Why is Research Good?

[Guest tweep0]

I was wondering why research during the summer while in med school would be useful for residency spots. Is it the contacts made? Papers published? The research itself?

 

I guess my question really is: What aspects of research are seen as favorable by the committee that choses the residency spots? The reason I am asking is because i need to chose a place to work in the summer and I don't know what criteria I should base my decision on.

 

Thanks

 

Tweep

[Guest cheech10]

Some of the reasons I can think of include:

1. It is a concrete way to show interest in a particular field.

2. The skills and work ethic that you develop are desirable to many programs, particularly those that emphasize research.

3. It's a good way to make contacts in that field.

4. Any papers, posters, or abstracts you get are good evidence that you worked hard, were interested, etc.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Yeah, I have a more cynical view of things.

 

Basically, it's very difficult to determine whether someone is a great teacher or great clinician with patients. But it is very easy to count up the number of research papers someone has published (even if they've been in garbage journals.) On top of that, a published paper or major grant makes a great headline: "University of X medical school awarded 3 billion dollar grant to study whether orange juice actually helps common cold!!" or "Dr. X, with 'numerous publications to his credit' was recently awarded X." You don't see similar articles entitled "Dr. Y's student's actually learned something" or "Dr. Z went out of his way to ensure his dying renal ca patient was comfortable in his last few days of life and died the way he wanted." So over the last 20-30 years, more and more the people with power in medical schools have become those with research. And as a result, somehow we've become convinced that along the way to becoming a med student, you must have done some sort of project involving trying to get some fluorescent orange goo in agar to fluorece, because that will make you a better doctor.

 

But seriously, I think every medical student should do scientific research at some point, if only to see how scientific research works in the real world. The usual smattering of premed science courses (chemistry, biology, physics, etc) often teach there subject as 100% fact (ie Darwin was RIGHT, dammit, and there's no ifs and or buts) as if it were the word of God or something. Truth is though, I found in a lab that were most things were shades of gray, that a lot was interpretation, and that gestalt phenomenon was as important to interpreting "scientific" results as any sort of objective truth. I'd argue that's a pretty valuable experience for someone to have, going into a discipline where every new treatment is advertised to be "fortified with 100% evidence based medicine," often without evidence, only to realize a few years later that maybe giving everyone Vitamin E for their heart wasn't such a great idea after all. . .

[Guest tweep0]

The reason I am asking is because I am an undergrad with two years of research experience. I am applying this summer for my third year of research and I am trying to chose the best laboratory for me.

 

Should i look for a big name / big influence? Someone who is a practicing MD of whom I could job shadow?

 

Is it better to have research experience from many different labs or return to labs i worked in previous years where i might have a chance to publish?

 

Which of these qualities/strategies should I look for/use and would be most beneficial for obtaining a residency of choice (i don't know which residency i like either)?

[Guest seonagh]

I would imagine that what you do in Med school has far more influence on your residency than your undergrad summer work. (I might have this wrong but the first message refers to while in med school and the last to the fact that you are an undergrad not yet in med school so if I'm confused here the following may not apply)

 

While in undergrad, your summer research, if you find it interesting, might help you have something to say in your interview for admission that will stand out. However, if you work for a famous Dr. that you don't like and the actual research bored you I doubt that it will help. It may even hurt coming off as boring and superfluous butt kissing because you just won't be able to portray it as interesting in your 30 odd minutes of interview fame. (i.e. if the real answer to why you did it is that you thought it would help you get in to med school but you try to construct some sort of save the world, deeper meaning answer, you will not come out smelling like roses.

 

Also if you take a research grant for the merits it might have towards a certain residency that you might totally change your mind about when you actually get to med school then it would be a shameful waste of a good summer. Do what you think would be the coolest/most fun/most interesting/most thought-provoking etc. and the experience, once examined should provide something fruitful for life and interview - regardless of official prestige.

 

Seonagh

[Guest justanotherpremed]

seonagh:

 

Thanks for posting this. It is exactly how I felt when I read the original post. I feel that undergrads should shape their lives in the years before the begin medicine - rather than worry about conforming to what they think med schools want.

 

:hat :smokin

[Guest tweep0]

I know that it is important to choose research that interests you. That, to me, is obvious. But our decisions must, in part, be shaped to best suit our future. If two laboratories interest me, but one makes me more competitive for a residency spot, I will take that one! We do NOT have to sacrifice interest/passion when thinking about what med schools want.

 

Research that I do now (in undergrad) can lead me to continue doing the same research during medical school, which can lead to a published paper. Thus, this research can enhance my chances at a competitive residency spot. So i think that my choices now CAN have an impact on my 'competitiveness' for residency spots (if research does at all).

 

However, I still have only received a partial answer to my question. The selection committee for residency positions can only know so much about my research:

(1) time/duration of research

(2) name of scientists + their opinions of me (letters)

(3) # of papers/abstracts/posters that i have published/presented

(4) my interest in research (from my responses in an interview).

