Most people starting in Medical Oncology understand that there is a heavy research bias in this speciality and ask whether they should do a PhD or an MD. What would you advise?

I think it is important for junior doctors to understand that a PhD is not an end in itself; it is just the first step in an academic career. They also need to realise that there is a defined career path at the end of the PhD, although it is longer than a full-time clinical career - and infinitely more rewarding intellectually, if not financially. If someone knows at the outset that they have no long term interest in lab science, then a clinical MD may be a far better option for them, despite the ‘degree snobbery’ that exists.

How should would-be researchers identify a good project for a PhD?

I encourage people to look beyond their immediate area – it is very tempting for registrars to accept a project in their current boss’ lab without exploring alternatives. I think registrars should go and talk to several different group leaders about their research, to get a good idea of what different labs do, before making a decision. They also need to answer the general question for themselves – do they want to do something broadly clinical, involving ‘translational’ medicine, or something more lab based – involving rather more hard-core molecular biology, for example.

What about identifying a good supervisor for a PhD?

I recommend that they ask about previous PhD students and previous clinical research fellows in particular. Have they been successful in getting PhDs? Ask questions like, who will supervise me on a day-to-day basis and teach the essential lab skills and what is the publication record of the lab?