I am about a million years late to the lab lit party. Better late than never, right?
I just finished reading Allegra Goodman’s Intuition, a novel about science and ethics, set in a fictional Cambridge, Mass lab. Trying to mentally trace the paths the characters took through the city was frustrating and exciting at the same time, as was attempting to identify which research institution served as a model for Intuition’s Philpott Institute (though this comment on Amazon sheds a healthy dose of light). There was something strangely rewarding about recognizing the streets and landmarks mentioned in the novel, something childishly exciting in seeing my city as the foil for an author’s creativity and events in her characters’ lives.
That being said, I will admit that I didn’t love the book. Which isn’t to say that it wasn’t a page turner – I finished it in a matter of hours (Nabokov this was not). I was irked by the lack of an obvious protagonist. I disliked all the characters equally. The other, more nitpicky problem, was that I found a number of inaccuracies in Goodman’s version of life and work in a lab. I have never worked in or seen a lab that is run in the manner she presented (not offering too many details here, for fear of giving away too much of the plot).
In the novel, an entire lab was put to work on one project and post-docs lived in fear of being fired. Fired? Post-docs? Short of murder in the lab – not outside the lab, that could be overlooked – I don’t know what it would take for a post-doc to be fired for performance/personal issues.
I decided that these discrepancies could be accounted for by the fact that the lab in Intuition was headed (in part) by an MD. And that got me to thinking – are there clear differences in the way MDs approach research as opposed to PhDs? After all, they are not raised/trained in the same environment. Their focus and often their goals are entirely different, with perhaps more emphasis placed on applied science as opposed to the basics. Am I off base in this assumption? I have never been in an MD-run lab. Has anyone? Any opinions on the MD vs PhD-lead labs?
I was irked by the lack of an obvious protagonist. I disliked all the characters equally
That’s going to keep me giggling for a while.
I don’t know what it would take for a post-doc to be fired for performance/personal issues.
Well, there’s someone I’d like you to meet…
Fired? Post-docs? Short of murder in the lab – not outside the lab, that could be overlooked – I don’t know what it would take for a post-doc to be fired for performance/personal issues.
heh, I will just say "it is not impossible at all although I think the term would be called ‘not renewed’ "
are there clear differences in the way MDs approach research as opposed to PhDs? After all, they are not raised/trained in the same environment. Their focus and often their goals are entirely different, with perhaps more emphasis placed on applied science as opposed to the basics.
I think this might be different between a lot of things- with that I mean that I can not say if it is mainly because it is an MD or “another trained person” or “a PhD who has been working close to industry” [or where/in which lab they received their training].
I have worked with (for? under?) PhDs, MDs and DVMs [the joy of doing a graduate studies in a agriculture uni ;) ] …. and I think there might be something similar within each “sub group”. Then again, I must say that the age group was also a factor that made them fairly similar. It might be easy to say that the MD/DVM looked at things a bit more "applicable"*. On the other hand, the PhD had worked in collaboration with industry so it was fairly ‘applicable’ too.
My own concern in general is that I feel that science in general is moving towards “practical” and “applied” much more than “basic research” if you want grant money anyway… but sure enough, that is another discussion. The only thing I have noticed about myself is that I can be weary about a lab who has only one subgroup of people since I think we benefit from having different points of views and will ask different questions based on “background”.
*the largest difference imho was that the PhD might view the questions/hypothesis from the viewpoint of the bacteria/molecular techniques/structure and had a more focus on the hypothesis whereas the MD/DVM had focus on the “body” and the practical implications for clinical points. Then again, these are all very hard conclusions to generalize since it was a very specialized situation…. not to mention only my anecdotal data point ;)
There are some differences between MD and PhD-run labs, in the same way the MDs are different from PhDs in the way they are approaching science. I agree that MDs are giving more emphasis on applied and more applicable science.
In addition, someone should also consider the different psychological profile of MDs and PhDs. In my opinion, MDs are more impatient and tend to want earlier results. They frequently have to encounter an environment where asking questions is as important as obtaining answers and quick fixes are rare. It is frequently said that MDs want to come into the lab and get everything to work very quickly and then write a paper that will drive their career to a divine level.
However, working in a lab run by an MD can be equally rewarding as it is working in a PhD-run lab. The main benefit is the fact that MDs are complementing PhDs with their clinical experience and understanding of pathogenesis of human disease. I think this interaction make scientific life more exciting and historically the partnership of MDs and PhDs has provided great results with two of the many that comes to my mind is Robert Gallo’s (an MD) contribution that the HIV virus causes AIDS and generating much of the science that made the discovery possible or Michael Bishop’s and Harold Varmus’s (also MDs) discovery of the cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes. I think that that is why NIH has long supported and encouraged this symbiotic partnership and collaboration.