Should I get a medical degree to have a successful scientific research career?

[Genecks]

I was talking to my research supervisor as of late, and he spinned the idea of me becoming a medical doctor. He was suggesting that I go get the medical degree. I'm currently in a laboratory building where a lot of medical doctors are performing scientific research. They don't have a Ph.D, but they still conduct scientific research and lead the research teams.

 

I'm unsure about the idea of going for a medical. It seems like a truckload of non-sense, four years wasted studying stuff I'm not too interested in, and going into a lot of debt. Honestly, I'm really good at studying medical science. I'm really good. However, I tend to not really care about the majority of topics unless they relate to neuroscience or new knowledge about regeneration/longevity (for example, more knowledge about the cellular biology of cancer).

 

Seeing as how I can't be a medical science researcher as a luxury, I figure those kinds of ideas are out of my reach. Yes, I suspect I could get loans for medical school, deal with the bogusity of medical school, and so forth... But, I'm unsure what kinds of prospects I would have if I attempted to become a medical researcher right after medical school.

 

Thoughts?

 

Personally, I've considered the Ph.D route.

 

I could truly consider the M.D. route. Perhaps there is some truth that more doors will open for me with a M.D. rather than a Ph.D.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Genecks

[CharonY]

If you want to do research in a uni setting, an MD won't open more doors, but rather different ones. You are limited to certain types of research. My MD collaborators are basically all involved in epidemiological effects or are put on a grant to "provide expertise", i.e. they function more as consultants rather than researchers.

 

However, a research path in unis generally involves getting tenure. For that you should familiarize yourself early how such a path look like. Also realize that not more than 25% of the PhDs (and less MDs) will end up in such a position.

[Genecks]

Impressive. Thank you for the quick reply.

 

I'm involved with fragile X. The research team looks at the cellular, behavioral, and genetic aspects of the disorder. Past research has been involved with alzheimers and other stuff.

 

The guy who leads it has his Ph.D, but there are plenty of MDs walking around.

 

What about outside of a uni setting?

 

Is more biological research being done outside of uni settings rather than inside uni settings?

Are things moving that way?

 

I find myself reading about and looking at research from people from private institutions rather than academic institutions.

 

If I think about it, because how things are chaotic these days, going for a medical degree might not be such a bad idea. I could be a medical doctor and a researcher on the side. I don't necessarily feel the need to be leader on a project, as I believe that there is a lot of good that can be done from joining a research team that is conducting research on a person's particular interest, and just help that team to the best: It's about team effort, really, not being the leader. Of course, the trick is finding the right research group.

 

I've learned that PIs don't mind having ideas bounced off of them, and they might even be willing to open a research door for a person who wants to pursue something. At least, that's what I've been experiencing.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Genecks

[CharonY]

Eh, I though I posted something but apparently lost it.

 

In short: there are not many pure research institutes around that do basic research. In applied areas MDs are involved in clinicals but I am not aware of much else. Joining a group would is not a permanent job but more akin to a postdoc.

Dual degrees are often tricky business and of limited value (not yet clear how that is going to work out).

 

PIs themselves are too much subject to grants to be able to employ someone for a bit of random reserch (that does not have the prospect to be fundable). Also it is important to realize how the work looks like post-graduation.

 

Just a random link towards that:

My link

[Greippi]

I just have a small bit of advice for you: play to your strengths. You wanna hone your skills at what you're good at, rather than completely changing direction. While diversity is good, you don't want to diverge to far from where your strengths lie.

 

For example, if you have a medical degree, you may get bogged down in epidemiological effects (to steal one example from CharonY), if that's your main strength then I don't see the point.

I'm a biochemist. If I did a genetics based PhD it would perhaps open up other options for me, but there'd be no point because my talent lies in biochemistry.

 

 

You are not likely to succeed if you're doing something you're just not interested in. A medical degree is a long time to be bored, and apathy could well set in.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Greippi

[mississippichem]

The MD could take you down a pharmaceutical science career path. Drug design teams in the private sector are often comprised of chemists, biologists, chemical engineers, computer scientists and MD's. Drug design, though a very competitive field, is a great for doing research in the private sector...eh, great to make a lot of money as well.

 

You won't have much research freedom but you will have a massive research budget as well as some of the world's most state of the art laboratories, operating with some of the best and the brightest on the best equipment available. On average, large pharma companies throw out about 2.5 billion dollars to develop a blockbuster drug like prilosec, or viagra. Some companies even offer profit sharing to their scientists (stock options, bonuses, royalties).

 

I'm currently taking a grad-level organic synthesis class that has a heavy focus on drug design and development. I can't even begin to tell you how inter-disciplinary the field is. I can see how MD's are needed a bit further down the development line after we chemists are done tweaking a compound.

 

If nothing else, many medical schools maintain a strong research staff. I have friends that work in some of these labs, and they seem satisfied with their work.

Edited March 25, 2011 by mississippichem

[CharonY]

I know only a handful of people working in pharma companies personally, but it appears that they have mostly pharmacist rather than MDs involved in drug design. The ones I know of do the clinicals.

Drug design in uni setting is somewhat different from pharmaceutical companies. Usually, the majority of the development money goes into the trials rather than into drug research. Also basic drug design is done only to a more limited extent within the big pharmas.

 

Pandering to what one believe is ones strength can be dangerous if too narrowly defined. At the undergrad level (and to some extent this also goes for the grad and postdoc level) the perspective on the actual job be too narrow to be able to actually judge where ones strength may be. Also, if the interest is strong enough one is bound to become good at it. One has to realize that the actual job later on may require a completely different skill set than acquired in grad school, however.

[Marat]

The big thing in academic life science fields today is the so-called 'Mud-Phud,' or combination MD.-Ph.D. This is really the degree you need to pave your way to success. It is also much easier than you might think if you follow the right route. For example, if go to England after getting an M.D., adding the Ph.D. can be a really trivial, one-year 'research' project, which does wonders for getting you into the door at good research institutes but costs very little time or effort. Also, if money is a concern with respect to getting an M.D., if you command a foreign language like German or French you can study medicine there for next to no fees at all, even as a foreigner.

[ecoli]

The big thing in academic life science fields today is the so-called 'Mud-Phud,' or combination MD.-Ph.D. This is really the degree you need to pave your way to success. It is also much easier than you might think if you follow the right route. For example, if go to England after getting an M.D., adding the Ph.D. can be a really trivial, one-year 'research' project, which does wonders for getting you into the door at good research institutes but costs very little time or effort. Also, if money is a concern with respect to getting an M.D., if you command a foreign language like German or French you can study medicine there for next to no fees at all, even as a foreigner.

'In the US, this is a 7-8 year program. Worth it if you want the dual degree, plus it's fully funded. The trend for MD/PhD is to practice at least part of the time, because that MD degree pays better than the PhD (as far as the academic/university hospital setting goes).

[CharonY]

Eh, just realized, if you are more interested in joining a group as opposed to leading one, not getting a PhD would be much better.

This included e.g. analyst and technician positions (both in- and outside academia).

[Genecks]

Really, guys...

 

I'm just in it for the dorky, nerdy women.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Genecks