Should I study towards a MD/PhD in light of advances in AI/robotics/automation?

My question is twofold:

(1) Will AI/robotics/automation have made most health care jobs redundant (or at least reduced their financial viability) by then, making such an investment (nearly two decades of opportunity cost) futile?

(2) Provided physicians are still needed in the future, is it at all possible to start a healthcare technology company on the side to make use of my technical knowledge while working as a doctor part-time? Would hospitals or private practices be prepared to accommodate me? Would it be financially feasible?

Thank you.

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.

As Xaa has written, most doctors are not focused on technology. They will use it, understand it but especially the older ones do not embrace the possibilities automation or innovation can offer. That coupled with slow development and access to the market makes us lag behind other high-tech/high-impact industries (for example aviation).

Do not underestimate how hard it is for automation to completely take over a doctors job. In 50 years we will still need radiologist. The tools you will develop will support your and others workflows, making healthcare better. And if it replaces a certain task, others will arise, as for example radio frequency ablation has a growing role in oncology. (and is often done by a radiologist!)

Furthermore there are legal implications. Surgery will not be completely automated (fire and forget)in the next decades, simply because of this. A surgeon always has to be present. For example: the most chosen approach for robotics in orthopedics is assisted surgery, where you move the tool and the robot blocks you from making bad moves.

So, as an MD/PhD you will be a bridge between two completely different cultures. I sometimes joke that the engineers we talk to have a solution for a non-existing problem and doctors no technical solution for an existing problem. It's actually really hard to understand each others fields. So in this you are valuable!

You seem very motivated! I can only draw conclusions on my choice, but I can recommend it! If you have any questions ask away.

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.

I think you want to go into MD-PhD, but I would suggest against it if you are more interested in the technology than what is best for patients. A lot of technologists are having problems conceptualizing this because they don't understand the limitations of current technology and what dealing with patients entails. Instead of trying to be a leader in this type of field you should focus more on potential problems technology can solve much better for patients by improving outcomes and decreasing costs. The biggest problem in medicine right now are the insurance companies and healthcare administration practices which are quite costly and provide little patient benefit.

1.) Technology is only going to have as big of a impact on medicine as doctors and patients allow. If you want to make an impact on healthcare focus on developing technology where you can convince doctors that outcomes and costs are better. If you look at past clinical research done, a lot of technology did not produce the beneficial outcomes perceived by the inventors. Clinicians are skeptical of technology without proper evidence suggesting its usefulness. Your technology will have to navigate this system.

2) MD-PhD gives you a lot of flexibility with doing this type of thing, but I would suggest that you focus more on helping patients than building a business. Likewise, I would suggest trying to become more involved at an academic hospital that could support your intellectual property pursuits, give you access to the patients your technology can help, and help find the resources you need for new developments. Neurosurgeons with engineering backgrounds are probably the most successful in this respect.

You have a long ways to go and the journey is not easy by any means. Good luck. Questions are welcomed.