off--every one of them. 80-110k is the starting pay for an associate scientist with a phd + postdoc at any sizable institution (>250 people). The tenure statistic is way off, too. Yes, it is unusual to "strike it rich", but there are plenty of solid stable jobs for Phds in a number of biology-related fields.

I completely disagree with the other part too: the MD only path doesn't train you to think like a research scientist. Sure, it can be done and we all know a couple MDs who are leaders in each field. But my colleagues suggest the MDs rotating through labs tend to move through pretty rapidly and it is only the rare MD who is able to get traction in research.

If your goal is to do research, a PhD will greatly increase your probability of success. Yes, science is competitive but I would not underestimate the value of a PhD.

 

[JimblyUK]

Cool your jets, fellow alumnus. Yes, I am infinitely aware of the present situation at the NIH level. I still do independent research. I think it's important to separate the two points you are making which are quite distinct from a major point under discussion in this thread - whether the possession of an MD confers a significant advantage in securing grants. It doesn't.

I think part of my problem is that I have only ever worked in clinical departments and have a skewed view! In my experience, MDs do have a significant advantage in securing grants, early on in their careers, e.g. postdoc grants, K awards etc...Also, many of the funding bodies in my research area (Nephrology) have training grants that only MDs can apply for. This really gives them a boost early on. When it comes to R01s, I agree that an MD confers no advantage.

My personal situation is also a bit strange since I have had some tangents (the risks of working with knockout mice) during my research career that have set me back. Funding issues in my current lab have resulted in lack of technical support that has left me extremely disgruntled with research. I did just get a K01, but we lost another grant that was dependent on my research so we are no better off financially. The lack of support means I am trying to juggle 2 projects, and we didn't have enough data for the first submission, and not much more when we resubmitted.

It's quite frustrating seeing the benefits that MDs get at the critical point in their career - the transition to independence. I can only dream of what I could achieve if I had 2 techs, a postdoc plus a ton of equipment money!

Anyway back on topic - I agree with your take that it is hard to be both a good clinician and researcher, having seen many people who suffer in one area when they focus on the other.

 

[Shunwei]

These figures are way off--every one of them. 80-110k is the starting pay for an associate scientist with a phd + postdoc at any sizable institution (>250 people). The tenure statistic is way off, too. Yes, it is unusual to "strike it rich", but there are plenty of solid stable jobs for Phds in a number of biology-related fields.

I completely disagree with the other part too: the MD only path doesn't train you to think like a research scientist. Sure, it can be done and we all know a couple MDs who are leaders in each field. But my colleagues suggest the MDs rotating through labs tend to move through pretty rapidly and it is only the rare MD who is able to get traction in research.

If your goal is to do research, a PhD will greatly increase your probability of success. I would not underestimate this.

You are way off the mark. I work at Genentech and those are the standard figures in the field. 80-110k for a starting Research Scientist I jobs? Sorry, but I just to laugh--but then again I am not surprised, given the hype and propaganda for biotech. If you are a senior scientist or group manager with about 15+ years of experience you might hit 100k, but then again many of those positions are not meritorious but based on networking and nepotism, and not to mention that those positions are quite rare. Your numbers sound like those inflated by job.org or something of the sort.

Tenure? The average number of applicants for a single, tenure-tracked assistant professor jobs are about 250 applicants for one job. Even getting these jobs you slave away for 7+ years awaiting the dreaded review for tenure. I will leave it to you to do the math to figure out the likelihood for an individual to succeed in such an environment.

Would a Ph.D. help in research? Sure, I never said anything otherwise. All I am saying is that it is not necessary for research and it is questionable whether the opportunity cost for getting it justifies the marginal benefit it confers. Moreover, it is also indisputable (well, unless you buy into the official rhetoric about how hot biomedical research is or how there is a perpetual shortage of scientific personnel) that the field is in dire crisis regarding its employment opportunities. I simply cannot concur with your statement that there are "plenty" of stable jobs in the field. From where I sit nothing can be farther from the truth.

 

[Scottish Chap]

No, Shapley is right in his/her assessment. There are indeed way too many Ph.D.'s, not only from endogenous production but also a flood of foreign personnel since there is no barrier of any kind for this. Hence, Ph.D. salaries are indeed driven down for this in a drastic way. Even for the "good" ones, compensation, either in academia or industry is absurdly low given the hours worked and years of education involved. In academia, even if one can get an appointment as an assistant professor, the starting pay is ~45k/yr, and provided that this person can get tenure after seven years of incredibly hard work, rise to about 60k/yr; this does not even bring in the ultra-competitiveness to even secure the assistant professor position. In industry, the pay for a Ph.D. level research scientist usually starts at about 60k/yr at an established company, and about 50-55k/yr at a startup. However, these jobs are notorious unstable (the average tenure of a biotech job is about 2-3 years nowadays), and if (or once) you get laid off past the age of 40 it gets to be near impossible to find another similar job. Don't buy into the stories about how you can strike it rich in biotech--I dare say that the field is 90% hype.

So, it really has very little to do with how "good" you are. There are plenty of talented individuals in the field, but many of these have stagnated careers either because the project in which they invested their lifeblood did not work out, had a bad PI, were in the wrong startup, could not get enough papers to secure tenure, etc. etc. Look around you in the university labs--how many 40+ yr.-old postdocs do you see around you. I certainly see a lot.

