Can't decide between medicine and biology

If you want to be a medical researcher you have two options really- medicine or BMedSci. For research your best bet is to then follow it up with a PhD by thesis- so you'll still be called doctor It's up to you and you alone- stories of family pressure litter the medical profession, just follow your heart.

If you want to be a medical researcher you have two options really- medicine or BMedSci. For research your best bet is to then follow it up with a PhD by thesis- so you'll still be called doctor It's up to you and you alone- stories of family pressure litter the medical profession, just follow your heart.

do you want to be a doctor? remember you could always do post grad med if you wanted

Thanks. Are you "allowed" to do say the pre-clinical science 3 years at Oxbridge, gaining a BA, and then do a PhD?

Sorry, not true! Fact of the matter is a BSc is fine (you don't really need an MBBS or BMedSci), but a PhD is very much expected if you want to go into academia.

Doing something molecular can be a very good bet if you want to go into medical research. Something like Genetics or Molecular biology.

Alternative you could do Biomedical sciences?

Fair enough- you'd end up super super specialised though, with a narrow field of expertise.

Thanks. Are you "allowed" to do say the pre-clinical science 3 years at Oxbridge, gaining a BA, and then do a PhD?

I think I want to be a medical researcher, possible in gerontology, which I could approach through either degree. I'm sure I would enjoy both courses, but I don't think I want to be a doctor (working in a hospital, gp etc.) although I want to learn medical science, so the clinical part of the course seems fairly irrelevant. Would trying to do the first half (the science part) of a medical degree at oxford/cambridge and then doing something else be a good idea? How does the science of a medical degree compare to pure biology/the biological options of natural sciences? My Dad wants me to at least try medicine for a couple of years and then if I want to I can change my mind, but I'm not sure. I thought that doing biology/natural sciences and then a graduate medicine course seemed to be a solution, although he doesn't seem too happy about that. I had previously said that I wanted to do medicine, since around gcse results time, which in hindsight was thoughtless, so now when I raised the issue of doing biology/natural sciences instead the atmosphere in the house has been pretty **** which is clearly partly my fault. Please could you advise me on what to do? Any advice would be appreciated. Also, should I post this in the biology forum too?

If you want to be a medical researcher you have two options really- medicine or BMedSci. For research your best bet is to then follow it up with a PhD by thesis- so you'll still be called doctor It's up to you and you alone- stories of family pressure litter the medical profession, just follow your heart.

Fair enough- you'd end up super super specialised though, with a narrow field of expertise.

It's not that you're not allowed to, it's just not a particularly moral thing to do if you have no intention of going on to clinics and actually practicing medicine. You'd be taking a place away from someone who would really like to be a doctor. Plus they won't let you in unless you show some commitment to medicine - you'd have to do work experience and all the personal statement stuff which you wouldn't enjoy if you aren't really into the patient side.

*ahem* our tutors are very pro-research, and although they like to see an aspect of the clinical side, 'passion for medicine' essentially = passion for human biology, in the words of my head tutor. A high proportion of medical undergraduates here go on to do a PHD, especially following the third year research project.

Having said that, physiology is a great suggestion. OP - this is basically a large portion of the medical course without the clinical orientation, and ideal for research. Speak to Piers Nye, he will convince you i'm sure!

Most Oxford preclinical medical tutors do research themselves, so yeah, they're a bit biased! However, the selection criteria for Oxford Medicine includes "A reasonably well-informed and strong desire to practice medicine" - they are looking for people who want to be doctors. When you say 'high proportion of medical undergraduates go on to do a PhD', can you quote figures? Very few in my year (just finished third year) have thus far, and those that would like to in the future, myself included, would mostly like to continue with clinical practice at least part-time.

I agree physiology is so much better than medicine if you're intending to go into research. (At Oxford anyway) they get to study more subjects in depth and have more choice whereas breath of knowledge rather than depth is required in the first two years of medicine which can be frustrating.

I'd disagree. I did my doctorate at Oxford and know no one who was doing their D.Phil in between years of medical school. A few peeps doing MDs. I also did tutes and was led to believe it's not that common (and remember being told that apparently an intercalated doctorate has the highest suicide rate of all courses - not sure if that still bears true)