[xaa]

I'm a PhD in biomedical sciences (biochem/bioinformatics), so I don't know directly about the MD side, although I work with MDs frequently.

From what I have seen, physicians are generally not tech-savvy and are fairly behind-the-curve when it comes to automation. Even many of the things that are currently possible to automate, like EMRs and some aspects of diagnosis, aren't. Since any technology that replaces what a physician does has to be approved by the FDA, it moves very slowly. I think it is a long time before large numbers of physicians are put out of work by technology. Especially since the quantity of MDs is artificially limited.

That said, radiology is probably one of the first specialties that will be automated. Already, some image recognition algorithms have been shown to outperform trained radiologists at recognizing, e.g., cancer. So, if you're purely after job security, it might not be the best specialty to choose.

But with a tech-heavy background like an EE, you have plenty of options. MD/PhD + tech background is a perfect preparation for research, if you're into that. Or you can help develop systems to automate various aspects of medicine. Although it will put people out of work, in my opinion automation in medicine is a very good thing for society because algorithms don't make mistakes (other than the inherent limitations of the algorithm), don't get tired, and you don't have to pay them, so automation should lower soaring health care costs. You can always go into a biotech firm as well.

To answer 2), yes, physicians (at many places) have good flexibility with their hours. The only thing you might have to worry about is who owns IP, especially if you work for a university health care system.

[piggyback]

Thank you for your reply. Would you be so kind to elaborate on what you do for a living as well as in what capacity you work with MDs? Frey and Osborne (2013) published a paper that indicates how likely certain professions are to computerization. You can find it here:

http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Futu....

However they didn't elaborate on the various medical specialties. Do you happen to have any information on that?

From what I hear MD/PhDs do research about 10-20% of their time, while they spend the remainder on treating patients. I'm afraid very few hospitals/practices would be willing to let me work only 3 days a week so I can work on a tech company on the side. I'd think maybe I could do some consulting but that's it; I don't think there would be time to pursue outright entrepreneurship.

[xaa]

I am a researcher at a nonprofit research institution that does both basic and clinical research. When I work with MDs (or MD/PhDs), it is usually to analyze clinical and/or genomic data that they have collected from patients. Sometimes I am roped into building web applications either for data analysis or patient questionnaires. Once in a while, I develop prototype algorithms to aid in diagnosis from e.g., histology images.

The ratio of research to clinical practice for MD(/PhD)s is basically whatever you want it to be. At my institution, it seems more like 70% research / 30% clinical on average, but that's because it's a research institution with a clinic, not a clinic that does some research. Several of the MDs I work with have dropped clinical practice altogether for full-time research as well.

Also at my institution there are researchers and/or clinicians who spend most of their time on building a business. The administration very much encourages this because they get a cut of the IP royalties. In academia, your value is basically proportional to the money you bring in, so these people are actually treated like gods.

Basically, there are a LOT of jobs out there; if you are qualified and productive, you can easily find one that suits your preferences.

(I have no hard data on what specialties are more or less likely to automate. I would expect GPs/family practitioners to be the least likely, but who knows.)

[piggyback]

That sound pretty good to me! Can you tell me about the salary range of those MD/PhDs doing research and about the cut such an institution gets? I'm asking I'm guessing the hours that your institution are sane (read: 9-5ish)? Thanks a bunch.

[xaa]

I live in an inexpensive part of the country, so salaries obviously vary based on that. $80-150K is the normal range for a PI here, but the sky's the limit if you can pull in a lot of grants/royalties.

There are no set hours. You work when and where you want. (I usually roll in around 11-noon). They don't really care how you spend your time, as long as you publish and get grants. Patents are just icing. Obviously clinical hours are in the 9-5 timeframe though.

I don't really know the normal IP cut in detail. I believe it is roughly 50% of the patent royalties, negotiable depending on how much pull you have. But if you are the actual owner of the business as well as the patent creator, then you get both the royalty cut and the business profit, whereas if you just sell the patent you get only the royalties (but obviously that is a lot less work).

EDIT: I feel compelled to point out that it's not all roses. The flip side of the freedom is that you are judged solely on your results. If you can't produce, for whatever reason, you're going to have a hard time. There's little job security. And so forth.