In this blog post, we will examine whether students who want to become doctors are making selfish choices, along with the background and reality behind their decisions.
I heard that a friend majoring in life sciences was accepted into Sungkyunkwan University’s Graduate School of Medicine (hereinafter referred to as “GSMC”) through rolling admissions. Next year will be the last year of the GSMC system, and the school my friend applied to is one of the top three schools in Korea, so my friend was very happy, and I sincerely congratulated him. However, the news of his acceptance, which brought him great joy, soon became a source of great worry and concern for my friend. The College of Liberal Arts requires students to write a thesis or take a graduation exam in their major as a graduation requirement, and the Department of Life Sciences requires students to write a thesis, so students must choose a laboratory and write a thesis under the guidance of a professor. The problem is that most professors only accept students who will enter their laboratories as graduate students as thesis advisors. In particular, in the Department of Life Sciences, where feelings toward the medical school are very negative, only a handful of professors are willing to accept students who have been accepted to the medical school. My friend complained about the difficulty of finding an advisor, and in the end, the Liberal Arts and Science Division appealed to the Department of Life Sciences and found a professor who was willing to accept students who had been accepted to the medical school, allowing my friend to finally write his thesis. Seeing the emotional difficulties my friend was going through, I was reminded of the closed nature of the Department of Life Sciences.
Of course, since the medical school system was implemented, it is true that many students have gone on to medical school, and it is understandable that professors feel they have lost students who could have attended graduate school in Korea and become their students. However, their resentment prevents them from seeing the advantages of the medical school system clearly, and their refusal to acknowledge the current trends in the life sciences field is similar to a child who closes their eyes and ears to see and hear only what they want to see and hear. They view the medical school system as an evil force that hinders the advancement of life sciences, and their campaign to abolish the system was ultimately successful. However, can we really say that the professors have won? Will students flock to the professors’ laboratories the year after next?
Many life science students, including myself, are not very interested in going on to graduate school. In particular, the enrollment rate for graduate schools in Korea is quite low, and with the exception of a few large laboratories, it is common for students from other universities in Korea, and even from countries such as Vietnam and India, to be recruited. According to a survey conducted by the Seoul National University Human Rights Center last month, a significant number of Seoul National University science and engineering graduate students complain of depression, with excessive workloads cited as the main cause. Graduate students in Korea are required to do not only research activities but also an unreasonable amount of work, to the extent that they are called “professors‘ slaves” and “professors’ personal assistants.” A year ago, I heard from a friend who had entered graduate school and was working from 9 a.m. to 8 or 9 p.m., Monday through Saturday, for a mere 500,000 won a month, and that he couldn’t afford to eat for several days. In addition, there are professors who give graduate students their monthly salaries and then force them to deposit the money into another account, professors who steal students’ research results and pass them off as their own, and professors who mobilize graduate students to help them move. I think there are enough factors that discourage students from going to graduate school in Korea. Professors in the Department of Life Sciences generally require students to complete a combined master’s and doctoral program, so students who enter a laboratory spend four to five years under the guidance of their advisor, and if their thesis is not approved, they have to stay in the laboratory even longer. (In fact, my senior colleague in the laboratory where I currently work has been a graduate student for six years, and there are many people who have been in the laboratory for nearly 10 years. However, the problem is that even after studying for such a long time, master’s and doctoral degrees in science and engineering are rarely recognized in Korea. In countries such as the US and the UK, which have a longer history of basic science than Korea, those who do not obtain a degree in Korea are discriminated against in comparison to those with overseas degrees when it comes to finding employment at research institutes or becoming professors. For this reason, many graduate students obtain master’s or doctoral degrees in Korea and then go to the United States to continue their studies, but foreign universities often do not recognize Korean graduate programs, so most of them have to start their studies from scratch. As a result, they end up wasting three to five years at the very least, and seven to ten years at most.