Therefore, I think Shapley is right in that if you like research, simply get a M.D. and then do a postdoc. From where I sit, I think the field is switching more and more into clinical research to address practical problems, and I think that is the right thing to do (I mean, how much practical information is there in pure questions like how a protein might fold in Arabidopsis?). Given this, a M.D. doing research can study a question he/she likes, and at the same time afford a decent living that is not possible for 95% of the Ph.D.'s out there.

The only thing I agree with you on is that PhDs are vastly underpaid for the work that they do and for the level of training they must endure to have the privilege of a research career.

I'm sorry, but having been in academic research for a while at the postdoctoral level (before medical school) and having been offered faculty positions at major research centers, I can write with confidence that you're pulling those facts and figures out of nowhere. They may be your opinion, but they do not reflect reality. Please, your opinion is valid and very much wanted, but I strongly disagree with incorrect information being posted in a public venue. It's totally inappropriate. No assistant professor's position (for a post-doc.-trained PhD) averages 45K as a rule of thumb start-up. That's less than what some postdocs make. It may even be less than a starting community college professor's salary and they usually don't need to do research.

Also, believe it or not, most people (in the U.S.) start a Ph.D. more informed than I think you give them credit for. Money is not the major incentive. In this line of work, it can't be; the job is too hard. Most people are actually successful in research because it's the science and not the money that drives them. That is why they do it. Pound-for-pound, an MBA is where you want to head if money is the major incentive for it yields the largest financial return with respect to the years needed to gain the training.

Advising people to do a postdoc. with a straight-up MD "if they like research" is lunacy. Unless that person is independently wealthy or wins a full tuition scholarship with stipend to medical school (rare), there is no way you're going to recoup the massive debt with compounding interest that an MD dumps on you as a struggling academic in research. Pharmaceutical companies won't get you out of debt either because you won't have a medical license and you've no tangible research skills at that level of the game. No, you're going to need residency training as a clinician and years of clinical service to clear that sum, and your research will be hurting in a big way while you do that. I think better advice if you want to do research is to to a Ph.D. for it own sake (95% of which are fully-funded with stipend), then be on your merry way.

 

[Scottish Chap]

I think part of my problem is that I have only ever worked in clinical departments and have a skewed view! In my experience, MDs do have a significant advantage in securing grants, early on in their careers, e.g. postdoc grants, K awards etc...Also, many of the funding bodies in my research area (Nephrology) have training grants that only MDs can apply for. This really gives them a boost early on. When it comes to R01s, I agree that an MD confers no advantage.

My personal situation is also a bit strange since I have had some tangents (the risks of working with knockout mice) during my research career that have set me back. Funding issues in my current lab have resulted in lack of technical support that has left me extremely disgruntled with research. I did just get a K01, but we lost another grant that was dependent on my research so we are no better off financially. The lack of support means I am trying to juggle 2 projects, and we didn't have enough data for the first submission, and not much more when we resubmitted.

It's quite frustrating seeing the benefits that MDs get at the critical point in their career - the transition to independence. I can only dream of what I could achieve if I had 2 techs, a postdoc plus a ton of equipment money!

Anyway back on topic - I agree with your take that it is hard to be both a good clinician and researcher, having seen many people who suffer in one area when they focus on the other.

I 100% agree with what you say - based on the uniqueness of your situation.

Gene knock-out technology is not for the faint-hearted. You have my respect and sympathies as you make your way in such a challenging field - more so since it appears you're pretty much your own driving force.

It is frustrating to see MDs with less research training seemingly get interviews for academic jobs left right and center. I have seen this, too. However, the reality of academic research hits them as hard as the straight-up PhD if things do not work out, and they have their lab prised out of their fingers. I have seen this, too, and it's not a pretty sight. Honestly, it's no different for the MD researcher (at least in the places I've been): if you have funding, your department ignores you. If you do not have funding, your department is mean to you.

There is something about service professions--nursing, pharmacy, medicine etc.--that yields that one intangible satisfaction of knowing that you are serving directly, and that your job is safe. It may not always be that way, but it's that way right now. The major drawback, however, of the service professions is total lack of control with respect to your time - especially as a trainee; if you have to be there at 5:00am, you HAVE to be there. In research, as long as you work hard and organize your time, nobody cares how you allocate that time. That is what I will miss most - especially with a family.

My very best in your endeavors, the Edinburgh degree will take you places. Nimmo was a fine researcher and purist, too. He impressed me most back in 1994

 

[Scottish Chap]

.
Tenure? The average number of applicants for a single, tenure-tracked assistant professor jobs are about 250 applicants for one job. Even getting these jobs you slave away for 7+ years awaiting the dreaded review for tenure. I will leave it to you to do the math to figure out the likelihood for an individual to succeed in such an environment.

I thought this might just be a case of strong opinion, but now I see ignorance. These figures are completely inaccurate and misleading in every way. Please stop posting authoritatively on stuff you apparently have no experience of. It devalues the usefullness of the forum.

