Go for the PhD? or MD? (interested in research)

<p>So, my primary interest is research, and I'm hoping to do a double major in Applied Math and Computer Science, and then go to graduate school for Bioinformatics or something similar and then do research. I know however, that I can also do research if I get an MD. I did a quick search and people were saying all sorts of things, like an MD is better because it allows you to do clinical research, or to do an MD/PhD. I really find it hard to believe that an MD is worth all the extra time and money if I have no plans to do any clinical work. I'm just looking for some reassurances, or maybe some really good advice, am I making the right choice by not doing a pre med track?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>If your goal is to do research, either an MD or a PhD will serve. I don’t think it’s necessary to get both, so if you don’t want an MD/PhD, don’t do one.</p>

<p>You can, indeed, do research with an MD. There are plenty of MDs who do med school, a residency and then do a post-doctoral fellowship afterwards (usually 2-5 years of biomedical or scientific research done under the supervision of a PhD- or MD-level researcher). Many MDs earn additional research-oriented MS degrees before, during, or after these postdoctoral fellowships - sometimes jointly with their MDs. But the point here is that MDs need additional training after their medical degrees to become a researcher. It won’t necessarily be additional graduate school; it will likely be paid and not coursework-based. But medical school is designed to turn out clinicians, not researchers. So if you want to do research, you need to get training on how to do that.</p>

<p>If you want to do research with an MD, it also becomes more important to go to a top-notch medical school. MDs who just want to do clinical practice can go anywhere; academia, however, is very prestige-focused and the best postdocs and research positions will go to folks who have gotten an MD from top schools. Furthermore, it is at the top schools where you will get exposure to research while you are in medical school, whereas lower-ranked medical schools are still excellent places for primary care but may not be as good for research.</p>

<p>With a PhD, you’ll still likely be expected to do a 2-5 year postdoctoral fellowship (that’s the nature of the enterprise right now) but you’ll be in far less debt when you graduate. PhD programs are fully funded and pay you a stipend. The PhD will take a bit longer - MDs take 4 years whereas PhDs somewhere around 5-7 years. You can do clinical research with a PhD, too, and many PhDs in biomedical fields do clinical research. Sometimes at an academic medical center, you cannot tell the difference. (I attend an Ivy academic medical center now and when I’m not in the hospital, I often don’t remember which of my professors have MDs and which have PhDs. You often can’t tell by the research, either, or the classes they teach. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that <em>very</em> few of them have both an MD and a PhD. A lot of the MDs have MPHs or another MS, though - I’m in public health. And at the medical school, more have both an MD and a PhD, but it’s still few.)</p>

<p>There are pros to both tracks - the pro in getting an MD/PhD or just an MD, of course, is that if you decide that you dislike research or want to do more of both somewhere down the line, then you can always practice medicine. MDs can also teach at medical schools a lot more easily than PhDs can, and med school professors make a lot more money than professors in other fields.</p>

<p>I have a relevant story - I am a health psychologist and when I was considering programs, there were several subfields I considered, including clinical psychology (which is what allows you to get licensed to practice). People kept telling me to do clinical psychology because it allowed me flexibility. You can teach clinical programs, they said, or go into practice if you want. You can still do mental health research, but you have more options. I didn’t want to do clinical, though, and I didn’t - I’m in a hybrid social psych/public health program. And I don’t regret it, nearing the end. Why? I’m a researcher. Sure, I could’ve spent the extra time and possibly expense acquiring clinical skills to have “options”, but why have options I don’t want? I don’t want to counsel people and I don’t want to provide care. But this comes down to knowing yourself. Several times during my PhD program I have also wondered if I should’ve gone the MD or nursing route instead - much of my research overlaps with nursing - but I always realize that I don’t really want to do clinical practice. </p>

<p>To get directly to your point, it doesn’t sound like you need an MD, nor does it sound like you want one. So I think are fine for not doing a pre-med track, because it doesn’t sound like you want to be a doctor. You can still do research and be an academic with a PhD in bioinformatics.</p>

<p>If you don’t want to do clinical research, I see no reason to get an MD. Even if you decide down the line that you would like to do something clinical, it’s not unheard of for PhDs to work with MDs to do clinical research.</p>

<p>I would highly recommend against medical school unless you want to be a doctor. You will likely go into serious debt, and you will get very little training or experience in research (which is what you would really like to do). If you’re primarily interested in research, it makes much more sense to get your PhD. You may not be able to live extravagantly, but in the programs worth going to, you will likely be funded and go into less debt. You will also be able to develop your knowledge of the field and your research skills, which sound like they would benefit you more than clinical experience.</p>

<p>Medical school can also be grueling, especially if you’re not particularly interested in being a doctor. Graduate school can be grueling as well, of course, but if you like the work and you like your field, then it can be a much more enjoyable experience.</p>