This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Education  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: As graduates of a medical scientist training program (MSTP), we read the article on the physician-scientist career pipeline by Drs Ley and Rosenberg¹ with interest. The authors conclude that MD-PhD programs are a "success . . . for producing successful physician-scientists with sustained academic careers." We believe that the data presented do not support this conclusion.

The authors claim success because MD-PhD trainees are overrepresented as National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applicants. These data are difficult to interpret because MD-PhD trainees are a preselected, research-oriented group. Even if MD-PhD programs ceased to exist, many of these individuals would apply for NIH funding following doctoral training. Given the time commitment and significant financial support provided to MD-PhD trainees, the outcome of interest should be greater success in obtaining short- and long-term funding, thereby sustaining a research career. The data actually show that current funding success rates for MDs, MD-PhDs, and PhDs . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Richard L. Haspel, MD, PhD
rhaspel@partners.org
Department of Pathology
Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston

Jason R. Orlinick, MD, PhD
Department of Medicine
Norwalk Hospital
Norwalk, Conn

RELATED ARTICLES

The Physician-Scientist Career Pipeline in 2005: Build It, and They Will Come
and
JAMA. ;294():1343-1351.
FULL TEXT  

Physician-Scientist Training--Reply
and
JAMA. ;295():623-624.
FULL TEXT