View Full Version : Medical Physics
jonnylane
Oct6-03, 08:07 AM
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
I’m familiar with Radiotherapy from the bioengineering aspect and would agree that medical physics could be an exiting field. Besides the various positions in a hospital environment, there is also a bio-industry need. From my own experiences, working with a physician on a daily basis can be frustrating. Hospital politics is unique to say the least. The medical physicist, I think, would benefit from having an introductory circuit and mechanical design course included in their curriculum. Of course today’s world requires as much computer expertise as one can manage.
Chi Meson
Oct6-03, 02:21 PM
As a teacher I would love to follow interesting threads on the lastest uses of physics in the medical realm. Lasers, MRIs, CAT scans, PET scans, ultrasound, etc etc... It seems that the most worthwile outcome of physics is in the medical applications. I see it as something to counter the stigma of "The Bomb."
Chi Meson – There is no artifact that lacks an underlying knowledge of physics in its creation. Actually all the devices you mention have been in use since the 1970’s, and the supporting physics known decades earlier. Imaging technologies owe their existence to the mathematical algorithms, programmers, and faster almost single chip computers (less expensive to manufacture) that became available then.
While PET produces an image of body metabolism it is not an anatomical image. The superimposing of its image with that of an MRI or a CT is really impressive. The early use of ultra sound in medicine was to precisely locate the pituitary gland as an aid to diagnosing a concussion. Visiting the NIH (1972), I met a pioneer in the field of ultrasound. He had PhD’s in physics, and engineering, a doctorate in medicine and looked to be less than 25 years old. To image with ultrasound the beam must be moved similar to an automobiles windshield wiper’s pattern. Then it was done mechanically. Now some 64 or more transponders are used with beam steering done by controlling the phase relationship of the sound pulses. This technology probably is derived from a process to direct the radar beam in military aircraft. I once toyed with a surgical laser. The device used a helium laser as an aiming beam (visible red) and an 80-watt, infrared CO2 laser for the knife. The beams were transmitted through an articulated arm and focused on a point several inches away. I removed the focusing optics, and using some other borrowed optics, I achieved a focal point about 10 feet away. I was able to burn tiny holes in IBM cards at that distance. I hid under a desk as I did this because I did not know if the IR beam would be focused using normal optics or if they would crack from the heat. Without any optics, it made the paint discolor on the ceiling. I always wondered what the painters thought about all those little round spots on the ceiling. Surgery is also done with high frequency electric currents. Tissue and muscle response to high frequency current is almost non-existent, whereas at 60hz there is a lot of twitching with a high probability of causing cardiac fibrillation. Hi currents are achieved at the surgical site by use of a very pointed instrument. Exit current density is kept low by using a large dispersing plate and conductive gel.
I could go on forever as there’s so much material.
jonnylane
Oct7-03, 07:14 AM
I have to agree about hospital politics. I haven't been working in my current place of work very long and so try not to get involved, but it always ends up affecting you.
Although my work involves routine things; calibtrations of linacs used for RT, QA etc. I also involve myself in project work quite significantly. My dissertation for my degree for example involved 3D image registration via different algorithms when applied to MRI, CT and SPECT images. I am currently working on a gynae brachytherapy (insertion of radioactive sources to treat cancer of the ovaries and cervix) related-project, which is mainly programming at the moment.
When asked what my job is, people always wonder what possible application physics couild have to medicine. It's a very understaed profession.
Teachers could (and should!) throw in the odd comment about MP when teaching. It's very easy to come up with examples related to space science or televisions or other technology, but the first time I heard my own blood flowing in my neck (doppler ultrasound) I was instantly hooked, and wanted to know how it worked.
I dont think enough time is spent promoting physics and all of the things that it can be applied to. Lack of links with real-life applications leads to a lack of interest from students. The more applications they are exposed to, the better.
Ok, end of ranting. [6)]
Jonathan
Chi Meson
Oct7-03, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by jonnylane
When asked what my job is, people always wonder what possible application physics couild have to medicine. It's a very understaed profession.
This is partly due to many physics teachers spending too much time on mechanics, never getting to heat, light, sound, and electricity. TO most of the country (US) Physics is associated with cars crashing, and cannonballs being fired off mountains. I always make a point of truncating mechanics as soon as we hit the halfway point. I'm thinking of ditching projectile motion completely because optics, sound, and thermodynamics seems to be more applicable.
