Assuming I have really strong technical/scientific skills (especially regarding computer science), what path can I take to maximize my contribution to the fight for the cure of cancer?
PhD in biology? PhD in computational biology? Where would I go from there?
What about working for a big drug company? Working for a small drug company? What?
Basically, I want to make sure I’m doing the best I possibly can with the few decades I have on this planet.
Thanks a lot for your advice. I will of course also be conducting real life research to investigate this question by talking to people…
It’s wonderful to have an overarching goal, but the best way for you to contribute will be to do the things that are also satisfying in the doing. So you need to tell us about your talents, interests, pleasures, satisfactions, etc. What kind of things do you do that feel wonderful just doing them?
You can contribute to the fight against cancer as a fund raiser, journalist, project manager, community organizer, and a million other jobs, you don’t necessarily have to be the researcher. Broaden your search, don’t narrow it.
Once you get in academia, you will soon find that you won’t ever get the chance to work on a “cure for cancer” exactly. There is no one cause or cure for cancer. The scientists that make the biggest impact are the ones that hyper-specialize on one thing. Melanoma is just one type of deadly cancer but there is no one that is the world’s expert on melanoma either. The scientists that make the biggest impact are the ones that choose some part of the cell related to melanoma to study in detail for years or decades, run an experimental drug study (that could be for a corporation), or maybe just do fundraising. Your best approach depends on your talents and interests.
The most direct career is an M.D./Ph.D. path who runs cancer treatment studies and sees actual patients. That is obviously not easy however because you would have to complete not one but two of the most demanding degrees out there and apply them for a life-time. That is not for the faint of heart and the workload and intellectual demands are severe.
What is your current background? That is, how old are you, what are your current degrees and experience, etc?
That said, as you mentioned, computational biology isn’t a bad way to go if you’re innate strengths are math and CS. In terms of what to look for in an employer, I don’t think that anyone can accurately predict their relative contribution in terms of a large vs. small drug company. Both have the primary goal of producing marketable drugs as quickly and cheaply as possible, although a smaller company might offer you the advantage of a more limited scope of clinical problems you might find yourself working on. I think the larger companies will be much more likely to offer you resources to help further your career or entry level positions from any background (BS, PhD, etc.).
Also, this isn’t just to snipe Shagnasty, but in general I think MD/PhD’s are horrible ideas and I’m happy to expound upon this point if you really want to hear it. Very few people are truly suitable for those programs, even fewer are ultimately happy with their decision to complete MD/PhD’s, and it isn’t just for the “selfish” reasons. IMHO, many very bright person-years are wasted in those programs.
I actually would be happy to hear it. I was in a Ph.D. program once and never understood the M.D./Ph.D. model. It seemed like they split their focus in a way that was almost impossible and I never liked the people in them either.
I’m in my mid-twenties. I have a bachelor’s and master’s in computer science, and I’m currently in another master’s program doing a lot of probability/statistics/and other such data analysis stuff.
I believe I have very strong computer science, and math skills, although my biology is quite weak (I haven’t taken any such courses since high school). Also, my people skills are somewhat below average, so that eliminates “fundraiser” and “project manager” and stuff. You know, typical nerd.
Aren’t people who specialize in certain cancers wasting their talent? If someone found a cure for cancer, period, then that would cover all bases, rather than gradually curing thyroid cancer, then lung, then whatever…
Also, I don’t give a damn about money (which is why I’m willing to consider a PhD), as long as I have enough to continue living outside my parent’s house (I’d estimate this at about $20k a year, give or take). Not that I hate my parents, of course.
It also occurs to me that my efforts would be put to better use getting human consciousness into machines so that all diseases would be cured at once, creating immortality. However, I suspect this is a real pie-in-the-sky goal, even moreso than working for a cure for cancer.
Not to be mean because your motives seem to be quite admirable but I have no idea whatsoever what you mean by this. That is why you need to hit some good undergraduate biology and molecular biology classes first before you get too deep in this. That statement just sounds odd and quite naive if not downright ignorant about research science in general. That is a constructive and not destructive comment. I, and probably many others, simply can’t relate to a statement like that because of different life experiences and academic backgrounds. If it were that easy, the most talented geniuses in the world would be arguing the same thing but these are super complex systems and the various cancers are not one disease with a handful of cures to focus on. The popular media tends to use that cliche but it is far from true.
