To the Editor: In his July 2007 editorial,1 Dr. Whitcomb questions the value of U.S. MD–PhD training, citing the low percentage of students desiring research as their primary professional activity2 and their low rate of NIH grant applications.1 He laments the current system of training as having too much time away from the lab and advocates a system more conducive to research.
He makes a number of assumptions, two of which we challenge here. One, the lower than expected percentage of students desiring research is a function of time away from the lab. This is essentially an academic argument, since we cannot randomize students to different training protocols. Yet, we must still consider how best to improve students’ education. While simply increasing the integration of research into early training appears reasonable, it is not the answer. We believe it is too much to ask students (or residents) to effectively integrate both research and doctoring at the earlier stages of learning. Instead, delving deeply into one discipline at a time as a novice, rather than striving for true coherence via integration, is more likely to develop solid foundations. We want our young physicians and scientists to treat their patients and execute their experiments with expertise and not just acceptable competence. The current system should certainly be modified to fit modern needs, but simply more integration and lab time are not the solution.
Two, the need for MD–PhDs to perform more lab research as a part of their profession is a more contentious matter. We must remember that most medical lab research is not performed by MD–PhDs, and the majority of physician scientists are not MD–PhDs. Then what do MD–PhDs do? They are uniquely positioned, by virtue of learning two traditional disciplines, to see complex problems from different perspectives—to be innovators, teachers, integrators, and leaders. It is the duty of dual-degree programs to provide the education to encourage such qualities. To push all MD–PhDs toward the lab or particular subspecialties is shortsighted. All fields of medicine and surgery—and, indeed, pubic health policy and many business disciplines—need those who can integrate the skills of rigorous investigation with an understanding of patient issues.
For the National Institute of General Medical Sciences to truly get its money’s worth, MD–PhD programs should provide exceptional multidisciplinary education, not career training. They need to encourage creativity, exploration, vision, and, especially, leadership. Only then will our society realize its full investment potential.
Jaimo Ahn, MD, PhD
Fellow, Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, and member, Board of Directors, American Physician Scientists Association, Urbana, Illinois; (email@example.com).
Freddy T. Nguyen
MD–PhD candidate, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois, and chair, Board of Directors, American Physician Scientists Association, Urbana, Illinois.
Jason R. Mann, MD, PhD
Healthcare consultant, McKinsey & Company, Palo Alto, California, and member, Board of Directors, American Physician Scientists Association, Urbana, Illinois.
M. Kerry O’Banion, MD, PhD
Director, Medical Scientist Training Program, and associate professor, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, and member, Board of Directors, American Physician Scientists Association, Urbana, Illinois.
1 Whitcomb ME. The need to restructure MD–PhD training. Acad Med. 2007;82:623–624.
2 Ahn J, Watt CD, Man LX, Greeley SA, Shea JA. Educating future leaders of medical research: Analysis of student opinions and goals from the MD–PhD SAGE survey. Acad Med. 2007;82:633–645.