So... legitimate question: what is that radioactive tracer that is injected into the blood, and what is the specific application? I remember it made my arm very cold.
Originally posted by Chi Meson
So... legitimate question: what is that radioactive tracer that is injected into the blood, and what is the specific application? I remember it made my arm very cold.
It depends on which organ they were looking at. Different organs take up different chemicals better than others. 131I, 132I, and 123I are all used, but for instance 131I has a half-life of 8 days which is longer than any test will last so its more ideal to use 123I. Different compounds containing these iodine isotopes can be taken up by different organs. There are other elements beside iodine that are used but I'm not familiar with them all. I think Tc is used also.
LSU ( where I go to school ) has a medical physics program. Here is their "links" page http://www.nuclear.lsu.edu/links.htm
jonnylane
Oct8-03, 04:43 AM
You are absolutely right:
It really depends what the area of interest was in your body. Isotopes of Iodine are commonly used, especially for testing (and sometimes treating) thyroid gland function. Cr-51 also often used.
By far the most commonly used isotope, as you mention, is a metastable isotope of Tecnecium, Tc-99m. It is especially used in conjunction with gamma cameras since it offers the best overall tradeoff between the factors that make up the "ideal" medical isotope (shortbut usable halflife, fairly monoenergetic gammas with no betas or alphas, easily made etc.). It can also be bound to different molecules, and so can be sent to whichever bit of the body is required.
I've never had one, but have had a few beasty injections, and they were damn cold. It feels weird, I must admit.
Most people who have iodine usually have to drink it. By all accounts it just tastes like water. They should mix it with coke or something...
Jonathan
Originally posted by jonnylane
By far the most commonly used isotope, as you mention, is a metastable isotope of Tecnecium, Tc-99m.
I wonder why 99mTc has an "m" in the mass number. Does anyone know?
jonnylane
Oct9-03, 04:27 AM
The m stands for metastable, as I mentioned in one of my above posts.
A metastable state is effectively a quantum mechanical energy state which has an unusual exited > ground relaxation process. I think it has something to do with a quantum number mismatch. Anyway, the basic effect is that the half-life changes. Tc-99 has a halflife of about 20000 years; Tc-99m has a half-life of around 6 hours.
It is produced via a radioisotope generator (we have one here in this hospital), the "parent" being Mo-99.
The generator is simply a big ol' shielded thing, in which Mo-99 is placed (it gets replenished periodically). It has a half life of about 3 days I think, and the daughter, Tc-99m, is flushed away from the core with saline, which can then be taken away for activity measurments before going into a patient. It needs to be made on site because it has such a short effictive lifetime; good for the patient, but creates transit problems.
Here in the hospital I work in, we supply about 4 other hospitals with the radioisotopes they need, genally on a daily basis. They are all a fairly short distance away, so they can be sent off in the early hours and used that day.
I don't actually work in radioisotopes (I did last summer for a few months at a different hospital); I work in radiotherapy, so please forgive any mistakes in the information. [:D]
Jonathan
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct9-03, 09:51 AM
In my watching of TV I recall having seen the first of the images, made by a PET scan, of the active dynamics of the Human brain, at work. I suspect that, since then, they have changed the radioisotope employed, as the original one was a dual photon(*) emitter and it was not the "safest" but the dynamic pictures of the brain, actively thinking, were really neat to watch, and does it ever act fast.
(*)(They used a dual positron(?) or photon(?) emitter which they later found out had some rather not so nice side effects)
Do they still have the ability to generate active (visually real time dynamic) brain scans using PET's?
jonnylane
Oct9-03, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Do they still have the ability to generate active (visually real time dynamic) brain scans using PET's?
Absolutely. I dont know a great deal about it, but I know that it is particularly useful in cardiac monitoring. They commonly use Rb-82 as the radioisotope. I don't know about the brain application.
PET is chiefly used to monitor function an metabolism, as opposed to anatomy. You can guess this just by looking at a PET scan because it looks vaugely like what you would expect but with very poor resolution.
