<p>I want to be a practicing doctor, however I also love research. I am not interested in the MD/PhD option. I am really interested in cancer research and I was wondering if I were to become an oncologist, would I also be able to do my own cancer research? Is this something doctors do?</p>
<p>Most doctors who do research also practice clinical medicine. If you become an oncologist at an academic medical center you will probably do both. There will be people who do clinical work exclusively, but there are not many physicians who do research but not clinical work. The MD/PhD option is a wonderful background for cancer research, but not required.</p>
<p>One can practice and still be a participating Investigator in Clinical Trials for novel therapeutic agents.</p>
<p>Pharma companies are keen to have research minded Clinicians that collaborate with us in developing new therapies.</p>
<p>honestly, i say do one or the other. as in, either practice medicine or do research but not both. rarely are md’s good at research and the chances that you’ll make a contribution to the biological sciences (becoming rapidly quantitative) are slim to none. perhaps the md/phd is a good option but a lot of people end up burned out after it’s all said and done.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“novel therapeutic agents.” hah. this is a hoax.</p>
<p>Pharmagal is right. Many physicians do do some work (more or less on the side, oftentimes) as a PI for studies done at their hospitals. This is esp. true of drug and tx trials where large (n=1000+) samples are needed. It is helpful in these cases to have PIs at each hospital involved who work collaboratively on the project. I think you could certainly pursue this route in oncology by mid-career if you wanted to.</p>
<p>I guess I am just reiterating what has been said. Most MDs will participate in clinical research. Some however will do laboratory research, so its not impossible just rare.</p>
<p>Post #5 (“many”) is right, but I think post #6 (“most”) is not quite right.</p>
<p>The participation of MDs in research is more extensive than I believe is portrayed here. Not just as clinical helpers, but as principal investigators. My hospital is crawling with people like this. Some are MD/PhDs, but most are not. They are simply academic physicians who both do research and practice. </p>
<p>Each year about 700 people with MDs apply for their first NIH grant (JAMA 2007, 297(22):2496). Of those who get funded, most end up getting grants again in response to later applications. That figure of 700 does not include the thousands of others who already have applied, and are doing it again. Each year thousands of physicians work partly supported by NIH grants for which they are the lead investigators. At the more competitive medical schools, an MD being the principal investigator of at least one NIH grant would be the norm, not universal, but very common, for those who have made it to associate professor.</p>
<p>If you want to practice medicine and do research, as the lead principal investigator, not as a clinical helper, then you will be joining thousands of physicians who do exactly that.</p>
<p>I do not believe that most MDs participate in research at all. The physicians who apply for NIH grants are those who have a strong academic affiliation and are essentially required to do so in order to keep their academic appointments. The “thousands” who end up applying are essentially the same ones, over and over. All you need to do is get a list of all faculty members at any given Medical School and there is your roster of NIH grant applicants for the most part.</p>
<p>There are some physicians in private practice who become involved in “clinical research”, becoming Principal Investigators on specific drug trials. They usually run “research practices” parallel to their own clinics. The fact is that there is a very strong financial incentive in doing this (especially with Phase I studies) because it is a great way of supplementing income. The pharmaceutical companies will pay the MD a fee per patient (could be thousands) enrolled in the trial.</p>
<p>I doubt that your local HMO affiliated MD has any time to do any meaningful research.</p>
<p>like i said, separate research from medicine. do one or the other, but not both (maybe unless you’re an md/phd, but you have to stick that out for 9 years). the days in which anyone could publish the same old descriptive molecular biology paper in a journal are gone. md’s are not at the forefront of the change going on in the biological sciences and will probably be left behind as it progresses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As I said, I was talking about people at academic medical centers.</p>
<p>Most physicians do not participate in research. However, most physicians at academic medical centers do participate in research. It is part of their jobs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that is not correct. Check the funding rates. Check the routes to promotion at major medical centers. Those who do not get funded will not stay around to keep applying over and over.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you do this, you are unlikely to make it in academic medicine. Most doctors in academic medicine- of whom there are many- do both clinical work and research. That is just the way it is.</p>
<p>My sister is a Prof of Cardiology at Harvard and the chair of several NIH study groups and has several million NIH grants.</p>
<p>Yes it is very possible to do both. While being a phd/md may help, it is not neededd.</p>
<p>In fact, in almost every academic institution, to gain promotion and tenure, you MUST do research. There are schools such as the “harvard-model” where all that you collect from your clinical practice goes to the chair and dean (ie you get none) - the reasoning is that they don’t want you to get tempted to do clinical over research. The other model is that you get a percentage (usually 25%) of your clinical payments.</p>
<p>MDs at academic schools such as Harvard are expected to do BENCH research. At the other end of the spectrum, some do CLINICAL research. </p>
<p>In both, however, it is PUBLISH OR PERISH. You have so many years to advance from assistant professor (non-tenured) to associate professor (tenured). If you do not publish, you do not get advanced and you perish.</p>
<p>MolSysBio is totally wrong. If you look at NIH grants, there are more going to MDs than PhDs. The Best Model is one I have done in applying with a PhD - we both add our expertise to the grant application; these joint applications have the highest funding percentage.</p>
<p>If you are interested in research, it is probably best to go to a medical school such as Stanford, Harvard, etc. That is probably the only time in which there is an advantage in doing such. From there, you will meet docs doing research and probably spend some time during your med school years in the lab (may actually take 5 years instead of 4). Then you will go to a residency at a similar place - again extending your residency by a year or more being in the lab. You will then find an area that you are interested in and accept a job as lecturer or assistant professor and work with a more senior mentor (off his/her grant) and then apply. </p>