Would a Ph.D. help in research? Sure, I never said anything otherwise. All I am saying is that it is not necessary for research and it is questionable whether the opportunity cost for getting it justifies the marginal benefit it confers. I simply cannot concur with your statement that there are "plenty" of stable jobs in the field. From where I sit nothing can be farther from the truth.

Next....

 

[Shunwei]

The only thing I agree with you on is that PhDs are vastly underpaid for the work that they do and for the level of training they must endure to have the privilege of a research career.

I'm sorry, but having been in academic research for a while at the postdoctoral level (before medical school) and having been offered faculty positions at major research centers, I can write with confidence that you're pulling those facts and figures out of nowhere. They may be your opinion, but they not reflect reality. Please, your opinion is valid and very much wanted, but I strongly disagree with incorrect information being posted in a public venue. It's totally inappropriate. No assistant professor's position (for a post-doc.-trained PhD) averages 45K as a rule of thumb start-up. That's less than what some postdocs make. It may even be less than a starting community college professor's salary and they usually don't need to do research.

Also, believe it or not, most people (in the U.S.) start a Ph.D. more informed than I think you give them credit for. Money is not the major incentive. In this line of work, it can't be; the job is too hard. Most people are actually successful in research because it's the science and not the money that drives them. That is why they do it. Pound-for-pound, an MBA is where you want to head if money is the major incentive for it yields the largest financial return with respect to the years needed to gain the training.

Advising people to do a postdoc. with a straight-up MD "if they like research" is lunacy. Unless that person is independently wealthy or wins a full tuition scholarship with stipend to medical school (rare), there is no way you're going to recoup the massive debt with compounding interest that an MD dumps on you as a struggling academic in research. Pharmaceutical companies won't get you out of debt either because you won't have a medical license and you've no tangible research skills at that level of the game. No, you're going to need residency training as a clinician and years of clinical service to clear that sum, and your research will be hurting in a big way while you do that. I think better advice if you want to do research is to to a Ph.D. for it own sake (95% of which are fully-funded with stipend), then be on your merry way.

The current maximum stipend level for a postdoc (7+ years) is about 44k. Most of my classmates who got positions for assistant professorships do start out at 45-50k, the lesser being at smaller universities. I stand by that fact because I know that, and this is not to mention that a not insignificant part of the salary need to come from grant support.

I also have to disagree with your interpretation of what I said regarding how people start the field. Yes, indeed most of us who start the field did not get into it for the money--however, a lot of us were lured into it by images propagated by the senior hierarchy about the plentiful opportunities there are in biomedical research: which is a lie. Couple this with the illusion that graduate education is subsidized and therefore appearing to be a good "economic" deal, believe me it is a potent formula for luring people for an effectively enslaving occupation. A lot of people in their 20's are idealistic, but as they get older the thought of pragmatic economics start to come in. It has nothing to do with money-grubbing, but all I am saying is that this field does not even hint at you the kind of economic sacrifice, the lack of deserving opportunities, and the glutted state of the occupation it really is in.

As for M.D.'s doing a postdoc, I am referring to M.D.'s who practice part of the time and run their own labs. There are many of these around. In this capacity, a significant portion of their income comes from their clinical work. I see many of these around. As for their research competency, I don't necessarily agree that it is significantly inferior, if at all. The Ph.D. education is one of the most difficult to quantify and grasp--what *do* we learn in grad school? When people ask me this question I often stop and think for a long time. To me, it is the thought process of being an independent scientist. If this is the right interpretation, then M.D.'s having done research for a long time may have this capacity without having to go through the official grindmill of a Ph.D. process. In any case those M.D.s that survive and become a contributing member will be those that get grants, and getting these require necessary research competency anyhow. So it is a self-selecting process.

 

[Shunwei]

I thought this might just be a case of strong opinion, but now I see ignorance. These figures are completely inaccurate and misleading in every way. Please stop posting authoritatively on stuff you apparently have no experience of. It devalues the usefullness of the forum.

Ignorant? What numbers do you have to refer to for the # of applicants for tenure-tracked position? The numbers are all over the map but 200-1 is a very fair assessment on average. What do you claim it would be?

 

[Scottish Chap]

The current maximum stipend level for a postdoc (7+ years) is about 44k.

Incorrect....again. This is the absolute lower end of norm, and it's highly variable between states and institutions. Why are you continuing to misinform people?

Most of my classmates who got positions for assistant professorships do start out at 45-50k, the lesser being at smaller universities.

But that doesn't make your point universally valid outside of a blinkered environment. If I was born in a barn, does that make me a horse?

Couple this with the illusion that graduate education is subsidized and therefore appearing to be a good "economic" deal, believe me it is a potent formula for luring people for an effectively enslaving occupation.

Then go to medical school--just take it easy on your classmates, please. You do not understand what long-term graduate education offers so I'm sure you'd be a miserable Ph.D. student. Please don't ruin it for people who want to be a Ph.D. researcher.

As for their research competency, I don't necessarily agree that it is significantly inferior, if at all.

Hold on there; you're putting words in our mouth. Nobody said that.

The Ph.D. education is one of the most difficult to quantify and grasp--what *do* we learn in grad school? When people ask me this question I often stop and think for a long time.

So, you're now talking as a Ph.D.?