The process is actually very interesting: The radioisotope decays into (among other things) an unstable positron, which travels for a short distance before destructing into a photon pair, which in turn travel in opposite directions (to conform to the conservation of energy).
The dectector array design is very clever because it utilises this fact in order to create the 3D image (it knows where the destruction has taken place because of comparison of time of flights for the photons).
Interestingly, the lack of resolution is mainly due to the short distance travelled by the positron before it destructs.
SPECT scans are similar, but I'm sure you can guess what the 'S' stands for...
Jonathan
Who wants a medical physics forum on this site? Meeeeeee!!
Fullhawking
Oct10-03, 03:41 AM
I enjoy mechanics and things of this nature. It is really easy to forget the other branches of physics like the medical field. ATB for starting a thread on it. Medical physics has lead to great devices like the MRI. IMO it is among the most interesting devices in physics only topped by tesla coils and particle accelerators. Anyway, besides the hair raising name like Magnetic Resonance Imaging, it has really aided in the diagnosis of ailments which is never a bad thing.
jonnylane
Oct10-03, 04:26 AM
MRI is indeed very clever.
One great expereince that always sticks in my mind about MR is when I was in my first year undergrad. My MRI/CT lecturer took me (I was the only one on my course!) to the hospital, the very one at which I now work, to show me the MR scanners. There are 2, one 1T machine and one 1.5T machine, which I'm sure you all know is a rather strong magnet. I had to remove all metal from my person and fill out a form about pacemakers and past surgery as well.
He showed me the hidden bits of the machine, such as the liquid He cooling system and the power generator. Then he took me into the room, taking out of his pocket a pair of scissors on a piece of string. I swear that thing lept up and pointed at the core of the scanner, and the string was pulled tight (and twangable). Next he took out a paperclip and told me to hold it in my hand. I then put my hand into the scanner, and it squirmed insode my hand and was twisted beyond recognition.
The images we gain from MRI these days are very high definition, and you can pick out individual cross sections of small veins and the like. It is invaluable in oncology and diagnosis of many nerve and brain disesases like multiple sclerosis and alzheimers disease.
What I do remember is that it was also the hardest and most complicated medical physics module I studied. Very intersting, but applied quantum mechanics and fourier transforms made for a daunting combination.
Jonathan
renedox
Oct10-03, 06:28 AM
Personally, I enjoy mechanics because it has helped me many times in everyday life.
Medical Physics is what I'd like to read up/study a bit sometime but I think I'm more into the Physics that will be "seen"/used in everyday life. Every once too often, I will indulge in the Philosophical/Theoritical side of Physics but to be quite honest, haven't looked too deeply into the medical side of things. While I plan to, it doesn't seem quite as interesting to me. Maybe you can prove me wrong?
So, with you being in the medical industry, what is the most effective cure for cancer?
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct10-03, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by renedox
(SNIP) So, with you being in the medical industry, what is the most effective cure for cancer? (SNoP)
Prevention, and sorry, I realize the question isn't meant for me, but having some little knowledge on the subjects, I thought.
(And "no" it isn't a joke, either)
jonnylane
Oct10-03, 09:27 AM
No problem, it's a forum. Your opinion and knowledge is valued.
I ahve to agree with Mr. R.P, because ultimately that's right. Unfortunately there are many cancers for which this is not possible. A lot of cancer conditions are unrelated to lifestyle, and so some people are just unlucky.
As for the best treatment for cancer? I'm a physicist, not an oncology doctor, so I'm not in a position to answer that, especially since chemotherapy plays an important part in cancer treatment: this of course has nothing to do with medical physics.
It also depends on the type of cancer. There are several forms of radiotherapy, each having different pros and cons for different cancers in different parts of the body.
Unfortunatley, many patients receive radiotherapy with no hope of ever being cured; the treatment is simply prolonging life or pain management. These cases are always the hardest to work with because you know (and they know) that they do not have long to live. It's a matter of making them comfortable and maximising the time they have left.
On the other hand, you can be impaired by a patients wishes. Just last week, a patient with Hodgkins disease (a type of brain cancer) was admitted to us. She is only 20 years old, and refuses stright up to lose her hair. She went on an unusual course of chemotherapy to prevent hair loss, knowing it would make her sterile, which it did. She now has the choice (radiotherapy) of 95% survival with 80% hair loss, or certain death (within 15 years or so) with no hair loss. I'm not kidding. It's maddening to see things like that. A total waste of life just because she doesn't want to lose her hair.