 

Therefore, my question becomes: Can or do any of these 4 factors enhance residency spot competitiveness? It seems obvious that demonstrating interest and a large number of publications is benificial. However, my concern is (2).

- Is research from a well known researher seen as more favorable?

- Is it common for med students to use reference letters from summer research or is it mostly from their supervisors during electives?

- Is it better if the research scientist is also an MD (clinician scientist)

 

The questions I am asking reflect a general lack of understanding of the whole selection process. I hope someone can address these specific questions and the general process. Thanks a bunch and sorry for clogging up so much cyberspace.

 

Tweep

[Guest Ian Wong]

Dude,

 

I think the other posters have given you some great advice. I understand that you want to look ahead to the future, but sometimes you can really over-analyze things to death. I think this is one of those situations. Worry about residency once you are a medical student. There is very little you can do during undergrad that could possibly influence your chances of getting into residency, particularly when you don't even know which specialty that you're aiming for.

 

Residency directors could care less what you did in undergrad. Most residency programs don't ask for undergrad transcripts when considering you for a position. Most won't even ask for the articles themselves when you put in your CV that you have a publication (even if it was a project done during med school, and directly relevant to your chosen specialty, simply because they don't have time to laboriously pore over each application). Most probably wouldn't bother reading a letter of reference from your undergrad days (unless, of course, that research continued throughout medical school; otherwise a four year old reference letter is just that, an out of date letter). Most are unlikely to care significantly about research done outside of that field, particularly if the only research you bring to the table is undergrad research (ie. no med school research, or no specialty-specific research). Medical school is a wiping of the slate for everyone, and people in general start out on even ground.

 

Therefore, my advice, like that of the previous posters, would be to pick the project that you feel you'd be able to be productive in, and of course, pick up any publications you can. In answer to your factors:

 

1) Don't care.

2) Probably don't care.

3) Publications = good, moreso if you were highly involved and learned something from the project.

4) Don't care. Anyone can say they enjoy research during the interview. The proof is in your CV. High quality research is very hard to do, particularly within the time constraints of medical school. Most med students get out a case report or case series or something manageably small like that. Seeing that most med students change their minds multiple times regarding specialties throughout med school, the odds are highly against your favour that your undergrad research will end up being in the same area as your specialty of choice.

 

Doing research is good because it shows you the whole other side to medicine that clinicians need to know about and understand. If it wasn't for research, and much more importantly, knowing what differentiates good research from bad research, we'd still be drilling holes in people's skulls to let out all the bad spirits...

 

Ian

[Guest noncestvrai]

Basically if you have the bench side of healthcare that makes you a better candidate for medschool in my opinion, and even to publish is no small feat, because believe it or not science is tough...The best thing I can say is that you should choose an environment that makes your experience enjoyable, as far as research productivity, that's a gamble, even if you work very hard...you never know what will come out of it.

 

So good luck.

 

noncestvrai

[Guest tweep0]

Thanks for all the responses. These discussion have really helped me understand the whole selection process.

 

The reason I am concerned while still in undergrad is partially because one of my friends, a plastics resident at Mac, recomended that i try research in fields that I may choose as a specialty. Also, i know that 'good' research takes time and rarely can it be done in a single summer. Therefore, my plan was to choose a lab that i could work in now and continue while in med school. This way, my chances of publication and my knowledge in a specific field will be much greater. That is why i am taking an interest now. I hope i dont seem like too much of a 'residency keener'. 8o

 

Ian, you mentioned "high quality research". This is, in essence, my original question. From your response, I have gathered that 'high quality research' is a bonus. When you say 'high quality' do you mean publication? Publication in well-known journals? primary authorship? Sorry for the chain of questions. This will be my last question in this thread (but not the board ofcourse). I Promise!

 

Thanks everyone

Tweep :smokin

[Guest cheech10]

When you say 'high quality' do you mean publication? Publication in well-known journals? primary authorship?

 

All of these things are good on a continuous scale. Do as much as you can as far as publishing as a first author in a well known high impact factor journal, but don't worry too much if you don't get all these things done. And it's not like everyone in med school has research/pubs at all. In my class we have everything from those who have no pubs to their credit to first authors of NEJM papers. For both getting into med school and residency there are things FAR more important than getting papers.

[Guest Ian Wong]

High quality research is research that doesn't suck. In other words, well-designed, prospective, research with good randomized control groups, and with enough subjects to be sufficiently powered to draw meaningful conclusions. Most med student and undergrad research isn't this. The reason why is that these sorts of high quality research projects, whether they be basic science or clinical trials, simply cannot be done in 3 months, or a year, or even a couple years of anything less than dedicated full-time work. Unless you've got a lot of other minions running around to share the load. Research is just plain long, hard work, and is never, ever anywhere near as straight-forward as you envision.

