<p>Hey guys,</p>
<p>A lot of people who are also pre-med have told me about the importance of undergrad research. I've done a lot of clinical-based medical research (3 papers published), but no biomedical research. Should I start focusing on more laboratory research, or still continue with my clinical research?</p>
<p>How old are you?</p>
<p>hey bluedevilmike</p>
<p>are you a dukie as well? well, I'm a sophomore this fall. My mom has a lot of connections at a LA hospital, so I've been doing a lot of clinical research since the end of high school. So...what should I do?</p>
<p>"My mom has a lot of connections at a LA hospital"</p>
<p>I'd say so lol Since you're going to be a sophomore, it's only been a year since "the end of high school" and you've been at Duke for most of that year. In a few months of research, you have 3 pubs? I'd hate the use the word "bastard" twice in one day but...lucky bastard.</p>
<p>Clinical and lab research are both great from an admissions viewpoint. You should do what appeals to you. If you are interested in lab research, then do it. If you like clinical research, and would do lab only to get into med school, then forget about lab and stick with clinical.</p>
<p>Is lab and clinical research viewed in the same way? I mean I already have 1.5 yrs of lab research totaling close to 600 hrs. Is a person with with a clinical publication who did the publication in like 4 months looked upon more favorably than a person who did lab research for 3 yrs, including summers, but no publication. Or 2 clinical v. 1 lab publication. Which would look better? This is not meant to offend anyone. I am just curious b/c clinical research is a lot easier than lab and you put in a lot less hrs.</p>
<p>I wouldn't necessarily say that clinical research is easier than lab research. The main advantage of clinical research is that it's research AND clinical experience whereas bench research is just research. You can kill two birds with one stone doing clinical research. Obviously, in the end, you should be doing the kind of research that interests you.</p>
<p>Clinical research is easier because you put in less hrs. It is less strenuous and you really don't need to have such a vast knowledge of science to do it. It is just a ton of patient interaction and statistically analyzing your data. It is the ppl doing who do real lab research who deserve more recognition for devoting their time and energy to a project. They are the true pioneers of science because it is their valient efforts that are improving the way that society lives.</p>
<p>
[quote]
are you a dukie as well?
[/quote]
Hehe... "dukie"... sounds like "dookie". Okay, I'm done intellectually contributing to this thread.</p>
<p>If you are first author of a publication, that is wonderful, no matter whether it is clinical or lab. If you are buried in the middle, then what really matters is the letter of recommendation you get out of the experience. That can be excellent whether your work is clinical or lab. </p>
<p>Focus on what you like. If you think you might want to be a lab investigator long term, then try to do some lab work. If you want to do clinical research, then do clinical in college.</p>
<p>Clinical research is usually not particularly clinical itself. You may be sitting in front of a computer juggling data, and perhaps never see patients.</p>
<p>Hence why most clinical is 90% easier, faster, and less time consuming than lab.</p>
<p>what qualifies as clinical research? i looked up faculty and they all seem to be doing lab research, but im not sure how to differentiate between the 2 types of research. how do i go about searching for clinical research (are they usually located in hospitals/medical centers?) thanks.</p>
<p>Well, depending on the lab, you could end up sitting in front of a computer there as well.</p>
<p>If you want to find research opportunities, but have no idea in what, you need a local guide. Do you have a faculty advisor or premed advisor? These are good places to start. </p>
<p>Cold calling faculty members with no knowledge of what they do is a waste of time.</p>
<p>All else being equal, bench work probably trumps clinical work. It's a very small distinction and certainly publication (i.e. results) is vastly more important than the clinical vs. bench distinction.</p>
<p>However, you're young enough (to the OP) that I'd go ahead and try and find at least a few months of bench work, too, just for your intellectual/scientific development and for your own familiarity with the field.</p>
<p>I agree with BDM.</p>
<p>It's a great deal easier to publish a Clinical paper than a biochemical /biomedical science one (BCS/BMS) one. BCS/BMS work requires significantly greater investment of time and effort prior to reaching the publication milestone. Clinical publications can be based on even a single patient's case study. If you helped in Clinical Pharmacology, a PK paper can be produced pretty much every year for every new Project. It's pretty much feed/bleed/and report work.</p>
<p>BCS work on the other hand, requires much more insight, detailed thinking of mechanims, upstream, downstream, enzymes, co-factors, intermediates, surrogate markers and their respective analyses. Not an easy task! After you have all the data from each experiment, there is a great deal more time spent analyzing and making sense of the signal vs noise, and connecting dots so to speak. </p>
<p>If you can accomplish even an abstract from BCS work and present at a conference, it's worth it. </p>
<p>More experienced Scientists invariably put more weight to BCS work than clinical. Why? Because if you can understand complex sub-cellular processes and make sense of these results, clinical research is a piece of cake! Also your BCS work actually exponentially enhances your clinical understanding.</p>
<p>thanks again. This has helped me a lot!</p>