MD-PhD Program Research Articles

Establishing MD-PhD Programs in the Graduate School of Medicine in Korea

Establishing MD-PhD Programs in the Graduate School of Medicine in Korea

Educational Views and Attitudes, and Career Goals of MD???PhD Students at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

Despite the documented contribution of graduates of MD-PhD programs to the medical profession, few data exist concerning the views, attitudes, and career goals of students before they graduate from such programs. All 167 students enrolled in the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine Combined Degree Program in the spring of 2002 were invited to participate in an IRB-approved online questionnaire consisting of 81 multiple-choice questions covering students' demographics, satisfaction with their educational experience, future goals and career aspirations, and attitudes and views concerning the physician-scientist model. The 96 MD-PhD students (57.5%) who completed the questionnaire represented a diverse group with individuals from every stage of training. The majority of students were satisfied with their overall educational experience (90.5%). Although students reported an interest in a wide range of clinical specialties, 84.4% indicated plans to pursue a career in research and 79.2% preferred a position at an academic medical center. However, a larger percentage of males (70.7%) than females (50.0%) listed research as their primary professional activity. The range of students' views and attitudes regarding the physician-scientist model suggests that additional education and discussion are warranted. The MD-PhD students surveyed at the University of Pennsylvania were satisfied with their education and most were planning research-oriented careers. Yet, the aspirations, views and concerns of individual MD-PhD students were varied. The authors believe this information in aggregate will prove useful to current and future students, combined degree programs, policymakers, and residency directors.

Effect of two Howard Hughes Medical Institute research training programs for medical students on the likelihood of pursuing research careers.

To assess the effect of Howard Hughes Medical Institute's (HHMI) two one-year research training programs for medical students on the awardees' research careers. Awardees of the HHMI Cloister Program who graduated between 1987 and 1995 and awardees of the HHMI Medical Fellows Program who graduated between 1991 and 1995 were compared with unsuccessful applicants to the programs and MD-PhD students who graduated during the same periods. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess research career outcomes while controlling for academic and demographic variables that could affect selection to the programs. Participation in both HHMI programs increased the likelihood of receiving National Institutes of Health postdoctoral support. Participation in the Cloister Program also increased the likelihood of receiving a faculty appointment with research responsibility at a medical school. In addition, awardees of the Medical Fellows Program were not significantly less likely than Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) and non-MSTP MD-PhD program participants to receive a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral award, and awardees of the Cloister Program were not significantly less likely than non-MSTP MD-PhD students to receive a faculty appointment with research responsibility. Women and underrepresented minority students were proportionally represented among awardees of the two HHMI programs whereas they were relatively underrepresented in MD-PhD programs. The one-year intensive research training supported by the HHMI training programs appears to provide an effective imprinting experience on medical students' research careers and to be an attractive strategy for training physician-scientists.

The contribution of MD–PhD training to academic orthopaedic faculties

Little is known about the distribution of research-trained physicians across the various specialties. To document the extent to which MD–PhD programs are a source of research-trained faculty for orthopaedic departments, this study examined the specialty choices of graduates of the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) from 1964 to 1994. The MSTP, a combined MD–PhD program supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, (NIGMS), produces roughly 25% of all MD–PhDs in the US. Methods. Copies of the appendices from training grant applications containing information on MSTP graduates were obtained from the NIGMS. Also, a questionnaire was mailed to 116 university-affiliated orthopaedic surgery departments asking how many faculty were MD's, PhDs or MD–PhDs. Results. Records were obtained for all MST programs. Information on postdoctoral training and/or a current position was reported for 1615 graduates who earned both MD and PhD. Of these graduates, 277 chose non-clinical paths. The other 1338 entered a residency or internship. Of these, 593 were still in residency training, 566 were academic faculty members and 130 were in private practice. In the records, 12 (0.9%) were listed as orthopaedic surgical residents (6) or faculty (6). At this time, all 12 have completed training, and 11 are in academic practice. Eighty-three departments replied to the questionnaire. In that sample of 1761 faculty positions, 1478 were MDs, 217 were PhDs and 36 (2.0%) were MD–PhDs. Conclusion. Despite robust support of MD–PhD programs, the number of dual degree recipients on orthopaedic faculties is small when compared to the relative size of the specialty. Other sources of research-trained staff should perhaps be developed.