I won't answer any more of your posts...better things to do. Peace.

 

[Maxprime]

As for grad school being a good ecomonic deal, I've never heard someone honestly say that.

The education in grad school is much more about a way of doing things. For MD/PhDs, you definitely don't have to do research in the field you end up in for it to be of use. I know people who plan on working in other subfields of their field after they graduate - just like clinical rotations, sometimes you don't know you hate something until you try it. It's about learning the process - solving problems, writing grants, understanding the politics (unfortunately), etc.

 

[echod]

Career Level Stipend for FY 2001

Undergraduates in the MARC and COR programs
Freshmen/Sophomores $ 6,948
Juniors/Seniors $ 9,732

Predoctoral $16,500

Postdoctoral
Years of Experience
0 $28,260
1 $29,832
2 $35,196
3 $36,996
4 $38,772
5 $40,560
6 $42,348
7 or more $44,412


http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-01-011.html

 

[seraph524]

Hm...I just realized something interesting...getting a college degree gives you about a 10,000 raise, but so does getting a PhD.

BS = PhD in terms of research experience?

Just food for thought

 

[Scottish Chap]

Career Level Stipend for FY 2001

NIH Stipend for FY 2008

Postdoctoral
Years of Experience:

0 $36,996
1 $38,976
2 $41,796
3 $43,428
4 $45,048
5 $46,992
6 $48,852
7 or more $51,036

Up-to-date information is more helpful. Many institutions offer more than these figures. NIH levels are just guidelines. For example, as a starting postdoc. several years ago, my starting stipend was in the level NIH year 2.

 

[Shunwei]

Incorrect....again. This is the absolute lower end of norm, and it's highly variable between states and institutions. Why are you continuing to misinform people?


But that doesn't make your point universally valid outside of a blinkered environment. If I was born in a barn, does that make me a horse?


Then go to medical school--just take it easy on your classmates, please. You do not understand what long-term graduate education offers so I'm sure you'd be a miserable Ph.D. student. Please don't ruin it for people who want to be a Ph.D. researcher.


Hold on there; you're putting words in our mouth. Nobody said that.


So, you're now talking as a Ph.D.?

I won't answer any more of your posts...better things to do. Peace.

Uh . . . . I have a Ph.D., thank you very much, fully supported with extramural fellowships throughout my graduate studies and postdoctoral work from "top three" institutions. I do agree with you on one thing, though, and that is it is a pointless endeavor to try and hold a rational discussion with you. Apparently you are one of those people who glorify research without being able to look at the warts and moles of the field, of which there are plenty (I mean, there are so many areas that need reform in this unregulated mess that is graduate education/scientific research, I can't imagine how anyone can overlook the problem). But, since you are unable to hold a calm, civilized discussion without appearing to have foam coming out of the corner of your mouth, let's not carry on further with this. I only ask that you, as a SDN "moderator," to be more polite to people who post here, instead of being combative and abrasive. You can at least do that, right?

And oh, yes, the 2008 NIH postdoc pay standards are a bit different than the one I operated under three years ago. However, the argument still is there as to whether a 7+ year postdoc, with about 14 years of education under his/her belt and usually working 70 hours a week, really is paid deservingly; in fact, if you spread out the pay per hour, postdocs are not much better off than flipping burgers. And although we don't get into the field to get rich, the real question is what comes after the postdoc. Now, that is THE question.

What I am really interested is seeing what would happen to those of you who are fervent about Ph.D. education ten years down the line. From where I stand, there are lots of disaffected and unhappy Ph.D.s in biomedical science. I believe there was a study done which found that ten years after getting a science Ph.D, 80% of the individuals will no longer be in the field. These folks will include those like myself, who found that science is not the right career for them, but a very large majority are those who cannot find adequate employment in the field, and those that are disillusioned with the profession. I think that says something about Science. And of those that stay, many will become lifetime postdocs/research associates, which I call "perma-docs," for their entire career. Of course, policy makers at NIH and NSF always try to neglect this and propagate their "Science is a dream job" myth, but the truth is there for everone to see. For those of you interested in graduate education, I want to make it clear that I am just offering a view that you may not hear from just talking to your professors. I encourage you to talk to as many grad students and postdocs as possible (in a heart-to-heart fashion), because down in the trenches is where a lot of the ugly stuff lay. Also try to keep a good pulse on the state of employment opportunities in the field., and have a clear idea of what to expect when you get the degree.

Peace.

 

[reine1jb]

Uh . . . . I have a Ph.D., thank you very much, fully supported with extramural fellowships throughout my graduate studies and postdoctoral work from "top three" institutions. I do agree with you on one thing, though, and that is it is a pointless endeavor to try and hold a rational discussion with you. Apparently you are one of those people who glorify research without being able to look at the warts and moles of the field, of which there are plenty (I mean, there are so many areas that need reform in this unregulated mess that is graduate education/scientific research, I can't imagine how anyone can overlook the problem). But, since you are unable to hold a calm, civilized discussion without appearing to have foam coming out of the corner of your mouth, let's not carry on further with this. I only ask that you, as a SDN "moderator," to be more polite to people who post here, instead of being combative and abrasive. You can at least do that, right?

