Question about MDs, PhDs, scientific research, etc

[Alastriss]

Ok I have a few questions and I wanted to post them here.

 

-What is the purpose of the MD/PhD program? I heard it is to bridge the gap between scientists and physicians, but in what manner?

-for those who do their MD, can they participate in scientific research later on as post-docs?

-I heard that picking up a PhD is possible in residency, is this true?

-I have seen one researcher who is a research scientist and is in anatomical pathology, how is that possible?

 

I have very little knowledge about all this and it would be great if someone can shed some light on the situation!

[Devari]

Ok I have a few questions and I wanted to post them here.

 

-What is the purpose of the MD/PhD program? I heard it is to bridge the gap between scientists and physicians, but in what manner?

 

With regards to the combined M.D./Ph.D. programs, this involves getting both an M.D. degree and a Ph.D. degree. Both the M.D. and the Ph.D. are completely separate degrees. The difference between the combined program and taking each degree separately is that with the combined program you typically spend a few years in medical school, then a few years as a graduate student, then return to finish medical school, and then spend several years finishing your graduate degree. An alternative to a combined program is to complete a Ph.D. and then complete an M.D. instead of switching between the two programs every few years. Whether the degrees are obtained separately or as part of a combined program doesn't really matter and will generally take roughly the same amount of time in total. Although there are advantages and disadvantages to either route you end up with both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in both cases.

 

To answer your question about why someone would get both degrees, it's because M.D. training prepares you to practice medicine while a Ph.D. prepares you to carry out scientific research. They're basically completely separate fields. The training for an M.D. focuses on applying existing scientific knowledge to treat medical conditions while the training for a Ph.D. focuses on understanding and developing new scientific knowledge and principles. The important distinction here is that a medical doctor is NOT a scientist and has not been trained to carry out scientific research. For example, the training for an M.D. doesn't involve designing and running experiments, reviewing scientific literature in depth, understanding and developing scientific methods and techniques, and so on. The purpose of getting both the M.D. and Ph.D. degrees is to provide training in both of these fields so someone can work as both as a doctor and as a scientist.

 

-for those who do their MD, can they participate in scientific research later on as post-docs?

 

Although someone with an M.D. may work in a research lab they generally wouldn't hold a post-doctoral research position because in most cases they don't have the training and experience that would be required to carry out scientific research at the post-doctoral level. Post-doctoral training refers to training after obtaining a scientific doctorate so it is therefore usually necessary to hold a Ph.D. degree. Basically, you can think of post-doctoral training for a scientist as being roughly equivalent to residency training for a physician.

 

Now, sometimes you can find someone with an M.D. who will carry out scientific research or run a research lab even though they don't have a Ph.D. or any graduate-level scientific training. However, since medical school doesn't prepare someone to carry out scientific research someone with an M.D. will generally not be trained or qualified to design experiments, run a research lab, supervise graduate students, and so on. Although many M.D.s will have had some exposure to research this is generally very limited and doesn't involve independent work. And if someone enters medicine from a non-science background then it's quite possible that someone with an M.D. could have never set foot in a research laboratory and have absolutely no research experience. Because of these factors an M.D. who is involved in research will often collaborate with a Ph.D. scientist. This allows the M.D. to apply their clinical knowledge and the Ph.D. to apply their scientific training. That's the reason for getting both an M.D. and a Ph.D. degree. Instead of having to rely on someone else for clinical or scientific experience the person is fully trained as both a doctor and a scientist.

 

-I heard that picking up a PhD is possible in residency, is this true?

 

A Ph.D. in a scientific research field generally takes between 5-7 years to complete, so unless you can somehow take a 5-7 year break during your residency program this usually wouldn't be possible.

 

-I have seen one researcher who is a research scientist and is in anatomical pathology, how is that possible?

 

Many clinically-relevant departments run graduate programs to train scientists. Even though the work may sound "clinical" the person is actually carrying out scientific research. For example, you can get a Ph.D. in medical genetics or immunology which will train you to carry out scientific research in these fields.

[BrendanJ]

Ok I have a few questions and I wanted to post them here.

 

 

-for those who do their MD, can they participate in scientific research later on as post-docs?

 

 

 

Every lab save for one in the particular department I worked in was run by an MD, and it happened to have an MD doing a post doc in it, so yes, it is most definately possible

[Devari]

Every lab save for one in the particular department I worked in was run by an MD, and it happened to have an MD doing a post doc in it, so yes, it is most definately possible

 

In certain very clinically-related research departments this might be the case, but in most life sciences disciplines (biochemistry, cell biology, microbiology, etc.) the vast majority of labs will be run by someone with a Ph.D. (there are always exceptions and you will sometimes find an M.D. carrying out basic scientific research, but it far more common to see this in clinical research settings).

