Research

[Guest otfour]

What constitutes a "successful" summer research project? That is, particularly from the perspective of medical schools (i.e. when reviewing applicant credentials)?

[Guest Ian Wong]

Publishing, of course! However, even if you didn't publish, and many successful med applicants including myself didn't, if you learned something or sparked an interest from the research experience, or gave the professor the chance to evaluate you outside of a classroom setting for a reference letter, I would say that research was worthwhile.

 

Ian

UBC, Med 3

[Guest jase]

I'd like to add something which may be helpful. When finding a potential research supervisor for the summer, be particular about his/her ability to get publications out. Also, realize that not all research jobs are equal. Some jobs will get you filling pipet tip boxes, autoclaving glassware, etc. That is NOT what you want to be doing - it teaches you nothing and you will be bored... VERY BORED.

 

Instead, go speak with graduate students/techs working in the lab and see what they think. Also, ask them how well they think the supervisor treats them. Of course, don't approach them when the supervisor is there in front of the grad students - then they won't tell you their true feelings.

 

FYI, my research experience last summer was great, but the prof was an a**. No publications, which was what I expected - nothing goes "right" in the lab. Which reminds me... you may want to go into a lab where the supervisor isn't stingy. This will make your life a lot easier. Imagine having to clone an insert into a certain vector without the right primers and trying to use restriction enzymes and ligation tools to make the ends fit directionally?

 

Heh

 

G'luck

[Guest Hk91583]

Hi,

 

I was wondering if it is imperative that we have some sort of research experience. Are there many applicants that make it into med school w/o the research experience? Will the applicant's chances be hurt badly if he/she does not have research?

[Guest BennyG]

Hi Everyone,

 

I thought that I would add my two cents (two dollars, now that I re-read this post) to this thread considering that I have experienced numerous summer, undergraduate, graduate (and then some more!) research projects, some good and some really awful. Others with an extensive research background please also do jump in, if only to save some of our younger colleagues a lot of pain when they do summer research projects.

 

First of all, yes, a publication, preferably a first-authored one, is the ultimate goal and an outstanding achievement for an undergrad. However, as was already mentioned, publications are not necessary for acceptance to med school and it is extremely rare that undergraduates ever publish. This happens for several reasons:

 

1) Time. Unless every experiment you touch turns to gold, there is likely not enough time during a summer to produce the amount of results required to be sufficient for a publication, let alone produce the majority of work that would enable you to secure first authorship. If you are very lucky, you will contribute enough so that a future publication will have your name somewhere in the middle. This is great and would be more than the vast majority of the applicants to med school. There is always the possibility of returning in subsequent summers, or spending a little time during the year pushing the project along. These solutions rarely work. The following summer, the lab's focus and interests may have shifted, and once midterms come around most students drop the lab work to study.

 

2) Importance. The supervisor of the lab, unless desperate, insane, or a poor manager, is not going to put the summer student on a very exciting project. Likely, the best projects (i.e. scientifically interesting with best chance of success and publications) will go to the post-doctoral fellows or senior graduate students because, after all, their careers are more important than yours. The best that a summer student can hope for is to either be placed on a "safe" yet moderately interesting segment of a project that allows him/her to learn a few things, produce a little be a bit of solid data, be independent and yet get help when needed.

 

3) Bad management. I alluded to this in my point above. Remember that most scientists have been selected based on their scientific achievements, not on their abilities to manage students. This is a problem, because most of what an established scientist does is either write grants/papers and manage his/her staff. Few scientists have the skills to effectively manage people from different age groups and skills levels and also nurture everyone's different career aspirations, nor are they expected to. They have their own careers to advance and have to deal with the cut-throat competition that is modern biological science. This is why you get a lot of profs who either make you rack pipette tips all day, as "jase" mentioned in his post, or, alternately, who stick you in a corner with some tubes and say "go for it". If you are fortunate, the post-doc or grad student who gets to babysit you is a nice person who likes you and wants to help you succeed. Such poor management happens most in big labs with big name profs, because the prof is too damn busy.

 

Jase is right in his post when he says you should assess the lab's ability to publish, because publications are truly the currency of science. However, for an undergrad, there are many other factors. Small labs will, by nature, publish less, but you are more likely to interact with the scientist (i.e. the guy who will write you your med school reference) rather than a tech or post-doc. You will also have more opportunities to be independent. On the other hand, there is much less money and assistance available, so it depends on what you feel most comfortable with. One of my best lab experiences was in a lab where it was me (a second-year undergrad summer student at the time) the prof and one tech. We had few reagents and no publications. But I did almost everything by myself and benefited immensely from the experience.

 

Jase's point about evaluating how the supervisor treats his graduate students is also very important, but, having been a graduate student, I can tell you that summer students rarely ever see the true picture of what goes on in a lab when they start working there. The prof should be on his/her best behaviour towards a prospective summer student. If he/she isn't, you know what to do - do not work there. Graduate students are also quite unlikely to share their feelings with a relative stranger, especially a bright-eyed, green and keen undergrad. Also, the supervisor-gradstudent relationship is very complex, not quite mentor-apprentice, not quite parent-child, not quite employer-employee, but a strange hybrid that incorporates the best and the worst of each. Arguments, good times, bad times, etc. aren't always as they seem. Even with normal, non-a**hole supervisors, grad students go through three phases. At the beginning, they adore the boss, then they hate him/her for making their lives miserable, then they come to a balanced resolution and get their degree. However, some profs really do suck at supervising. I've seen a prof humiliate his student in his office and then walk outside and have a pleasant and social chat with the summer student who was none the wiser.

 

In summary, for a med-school minded undergrad, choose the lab that you think will give you either (or both) of: (i) the best scientific experience, so you can write about this in your admission essays and (ii) the best reference. Publications will come if the work is good but don't pursue this to the exception of other more practical and realistic concerns. Remember, what a summer student looks for in a lab is different than what a grad student, post-doc or tech looks for in a lab.

 

Have a great weekend everyone!