Addressing the Needs of Basic and Clinical Research: Analysis of Graduates of the University of Pennsylvania MD-PhD Program

Addressing the Needs of Basic and Clinical Research: Analysis of Graduates of the University of Pennsylvania MD-PhD Program

Addressing the Needs of Basic and Clinical Research: Analysis of Graduates of the University of Pennsylvania MD-PhD Program

Addressing the Needs of Basic and Clinical Research: Analysis of Graduates of the University of Pennsylvania MD-PhD Program

Profile of the graduate student population in U.S. medical schools.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) sponsored surveys of accredited U.S. medical schools in 1994-95 and in 1995-96 to gather enough data to determine an accurate profile of the population of students enrolled in and/or graduated from biomedical PhD and MD-PhD programs at these institutions. Previously collected data on the graduate student population at medical schools often did not distinguish between PhD students at the medical school and graduate students in other parts of the university. The AAMC surveys defined a medical school PhD- or MD-PhD-trained student as one whose major professor holds his or her primary appointment in a department of the medical school. The data were the result of census-taking by the responding schools on October 1, 1994, and October 1, 1995. There were 81 responses to each of the two surveys. Overall, 104 medical schools supplied data in either one or both of the survey years. When the data are extrapolated from the sample to the total population of 122 medical schools that award graduate degrees, a number of interesting estimates emerge. (1) When compared with the 1995 data for 18 biomedically-related biological science disciplines from the National Research Council's Survey of Earned Doctorates, the AAMC survey indicates that approximately 60% of the 4,000 PhDs awarded were earned by students studying at U.S. medical schools. (2) The total enrollment of PhD students in U.S. medical schools is approximately 18,600, a number that is about 25-30% of the number of medical students currently enrolled at all accredited U.S. medical schools. In some institutions, the number of graduate students rivals the number of medical students. (3) PhD students are enrolled in a wide variety of programs bearing titles reflective of a trend toward "interdisciplinary" rather than "departmental" degrees. (4) At a given time, the number of students supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants is nearly twice that provided for by NIH traineeships. In addition, all forms of institutional support provide for more than one-third of the PhD students in U.S. medical schools. (5) Approximately 24% of enrolled students are international students on temporary or permanent visas. (6) The data obtained from the two surveys of graduate programs within medical schools are relatively consistent, enabling more confidence in the reliability and accuracy of findings presented in this report.

MD-PhD students in the 1990s: finding a niche for the dual degree.

Given the success of MD-PhD students in the past and the uncertain future of science and clinical medicine, this article has attempted to review the progress of MD-PhD programs and examine the experiences of some of today's MD-PhD students. Most candidates responding to the questionnaire remain committed to research and its applications. Their future plans are in line with the paths their predecessors have chosen, namely, careers devoted to academic medicine. For many of these dual-degree candidates, however, academia encompasses basic research and patient care. There seems to be little doubt that MD-PhD graduates will continue to seed the faculties of leading US medical schools and research institutes. However, some dual-degree recipients will opt for strictly clinical careers, perhaps leaving the laboratory altogether. Indeed, according to the author's survey, 14% of respondents intend to concentrate primarily on patient care. A few of these students seem disenchanted with the benefits conferred by a dual degree. "I don't see the advantages of a combined program that I saw when I was applying," one student explained. "The PhD degree confers no benefit as far as I can tell in how one practices medicine or in how well someone will conduct basic research." Detractors of combined-degree programs have questioned how anyone can succeed in science or medicine if not exclusively dedicated to one program. That achieving this balance was the foremost concern of the students surveyed suggests that doubt lingers for them as well. "I have often wished for more MD-PhD role models," wrote another student. "What have other people done with their combined degree? My career objectives are still vague because I am still not sure of what niche I will fill as an MD-PhD. Perhaps we can fill any niche." Perhaps that was the idea all along.

