Research after undergraduate.

<p>Many of you guys on CC claim to do research, but a post from Norcalguy (can't find it anymore) clarified to me that you are basically doing the work of a "lab slave." He even claimed that understanding what the PI's research project is not even necessary.
Therefore it seems to me that as an undergraduate, or someone with a BS, you are doing the work of a lab technician. So what is the point of studying so much in biochemistry, organic chemistry if you are doing something person can do by having 2 years of postsecondary education?
Saying an undergrad is making scientific breakthroughs seems ludicrous to me. Is it realistic?</p>

<p>Can someone clarify to me the work you could do as a lab assistant with a BS or MS?</p>

<p>I'm kind of clueless, so any advices are more than welcome!</p>

<p>If you can make a breakthrough, great.</p>

<p>That's not why med schools want to see you do research. I laugh when I see someone worry about how their research doesn't relate to medicine. Med schools aren't expecting you to cure cystic fibrosis or cancer. But they want to see that you've developed an understanding of your project (I'm not sure where I said that you don't need to understand your project), some sense of responsibility, ability to handle pressure/deadlines, and critical thinking/problem-solving skills. These skills will become very useful once you're a doctor.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what's wrong w/ being a lab slave. Someone has to do the actual bench work, right? As an undergrad or someone with a BS, you're not going to be designing your own experiments. The PI does that for you. That's why he is the PI. You carry out the experiments with your own modifications/nuances along the way.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, very few premeds take a gap year to do research because they want to. Most of them take a gap year to study for the MCAT, improve their clinical experience, etc. and use a research job to fill up the remaining time. I'm one of the stupid ones who actually chose to take a year off to work for 50-60 hours a week for meager pay ;)</p>

<p>If you want to know more about the difference b/w what I do as an IRTA and what a lab tech does, read this article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.funjournal.org/downloads/HerbertE4.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.funjournal.org/downloads/HerbertE4.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Really, I don't mind being a "lab slave". But I wonder how hard is it to get research position. How hard was it for you to work for the NIH? The meager pay is better than no pay at all. Getting the job to do is already something great, you know.</p>

<p>Also, you said (approximate paraphrase) that understanding what you are doing is a "plus". (which I interpret as being optional but advisable)</p>

<p>It depends. All I had to do was submit my application for the IRTA program and I had four PI's inquiring within a week. One even went ahead and called all my recommenders because she didn't want to wait for the rec letters to arrive.</p>

<p>I also know someone who had to personally email 80 PI's at the NIH before he found one willing to take him.</p>

<p>The NIH is a place where connections go a long way. It's difficult to get your foot in the door w/o connections (a connection could be that a PI who works here is a family friend or one of your professors knows a PI at the NIH and can send them an email for you, etc.).</p>

<p>Ky-anh Tran:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Many of you guys on CC claim to do research

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Are you calling me (and the rest of us who did research) liars? :) I doubt anyone here is misrepresenting their experiences.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but a post from Norcalguy (can't find it anymore) clarified to me that you are basically doing the work of a "lab slave."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There are those kind of jobs out there. I did that for a year and got fired 'cause I suck at mindless work. It turned out to be a great thing for me. I was so motivated to find a better research gig, and I did.</p>

<p>What you define as a "breakthrough" is a little unrealistic, I think. As an undergrad, you're not going to cure lung cancer or unravel the true cause of Alzheimer's.</p>

<p>However, that doesn't mean that undergrads don't make breakthroughs. My work required that I find an effective fluorescence quencher. I went through the literature and came up with a best candidate. I had to argue my case against a 5th-year graduate student, who didn't think the chemical I'd selected would work in our conditions. We resolved our disagreement by running tests of efficacy and solubility - I was right, he was wrong. Turned out to be one of the most effective quenchers for that line of work, replacing previously used quenchers for its ease of handling, cheap price, and heat and light stability. That meant that our lab now had another valuable tool in our arsenal.</p>

<p>So, don't despair of doing useful work. :) You have got to prove your chops through hard work and good communication. Then, you can expect good stuff to happen.</p>