Jonathan
renedox
Oct11-03, 06:15 AM
A life for a bunch of hair?! Thats rediculus.
There was this thing we learnt in Physics last year, that you can fire an (electromagnetic) beam from three different places concentrating on one are of the brain to get of a brain tumour. Can't quite remember what it was though.
Gamma rays?
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct11-03, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by renedox
There was this thing we learnt in Physics last year, that you can fire an (electromagnetic) beam from three different places concentrating on one are of the brain to get of a brain tumour. Can't quite remember what it was though.
Gamma rays?
Know someone that that was performed upon, as experimentation, (Stereotactic was what it was called then) "cured" (rather stopped the growth, killed the tumor) the cancer, but left the person in, well, not the best of 'living' realities.
My Dad Died of cancer, lung then brain, and given that it is genetically based and very idiosyncratic, "curing" cancer seems a little bit of a misnomer as it is a part of the systems built in protection(s) just with an 'error' in place.
As for the hair part, did something like that when I was younger, twice actually, shaved my head bald to see if I had the strength of character to live like that, it was interesting.
Originally posted by jonnylane
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
Hi Jonathan. I'm wicked glad you brought this up. At the moment I'm trying to get into the field. I'm educated as a physicist and due to my recent bout with cancer I've been wanting to get into the field you're in. In particular I'd like to get into Radiological Oncology, but I'm flexible. I'm up for a position as a dosimetrist (waiting for second interview) and am crossing my fingers.
Any pointers you can give me to get into the field would be greatly appreciated.
Pete
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Prevention, and sorry, I realize the question isn't meant for me, but having some little knowledge on the subjects, I thought.
(And "no" it isn't a joke, either)
Some cancers cannot be prevented. I have Leukemia and there is no known cause of all case (some are caused by radiation and others are caused by benzene exposure) of it and no way to prevent it from happening.
Chemo worked for me and bone marrow transplants work for others when coupled with chemo.
Pete
A total waste of life just because she doesn't want to lose her hair.
Geeze! That's pretty sad. I knew I was going to loose all my hair and was not fond of the idea at all. However when it started to fall out reall bad I just got a crew cut. It wasn't as bad as I thought I'd be to be honest. Then again I'm a guy. It's worse for women. But to trade that off for life is pretty silly.
In fact I think my worst mistake during the whole thing was not to get the crew cut right off the bat. Slowly loosing it and trying to hope to keep it was more painful than it was worth. Watching your hair fall out slowly is a horrible thing to have to go through. If a next time comes then off to the barber shop for that crew cut. Who knows? Maybe I'll dye my hair pink just for fun first.
Pmb
jonnylane
Oct13-03, 04:51 AM
Multi beam radiotherapy is in common use. You can use more than one beam to maximise the dose to the tumour and minimise the dose to other areas.
Grrr... I just wrote a massive post and clicked the back button accidentally, so my response is a bit short. If anybody is still interested in multi-beam treatment I'll write some more.
Any pointers you can give me to get into the field would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Pete. Glad to see some interest in the field, though I am amazed at how many responses Ive had to my initial post.
I take it from your location that you are from the USA. I'm from UK, so I dont know a great deal about your system over there (although I did apply for a PhD there at one point). Here in UK we have a postgraduate training scheme. Graduates with a degree in physics can apply, and the training consists of an intense 1 year MSc and 15 months hospital training in fields you choose.
I have taken a rather rocky route through the system (its a long story). My degree was in medical physics anyway, but I took up (unpaid) voluntary work experience for 3 months during my degree (over a summer) I learnt a lot, and I applied for the training scheme shortly after. The main thing was the experience, and of course getting to know people in the field and getting a reference. I now work in oncology/medical physics in radiotherapy.
The situation in this country is that there is a country wide shortage of physicsists who want to go into the medical side. I got my place and experience by applying to as many hospitals as possible. I was prepared to work for free, and I did. It was hard, but the experience, and that "foot in the door" was invaluable.