And oh, yes, the 2008 NIH postdoc pay standards are a bit different than the one I operated under three years ago. However, the argument still is there as to whether a 7+ year postdoc, with about 14 years of education under his/her belt and usually working 70 hours a week, really is paid deservingly; in fact, if you spread out the pay per hour, postdocs are not much better off than flipping burgers. And although we don't get into the field to get rich, the real question is what comes after the postdoc. Now, that is THE question.

What I am really interested is seeing what would happen to those of you who are fervent about Ph.D. education ten years down the line. From where I stand, there are lots of disaffected and unhappy Ph.D.s in biomedical science. I believe there was a study done which found that ten years after getting a science Ph.D, 80% of the individuals will no longer be in the field. These folks will include those like myself, who found that science is not the right career for them, but a very large majority are those who cannot find adequate employment in the field, and those that are disillusioned with the profession. I think that says something about Science. And of those that stay, many will become lifetime postdocs/research associates, which I call "perma-docs," for their entire career. Of course, policy makers at NIH and NSF always try to neglect this and propagate their "Science is a dream job" myth, but the truth is there for everone to see. For those of you interested in graduate education, I want to make it clear that I am just offering a view that you may not hear from just talking to your professors. I encourage you to talk to as many grad students and postdocs as possible (in a heart-to-heart fashion), because down in the trenches is where a lot of the ugly stuff lay. Also try to keep a good pulse on the state of employment opportunities in the field., and have a clear idea of what to expect when you get the degree.

Peace.

I am sorry for your experience in science and how obviously disgruntled you are over it, must be why you are pre-dent now even with a PhD and postdoctoral experience. Anyways, as an undergrad with only three years of research and one summer under my belt, I cannot argue that I am probably extremely idealistic about my future in science. Or that I might just be nieve... However, I believe that you extremely negative viewpoints about a career in science are formed purely off of your own experience. Again I am sorry things did not work out for you. There are unsatisfied people in all facets of life no matter what career they have. Steering people away from science, or trying to, like you are is plain wrong. Everyone needs to walk they're own path. I appreciate hearing your story and your opinion but knowing that I will apply Md/PhD or PhD regardless does not make your experience affect my decision. However, someone who might be new to research and reading your posts might become misinformed and wrongly guided by your words. Every Phd at my school is happy with their lives and content with their career so I take your words with a grain of salt. I hope everyone else does the same and just considers your posts as one story, when in fact there are probably many more that have considerably more positive outlooks on a career in science and research

 

[Neuronix]

Every Phd at my school is happy with their lives and content with their career

Do you really believe that? That sure as heck isn't my experience. I'm sorry my friend, but I do think you are a bit naive. I am consistantly told that students in my year usually are quite unhappy/depressed and what I am feeling is completely normal. I believe them. Among my peers in my year I think I am the most gung ho about continuing to do research, and even I'm not sure!

If you look around at the more senior MD/PhD posters even here, there are a range of experiences and desires to continue doing research, enjoyment during the PhD, etc. I think that Shunwei operates on one extreme and you can find people around on the other extreme. As a pre-med you should take what he has to say seriously. You may find yourself having the same issues with science that he does. The conclusions you may reach after you are done your MD/PhD may be the same or may be different, but he is not operating on some other plane of reality or saying things that are patently untrue.

On the topic of post-doc salaries, at the institute where I used to work PIs always paid NIH minmum to post-docs. It's somewhat higher here as an institutional policy, and of course the PIs complain about that. Similarly, we had a tenure track position open up in my department and we had about 550 applicants for it. I think we interviewed dozens of people over an entire semester. While we're on the topic we have had highly qualified post-docs, 5 years senior, in top labs not being able to get jobs right now, except for teaching high school. We're cutting post-docs out of the department left and right as we run out of the ability to pay them. Grants are scoring as low as in the single digit percentiles and not getting funded. It's bad right now everyone, make no mistake about it. At least if you have that MD you'll always have a job, but the personal and professional pressure to use that MD is tremendous.

 

[Shunwei]

I am sorry for your experience in science and how obviously disgruntled you are over it, must be why you are pre-dent now even with a PhD and postdoctoral experience. Anyways, as an undergrad with only three years of research and one summer under my belt, I cannot argue that I am probably extremely idealistic about my future in science. Or that I might just be nieve... However, I believe that you extremely negative viewpoints about a career in science are formed purely off of your own experience. Again I am sorry things did not work out for you. There are unsatisfied people in all facets of life no matter what career they have. Steering people away from science, or trying to, like you are is plain wrong. Everyone needs to walk they're own path. I appreciate hearing your story and your opinion but knowing that I will apply Md/PhD or PhD regardless does not make your experience affect my decision. However, someone who might be new to research and reading your posts might become misinformed and wrongly guided by your words. Every Phd at my school is happy with their lives and content with their career so I take your words with a grain of salt. I hope everyone else does the same and just considers your posts as one story, when in fact there are probably many more that have considerably more positive outlooks on a career in science and research

I am happy for you guys who have a passion for research. Research can be fun, but it definitely also has its downsides. Do not interpret my words as an attemp to steer people away from research careers. Personally, I think that when making every important decision in life, people should make an *informed* one, meaning that they should understand both the good and the bad about the field. The funny thing with research is that I can't think of another professional path that is built more on uncertainty. I really think it's not a matter of whether you like or can do research--there are a lot more determinants than that.

