Newsletter Issue 3: Discover a Researcher in Yourself

We have interviewed Prof McArdle for his views on research; he explains to medical students what it takes to be a researcher, and offers important practical advice. The following is the remaining part of an interview, which is first published in our newsletter

What do you think about MD and PhD programmes?

If you are going to do clinical sciences, you have to have proper research training provided as a PhD or, perhaps, as an MD. An MD is usually directed more to a clinical problem than to a scientific one - a disease-related question, for example. A PhD may be attempting to answer either. Because of this, I think an MD may not be not as good in terms of providing a rounded education as the PhD. Having said that, I know good clinician-scientists who have MDs not PhDs; generally, I think the main reason they don't want to do a PhD because it is a very significant time commitment - at least three and perhaps up to four or five years. But the reason it's a long time is that you are not making a trivial step. It is not a necessary logical extension of the medical degree to do research. Research requires different skills and to be able to do a scientific research, you need proper scientific training. An MD may give you that depending on how it's done and where it's done and who's it's done with, but a PhD certainly would.

Research can be time-consuming as much as medicine can be. Is it possible to do both?

I know many who do it in different ways. For example, in Australia and US, I know physicians using money from their private practice to fund their own research. They employ scientists to do research because they lack time to do it themselves and they're not scientifically trained. So they understand the questions and they know the clinical aspects of the question and they pose it to the scientist who answers it.
I also know some clinician-scientists who do not carry a full clinical load and they constrict research questions to ones related to clinical problems. So you can do it, but it’s not straight forward. You have to make some sacrifices.

Do you encourage medical students to consider a research career?

Only if they're interested. If they think you can use your clinical head inside a scientific lab, then definitely not. You have to learn to think like a scientist, which it is not the same as thinking like a clinician.
I would certainly encourage medical students to do something like an intercalated year. It would be worthwhile for people who are competent and interested. But if you're going to medicine to make people better, then you don't necessarily need to do research. This is not necessarily going to make you a better doctor. So, you have to consider why you are doing medicine, as to whether or not there is a value in you doing a science section in your clinical training.

For those students embarking on a research placement or a research degree, do you have any particular advice for them?

Remember that there will be scientists who are highly trained in science. And as a medical student, you're highly trained in medicine. So, humility is really important. Remember you don't know it all and you will be told things that are totally different. You will be expected to operate in a very different way. You're coming as a novice; people will be very tolerant and keen to help, but it can be difficult to keep reasoning and thinking that you feel awkward because you have a medical degree. That is not the case. So, it's important to remember that your colleagues have something to contribute to you. But also, don't be too shy because your medical training can be very useful. If somebody is talking about a physiological problem, you can say "Ah, that looks like Reynaud's disease or like diabetes…etc" That kind of insight that is derived from that generalist education you have as a clinician can be very useful. So both sides benefit from each other.