I also experienced laboratory life through various internship programs and practical courses since last year, and the nearly one year I spent in the laboratory was a great disappointment to me. My goal was to study brain science, more specifically the brain’s reward system and various mechanisms related to eating disorders and addiction, with the ultimate goal of developing a treatment for obesity. To study brain science further, I joined the brain science research lab at my university. I wanted to study the human brain, but I was very disappointed with the laboratory that used mice as research subjects. After listening to my uncle, who was conducting basic research at Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, I realized that this was not limited to brain science. According to my uncle, a lot of research funding is concentrated in medical schools, and even among doctors, research funding is concentrated on clinicians who can directly treat patients and collect relevant data. As the economy has become more difficult, the funds that can be allocated to research have become limited, and therefore, this money is being invested intensively in research that can actually help people, and this trend is likely to continue in the future. It is easy to imagine how difficult it is for general life scientists to secure research funding. In particular, life scientists conducting research in fields that overlap with medical schools, such as microbiology, immunology, and brain science, are likely to be pushed aside by clinicians unless their research results are overwhelmingly outstanding in the research funding review process. The authority to conduct research on humans is limited to clinicians, so life scientists are limited to assisting clinicians as research assistants or conducting research on animals such as mice and rabbits instead of humans. However, the research results and papers that are discussed in the news and attract public attention are not those that use mice and rabbits, but those that are directly related to humans. Of course, basic research is also important and meaningful in that it establishes basic mechanisms using mice and rabbits and applies the results to humans. However, research can only be conducted steadily with a stable supply of funds, and it is difficult to expect students who have just entered the life sciences field to produce research results that justify large research grants. Without research funding, they will face delays in their research, and this vicious cycle will continue. In fact, many students who are interested in basic science research rather than patient care are aware of the current situation and choose to enter medical school, believing that the title of doctor will be more advantageous than that of life scientist in terms of securing research funding.
Many professors in the life sciences department openly criticize doctors in their lectures, calling them “a selfish group that only wants to live well for themselves, like technicians who see the same patients every day.” They also actively discourage students from pursuing medical school, saying, “You shouldn’t come all the way to Seoul National University to live such a selfish life. You are people who have a lot to do for society.” Of course, among the students who want to go to medical school, there are those who are attracted to the stability of income that the medical profession offers. However, I am skeptical that this should be criticized so harshly. Currently, Korea continues to emphasize the “crisis in science and engineering,” but there is still a sentiment of contempt for science and engineering, and the government has not significantly increased its support for basic science. Those who go on to graduate school to study basic life sciences must study and conduct research activities such as designing experiments just as much as students who go on to medical school. They make the same effort, but society does not recognize their efforts, and some life scientists struggle to make ends meet because they do not receive adequate support. In Korea, where basic science is neglected, how many students are willing to endure all these hardships and pursue an academic career? When I hear that some of those who are trying to enter medical school are graduate students in life sciences or even people who have worked at life science research institutes, and the reasons why they decided to change their career paths, I feel that the reality of science and engineering, including life sciences, in South Korea is still bleak. In this situation, I think it is unreasonable to criticize students who decide to enter medical school as selfish.
I also believe that there is a clear difference between the social roles of life scientists and doctors. Doctors are not simply professionals, but are responsible for “health,” which is a major part of a country’s welfare. Advances in medical technology and the discovery of new treatments can have an impact not only on the relevant academic field, but also on the entire population and, more broadly, on all of humanity. In contrast, the research of life scientists may contribute to the advancement of their own academic fields or basic science in a narrow sense, but without subsequent research on how their research can be applied to humans, it cannot have a significant social impact. It is true that the advancement of basic life sciences precedes the advancement of medicine, but it is also true that the role of life sciences in society is limited when considered independently. For example, the discovery of radiation itself did not have a significant impact, but when radiation was used to create X-rays, which revolutionized patient treatment, the impact was enormous. Considering these points, if you want to make a significant contribution to society, it seems more appropriate to become a doctor and conduct research that can improve the health of the entire population. It is not right as an educator to emphasize only one side of doctors (and even then, with generalizations) while ignoring the ripple effect they can have on society. Rather, I think it undermines the prestige of life sciences as a whole.
Of course, with 99% of life science students preparing for medical school and the number of students wishing to enter graduate school in Korea declining, it is understandable that professors are angry and concerned about the future of life science. It is also true that the crisis in basic science is becoming more serious every day as the number of basic science researchers decreases. However, the reality that life science students currently face is preventing them from readily advancing to graduate school to become life scientists. Socially, there is still a tendency to disregard basic science, and more seriously, there is a reality of abuse of power by professors in laboratories and insufficient compensation for graduate students. Unless these issues are improved, even if the medical school is abolished, the number of students entering graduate schools in Korea will not increase significantly. In order to attract more students to graduate schools in Korea, it is necessary to objectively and dispassionately assess the current problems in the life sciences and propose improvements. Blindly criticizing medical schools for “stealing students” and imposing various disadvantages on students who wish to attend medical school is not a fundamental solution. Rather, the attitude of the professors seems to emphasize the narrow-mindedness and closed nature of the Department of Life Sciences, which only serves to make them a laughing stock in society. With the official announcement that the medical school will be abolished next year, professors in the Department of Life Sciences believe that the number of students entering graduate schools in Korea will increase. I think they should abandon the somewhat naive idea that the abolition of the medical school system alone will alleviate the decline in the number of students entering graduate schools in Korea.