Personally, I actually don't consider myself as an "extremist," to quote Neuronix, except perhaps in relation to Scottish Chap. You might not believe me when I say this, but there are plenty of folks in the field, after obtaining their Ph.D.'s and postdocs, who absolutely hate the field. I, on the other hand, am critical of the field, but I am more interested in reforming its deficiencies than just stepping on it. I am proud of myself for putting up with years of hard, intense graduate work, and for having done a pretty good job overall with publications, talks, and for having done this in highly reputed programs. No one can take that away from me. However, I am also a believer in realistic assessment--unlike most other career fields, getting the Ph.D. in relation to what follows is actually the easy part. So I don't believe in sugar coating the truth like what NIH and NSF does.

I don't blame some of you for thinking that I might be a bit negative and therefore tend to think that my comments should not be trusted. Ten years ago, when I was in your position, my passion and ideals for research (probably no less than any of you) would have made me turn the other way if someone like myself had tried to discuss the ugly truths behind the curtain. I would have said things like, "Who cares about money and job opportunities, I just like research," or "Academic politics and scheming--what's so serious about that? I can handle those things," etc. etc. Funny thing is, some things you really have to learn yourself to appreciate the reality. So for those of you who are adamant about going to research, I applaud you, because for the sake of humanity someone has to do it. For me, I can't tolerate all the abuses. Keep what I say in your mind, because years from now you might look back and see it as the best advice anyone can give you.

P.S. I recommend reading Michael Teitelbaum and Daniel Greenberg's articles on the state of biomedical research. These two fellows have spent their careers studying the state of the research employment and have a very good pulse on what is happening in the field.

 

[Newquagmire]

there are a range of experiences and desires to continue doing research, enjoyment during the PhD, etc ... you should take what he has to say seriously

Agreed. In my experience with graduate students at several institutions, many are dissatisfied. Though you may or may not become one of these people, please consider the possibility before jumping into a 8+ year training course (not including residency, post-doc, etc!).

 

[dl2dp2]

I love how a thread asking the difference between MD/PhD and MD degenerates into a complaint about the grim state of biomedical research.

It's late and I don't want to spend too much time writing. Here's the gist from my end (MD/PhD top program almost don w/ PhD).

(1) MD/PhD sounds cool and you get a better residency compared to MD only.
(2) Free MD
(3) You learn lots of things during PhD that needs to be picked up if you do basic science research later on. This part is hard to get pass. I mean, there is a reason why a science degree takes as long.
(4) Clinical research is much easier to learn on the fly as an MD.
(5) If you want a translational/80% basic science 20% clincial career, the current best pathway is still MD/PhD. There are quite a few prominent researchers coming out of this model, though nobody who's a household name yet, except the cholesterol guys Brown and Goldstein (I think Cleveland Reserve MSTP in the 70s). This is given, however, that the time is not a factor. If you are sort of old and really motivated, I think the late-boomber NIH program for MD can be better.

Regarding the sad state of biomedical research. Let me just say that I had my depressed days. Recently though I've come to the conclusion that even if you had a PhD your outlook might not be as terrible as you think. For one thing that 500 to 1 odds isn't as bad as it may seem because many applications are from random people who are very far from being qualified. If you are trained from a top 10 institution, you should have a decent shot at getting a faculty position @ a top 50 institution. As far as grants goes, the overall rate is 10% this year, but I think if you resubmit over and over, eventually everyone gets a grant. I know one guy @ Rochester, a theoretician (very hard to get grants) who submitted his R01 18 times, but he's tenured now. In science as much as in anything else, how hard you have to work and how talented you have to be directly correlates to how "high-end" your institution is.

if you are happy with being @ crapola univ. and have a few kids and live a normal life, and not dream about cracking the next Nobel, and enjoy doing science more than, say, working at an office job, then PhD is not a bad investment. Although the posters are probably right that if you want the above stuffs, an MD is a vastly superior investment if you don't mind patients/slides.

 

[reine1jb]

Do you really believe that? That sure as heck isn't my experience. I'm sorry my friend, but I do think you are a bit naive. I am consistantly told that students in my year usually are quite unhappy/depressed and what I am feeling is completely normal. I believe them. Among my peers in my year I think I am the most gung ho about continuing to do research, and even I'm not sure!

If you look around at the more senior MD/PhD posters even here, there are a range of experiences and desires to continue doing research, enjoyment during the PhD, etc. I think that Shunwei operates on one extreme and you can find people around on the other extreme. As a pre-med you should take what he has to say seriously. You may find yourself having the same issues with science that he does. The conclusions you may reach after you are done your MD/PhD may be the same or may be different, but he is not operating on some other plane of reality or saying things that are patently untrue.