[mei]

I don't think it is a rule that MDs don't have research labs.

 

Pathologists are MDs and often run their own research labs in addition to their clinical duties.

 

The large research lab I used to work in (in Canada), had a number of MDs running labs without assistance from PhDs. I think most had reached a point in their careers where they were experts in their field, but wanted to answer more basic questions about the diseases they treat. I would suspect that they were well known enough to obtain lab resources. I did also come across a lot of MDs who collaborated with PhDs or MDs who also got their PhDs well after practicing for a while.

 

I do agree that it is important to have an understanding of research methodology but I don't think you have to be a PhD to get this knowledge.

[Ollie]

I heard that picking up a PhD is possible in residency, is this true?

 

A Ph.D. in a scientific research field generally takes between 5-7 years to complete, so unless you can somehow take a 5-7 year break during your residency program this usually wouldn't be possible.

 

Many residency programs have a "clinician scientist" or "surgical scientist" stream. This allows time away from clinical responsibilities in order to do research. There are some programs (UofT neurosurgery for example) where completing at least a Masters is expected. It less common to complete a PhD during residency, but is certainly possible.

[Devari]

I do agree that it is important to have an understanding of research methodology but I don't think you have to be a PhD to get this knowledge.

 

To a large extent the impact of having a Ph.D. really depends on what type of research you plan on doing. If you're studying something that is very closely related to a clinical issue then an M.D. may already have a good knowledge of the basic principles involved and be able to make a transition to research relatively easily. But if you're studying a topic related to basic cellular functions then the lack of research experience and the lack of detailed scientific knowledge could put the person at a significant disadvantage until they gain several years of research experience.

 

Many residency programs have a "clinician scientist" or "surgical scientist" stream. This allows time away from clinical responsibilities in order to do research. There are some programs (UofT neurosurgery for example) where completing at least a Masters is expected. It less common to complete a PhD during residency, but is certainly possible.

 

How much time is actually spent doing laboratory work for those programs? Because although it is common to get an M.Sc. after around 2 years of work it normally requires a minimum of 4-5 years of continuous laboratory work to complete a Ph.D. in most science disciplines (5-7 years is typical in most life sciences fields).

[Mitch]

A master's degree in epidemiology is often completed by physicians who want to do more research...not all scientific research takes place in a lab, so there is definitely a place for clinical physicians in medical research.

[bayervillager]

For your 2nd question: One of my professors in undergrad complained once to me at length about the presence of MD-post docs in her field (molecular genetics), so I am quite certain that it's possible. Also, if you google this, you will see numerous programs and position-postings advertised for MDs to do post-docs. I think that it's really great that you are so interested, Alastriss!

 

At the risk of stepping on people's toes... from my experience, I've found that it's common among life science researchers to have a negative bias against people who went into medicine. I'm sure that most of us have met a professor who would have you believe that doctors are the most stupid people on earth and have met a grad student who despises med students at least once in our academic careers. I'm not sure why that is, because the same bias doesn't exist in say, chemistry or physics. Why can't we all just get along? Anyways, just to point out that I would take information from some sources about whether an MD can do research and whether an MD can do good research with a grain of salt

[Devari]

At the risk of stepping on people's toes... from my experience, I've found that it's common among life science researchers to have a negative bias against people who went into medicine. I'm sure that most of us have met a professor who would have you believe that doctors are the most stupid people on earth and have met a grad student who despises med students at least once in our academic careers.

 

Although some graduate students may be biased against medical students I wouldn’t necessarily say that it’s “common”. Also, the reverse is seen as well – you can definately find medical students who have a negative bias against graduate students. Personally, I understand the value of each degree and see them as distinct fields that can compliment each other very effectively.

 

Anyways, just to point out that I would take information from some sources about whether an MD can do research and whether an MD can do good research with a grain of salt

 

I have met several M.D.s who do very good research and I have as much respect for them as I do for any other researcher. However, my point is that being trained as a medical doctor says absolutely nothing about a person’s ability to carry out scientific research. Medicine and research are completely separate types of work and the fact that someone has an M.D. doesn’t mean that they have any idea about how to approach a scientific research problem. Yes, many people with M.D.s carry out research and many of them are good at what they do. And for certain types of clinically relevant research having an M.D. can be extremely valuable. But there’s simply no substitute for actual research experience. It takes many years to acquire this and many people underestimate the massive amount of time, effort and laboratory experience that are necessary before someone becomes a competent researcher.