 

Here's a wonderful article published in Oto-HNS, a very respected ENT journal.

 

Bentsianov BL, Boruk M, Rosenfeld RM.

Evidence-based medicine in otolaryngology journals. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002 Apr;126(4):371-6.

 

The authors reviewed all articles published in 1999 in four leading ENT journals. Of the over 1000 articles, 36% made clinical recommendations. Yet, the mean sample size for these papers was n=27. Only 38% of these articles described planned research. Only 22% included a control or comparison group. Of articles making clinical recommendations, 80% were based on case series (a really weak methodology), and only 7% were based on randomized controlled trials.

 

 

 

Bottom line is that even in the best journals, a lot of stuff gets published that is really bad research. A lot of recommendations are based on non-randomized, non-controlled, underpowered, retrospective studies that really don't advance the clinical management of anything. In other words, the articles are being published more to help out the authors than they help out the medical community.

 

As far as your Plastics friend at Mac recommending that you get into specialty-specific research 1-2 years before you would even start medical school (and 3-4 years before you would experience what each specialty is like via your third year clinical rotations), I think that's crazy. Your every academic move should NOT be structured towards getting into a residency. Especially when you don't even know which specialty that would be.

 

But that's just my opinion.

 

I hope this doesn't come across as antagonistic or adversarial, because it certainly isn't intended to come across that way. I just think that you have gotten some really bad advice that is way too hardcore, and are deliberating entirely too much over something that is in all likelihood going to be completely inconsequential as far as you getting into residency.

 

If you pull out a first-author pub in NEJM or Nature as an undergrad, that's high quality research that will be noticed. However, since your own personal chances of pulling this off during a summer undergrad research project are roughly 1 million to one, I would instead pick a project with an investigator you feel comfortable with, who has the time and resources to mentor you and guide you through the research process. That way, you'll almost guarantee yourself to have a great research experience which will teach you a lot and give you that exposure that helps you decide whether an academic career might be in your future. That's way more valuable than picking up a miscellaneous publication here or there.

 

Ian

[Guest seonagh]

One thought,( and I don't want to put words into your Mac friends mouth, but guess I will in a way), is that he may have meant for you to try the research to help you make a residency choice later??? So that if you went to say... Mac, especially where it is only 3 years (in that it puts a bit of a crunch on nailing down what you want to do in residency). Having done that, you might already have some choices nailed down or ruled out. This could happen if you come across something you are passionate about interest wise or conversely bored you to tears. That I suppose would have some merit to you personally but like Ian said I bet it won't do you a lick of good as far as landing the spot. Kind of like trying to use stuff you did in high school to land a job after university, nobody ever really cares that you were on the debating team in high school in this situation (although skill you learned might come into play).

Seonagh

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Excellent points Ian. One of the reasons I've gotten quite cynical on research is I've seen a fair amount of "career" research done not to advance a field, but just to get data that is "publishable" no matter what its worth, to stick on a CV or midterm grant report so that funding isn't pulled. The problem with this is that it dilutes quality research* (it becomes increasingly difficult to find the useful articles about COPD when you search pubmed and get 10,000 hits, 90% of which are @#%$) and can confuse the issue if it runs counter to results from better run studies.

 

In History of Science circles, there has been a lot of talk of the development of "Big Science" in the latter half of the twentieth century. In particular, in "Little Science, Big Science" (1963) De Solla Price wrote of needing a "Science of Science". . . that alot could be learned by scientifically studying science itself. He noted that as of 1960, the number of scientific JOURNALS (not papers) was about 50,000, and growing at an exponential rate such that you could get a straight line curve on log10 graph paper graphing number of journals (not papers) against time. If that trend continued, then there should have been one MILLION different scientific journals as of the year 2000. I don't know if this is actually the case - Pubmed has 31,753 journals listed not including molecular but the point is that there is one heck of a lot of information, and when a lot of it is worthless it becomes difficult to find what is worthwhile.

 

At UWO, we have PCL sessions every wednesday where we're supposed to get research articles off of Pubmed. The idea is (partly) to teach us research skills. Thing is, our class learned last year there is a "master list" of articles approved by the block leaders that we're supposed to find. . . as if this is some sort of treasure hunt. Truth is, what really happens is that we get whatever pops up first of the 10,000 articles on COPD, or worse. . . just grab the first thing that pops up on google. How's that for a way to deal with information overload?

[Guest tweep0]

Wow! These are great posts. Thanks everyone.

 

My Mac friend actually finished his PhD (many publications and worldwide appointments) before starting his MD. His research must have had a large influence on his acceptance into the Plastics residency program. Maybe that is why he stressed research. As Seonag mentioned it also might have been a way to stimulate interests in a field. Either way, thanks for all your posts.

 

Tweep