Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

Picking a Masters- Clinical Research or Basic Sciences?


Medase

Recommended Posts

So I'm in the midst of applying for masters right now (backup plan) and was wondering what the pros and cons would be to doing a clinical research master or basic sciences masters (somewhere in disease/cancer). Yes my end goal is to be an MD, but which type of masters would get me further in my career if I were to stick with research after med school? Things I'm looking at are productivity/time management/costs/usefulness/opportunities/residency placements.

 

I have a significant amount of experience in basic sciences, however I would like to try out a masters in clinical research, as I've heard some good advantages about it, but not sure if I should make the switch. As a physician scientist, basically you have a choice to do either clinical or basic sciences (rarely people do both and see patients, that's what a research director told me). I've looked into both fields but want to get some suggestions from those from both fields. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It depends on what you mean by "sticking with research after med school." Do you see yourself as someone who primarily sees patients in an academic centre, and is involved in some research projects, versus someone who devotes significant time to research and runs their own program, securing grants and employing staff etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lactic Folly said:

It depends on what you mean by "sticking with research after med school." Do you see yourself as someone who primarily sees patients in an academic centre, and is involved in some research projects, versus someone who devotes significant time to research and runs their own program, securing grants and employing staff etc.

The former. I definitely want to see patients and be involved on some research projects, with around ~60/40 time split. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, 60/40 time split would actually imply the latter (physician scientist), if you're talking 3 clinical days and 2 research days (and extra off hours likely devoted to research as well).

For many physicians in an academic centre, they essentially have a 100% clinical workload (which they need to work teaching into as well) and all the research is done on their own time, with maybe some academic days here and there (depends on the status of the particular department)... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Lactic Folly said:

To me, 60/40 time split would actually imply the latter (physician scientist), if you're talking 3 clinical days and 2 research days (and extra off hours likely devoted to research as well).

For many physicians in an academic centre, they essentially have a 100% clinical workload (which they need to work teaching into as well) and all the research is done on their own time, with maybe some academic days here and there (depends on the status of the particular department)... 

Oh wow didn't know physicians can have 100% clinical workload and still do research. If that's the case, I'm guessing they are mostly clinical research as basic science research takes more time involvement? 

So then with 2 research days, is it still possible to do basic sciences research?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but the challenges would be negotiating such a position with protected research time (into which your clinical and administrative commitments would likely spill over). If you wished to be a PI running your own basic science lab, you'd need funding, space, employees, etc. and would be competing for grants against full-time PhD researchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2019 at 9:31 AM, Medase said:

So I'm in the midst of applying for masters right now (backup plan) and was wondering what the pros and cons would be to doing a clinical research master or basic sciences masters (somewhere in disease/cancer). Yes my end goal is to be an MD, but which type of masters would get me further in my career if I were to stick with research after med school? Things I'm looking at are productivity/time management/costs/usefulness/opportunities/residency placements.

 

I have a significant amount of experience in basic sciences, however I would like to try out a masters in clinical research, as I've heard some good advantages about it, but not sure if I should make the switch. As a physician scientist, basically you have a choice to do either clinical or basic sciences (rarely people do both and see patients, that's what a research director told me). I've looked into both fields but want to get some suggestions from those from both fields. 

Clinical research is probably the most common research pursued by MDs in general, but especially in Canada. This is because clinical research requires less funding and resources and can be done essentially out of a laptop in most cases. If you have experience in basic sciences, the question to ask yourself is, did you enjoy it? are you curious to see what clinical research is like? 

In the short term, doing a clinical masters will probably produce more publications, but that depends on how long it takes you to get started etc., perhaps if you did the same basic science research you did before, you may be more productive. 

In the medium term, i think doing a clinical masters will give you a perspective on clinical research, which is more likely to be applicable to a career in medicine, but you don't need a clinical masters to dabble in clinical research, most med students do clinical research during med school, whereas doing basic science research in med school is less common due to time commitment. 

In the long term, the benefit really depends on what you like and what you end up doing. The majority of doctors do little to no research, I would say 80-85% or so of doctors are in this category. Out of the 15-20%, probably 90% of those do clinical research, so very few doctors do basic science research as a staff physician. There are a number of reasons for this. One of them is difficulty in finding the time to run a proper basic science lab, another is the lack of good remuneration as well as the amount of training needed in order to run a lab. Running a lab is like doing two busy jobs at once, so you can pretty much imagine the time commitment necessary. Again, these are just estimates and vary by specialty, but especially in Canada, physicians doing basic science is pretty rare, mostly concentrated in a few big academic institutions. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Edict said:

Clinical research is probably the most common research pursued by MDs in general, but especially in Canada. This is because clinical research requires less funding and resources and can be done essentially out of a laptop in most cases. If you have experience in basic sciences, the question to ask yourself is, did you enjoy it? are you curious to see what clinical research is like? 

In the short term, doing a clinical masters will probably produce more publications, but that depends on how long it takes you to get started etc., perhaps if you did the same basic science research you did before, you may be more productive. 

In the medium term, i think doing a clinical masters will give you a perspective on clinical research, which is more likely to be applicable to a career in medicine, but you don't need a clinical masters to dabble in clinical research, most med students do clinical research during med school, whereas doing basic science research in med school is less common due to time commitment. 

In the long term, the benefit really depends on what you like and what you end up doing. The majority of doctors do little to no research, I would say 80-85% or so of doctors are in this category. Out of the 15-20%, probably 90% of those do clinical research, so very few doctors do basic science research as a staff physician. There are a number of reasons for this. One of them is difficulty in finding the time to run a proper basic science lab, another is the lack of good remuneration as well as the amount of training needed in order to run a lab. Running a lab is like doing two busy jobs at once, so you can pretty much imagine the time commitment necessary. Again, these are just estimates and vary by specialty, but especially in Canada, physicians doing basic science is pretty rare, mostly concentrated in a few big academic institutions. 

 

This was really helpful, thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...