With it being such a small field, the phsyicists country wide oftern know each other through conferences and the like, so word gets passed around through the community. Within months of my work experience, people were writing to ME and asking me to work for them, even before I had finished my degree. I was very lucky.
So, good luck for the job. If you don't get it, don't worry. Start writing to a few hospitals in your area and tell them your situation. Tell them you have an interest and make sure they know your skills. There is always project work going on in medphys, and a helping hand is always very useful for any hospital. If (last resort) they tell you that they cant afford to take you on, and you can afford it and dont mind doing it, tell them you are willing to work for free or just travel expenses or something. As I said, working for 3 months for nothing was hard, but it was very valuable and worthwhile.
If you want any more information, especially about the radiation/radiotherapy side of things, just let me know. Best of luck with the job; let me know how it goes on:
johnathan.lane@uhl-tr.nhs.uk
Jonathan
renedox
Oct13-03, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by jonnylane
Grrr... I just wrote a massive post and clicked the back button accidentally, so my response is a bit short. If anybody is still interested in multi-beam treatment I'll write some more.
lol don't be angry you clicked the back button, be happy for it tells you that you are still human :)
And yes, I would like to know more about the multi-beam treatment. Somewhere in your explination, you could include the "scientific" or "actual" term for it? That is of course, if "multi-beam treatment" isn't its actual term. :D
jonnylane
Oct13-03, 05:57 AM
The term you are looking for is Conformal Beam Therapy (CBT). It was in the original post, but I omitted it in my (very!) condensed version of the explanation of using more than one beam.
The treatment is planned using complex software that models how the radiation passes through tissue and how it contributes to the total dose at any particular point. This information is turned into a sort of 3D contour map (isodosimetry curves), allowing the treatment planner to see which areas of the anatomy are receiving what doses; the aim being to maximse dose to the cancer and minimise the dose to healthy tissue, especially radiosensitive areas such as the spinal cord, the optic nerve and reproductives.
The contours can be altered by using various techniques, which include using a device known as a multi leafed collimator, allowing the alteration of the planar shape of the beam. The other main technique is the use of metal wedges to alter the beam profile e.g. to make the beam "stronger" at one side than the other. Beam shaping is very important and makes radiotherapy a very versitile tool in oncology.
Conformal beam therapy is commonly used these days; in fact, I know of few cases where a single beam is used. The technique, although complicated, saves a lot of damage to healty tissue.
Jonathan
eek. New email = havoc. Totally messed up my account here. Now have new user name, but the same avatar.
Whoops..
Originally posted by jonnylane
Just last week, a patient with Hodgkins disease (a type of brain cancer) was admitted to us.
That is incorrect. Hodgkin's disease, aka Hodgkin's lyphoma, is a cancer of the lymphatic system.
See
http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/wyntk/hodgkins#2
http://www.lymphomainfo.net/hodgkins/description.html
Pete
You are of course right. In the meeting last week, the girl in question had a tumour just at the base of her brain. I assumed that hodgkins was a brain cancer, since almost all head-neck cancers we have are brain cancers.
Apologies again; I'm not a medical doctor.[6)]
Originally posted by jono
You are of course right. In the meeting last week, the girl in question had a tumour just at the base of her brain. I assumed that hodgkins was a brain cancer, since almost all head-neck cancers we have are brain cancers.
Apologies again; I'm not a medical doctor.[6)]
We live and learn! :-)
Its very sad that the girl chose to try to save her hair. When I look back I can't believe that I was so worried about it. It was nothing. The only trauma is knowing you'll lose your hair. The actuallyt loosing of the hair isn't that bad. I got tired of my hair following out so I got a crew cut. It was nothing.
I can't believe that girl choose hair over health. Especially since it's so temporary. And now she's sterile? Very very very sad.
Here is something which I think is very true. Pass it on to those whom you meet who face fear during their fight with cancer
From --
http://www.usmc.mil/almars/almar2000.n sf/d50a617f5ac75ae085256856004f3afc/667caa5642a0eeff85256a55005e1462?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,fear
Courage is not the absence of fear, but is our personal assessmenet that something else is more important than fear which confronts us.
...
Courage is the determination to make the best effort of whatevery circumstances you find yourself in ... regardless of the cost.