I’m also interested in hearing about issues with MD/PhD programs.
One of the first things you’ll learn when you start getting into cancer biology is that there’s no such thing as cancer. Thyroid cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and others are all fairly different diseases, and can vary significantly from individual to individual. So specialization is necessary.
It seems to me that your best bet is to go for a comp bio program, and maybe planning on preparing by taking a few college-level biology classes.
That’s the exact problem, in my view. I think that each of those respective programs is approximately equal to the work of having a 1 year old child to take care of in terms of time, intellectual, and emotional investment.
Not to sound like a management consulting DB here, but there just aren’t that many synergies between the programs delivered by the MD/PhD programs themselves. If MD’s come across interesting clinical problems they wish to pursue scientifically, they should have the resources to pursue those problems when appropriate, but a universal scientific training program isn’t overly valuable. Coming from the other side, PhD’s should have plenty of opportunity to shadow clinicians to think about or discover interesting clinical problems, but it isn’t really necessary for cancer scientists to know how to set bones. In both fields, even a 2-3 year absence can be very disruptive to a career, and that’s what they have to do several times. There aren’t many residency programs or mature “real jobs” that are compatible with a truly hybrid MD/PhD orientation, so if you go into neurosurgery, it’s like a 6 year break in your science career. Vice versa, your clinical education is interrupted by 3-5 years of getting your PhD.
In my opinion, MD/PhD’s exist largely due to legislative mandate than true organic need. Congress throws a bunch of money at the MSTP program because it sounds like a good way to deliver translational research on paper and medical schools like money… the result is not difficult to predict.
From my conversations with a very senior leader at a major privately funded biomedical research institution, I learned that he had similar misgivings about the MD/PhD emphasis.
Given my ignorance of biology, it is not surprising that I would make naive statements. Do feel free to correct me when i do so, and try not to take offense at such statements.
What Shagnasty said, but this question is beyond what can be addressed on the SDMB. If you want a serious answer to this question as well as a great introduction to your putative field, read this book: Weinberg’s The Biology of Cancer. It does a great job of cutting through the crap and dumbed-down half-explanations that plague the netherworld between lay-media, clinical medical literature, and the scientific literature and really explaining what cancer’s all about.
It is one of the remarkable scientific texts of the past five years.
Any of the paths you mentioned might end up being the one taken by THE ONE who “cures” cancer. Right now we don’t know enough about it to know what the cure is. Will it be the guy who discovers why some cells are neighborly and some invasive? Will it be someone who discovers a very broad-spectrum magic drug bullet? Will it be the one who figures out a brand new way to target only rogue cells? Will it continue to be the fight against one cancer at a time with very little crossover among various cures for a disease group with such protean manifestations?
There isn’t such a career path as one “most likely” to end up contributing. A lot of science is expert barking up the what ends up being the wrong tree, and it’s still really valuable science, because there is no way of knowing in advance it’s the wrong tree, and one individual can’t explore every possible path. The guy who does something really cool is often just another bright guy in the right place at the right time…
A real “cure” for cancer is likely to come out of the basic sciences and not the clinical ones. I wouldn’t waste time on an MD degree if I was determined to go for “curing” cancer. An MD is a minimum of 5 additional years even if all you want is the most basic license. 8 to 9 more years if you want to actually treat cancer (4 years for the MD; 3-4 years for Internal Medicine; 2-3 years for an oncology fellowship.
You are most likely to make the most valuable contribution by doing something you love to do. It’s a lot easier to get up in the morning and stay up all nite when it’s your passion, and you are much more likely to excel in something you love to do. Find the relevant area of basic science…computers; cell biology; pharmacology–it doesn’t matter–that you love and get into a good program with an eye toward a research fellowship for starters. After that it will be time for the next step. It’s not something easily planned in advance.
