What advantage is there to getting a PhD in the life sciences when you can do research with only an MD?

Question

During an interview recently Dr. Fauci, the top doctor in the US, called himself "a scientist, and a physician". It appears that he only has an MD, but is an immunologist and a highly cited researcher. This is not a special case, there are many examples of labs run by a researcher with only an MD. That makes me wonder: why bother getting a PhD in say, immunology, when it appears that an MD is objectively better. With an MD you are qualified to run a lab despite not having the terminal degree of a typical researcher, and you are trained as a physician or whatever specialty so you always have something to fall back on.

To me this seems like the 5+ years spent becoming an expert in your field by doing novel research doesn't really matter as you can get a research job with an MD that doesn't require any of that. So what advantage is there to getting a PhD in life science fields that overlap with medicine?

Answer 1

A PhD isn't just a degree. You also learn new things and acquire new skills while doing the PhD. Those are things you don't get from an MD.

For example, one thing a PhD candidate is supposed to learn on the way to earning the PhD is academic writing. Therefore, they should (in theory) be able to write papers more comprehensibly than someone who just did an MD.

Answer 2

The trick, actually, is to get that job. Without a PhD or other demonstrated research experience it might be harder most places. Most MD programs are focused more on patient outcomes than on science per se.

But yes, if you can convince someone to hire you then you can probably learn research methodology along the way. This will include a lot of things, including something of statistics and more on lab process than is probably normal in the MD program itself. Publishing in the scientific literature is also something to be learned along the way and isn't especially typical in the training of an MD.

The advantage of the PhD on top of an MD is that the focus is precisely on the scientific (rather than clinical) aspects of medicine. You learn to do science under the direction of scientists who also have some expertise in biology and other aspects of the wider medical area.

Note, of course, that Dr Fauci is 79 years old. He has had a lot of time to learn the craft and has been positioned in places where it is well practiced.

Note that in some places, an MD is, in fact, a research degree and requires an earlier degree in medicine. But this isn't the case in the US or Canada. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Medicine

Answer 3

In the broadest of terms, medical degrees, MDs, are ultimately for people who want to help patients. Jokes about pathologists aside, the majority of medical do want to see people on a personal basis and heal them.

Now, modern medical programs often have research components; usually small ones, and MDs of course participate in research, but the vast majority do not perform any once they are licensed. If they do, it's often as the person who arranges the treatment, whatever it may be.

As other people have said, PhDs are to train you to do research. Outside of psychology, they don't have patient contact. So if you want to do research in the life sciences, but don't want to practice, there is no reason to get an MD.

That makes me wonder: why bother getting a PhD in say, immunology, when it appears that an MD is objectively better. With an MD you are qualified to run a lab despite not having the terminal degree of a typical researcher, ...

A fresh MD is less qualified to run a lab than a fresh PhD. Of course, fresh PhDs don't get labs anymore, but a PhD + postdoc is much more qualified to run a lab than an MD who has been practicing (not researching) for an equivalent time.

Of course, an MD could play their cards right and end up on a research track, but medical school isn't shorter. Medical school + residency is longer, and much more difficult than PhD school + postdoc.

To me this seems like the 5+ years spent becoming an expert in your field by doing novel research doesn't really matter as you can get a research job with an MD that doesn't require any of that.

That's not what happens: MDs have to add in research on top of what is already a difficult professional training program. And, often, they don't do it well. I don't want to speak in general terms, but I dislike working with research MDs: They are supremely busy, and are less present in the lab because they are in clinic multiple days per week.

... and you are trained as a physician or whatever specialty so you always have something to fall back on.

While true, you have to maintain your licensure, so add that on top of a busy research job, and doing that looks less attractive.

While you say "fall back on," a practicing physician in almost any specialty is practically guaranteed to make more than a PI in the same field. My last PI was an MD (and one of the reasons I dislike working with them), and as a senior neurologist, probably could have made double in practice in a hospital or privately.

So if you want to do research, why get a degree that would get you more money elsewhere, and take out a loan to do it? PhDs are paid to go to school, even if it's a pittance, and do not take out loans for tuition. MDs must.

Finally, as others have pointed out, keep in mind Dr. Fauci is old, and is from a different time.

Answer 4

You are confusing a qualification with an education.

One hope that by the time one reaches the PhD stage one is beyond doing a 4 year, extremely taxing, and financially unrewarding degree, just to get a piece of paper saying you've done it. You do it because you want to learn. By the end of a PhD, the piece of paper saying you've got a PhD is almsot immaterial - people are frequently hired into postdoc positions before they've formally graduated their PhD.

I guess that most non-PhD MD reserachers start off writing case reports, and then they migth get involved in some clinical reserach, maybe a clinical trial or two. Over time they find they need to collaborate with people with labs in order to confirm the hypotheses coming out of their clincal research. They might co-supervise a PhD student or a postdoc with a PhD Scientist before moving on to supervise on their own. - The point is they get drawn into lab reserach - its wasn't orignally their primary passion. And they will have a lot of ground to make up - they might be qualified to do it, but it doesn't mean they will be any good at it.

I suspect there are a few rare indeviduals who are born to do research. For the rest of us, research is a skill that has to be taught and learnt.