<p>Would you go into medicine if you knew from the beginning that you could only go into research/academia and not practice clinically? Why or why not?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>
<p>It's an odd hypo, but it's better to go the PhD track in such a case. What you learn will be much more relevant.</p>
<p>Nope. The clinical practice is what I need. The chance to talk to patients is what makes medicine enjoyable to me. It's what keeps me energized.</p>
<p>Yeah. That's what I hope to do more than being a clinician anyway. But that's why there's the MDPhD route.</p>
<p>Then why not go for the straight PhD, FordGT?</p>
<p>I know a number of M.D.s and M.D./Ph.Ds who do full time research and teaching. There are some who also do clinical work with these other two activities, traditionally called the "triple threat" of academic medicine. However, to be at the very cutting edge of basic research (as opposed to clinical research) requires a major time commitment and focus. Some M.D.s feel they can have more protected time to pursue their research without any clinical responsibilities. M.D.s have the advantage of being able to do research from bench to bedside. There are many outstanding physician scientists who choose to do basic research at the bench.</p>