On the topic of post-doc salaries, at the institute where I used to work PIs always paid NIH minmum to post-docs. It's somewhat higher here as an institutional policy, and of course the PIs complain about that. Similarly, we had a tenure track position open up in my department and we had about 550 applicants for it. I think we interviewed dozens of people over an entire semester. While we're on the topic we have had highly qualified post-docs, 5 years senior, in top labs not being able to get jobs right now, except for teaching high school. We're cutting post-docs out of the department left and right as we run out of the ability to pay them. Grants are scoring as low as in the single digit percentiles and not getting funded. It's bad right now everyone, make no mistake about it. At least if you have that MD you'll always have a job, but the personal and professional pressure to use that MD is tremendous.

Yeah I do believe that they are all happy because they all tell me they are. They complain about not getting funding and the politics that go along with academia but they still say they don't see themselves doing anything else. I'm sorry if my post hit some wrong nerves, reflecting on it I do come off really naive but just because I'm taking their words with a grain of salt doesn't mean to me at least, that I didn't take the time to read and digest their post...Improper wording on my part, sorry for that. I just think that in the spectrum of people discussing on this thread, I think an inexperience undergrad who still has their hopes set on a life in science should be perfectly acceptable. I didn't say the previous poster was wrong I just said that it is one story and people should get listen to more than just their story because like I said, I have heard differently from my advisors and PhD's I interact with. Granted, I don't go to a huge school where they live and die off of their grant money but still. Sorry if I came off too strong but if I'm singing a different tune in 10 years then by all means I'll probably come back and say the exact same things but I still don't think I would post in a such a way that it makes it sound almost pointless to pursue science...maybe I just interpreted the previous posts wrong which is the problem most likely. anyways sorry if my contribution to the discussion was off target that wasn't my goal

 

[kami333]

Yeah I do believe that they are all happy because they all tell me they are. They complain about not getting funding and the politics that go along with academia but they still say they don't see themselves doing anything else. I'm sorry if my post hit some wrong nerves, reflecting on it I do come off really naive but just because I'm taking their words with a grain of salt doesn't mean to me at least, that I didn't take the time to read and digest their post...Improper wording on my part, sorry for that. I just think that in the spectrum of people discussing on this thread, I think an inexperience undergrad who still has their hopes set on a life in science should be perfectly acceptable. I didn't say the previous poster was wrong I just said that it is one story and people should get listen to more than just their story because like I said, I have heard differently from my advisors and PhD's I interact with. Granted, I don't go to a huge school where they live and die off of their grant money but still. Sorry if I came off too strong but if I'm singing a different tune in 10 years then by all means I'll probably come back and say the exact same things but I still don't think I would post in a such a way that it makes it sound almost pointless to pursue science...maybe I just interpreted the previous posts wrong which is the problem most likely. anyways sorry if my contribution to the discussion was off target that wasn't my goal

I think part of the differences in opinions you hear are due to what stage in their careers the people you talk to are in, ie where their love for research being overwhelmed by the constant hassle of funding/politicing/etc. Of course the advisors and profs at your school are going to be very positive, they are basically the "winners" in this game.

I've seen my father go through some of it (he had an MD and did a postdoc for a while before getting a PhD) and also in various grad students, postdocs, and faculty I've interacted with. Everyone starts out loving research but as you progress through the grad years, you just get worn down, experiments never seem to go right and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Eventually, once you are on your own, you again start out with enthusiasm at the seemingly endless possibilities but end up having to face the realities of funding and bureaucracy. A lot of people get stuck here, a few bright or lucky ones get tenure and live happily ever after.

 

[Maxprime]

I've seen my father go through some of it (he had an MD and did a postdoc for a while before getting a PhD) and also in various grad students, postdocs, and faculty I've interacted with. Everyone starts out loving research but as you progress through the grad years, you just get worn down, experiments never seem to go right and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. Eventually, once you are on your own, you again start out with enthusiasm at the seemingly endless possibilities but end up having to face the realities of funding and bureaucracy. A lot of people get stuck here, a few bright or lucky ones get tenure and live happily ever after.

For me, being a grad student seems much more appealing than a PI. PIs have a lot more responsibility and get to do a lot less of the things that I consider (at the moment) to be fun. While I'm out doing experiments and trying new things, my PI is writing grants and dealing with administrative crap.

I will agree that grad school really beats you down - especially all the BS and politics of classes and projects that you could care less about. But you also get to become an expert in some field, which is a fun transition. I remember when my PI started asking me questions that weren't rhetorical or looking to see what I was thinking, he really wanted to know my thoughts because I actually knew more about that particular topic than him - scary, but very cool.

 

[GWD]

I had two very important epiphanies early in my research career, and I think they have helped me to keep a level head and even temperment about things to this point.

1) My first real serious research project SUCKED. Basically nothing worked, and I spent 95% of my time banging my head against the wall. Fortunately, my mentor calmly explained to me that this is the nature of the beast. You either grow to accept this as normal, or you will be consumed by it. This really is a bi-polar industry we are in, and the sooner you can learn to let the seemingly infinite frustration roll off your back, and learn to relish the manic moments for what they are, the better off you will be.

