med school = the dark side?

[macdown]

Originally posted by drstrangelove
Is it acceptable for someone to attend medical school if he/she has no intentions of ever practicing medicine? Should medical schools admit these kinds of students?

Two Words: Michael Crichton. He went to Harvard Medical school and became a writer and producer (Jurrasic Park, ER, The Andromeda Strain...)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[tBw]

Originally posted by macdown
Two Words: Michael Crichton. He went to Harvard Medical school and became a writer and producer (Jurrasic Park, ER, The Andromeda Strain...)

ummm...that only really answers the question "Do med schools admit people who won't go on to clinical care" not "should they"....

 

[macdown]

Originally posted by the boy wonder
ummm...that only really answers the question "Do med schools admit people who won't go on to clinical care" not "should they"....

Again to side step the question, I have a lawyer friend who wants to go to medical school, so as to become rich suing Doc's for malpractice. Should they, no! Do they, yes!!!!

 

[winstonm]

Originally posted by drstrangelove
I get the feeling that med school is viewed as the ?dark side?.

But the main point I saw being made is that brilliant people don?t want to practice medicine, they want to do research.

On the first point, I think everyone's already established that some researchers feel this way about med school. At my university, if you're specializing in immunology, molecular genetics and some other fields, chances are that you will not be given a letter of rec. for med school from some profs. Somebody else said it best by noting that many researchers feel used by pre-meds who use the experience to pad their C.V.s. I personally don't agree with this. How the hell are you supposed to know if research is right for you without trying it?

As for the second point, what constitutes brilliance? A high GPA? If that's the case, then one could argue that in fact the most brilliant science minds go to the top medical schools as the MD GPA requirements are often higher than those of grad programs. I don't think anyone, including the people working in OP's lab, can objectively define brilliance and then design a replicable, "rigorous experiment" that conforms to the "scientific method" (whatever that is) to conclusively demonstrate that possession of such brilliance predisposes one to working in a lab for life.

As for your point about MDs needing further training to do research, I fully agree. Hence the MSTP and myriad of research training centres set up for this purpose. Keep in mind, though, that I wouldn't take someone away from 8 hrs of working with fruit flies and ask him to tell a woman that she has a terminal illness and nothing more than symptom control can be offered. There are many things other than experimental design that require significant, specific training.

I've had the opportunity to speak on several occasions with Dr. James Orbinski, who accepted the Nobel for Doctors Without Borders, and I am certain that he has the smarts to do a doctorate if he wanted to. Just because he decided to focus his efforts on saving the lives of millions, does that necessarily mean he's less brilliant than the average PhD?

From your responses, it sounds like you harbour some of the opinions of your lab workers. As medical students are all into service and the betterment of the people with whom they work, this may not be the best path to follow. If your fellow students pick up on this, chances are that wonderful relationships will not result.

Just pick what YOU want to do, do it well, and screw those (including all of us) who tell you otherwise. Afterall, you're the only person that has to live with the decision.

--plz ignore any spelling mistakes, I finished exams last friday and am in no mood for anything academic at the moment!!!!!!!!!--

 

[sacrament]

I can't believe this thread is still floating around pre-allo. As the great Street Philosopher would say (not that I know if he agrees with this or not), this is such a complete non-issue that it's ridiculous. Everybody's brilliant, nobody's a loser here, now let's all go home.

 

[Sonya]

Originally posted by drstrangelove

Is it acceptable for someone to attend medical school if he/she has no intentions of ever practicing medicine? Should medical schools admit these kinds of students?

Absolutely. My Dean of BioEngineering was like that. He says that the medical school training gave him a better understanding of the clinical aspects/pathology of his science.

I have known several other researchers that said this. However, you must decide whether it is WORTH it to go through 4 years of MD if you don't want to practice (and you have to decide whether you want to practice).

A PI I had doing pain research ran "transitional research" (in between clinical and basic science) without a MD. To get the studies approved, he had a Nurse-researcher and clinical psychologist as part of the name. Often we collaborated with other MDs doing research. So, these are also possibilities.

If you are brilliant but hate running experiments over and over again I think you go to a less experimental field, and probably stay away from sciences like biology. You probably are working in a highly theoretical field of science, or maybe music or something. But these kinds of people just don't do medical practice do they?

yes, they do. Or at least i do, and have known others who do with this opinion. Which is all the more to prove those that have the intellectual motive can also have the altruistic motive. I am glad to have discovered my undergrad major: bioengineering, that allows me to express this intellect in the lab setting more then just bio experiements. However, only recently, am I becoming fully aware of the extent of the experimental nature. And, it's enough to turn me off from MD-PhD.
Probably the only reason i've gone this far with research is that every professor has insisted i had some sort of mind/mentality useful for research.

Yes, i do feel i am wasting talent. It does bother me tremendously about the pathway not do MD PhD. But, i've accepted this as a sacrifice i will take.

 

[2ndave]

Who broke anything down by subject?

A few people mentioned physics and math between your original post and my reply. I think that given your initial question when you started this thread--in particular your apparent interest in determining where the "brilliant thinkers of our day" end up--it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that if we broaden the scope of this discussion just a little, and include other scientific disciplines, then the people you're talking about (with PhD's in biology) won't seem to be on quite as high of pedestals anymore. If you ONLY want to talk about bio PhD's vs MD's, go ahead, but you are ignoring many other, possibly MORE brilliant researchers by doing that. And that makes this already uninteresting discussion ridiculous. It's like going to a small town orchestra concert and debating endlessly over who was better, the clarinetist or the viola player, all the while totally unaware that 100 miles down the road there's a professional symphony with even better musicians and a much larger repertoire.