[Alastriss]

Hey all, thanks so much for this information; it is really, really helpful. I have encountered the 'hating' you are referring to bayervillager, and I think that the grad students and the profs (my supervisor) say that it stems from people confusing scientific research with medical research, which its not, and when it becomes associated as 'medical', then it gets exhaulted and is not just mere 'scientific'. Also a prof has expessed how disinterested many MDs are in basic cell mechanisms and have dismissed that as irrelevant, but I feel she may have based a whole lot on an experience or two.

She stressed that those MDs that want to go back into scientific research as post docs often have a difficult time getting funding because they lack evidence of research potential that a PhD student would have.

[strider2004]

I both agree and disagree with Devari's comments.

As an MD you are absolutely able to be very productive in medical research. For one, research is extremely varied and constitutes both clinical and basic science (bench to bedside). You will find that the clinicians at all medical schools and academic hospitals have research projects on the go. To be hired at an academic centre you need to either have a research or teaching component to your practice. One fine example is the iCapture centre at St. Paul's hospital in Vancouver. A vast number of those researchers do not have PhDs or MScs and also have a number of grad students working under them. Subspecialty training programs invariably have a research component so those in the medical profession have good exposure to generating questions and models to answer them.

After residency, a clinician can pursue a research fellowship (similar to a post-doc) to further their skills in a certain area.

 

One reason that there is this divide between clinicians and researchers in universities is that while researchers make their living on obtaining research grants to support them, clinicians have a backup that they are able to earn a living with their clinical work and need only attain a few research quotas to stay on faculty in universities. The duality of a clinician-researcher's work(splitting time between research and patients) means that they are spending less time on each component.

 

This mainly applies to MDs who complete specialty residencies. A family medicine residency is typically too short to have a detailed research component and most clinical and basic science researchers in medicine have completed a fellowship with the Royal College (RCPSC).

[Alastriss]

I didn't want to start another thread so I will build on this one

 

My question is will the type of scientific research vary depending on your specialty? ie one example I could think of: a medical oncologist differ from a pathologist's scope of scientific research or could both of them be working with cancer pathology?

[Alastriss]

Very often the research is related to your specialty, you get more credit for your work that way. However, if you specialize in Collagen disease or Immune disease in oncology, you can research non oncology subjects as well.. often as collaborations.

 

Some medical professions will have more freedom in the field of research they do. Pathology and Internal Medicine to name a couple. Pathologists have the freedom to research whatever their heart desires. Now of course this depends on one's experience and fellowship (post-doctoral training- Research). If you are really good at something, or wish to explore something else, the best is to create a collaboration with another expert and cross-subject research.

 

Thanks for your post docbill..so I take it that it has to generally be in your scope of practice. I was reading bout oncologists doing research about drug transporters and signalling pathways that increased resistance to a certain chemotherapeutic drug..which i thought was pretty kool! Is it similar for more surgical specialties? what other kinds of research would they do? I read about research pertaining to different surgical procedures and such which I thought was very interesting.

[Satsuma]

Ok I have a few questions and I wanted to post them here.

 

-What is the purpose of the MD/PhD program? I heard it is to bridge the gap between scientists and physicians, but in what manner?

-for those who do their MD, can they participate in scientific research later on as post-docs?

-I heard that picking up a PhD is possible in residency, is this true?

-I have seen one researcher who is a research scientist and is in anatomical pathology, how is that possible?

 

I have very little knowledge about all this and it would be great if someone can shed some light on the situation!

 

 

Hi Alastriss,

 

These are all really good questions and hard to sort out when you are trying to figure out your path in life.

There are some good points in the responses you received, but I would take some of the with a grain of salt.

If possible, perhaps you could get in touch with various PhDs or MDs that do research you are interested in or that have careers simililar to what you are interested in and see what path they took. You will probably find that there are many routes to where you want to be.

 

MDs can tailor their careers to do many things. You can do all clinical work. All research. Or any combination. Your research can be clinical or basic-science. Both of these approaches are "scientific". There was a post that made a contrast between clinical vs scientific research. This is not accurate...clinical research is also scientific. It doesn`t mean you won`t require extra training. Certainly, there are MDs out there doing good basic science and clinical research without formal graduate work.

 

One of the main benefits of obtaining a PhD is funding. It is much easier to obtain funding as a PhD. However, you can always pair up with a PhD early in your career. As you publish, you will be successful on your own in securing funding.

 

It is possible to obtain a PhD during your residency. It just means your residency may be a little longer. You can usually fit in an MSc without extending your residency. Depending on the school/program, research is often a requirement during your residency with some programs expecting publications. And often if research really interests you, you can take some of your elective time to do research rather than clinical electives to give yourself more exposure.