C.C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
For those of you who get cancer in the future - pay the cost of temporarily losing your hair. The possible benifits far out weigh what will later appear to you as a very small sacrifice. Especially since your hair grows right back. The alternative is not worth it.
Pete
I know what you mean. The initial shock for me was the fact that she chose sterility over proper treatment.And then to die, voluntarily.
The hospital workers that I feel for in these situations are the nurses. They have to comfort the patients and spend all day dealing with them. I'm lucky; I am only exposed to special cases. All other patints are just a name and a CT scan. Not very personal, but it's my job.
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
I know what you mean. The initial shock for me was the fact that she chose sterility over proper treatment.And then to die, voluntarily.
The hospital workers that I feel for in these situations are the nurses. They have to comfort the patients and spend all day dealing with them. I'm lucky; I am only exposed to special cases. All other patints are just a name and a CT scan. Not very personal, but it's my job.
Jonathan
She's really going to die
May I suggest something? If you can - suggest that she visit the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Discussion Board. Maybe they can talk some sense into her.
She just goes to http://www.leukemia.org/ and clicks on "Discussion Boards"
Or she can call them and asl to talk to someone who has been in her situation. They have what's called a 1-to-1 program for this. Tell it to her nurses and maybe it might help.
Pete
Mr. Robin Parsons
Oct14-03, 10:30 AM
At least there is a respect of the right to choose for oneself, even if we personally wouldn't have nessecarily choosen that pathway. Let's all hope that the suffering(s) are minimal.
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
At least there is a respect of the right to choose for oneself, even if we personally wouldn't have nessecarily choosen that pathway. Let's all hope that the suffering(s) are minimal.
That is very true. I was taken aback when I heard this and may have over reacted. I don't like to judge unless I've walked in their shoes. And I have never been a 20 year old girl with cancer.
And to be honest - I'm not 100% sure what I'd do if my AML came back. That is nasty stuff to go through and I'm not sure if I'd have that fight in me. I think I do but wouldn't know for sure unless it actually happened.
Pete
Yes, a very fair point.
For whatever reason, treatment can always be refused. It is, however, very unusual in a situation (such as this) where the treatment will invariably lead to total recovery.
It's difficult to conceive making such a decision without being faced with the situation oneself; a situation I have never found myself in.
The chemo/radiotherapy process is daunting and unpleasant. I feel for the patients that have to go through it.
I have found a medical physics students forum. It's fr AAPM, an american association, but they're nice people. It isn't very active, so I'm trying to spread the word around to get it going. Take a look if you are interested.
http://www.aapmstudents.com/forum/index.php?
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
I have found a medical physics students forum. It's fr AAPM, an american association, but they're nice people. It isn't very active, so I'm trying to spread the word around to get it going. Take a look if you are interested.
http://www.aapmstudents.com/forum/index.php?
Jonathan
Thanks. That's awesome! I just joined.
Tell me - is it possible to get in to the medical physics field with just a BA?
Pete
I can't speak for the USA, but here in the UK you can't work as a physicist without an MSc and accredited training. It's known as "grade A",and is run by IPEM (www.ipem.co.uk)
I (being the only exception I know of), on the other hand, have a BSc and am a physicist, albeit a new one. I had some experience, and there is a staff shortage, so they made an exception. I am studying my MSc part time.
I was put on a probationary 6 week period (on pretty poor pay) to see if I was up to the job. I was deemed to be, so they offered me a proper salary and a fully funded MSc and a training period after that.
Basically, I have worked hard and have been very lucky to be in the right place at the right time.
Experience and higher education are important, but the hospitals in this country mainly look for evidence of interest and committment to the field.
Just try to get involved in things, read up on some medphys topics, learn the basics of how things work, and then you should be armed with knowledge and evidence of interest when it comes to approaching places about getting a job.
I've only just joined that forum as well: take a look at my recent post to see what I'm working on at the moment.
For any more advice, don't hesitate to ask. I'm glad to see people interested in what I consider to be a very worhwhile application of physics.
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
I can't speak for the USA, but here in the UK you can't work as a physicist without an MSc and accredited training. It's known as "grade A",and is run by IPEM (www.ipem.co.uk)
I assume that you mean that you can't work in the medical-physics field with without an MSc right? It's not like you can't find a job in your country with just a BS right?
re - applications of physics to medicine
If I could do just one thing with physics in the medical field before I left this life then I'd like to find a way to do a bone marrow biopsy which does not give the patient such an enourmous amount of pain. That pain is one of the traumatizing things about fighting Leukemia. I never reached pain levels that high before this roller coaster started. And during a one year period I had to have 8 of them.
