Doing Research in an Unrelated Field as a Physician Scientist

[swolephysicist]

Hello all,

I was wondering, do most (or all) physician-scientists do research in an area aligned with their medical practice? I know a common reason that many people go the MD/PhD route is so seeing patients can give them better insight that will help their research. However, I would just like to do biomedical research while also being able to use my skills to have an immediate impact on people. Would it be possible, for example, for me to be a psychiatrist while also doing biomedical research?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[HamiltonPineapples]

1) I'm guessing yes, but generally it is probably easier for it to be related (expert in one area vs two kind of thing)

2) If someone with better knowledge of career paths comes and says its not realistic to do something unrelated, you should recognize that there is still biomedical research related to psychiatry.

What are your research interests? Knowing that may help others provide better insight.

Also, recognize that both clinical and research interests may(will?) change over the course of an MD/PhD program.

 

[swolephysicist]

1) I'm guessing yes, but generally it is probably easier for it to be related (expert in one area vs two kind of thing)

2) If someone with better knowledge of career paths comes and says its not realistic to do something unrelated, you should recognize that there is still biomedical research related to psychiatry.

What are your research interests? Knowing that may help others provide better insight.

Also, recognize that both clinical and research interests may(will?) change over the course of an MD/PhD program.

My research interests are in protein biochemistry/drug discovery. I would want to do something related to protein structure/function analysis, not necessarily related to the brain or mind. I know that I want to do this field of research, and psychiatry is just an intriguing field of medicine for me.

 

[Neuronix]

Your research should align with what you do clinically.

Maybe you can work on brain proteins implicated in psychiatric disease.

 

[swolephysicist]

Your research should align with what you do clinically.

Maybe you can work on brain proteins implicated in psychiatric disease.

Why is it imperative that this is so?

 

[Neuronix]

Being a physician and being a scientist are each full-time jobs. The more you can overlap the two, the more you'll be able to apply expertise from one realm to the other. This gives you a better chance of succeeding at both endeavors.

 

[dl2dp2]

My research interests are in protein biochemistry/drug discovery. I would want to do something related to protein structure/function analysis, not necessarily related to the brain or mind. I know that I want to do this field of research, and psychiatry is just an intriguing field of medicine for me.

Psychiatry is probably the field where this is the most common, where basic research unrelated to any clinical topic is conducted by full trained psychiatrists, and this has a history (Kandel) and a present (Deisseroth). This primarily has to do with the fact that psychiatry is a low-overhead specialty within which you can work easily part time. There are also a decent number of examples in internal medicine and pathology. The pattern however is that as you get more and more successful in basic science, you eventually phase out clinical practice.

However, I wouldn't go into clinical medicine with this plan, since likely it'll be very distracting. MSTP is designed for "translational research", and as I've said in previous threads, anything other than that will be an inefficient use of your training.

Nevertheless, statistically, your chance of being a PI if you are a PhD-only is rather poor (~5%). It is okay to attempt to play the game such that you use the PhD-postdoc training to secure a job as a PI doing unrelated research, and use the MD-clinical training as a "backup". Do note however such a path is neither efficient nor lower effort, but is perhaps less random and allows for more geographical flexibility.

There's no significant disadvantage in practicing clinically part time in most cognitive specialties, especially if you are a sub-specialist. Procedural specialties might be somewhat different. The main issue is that the salary can be 40%+ lower, and the differences can increase as you get to more senior/ownership level. This starts to matter more once/if you have a family to support. The most successful practice owners in the country outearn by a fairly wide margin the vast majority of academic department chairs. Take psychiatry as an example, it's not rare for practice owners to clear 500k a year, but only perhaps a handful of department chairs make that kind of money. 500k to 1MM a year is substantially different in terms of lifestyle compared to 200k a year in your mid 40s to 50s. Something to think about.

 

[swolephysicist]

Psychiatry is probably the field where this is the most common, where basic research unrelated to any clinical topic is conducted by full trained psychiatrists, and this has a history (Kandel) and a present (Deisseroth). This primarily has to do with the fact that psychiatry is a low-overhead specialty within which you can work easily part time. There are also a decent number of examples in internal medicine and pathology. The pattern however is that as you get more and more successful in basic science, you eventually phase out clinical practice.

However, I wouldn't go into clinical medicine with this plan, since likely it'll be very distracting. MSTP is designed for "translational research", and as I've said in previous threads, anything other than that will be an inefficient use of your training.

Nevertheless, statistically, your chance of being a PI if you are a PhD-only is rather poor (~5%). It is okay to attempt to play the game such that you use the PhD-postdoc training to secure a job as a PI doing unrelated research, and use the MD-clinical training as a "backup". Do note however such a path is neither efficient nor lower effort, but is perhaps less random and allows for more geographical flexibility.

There's no significant disadvantage in practicing clinically part time in most cognitive specialties, especially if you are a sub-specialist. Procedural specialties might be somewhat different. The main issue is that the salary can be 40%+ lower, and the differences can increase as you get to more senior/ownership level. This starts to matter more once/if you have a family to support. The most successful practice owners in the country outearn by a fairly wide margin the vast majority of academic department chairs. Take psychiatry as an example, it's not rare for practice owners to clear 500k a year, but only perhaps a handful of department chairs make that kind of money. 500k to 1MM a year is substantially different in terms of lifestyle compared to 200k a year in your mid 40s to 50s. Something to think about.

Thank you so much for the thorough and informative response! By difference in lifestyle, do you mean MD/PhD's that focus more on the MD side will earn more in the future as a department chair? Also, when you say "I wouldn't go into clinicial medicine with this plan", do you include psychiatry in the umbrella of clinical medicine?

 

[dl2dp2]

Thank you so much for the thorough and informative response! By difference in lifestyle, do you mean MD/PhD's that focus more on the MD side will earn more in the future as a department chair? Also, when you say "I wouldn't go into clinicial medicine with this plan", do you include psychiatry in the umbrella of clinical medicine?

No. I mean exactly what i said. If you make 500k a year your lifestyle will be different compared to if you make 200k. If you do basic science research, you will never make 500k. If you do clinical medicine in a private setting, you have a decent chance to do so. In fact there’s a fairly clear pathway to do so. Depending on your specialty, there is a clear path to make 750k+. Is your love of science worth multiple millions difference in lifetime earning? That’s the key question in my mind because MANY MDPhDs drop out of research for that very reason.

Psychiatry is a clinical medical specialty. It deals primarily with psychopharmacology on people who are severely ill.

 

[swolephysicist]

No. I mean exactly what i said. If you make 500k a year your lifestyle will be different compared to if you make 200k. If you do basic science research, you will never make 500k. If you do clinical medicine in a private setting, you have a decent chance to do so. In fact there’s a fairly clear pathway to do so. Depending on your specialty, there is a clear path to make 750k+. Is your love of science worth multiple millions difference in lifetime earning? That’s the key question in my mind because MANY MDPhDs drop out of research for that very reason.

Psychiatry is a clinical medical specialty. It deals primarily with psychopharmacology on people who are severely ill.

Thank you so much for your advice and insight!