Why MD/PhD, Just MD also can do research

[jackie kidd]

🙂 Hi MD/PhD (Oncology) students

I am getting started on my admission applications for MD/PhD at 15-20 places.

I am keen to get some winning replies to the million dollar interview question:

WHY MD/PhD?
YOU CAN DO RESEARCH AND SEE PATIENTS ALSO WITH A MD DEGREE.

This is like the opening salvo in all MD/PhD interviews.

I want to get some alternative viewpoints, so that my application reflects in advance what I will say in the interviews.

ALSO THE BUZZ WORD FOR MD/PhD IS TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH -- HOW MUCH OF THIS IS BASIC RESEARCH AND WHAT ARE THE SHORTCOMINGS IN MD TRAINING IN THIS RESPECT?

Cancer specific replies would be a great help.

Thanks

Jackie

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[geekgirl]

🙂 Hi MD/PhD (Oncology) students

I am getting started on my admission applications for MD/PhD at 15-20 places.

I am keen to get some winning replies to the million dollar interview question:

WHY MD/PhD?
YOU CAN DO RESEARCH AND SEE PATIENTS ALSO WITH A MD DEGREE.

This is like the opening salvo in all MD/PhD interviews.

I want to get some alternative viewpoints, so that my application reflects in advance what I will say in the interviews.

Cancer specific replies would be a great help.

Thanks

Jackie

Sure MDs can also do research, and some of them are capable of doing very good research. but some of them also are not trained to do the sort of research we are. it takes a long time to understand the basic science approach. and its subtleties, not just its broad brush strokes. and the phd process is not just about the project you do and the papers you publish. its about teaching you how to think in a very different way to the way you are taught to think in med school.
now as i said, some MDs can make this transition without an official training path. but as you progress, it is hard to find the time, mentorship, etc that are given to you during your phd.
and in terms of the future (i.e. practicing medicine, getting grants) it does not hurt to have both degrees. your clinical programs expect you to do reserach. you are better equipped to write grants or come up with good projects.
there are many differences. the main being - in the MD/PhD program, you are trained to be a scientist. and trained to be a physician.
as an MD, you are trained to be a physician. and then you learn to be a scientist on your own. possible, but far more difficult.
ah, other things too. but that's my 2c.

 

[Doctor&Geek]

Quick answer:

MD training teaches you the answers to questions.

PhD research training teaches you to ask the right questions.

It is a matter of preference if you want to pursue research training with a PhD or a postdoctoral fellowship after your MD.

 

[Neuronix]

I answered this in three steps. If #1 didn't satisfy them, I moved onto #2, and then finally to #3.

1) You'll be more effective if you get training in both the MD and PhD in an integrated program early on so that you think about the medicine in science and the science in medicine.

2) If you want to be a researcher, you're going to have to get the training somewhere. Why not invest it on the front end? If you go from MD to research, you'll probably have to make up the PhD time in post-docs or getting a PhD later.

3) The money is a factor. The NIGMS created the MD/PhD program because the loans of medical school were too much of a burden on budding researchers. This was probably a better answer for me than for others because I'm from a poor family and I don't have a state medical school.

 

[pip00]

I answered this in three steps. If #1 didn't satisfy them, I moved onto #2, and then finally to #3.

1) You'll be more effective if you get training in both the MD and PhD in an integrated program early on so that you think about the medicine in science and the science in medicine.

2) If you want to be a researcher, you're going to have to get the training somewhere. Why not invest it on the front end? If you go from MD to research, you'll probably have to make up the PhD time in post-docs or getting a PhD later.

3) The money is a factor. The NIGMS created the MD/PhD program because the loans of medical school were too much of a burden on budding researchers. This was probably a better answer for me than for others because I'm from a poor family and I don't have a state medical school.

i have questions regarding #2:
if you go with just the m.d. and during your residency you do research, and then you decide to do research, wouldnt you start out as an assistant prof? After all attendings are at the least assistant profs...
#3 i can understand. though in case you're not sure if you want to do research, you may become a doctor and work in private practice for a few years and make up for the $$ difference, and then go into academia, and you'll still be same age as md/ph.d, though they spent their years in training with more meaning.

 

[Neuronix]

i have questions regarding #2:
if you go with just the m.d. and during your residency you do research, and then you decide to do research, wouldnt you start out as an assistant prof? After all attendings are at the least assistant profs...

I'm not sure of the exact logistics of this scenario, and I think it would vary from place to place. However, regardless of what you're called, you wouldn't get your own lab until spending years working in someone else's like a post-doc.

#3 i can understand. though in case you're not sure if you want to do research, you may become a doctor and work in private practice for a few years and make up for the $$ difference, and then go into academia, and you'll still be same age as md/ph.d, though they spent their years in training with more meaning.

Very very few people go into private practice and then come back to basic science research for various reasons. It's an interesting idea, though I don't think I've ever seen it.

 

[Vader]

i have questions regarding #2:
if you go with just the m.d. and during your residency you do research, and then you decide to do research, wouldnt you start out as an assistant prof? After all attendings are at the least assistant profs...

Actually, attending does not equate with assistant professor. There are many attendings who are in fellowship, for example. If you are an MD and happen to do research during residency (note that this is very difficult to impossible to do), you would probably still need some experience or at the very least time to prepare yourself to run your own research lab (i.e. securing grants).

#3 i can understand. though in case you're not sure if you want to do research, you may become a doctor and work in private practice for a few years and make up for the $$ difference, and then go into academia, and you'll still be same age as md/ph.d, though they spent their years in training with more meaning.

As Neuronix mentioned, this scenario is extremely rare. Being out of academia for any period of time almost automatically sets you back in terms of keeping up with the latest advances in a field (unless you work in industry), not to mention that you would still need the additional research experience to apply for grants.

 

[pip00]

i have no more arguments for #3, md/ph.d is obviously much better in that situation. if you wanted to go into academia from private practice, you'd probably start as an attending?

but for #2: say you finished gen. surgery residency and immediately got a job as an attending at some university hospital making $250k. now will you be working full-time at that hospital just as a surgeon/supervisor to the residents? Or they would also allot to you time to spend part of your day doing research or perhaps even teaching some courses at the medschool, like pathology? if they do allow that, then i think you'd get your own lab. Because ive never heard of any md's at my school having a title "post-doc", they all have titles like associate or assistant professor, and that implies having your own lab. But if as an attending you must stick to the hospital the whole day, then i dont see how a doctor might transition into academia at all...