It?s as if they are saying the average medical doctor is smarter than the average non-medical doctor because there?s no incentive to be a non-medical doctor, but the smartest non-medical doctor is smarter, and doing more than the smartest medical doctor because this is where not just the smart, but the brilliant thinkers of our day go.

I just wanted to broach this topic and see what everyone thought of this.

This was your OP. Since then it sounds more and more like you really just wanted to make a point, rather than see what we all thought. All your replies make this clear.

the fact of the matter is that an Einstein or a Newton did a lot more than any garbageman did.

Wasn't Einstein a patent clerk before he published anything in physics? William Faulkner was a drone at the post office. Lyndon Johnson started out as a school teacher. Mendel was a provincial monk, and Darwin was a perennial dropout. (Newton, by the way, was a member of the aristrocracy, as were most "geniuses" before the 18th century--no one else in society could afford to devote a lifetime to scientific research.) Apparently none of these people were magnetically drawn toward a conventional career in the field in which their talent ultimately expressed itself. I guess they must not have spent their early 20's asking around to find out, "what should a brilliant person like me do next?!" Actually, a person's "work" or "career path" often does not correlate with his or her intelligence or potential in a particular field. Many truly brilliant people shun conventional institutions anyway.

As far as what you decide to pursue, just do whatever you think you'll enjoy most. Isn't that what matters? Don't try to cram down everyone's throat how smart you and your colleagues are.

 

[drstrangelove]

How the hell are you supposed to know if research is right for you without trying it?

Agree 100%.

As for the second point, what constitutes brilliance? A high GPA? If that's the case, then one could argue that in fact the most brilliant science minds go to the top medical schools as the MD GPA requirements are often higher than those of grad programs.

I don't think it would just be GPA. And you're right your average med student has a higher GPA than your average grad student, as there are strong incentives to go to med school. But I think your top grad student is impacting the world more than your top med student.

There are many things other than experimental design that require significant, specific training.

I fully agree.

Just because he decided to focus his efforts on saving the lives of millions, does that necessarily mean he's less brilliant than the average PhD?

No probably not, but I think if you look at that caliber of person, you will not find as many in the medical field.

this is such a complete non-issue that it's ridiculous. Everybody's brilliant, nobody's a loser here, now let's all go home.

Non-issue or not, it's apparently enough of an issue that people want to talk about it.

Yes, i do feel i am wasting talent. It does bother me tremendously about the pathway not do MD PhD. But, i've accepted this as a sacrifice i will take.

Ok, I can respect this view.

If you ONLY want to talk about bio PhD's vs MD's, go ahead, but you are ignoring many other, possibly MORE brilliant researchers by doing that. And that makes this already uninteresting discussion ridiculous.

I think if you expand it a little more it could be even more apparent that brilliant people tend to go to other fields.

This was your OP. Since then it sounds more and more like you really just wanted to make a point, rather than see what we all thought. All your replies make this clear.

Not the case at all. While I do have the intention of making points when making points, I am just as interested or more so in everyone else's thoughts.

Wasn't Einstein a patent clerk before he published anything in physics? William Faulkner was a drone at the post office. Lyndon Johnson started out as a school teacher. Mendel was a provincial monk, and Darwin was a perennial dropout.

These people may have had humble beginnings but they eventually did some amazing stuff. Whereas your average garbageman does not come up with a theory of evolution by natural selection.
Not to mention I don't think the current scientific atmosphere is the same as it was even 100 years ago. It's not comparable.

 

[Entei]

Why is anyone concerned about where the brilliant people go? Being in a crowd of smart people doesn't make you smarter. In fact, if you're not so bright to begin with, it only makes you look dumber.

If you want to do medicine, do it. If you want to research, do it. If you want to be a garbageman, go ahead. No one else really cares what you want to do, and you shouldn't base your career on whether the rest of the world thinks that your colleagues are the best and brightest. Nobody cares about how smart you think you are. Just do what you want to do and you will be good at it. If you're stuck doing something that you don't want to do, then you won't do as well. The really brilliant people just do what they want, whether it's medicine or research or math or music. They don't waste time sitting around worrying about what other people will think of them.

I can't believe you actually need someone to tell you this. All this concern about whether or not people will still think you're smart if you go for an MD instead of a PhD only makes you look stupid and shallow. If you love research so much, you're probably better off as a PhD. If you really want to investigate medicine, then get some experience with patients and see if you like the lifestyle. I don't know you, and there's no way I can tell what you really think about this issue. However, all this concern about image makes it seem like you're just in this for the prestige and have only a secondary desire to actually help other people. If that's the case, then you should probably forget about medicine completely.

 

[Newquagmire]

Uh, I only skimmed, so maybe I missed it if this was already said.

Have you ever considered looking into an MD/PhD?

 

[crimson]

go into dentistry.
yeah you heard it right here. unfortunately the realization will strike you much later. ha ha
Anywho, I am currently working with two co-PI's: on eis an MD and the other is a PhD. I think that working with them has made me appreciate what both have to offer but I cannot see being either in my life.
So do what makes you happy. and by the way if you are looking for pure intellectual horsepower, go and work for one of the top strategy consulting firms advising fortune 10 companies (not the 500 variety). when you are in a team with PhD's, MD's and every other conceivable degree, you will really get to know where you stand.