2) Due to things going on in my personal life, I worked in corporate law for a few years following undergrad. I was making TONS of money, and living this sort of sexy, envied yuppie lifestyle. But I was not happy at all. It didn't interest me, it didn't challenge me, and it wasn't what I wanted to be doing. I think this brief experience was invaluable because it served to cauterize why I really belong doing what I am now. Probably like many of you, I don't do this to get rich... I don't do it to get famous... I don't don't do it because the average John Doe things it's cool.. I do it because I HAVE TO. I simply would not be content doing anything else. Sure, we work our asses off, we train seemingly forever, and our level of compensation usually doesn't commensurate with all of the effort we put into our work, but hopefully we all do what we do because we need to, and we want to. Whenever I get a little demoralized, I'm always reminded that even on my worst days in the lab, I'm still exponentially more happy than I would be doing anything else. If you're in this game for some other motive, you probably SHOULD get out... because it will most likely eat you alive.

So presumably, most of you have been given this opportunity because you have some sort of native talent, exceptional work ethic, and/or vision than even your bright med school or grad school peers lack. Sure, funding and pollitics can be aggravating at times, but if you keep a level head, work hard, and learn to accept the things that are beyond your ability to change, I see no reason most of the people in this forum can not have successful and productive careers.

 

[Coclean]

P.S. I recommend reading Michael Teitelbaum and Daniel Greenberg's articles on the state of biomedical research. These two fellows have spent their careers studying the state of the research employment and have a very good pulse on what is happening in the field.

Can you provide a link please?

 

[Scottish Chap]

For me, being a grad student seems much more appealing than a PI. PIs have a lot more responsibility and get to do a lot less of the things that I consider (at the moment) to be fun. While I'm out doing experiments and trying new things, my PI is writing grants and dealing with administrative crap.

Agreed. Pretty much your ONLY responsibility as a graduate student is to pass your classes and focus on the science. There is no pressure to maintain a funded research program.

Graduate school had some absolutely nightmarish times for me, I promise you. It wasn't all rosy. However, some people might choose to harbor bitterness and unforgiveness (and it is a choice) but that's just not my style. There was a lot of injustice and politics that I choose not to gossip about because I think that overall, it's a worthy endeavor for the committed and it's not like you're digging ditches!

Any career--medicine included--has politics, burnout, and disillusioned practitioners. Just read SDN for a while.

 

[Scottish Chap]

I had two very important epiphanies early in my research career, and I think they have helped me to keep a level head and even temperment about things to this point.

1) My first real serious research project SUCKED. Basically nothing worked, and I spent 95% of my time banging my head against the wall. Fortunately, my mentor calmly explained to me that this is the nature of the beast. You either grow to accept this as normal, or you will be consumed by it. This really is a bi-polar industry we are in, and the sooner you can learn to let the seemingly infinite frustration roll off your back, and learn to relish the manic moments for what they are, the better off you will be.

2) Due to things going on in my personal life, I worked in corporate law for a few years following undergrad. I was making TONS of money, and living this sort of sexy, envied yuppie lifestyle. But I was not happy at all. It didn't interest me, it didn't challenge me, and it wasn't what I wanted to be doing. I think this brief experience was invaluable because it served to cauterize why I really belong doing what I am now. Probably like many of you, I don't do this to get rich... I don't do it to get famous... I don't don't do it because the average John Doe things it's cool.. I do it because I HAVE TO. I simply would not be content doing anything else. Sure, we work our asses off, we train seemingly forever, and our level of compensation usually doesn't commensurate with all of the effort we put into our work, but hopefully we all do what we do because we need to, and we want to. Whenever I get a little demoralized, I'm always reminded that even on my worst days in the lab, I'm still exponentially more happy than I would be doing anything else. If you're in this game for some other motive, you probably SHOULD get out... because it will most likely eat you alive.

So presumably, most of you have been given this opportunity because you have some sort of native talent, exceptional work ethic, and/or vision than even your bright med school or grad school peers lack. Sure, funding and pollitics can be aggravating at times, but if you keep a level head, work hard, and learn to accept the things that are beyond your ability to change, I see no reason most of the people in this forum can not have successful and productive careers.

Colleague, I like the way you think.

 

[sirrileydog]

You are way off the mark. I work at Genentech and those are the standard figures in the field. 80-110k for a starting Research Scientist I jobs? Sorry, but I just to laugh--but then again I am not surprised, given the hype and propaganda for biotech. If you are a senior scientist or group manager with about 15+ years of experience you might hit 100k, but then again many of those positions are not meritorious but based on networking and nepotism, and not to mention that those positions are quite rare. Your numbers sound like those inflated by job.org or something of the sort.

I have to contest this again! I also work in biotech and I know for a fact of 3 PhDs with a solid publication records landing jobs in the range I described. With bonus and other compensation, these people are either at or breaking the 100k mark. Yes, these jobs are competitive but they don't require Cell or Nature papers.

RAs with bachelor degrees can earn as much as 60k/year:
http://www.payscale.com/chart/17/Me...chnology-United-States_USD_20080410124813.jpg

If you really do work at Genentech (as I would doubt), you'll see that the South San Francisco median pay for a scientist (phd) is $89k.
http://www.payscale.com/chart/265/M...chnology-United-States_USD_20080410125018.jpg

Still laughing? Time to ask for a raise, maybe?

 

[JimblyUK]

Colleague, I like the way you think.

Scottish Chap, just out of interest, what were your reasons for quitting research and going to Medical school? Sounds like you were on the right track to succeed in research.