The research career interests of graduating medical students.

In this baseline study, the authors analyze in detail many of the factors that influenced the research career intentions of the 1994 U.S. graduates of MD-only programs. Studies of the research interests of the nation's medical school graduates are important because MD-PhD programs do not produce sufficient numbers of physician-scientists, and the remainder must come from the regular population of medical graduates. Data on school characteristics and medical students' demographics, research career intentions, and educational experiences were derived from the AAMC's Institutional Profile System (IPS), Student Application and Information Management System (SAIMS), Matriculating Student Questionnaire (MSQ), and Medical School Graduation Questionnaire (GQ). The 1994 GQ was used as the index instrument to make the correlations reported in this article. A number of findings emerged concerning the 1994 graduates. A greater percentage of these students who began medical school with strong research career intentions and maintained these intentions had entered private medical schools. The lower rate of research interest amongst the students enrolled in public medical schools was compounded by the significantly greater loss of earlier research intentions of those in public schools compared with those in private schools.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Thanks to gift from Ross Perot, University of Texas Southwestern's MD-PhD Program triples in size

FIVE YEARS AGO, Dallas billionaire and 1992 independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot gave the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas a $20 million 10-year grant to support medical research and to help train future scientists. This fall, halfway through the grant period, enrollment in the school's Medical Scientist Training Program will increase to 82 students, which is more than three times the number of students who were in the combined degree program when Perot's gift was announced. According to Rodney Ulane, PhD, associate dean of Southwestern's Medical Scientist Training Program, approximately one third of the grant is going to support MD-PhD candidates, allowing them to complete the 7-year to 8-year program without incurring significant personal debt. Students in the program receive full-tuition scholarships plus escalating annual stipends that begin at $12 000 for the first 2 years and reach $18000 by the sixth year of study. Only

Thanks to Gift From Ross Perot, University of Texas Southwestern's MD-PhD Program Triples in Size

FIVE YEARS AGO, Dallas billionaire and 1992 independent presidential candidate H. Ross Perot gave the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas a $20 million 10-year grant to support medical research and to help train future scientists. This fall, halfway through the grant period, enrollment in the school's Medical Scientist Training Program will increase to 82 students, which is more than three times the number of students who were in the combined degree program when Perot's gift was announced. According to Rodney Ulane, PhD, associate dean of Southwestern's Medical Scientist Training Program, approximately one third of the grant is going to support MD-PhD candidates, allowing them to complete the 7-year to 8-year program without incurring significant personal debt. Students in the program receive full-tuition scholarships plus escalating annual stipends that begin at $12 000 for the first 2 years and reach $18000 by the sixth year of study. Only

Educators Say MD-PhD Degree Programs Make Sense, But Prove It

ORGANIZERS of the first national symposium on the education of physician-scholars have released preliminary recommendations that call for a study of the success of medical-scholar training programs in preparing the nation's future medical leaders. The symposium held last November at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Urbana-Champaign, included medical educators, MD-PhD-degree candidates, and government and corporate representatives. Among the issues discussed at the meeting, one especially nagging question remains unanswered: Are combined degree programs better than sequential degree programs in developing medical researchers, educators, and leaders? While the participants concurred on the need for well-trained physician-scientists, many questioned whether sufficient data exist to evaluate these programs. Most of the existing data that favor the combined programs are anecdotal, they say. James Blankenship, PhD, director of the MD-PhD program at the University of Texas Medical School, Galveston, however, says he has observed that concurrent-degree students become especially successful researchers. He

MD-PhD programs: at a crossroads?

MD-PhD programs: at a crossroads?

How to choose a fruitful research project: advice from graduate students

Selecting a research topic is an integral part of graduate studies. According to Skip Brass, Associate Dean and Director of the MD-PhD program at the University of Pennsylvania, you need to “pick a problem that interests you. You will be living with it for a long time. Make sure it is something you will want to wrestle with even when the going gets rough. It has to make you want to get up early, work late, come in on the weekend, and think about it in the shower.” This paper aims to make the process of choosing and evaluating a research topic a little easier through providing some helpful steps in formulating a successful project.