A Physician-Scientist vs a Physician+Scientist Collaboration

[decisonsdecisions]

I have read several opinions on the current state of the physician-scientist training program. I have also viewed reports on the career prospects of Md/PhD graduates. I would still like to know:

1. Have physician-scientists out performed their pure scientist counterparts in producing meaningful research?

2. Are physician-scientists better, worse, or on par than their Md-only counterparts as clinicians?

3. In your opinion, would a physician and scientist collaboration be more or less productive than a two physician-scientist collaboration.

(Background: I am applying to Md and Md/PhD programs this cycle. I want to see patients and also do research, but worry that as a physician-scientist I would become at best an average researcher and average clinician, rather than excelling in one.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dl2dp2]

Your questions are kinda pointless. I can tell you right now that you WILL be average at almost everything you do. In fact, by laws of probability MOST likely you will be "below average" as you won't be an "average" R01 funded scientist, and it has nothing to do with whether your science is "meaningful". The spots are just clamped and most don't make it. It's a pyramid scheme by design.

Not all NIH funded science is meaningful...and not all science that's abandoned because of lack of funding is meaningless. And the question of whether some piece of work either research or clinical is "better" depends a lot on who you ask and where you are and who you are being compared against. Whether or not a particular group of scientists or clinicians are "productive" are more or less subjective, and people don't really always come to consensus with these issues. In fact, disagreement about such metrics is the rule rather than the exception. This is generally known as politics and scientists (and doctors) are oh so not immune from that.

All of the correct answers to your questions are : sometimes and it depends. You should try to figure out what (and whether) science interests you the most and see if you life is compatible with conducting research of that science, and become maximally informed of the process, as opposed to using very vague generalizations you gather from the Internet in your decision making process for career development.

 

[decisonsdecisions]

Your questions are kinda pointless. I can tell you right now that you WILL be average at almost everything you do. In fact, by laws of probability MOST likely you will be "below average" as you won't be an "average" R01 funded scientist, and it has nothing to do with whether your science is "meaningful". The spots are just clamped and most don't make it. It's a pyramid scheme by design.

Not all NIH funded science is meaningful...and not all science that's abandoned because of lack of funding is meaningless. And the question of whether some piece of work either research or clinical is "better" depends a lot on who you ask and where you are and who you are being compared against. Whether or not a particular group of scientists or clinicians are "productive" are more or less subjective, and people don't really always come to consensus with these issues. In fact, disagreement about such metrics is the rule rather than the exception. This is generally known as politics and scientists (and doctors) are oh so not immune from that.

All of the correct answers to your questions are : sometimes and it depends. You should try to figure out what (and whether) science interests you the most and see if you life is compatible with conducting research of that science, and become maximally informed of the process, as opposed to using very vague generalizations you gather from the Internet in your decision making process for career development.

Thank you for your input. As I try to become maximally informed of the process, your previous postings (as well as Fencer, Neuronix, and others) have given me a much clearer idea of the process, and so I thank you for that too.

And so you believe I should only become a physician-scientist if I essentially desire that lifestyle, and not because I want to become the best human being for society (because who can really know if a one-career scientist/clinician is any more or less useful for society than a dual-career clinician-scientist)?

(I know these questions are abstract, but I want to at least pursue a career that, in my mind, is most meaningful. And so, if becoming a physician-scientist makes be a below average clinician and below average scientist, than I would prefer to pick one and become an average clinician/scientist.)

 

[Neuronix]

1. This is an impossible question to answer. You can look at funding up rates. MD/PhDs and PhDs are very similar.

2. Also impossible to answer. You'll hear a range of answers to this question.

3. This is a misguided question. A physician collaboration typically gets you access to patients, whether that's study subjects or samples. A scientist collaboration typically gets you access to a lab or techniques. Two physician-scientists at least ideally should have their own labs. They might have some cross collaboration with techniques or equipment or something like that.


Nobody can be the best at everything. The question isn't whether you'll be average. The question is whether you can be a competent physician and/or competent researcher. Nobody even says you have to do both things with the combined degree.

 

[dl2dp2]

And so you believe I should only become a physician-scientist if I essentially desire that lifestyle, and not because I want to become the best human being for society (because who can really know if a one-career scientist/clinician is any more or less useful for society than a dual-career clinician-scientist)?

Correct. Process is outcome. Not about where you go but how you get there.