Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How would an industry year look to residency programs?
Original Poster here - want to do this to learn in nuance, the path of clinical translation and therapy/device development. This is obviously something I want to come out of my career as well down the line in neurosurgery, and I think this would be a very unique opportunity to have first hand exposure to bridging the gap between bench and beside. Although it would be in industry, it would be a very heavy science-focused experience, with experience in study development, etc., and regulatory approval (FDA).
how do u get 30 papers in 1 year please lmk
OP here. Worried that people will think I'm not committed to neurosurgery.
(09-15-2021, 12:37 PM)Guest Wrote: OP here. Worried that people will think I'm not committed to neurosurgery.

If it would help you sleep better at night during the trail then don’t do it. I don’t see how you would benefit more from an application standpoint if you did do it anyways. If you really need income at the moment then it would be reasonable but at the same time you’d be missing out on one year attending salary in the long run.
How u get a patent
how do u get 30 papers and 1 patent please let me know
Best to get into residency and then work the industry approach during a research year or during or at another time.
Chief resident here who has seen several applications over the years. Think it could be a great idea. All depends on how you spin the story/narrative. Can see it going in different ways from the perspective of faculty:

1. Some old timers will think that you're messing around, not focusing on what is important in nsg (read: shitty clinical research or basic science. The latter of which you probably will not get published on by a year from now when apps are due). You will have to actively prove to them that you're focused on neurosurgery.

2. Younger faculty or more innovation/entrepreneurial-focused will see this as a unique and great skillset that you can bring to their department and field. You might be set apart (in a positive light) from the other cookie cutter applicants with their 50 papers on the state of neurosurgery in Africa, or the role social media plays in neurosurgery.

Anyone can do a chart review, or several. It certainly demonstrates work ethic (read: mindless chart monkey) and a commitment to the field, but does not demonstrate critical thinking, navigating challenging problems, intelligence, or even working with and across cross-functional teams apart from medical students and statisticians. Anyone who tells you otherwise either has a self-inflated ego or finds chart reviews challenging.

The reality is that many/most neurosurgeons have little to no experience in any domain outside of medical school/lab research. Think of how many faculty or current residents have gone straight life science undergrad -> medical school + research years -> residency -> attending. Therapeutics/device/etc. development is not something that can be magically accomplished because you are a neurosurgeon. Sure, you may contribute your medical expertise to something, but you likely wouldn't know/understand the true path from bench to bedside without actively being involved with it. Some surgeons may have this experience, but only after a decade or so of toiling about in the pre-clinical setting, or being involved in the periphery by a stroke of luck by great collaboration with an engineer. They then become a mascot who provides some ideas while the engineering/science/business team takes care of all the difficult work.

In regards to the poster above, "work the industry approach during research year, etc." seems ideal on paper. However, you ideally don't want to be learning fundamental skills/building basic connections during that short one year during residency – when you return to the hospital for full time clinical work as a senior/chief, you won't have much time to harvest success from your elective time, as you spent time mostly learning. In a similar vein, many people who pursue basic science research during their protected time off have some degree of skill/training/expertise previously, so that they aren't just floundering about for the first half year learning the fundamentals of buffering/cell culture/molecular biology techniques. Again, this is all dependent on what you want to do with your career.

Is there a known opportunity cost? Certainly, as you will have a guaranteed salary at the end of this neurosurgical path. However, no one can know what the opportunity cost might be if you do NOT pursue the industry year and really take advantage of the skills you gained and implement them over the course of your career. It may end up being a large financially/academically rewarding decision down the line. There is no way to know.

From my perspective, there is little to no harm in taking this year off, gaining some skills, learning a tremendous amount, and coming back to applying into neurosurgery. You will never have this full time off again, and as everyone on this sub knows, your life will NEVER be the same again once that first day of intern year starts (except if you quit, of course).

On paper, you seem to be a strong applicant with several papers (neurosurgery-related I hope), a patent, etc. If you can demonstrate hard work, grit, and an excellent attitude on your away rotations when you return to medical school, you'll be golden.

I would be interested in hearing what other residents on this forum think. Not a very common path, but certainly not a red flag from my perspective.

Quick Reply
Type your reply to this message here.

Image Verification
Please enter the text contained within the image into the text box below it. This process is used to prevent automated spam bots.
Image Verification
(case insensitive)

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)