You are doing the right thing by seeking out good people doing the things you think you might like to do. Be humble when you seek advice from them. There have been many before you who ended up being a little disgruntled when their offer to join a research group and cure cancer for them was met with a little skepticism. The 99% perspiration is not as fun as it seems, and I’m not sure the other 1% is inspiration; half of the other 1% for the highly successful individuals is blind luck.
If we honestly knew the one best way to find a cure for cancer, then we would have already found the cure. Some breakthroughs come from years of slow progress, and others from flashes of inspiration. Today’s most promising approach will like as not become tomorrow’s dead end.
Figure out what stirs your passion, and figure out a way to direct that toward some aspect of curing cancer. People who are passionant about thier work are most likely to put in the time and focus to achieve big things, and even if the never do, they had a good time doing it.
I don’t think I can do much in public health work since that requires strong interpersonal skills which I don’t possess, and I wouldn’t enjoy such work as much, anyway. This is why I’m asking about a scientific path, which is more suited to my particular personality and set of skills.
Sure, no problem… although bear in mind that public health programmes need statisticians, data modellers, trend analysts etc, it’s not all customer-facing
I just turned in (well, on December 4th) my Masters Thesis (in Biochemistry): “Digoxin and Ouabain as Cytotoxic Agents and Probes in Lung Cancer.” Like any other study, I took a microscopic view of the much larger field and studied a problem within it. This is the only way in which one can tackle the desire “to find a cure for cancer.” There won’t be one person who will find such a cure, because it doesn’t exist. Cells are incredibly intricate, and if there was one overarching thing I’ve learned in the 18 hours of graduate class work, it was that there was a whole lot more that we don’t know than what we do know. The strategy is to learn from our scientific ancestors and add to their knowledge. From that come hints, suggestions and eventually clinical strategies after years of animal and human model testing.
If you’re interested in leukemias and lymphomas, go into immunology. If you’re interested in the malignant changes that turn a normal cell into a cancerous cell, go into biochemistry. If you’re interested in tackling tumors on a gross (i.e. large scale) or systemic level, go into physiology. If you’re interested in treating patients or participating in drug trials, get an MD or a PharmD. If you’re interested in drug discovery, go into Pharmacology/Toxicology.
My experience with MDs and PhDs so far is that MDs are very good at applying knowledge generated by PhDs, but are not good at conducting good studies (for the most part). MDs are trained to observe, diagnose and treat a patient, not conduct experiments. PhDs are trained to study a problem in great depth, but are not trained to apply that knowledge to a patient. PhDs will be able to design and execute a meaningful study based on ideas or casual observations of MDs. But no matter how knowledgeable, I would not go to a PhD for diagnosis, and I carefully scrutinize the methodology and conclusions of MD-executed studies because of their lack of training in that area. It is a rare person that can successfully use an MD/PhD and maintain the balance between discovery and application. Most of the MD/PhDs I know concentrate on one area of education over the other as the goals of the MD and PhD degree are so different.
PM me if you want to see some of the topics I’ve blogged regarding your desire to address cancer.
At least, this is what I have read in a couple of places. The lives saved by the fight against cancer come most efficiently by far from efforts to reduce cigarette sales, prohibit smoking, raise taxes on cigarettes, advertising the perils of smoking, and so forth. I read that these efforts completely dwarf the efforts of medical research.
This is, I gathered, because cigarette smoking increases the incidence of almost all forms of cancer, not just lung cancer. While lung cancer would be an almost unheard of rare disease if it weren’t for smoking, it isn’t rare among smokers. But most of the commoner kinds of cancer are made more common by smoking, too.
An old friend who did cancer research at the Fox Chase Cancer Center once told me interesting things about the few cancers that smoking doesn’t make more common. Apparently it was then thought to be an intriguing clue (this was 30 years ago).
I hear that they found a true cure for one of the less common versions of childhood leukemia several years ago. This was a very nice victory. It is rare to find cancer cures. It is also nice that the cancer that was cured was one that struck little children. Sadly, this particular kind of cancer was not a common one, so the number of lives saved was pretty tiny compared to cancer’s overall toll.
I hope I got this right; if anybody can elaborate on this, or especially can correct what I think I have read and heard, it would be most helpful.
