Will cuts to NIH funding affect how Medical Schools value research expereince/productivity in applicants?

[PorkBellyBowl]

Given the uncertainty in NIH funding, will schools who are traditionally research-oriented schools (only looking at traditional MD-programs) value research experience less now? I never really understood why regular MD-schools would have an orientation toward research-based applicants except for maybe getting medical students involved in clinical research. With NIH funding up in the air (which likely affects clinical research funding), is it likely those same research-oriented schools will place more emphasis on other aspects of an applicant (ex. stats, leadership, service)?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[stew_md]

Not all MD schools seek only research focused applicants, there are certainly outliers though (ie. Hopkins). A big part of medicine and American medicine in particular is clinical research. Here in American we prioritize "quality" above access and affordability, thus seeking out new innovations is a big part of the culture. I don't think that these NIH budget slashes will change that aspect of medical culture (right now they have been postponed).

Ultimately, medical schools are tasked with preparing medical students to enter this medical system, and admissions committees have the challenge of selecting candidates that have aptitude to do well in this medical system. I don't see selection criteria changing much as a result of these budget changes. Our research institutions and pharmaceutical companies will still desire the same level of research output, they will find a way to bounce back eventually.

 

[AJS59]

Given the uncertainty in NIH funding, will schools who are traditionally research-oriented schools (only looking at traditional MD-programs) value research experience less now? I never really understood why regular MD-schools would have an orientation toward research-based applicants except for maybe getting medical students involved in clinical research. With NIH funding up in the air (which likely affects clinical research funding), is it likely those same research-oriented schools will place more emphasis on other aspects of an applicant (ex. stats, leadership, service)?

While a large chunk of medical research (especially basic science medical research) is NIH funded, there's a lot out there that isn't especially in the clinical realm.

 

[AsclepiusAdvisingLLC]

What MD programs are looking for is that you know how to test hypotheses and can use what you have learned to improve the practice of medicine. Many programs do not have the time to teach you how to be a good scientist. These skills must be developed before matriculation because in many cases you will only be taught to become a good clinician. This is why making it abundantly clear in your application that you have worked hard to develop your skills prior to matriculation is extremely valuable. Doing chart reviews and retrospective studies often do not require funding. Having good scientists in the medical field will always be essential.

 

[eigen]

While a large chunk of medical research (especially basic science medical research) is NIH funded, there's a lot out there that isn't especially in the clinical realm.

While that's true, the NIH indirect cuts on their own would effectively end research at many medical schools, where research programs already run a deficit.

 

[Mr.Smile12]

I agree with Asclepius: research is evidence of an academic competency level. Understanding how to read or produce new findings using the scientific method, critical thinking, quantitative analysis, and communications skills is generally desirable, and "research" is one way to show you have academic competency. I don't think it will change anyone's mind, but I do think it will particularly hurt programs for low-SES individuals with little opportunity to become acclimated to scientific inquiry or the resources for an undergraduate lab to help them with college or professional school preparation. Consequently, I suspect this will push back young undergrads' abilities to do research (or in some cases attend college) for at least a year.