<p>As I noted above, the moneys that come from clinical practice that go to a chair are used as seed money for new faculty to start their own research until they have enough data to get an NIH grant.</p>
<p>The opposite tract is doing clinical research. You have a new way to do a transplant, you don’t feel that traditional way of doing something is the right way so you go through a hospital research committee and get your project oked and then go to the patients and get consent for them to enter your trial of A vs B. </p>
<p>You then become a “visiting professor” at your home institution because you are on the road to meetings and lectures. It is a great life</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>if there are more phd’s than md’s in basic science research, how can more of the grants be going to md’s?</p>
<p>…and there’s more to it than just applying with an md or a phd or a combination. the nih awards grants based on the viability of the project, race (believe it or not), gender, phd/md, etc. etc.</p>
<p>In order to make biomedical research directed toward clinical problems, and have an impact on human health, it is necessary to have practicing physicians involved. Many scientists, no matter how good they are at science, lack the clinical perspective. This means that often they come up with proposals that miss the mark of clinical significance. People who see patients on a regular basis understand which questions are clinically important and which are not. This creates a critical role for MDs in research.</p>
<p>At major medical centers it is routine for MDs to be lead investigators in research. As noted above, there are hundreds of such people at my hospital alone.</p>
<p>Successful investigators expand their labs over time. A senior professor might have many scientists working in their labs. Some of these would be PhDs who will work in someone else’s lab for their entire careers. Thus, it is not unusual for one MD (or MD/PhD) to have multiple grants that support numerous PhDs in their labs. Overall the medical center might have more PhDs than MDs engaged in research, but more of the grants might go to the MDs.</p>
<p>The typical MD investigator would do BOTH research and clinical care. This means that they are not full time scientists. The PhDs, since they cannot do clinical care, spend all their time on research. The joint model of a clinically active MD working with PhDs focusses research on human health. </p>
<p>If you take the time to look at what actually happens at academic medical centers, you will see that Princessdad is correct. Research and clinical care go hand in hand.</p>
<p>you sound like a page out of an md/phd prospective students booklet. i’ve worked in an academic medical center and have published papers with a pi who is an MD. the most useful thing an MD can do in research is make it sound relevant to the outside world. they add facts, statistics, and jazz up presentations because, frankly, the level of scientific understanding of an MD is superficial. </p>
<p>as far as grant funding goes, it really depends on the type of research and composition of the lab. for example, my lab is full of computational scientists and we only have a small experimental group. we collaborate with another group run by an MD which is purely experimental. my PI puts that on his grant application and we immediately have a source for experimental validations of computational predictions. if we had the experimental facilities, we would do the experiments ourself, but we need to collaborate in order to get the funding and the papers.</p>
<p>i would also argue that the level of commitment to science of an MD is often limited. when you’re in the OR or in the clinic seeing patients, science isn’t your first priority. and the impact that clinical understanding of questions is overrated. again, MD’s primarily add facts, clinical statistics, and jazz up presentations. what you need to do is actually work in a lab run by an MD. when you’re not doing monkey work like running western after western, ask yourself if your PI actually put the proper attention and thought into designing a proper project.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the resentment in the above post is not unusual in biomedical research. It is not limited to PhDs working in labs run by MDs. I have seen it from PhDs working for other PhDs as well. The task of making the research “sound” relevant is an absolute necessity for the lab to exist. No funding, no lab. Consider whether the people deciding what to fund recognize that the research has not only been made to sound important, but is given a directlion that actually makes it important. From the perspective of someone whose entire focus is on day-to-day performing the experiments, and who lacks clinical background, it might be hard to see the value of the contribution from the clinician. Note that often the choice of which experiments to do is made by those who lead the research effort, rather than those who perform them. Remember the design I discussed above, where one person runs the lab and many people work there. The workers may not always agree with the decisions the director makes, and, for that matter, may not always understand them. This is particularly common when the person making the calls has expertise not shared by the workers.</p>
<p>But keep in mind that without the input of the MD running the show you would be unlikely to get the grant funded, and thus unlikely to have a job at all. I spend much of my time reviewing grants, and the difference between those that have clinical import and those that do not are obvious.</p>
<p>For those reading this thread, note that the argument has shifted from “physicians do not do both research and clinical work” to “well, OK, they do both, but they are not as good at research as are full time scientists”. Reinforces the advice- if you want to do both research and clinical work, you are saying you want to join thousands of academic physicians who do exactly that.</p>
<p>MolSys
You are so out of it.
Go to the NIH funding groups and see how many of the chairs are MDs vs PhDs.</p>
<p>Please tell my colleagues who are PIs that their commitment is not to science. Look at Ed Deitch who did most of the work on translocation in sepsis.</p>
<p>I am an MD and can do biochemical separations with the best PhDs. But I have worked in labs with them and learned and they have learned how to manipulate animals from me. We work jointly.</p>
<p>You really have a lot to learn and it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder</p>
<p>As afan stated, most grants are now going to those that have both a PhD and a MD as joint PI.</p>