<p>My long term goal is to do research in some sort of Biomedical Engineering, probably Neural Engineering. I am debating whether I should just get my PHD, or if I should try to do a MD/PHD program. Is there any advantage in MD/PHD if all I want to do is research anyways?</p>
<p>Do you want to be a medical doctor?</p>
<p>Not really, I mainly just want to do research, and as such I’m wondering if that MD attached to my name would allow me extra opportunities that just a PHD would lack.</p>
<p>Most people who get the dual MD/PhD are interested in doing clinical research. The MD degree sometimes gives researchers greater access and more range when working with humans.</p>
<p>There are some benefits to doing an dual degree. Physician scientists have access to clinical samples that basic scientists do not. In some universities, the tenure process for md/phd faculty is abbreviated. Supposedly these individuals hold some advantage in winning funding over individuals lacking a medical degree (though this may well be the impact of the cream of the crop going into dual degrees and may have nothing to do with the training itself). IMHO if I could have, I would have done the dual degree for all of the reasons I mentioned and maybe more importantly, for the job security and fallback options</p>
<p>Having a PhD only is not going to <em>preclude</em> working with clinical samples, if you want to. Many PhD scientists form relationships with clinics and hospitals (and MDs who do research) and tap into that network of clinical samples, and I know plenty of people - especially clinical psychologists and public health scientists - who do research with clinical samples and don’t have an MD. (I study and work in a medical center.) I think it may be easier for MDs to get institutional research jobs at clinical health centers - hospitals, health clinics, etc. You can be the clinical coordinator of research if you know how to do both. Also MDs are more likely to be running clinical trials, although there are a lot of MS programs for epidemiologists and other public health PhDs in clinical research.</p>
<p>So yeah, having an MD attached to your name is going to allow you some extra opportunities that a PhD would lack - but you have to decide if those opportunities are ones you actually want, you know? And honestly I think the 7 years is worth it - you’d probably spend 5 years getting a science PhD anyway, so with just two more years (and you’re funded through it) you also get the MD. Works, if you are interested in the practice of medicine and the interplay between medicine and research in those fields.</p>
<p>Also, do remember that plenty of people with just MDs do research, so that’s always an option. In fact, there are lots of postdoctoral research opportunities for people who have an MD. But if you want to do engineering, best to do the MD/PhD.</p>
<p>My long term goal is to do research in some sort of Biomedical Engineering, probably Neural Engineering. I am debating whether I should just get my PHD, or if I should try to do a MD/PHD program. Is there any advantage in MD/PHD if all I want to do is research anyways?</p>
<p>there is a post above stating that most md/phds are interested in clinical research. this is not true. while many md/phds do clinical research, way more md/phds carry out basic science research (in context of medical science). NIH is betting on the fact that after years of medical/clinical exposure, trained mudphud will be much more prone to be conducting medical science research as well as hopefully topic that is more clinically relevant (the result of latter is usually debated upon, but the intention isn’t).</p>
<p>it is true, however, that among PI’s who conduct translational research, mudphuds represent much greater proportion. (this is NOT clinical research, but basic medical science research that goes as far as working with clinical samples. these are NOT the same thing).</p>
<p>Moreover, this hopefully isn’t a news to the OP, but most MD/PhDs only dedicate minor amount of their time in clinics (initially 1 month out of 12 when their career begins, but it typically dwindles as their career progresses).</p>
<p>^in my last department this actually depended on the cash flow of the division. When things got tough, they boosted the clinical obligations from 4 hours per week to 8 hours per week. I don’t know if that is common though. This is presumably voluntary as well because I can only imagine that clinical obligations are spelled out in the contract along with teaching, research and service obligations.</p>