Any thoughts folks?
Pmb
Originally posted by pmb
I assume that you mean that you can't work in the medical-physics field with without an MSc right? It's not like you can't find a job in your country with just a BS right?
You can work in the field with just a BSc or BA, but not as a physicist. You can be a technician or research assisstant. Most physicists are expected to to a PhD at some point, and are often encouraged to do post-doc research. Many are part time lecturers at universities as well.
Bone marrow biopsies are particularly unpleasant, as you mention. I also find lumbar punctures pretty awful.
Jonathan
Originally posted by jono
You can work in the field with just a BSc or BA, but not as a physicist. You can be a technician or research assisstant. Most physicists are expected to to a PhD at some point, and are often encouraged to do post-doc research. Jonathan
That's interesting. It isn't like that in the US. But that's all titles. For example: To get a job as a dosimetrist here you need at least a BA/BS in physics. But the title of the job is not physicits but dosimetrist.
Did you know that Einstein didn't officially have his PhD when he published relativity and other stuff in 1905?
In fact the work which won him the Nobel prize is the work done before he had a PhD. Way to go Al!
Pete
A dosimetrist here is a specialist technician. Technicians are actualy known as MTO's, medical technical officers. You dont actaully need a BSc to be a MTO (although it helps); you can begin as an ATO (assisstant technical officer) and progress to MTO through experience.
Jonathan
I am an Indian Student interested in pursuing my Masters in Medical Physics.Am a novice to this field since my undergraduation was in the field of computer science.Can anyone tell me the groundwork I should be doing to be on par with the science students?
Thanks. That's awesome! I just joined.
Tell me - is it possible to get in to the medical physics field with just a BA?
Pete
It isn't easy to get a medical physics related job with a Bachelor's level degree. There just isn't very much demand for it aside from in the dosimetry and radiation therapy technician areas
Board certification in a medical physics field (diagnostic, therapy, nuclear medicine) by either the American Board of Radiology (http://www.theabr.org/) or American College of Medical Physics (http://www.acmp.org) currently requires a minimum of a Master's degree in one of the physical sciences (preferably Physics or some related Engineering discipline) and 3 years of experience in the field. In the near future it will also require completion of a CAMPEP (http://www.campep.org/) accredited medical physics residency program. Then you will be able to call yourself a medical physicist. As of 2001, certifications by either board have a 10 year limit, during which you are expected to obtain a certain number of continuing education credits of various forms in order to maintain certification.
There are similar requirements to become board certified to call yourself a health physicist too.
I am an Indian Student interested in pursuing my Masters in Medical Physics.Am a novice to this field since my undergraduation was in the field of computer science.Can anyone tell me the groundwork I should be doing to be on par with the science students?
you should at least have most of the physics courses taken at the undergraduate level (mechanics, EM, thermo, modern physics, nuclear physics). You will need a good background in EM and circuitry. Plenty of math. Calculus (at least 2 years), linear algebra, statistics, differential equations.
Medical physicists typically end up being something of a jack of all trades, so they need to know a little bit about everything, and be able to quickly learn how to use lots of things.
That is my perspective on some of the things you will need.
reyg1080
Dec4-08, 09:32 PM
what are my chances of getting into a medical phyics masters program with a BS in Physics and Math minor???
mikemarino87
Feb15-09, 11:21 PM
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
hey i'm interested in possibly pursuing a career in medical physics.... but was wondering about a few things:
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?
anyone that can help, it is greatly appreciated
thanks michael
hey i'm interested in possibly pursuing a career in medical physics.... but was wondering about a few things:
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?
anyone that can help, it is greatly appreciated
thanks michaelI used to work for an ophthalmic practice as a network administrator, and for some reason the doctors managing the practice took the attitude that if they had a problem with something that was high-tech (or beyond them anyway) they would pass it off to me. There are a lot of really pricey non-invasive surgical procedures that are done with lasers and when those lasers would start to drift out of calibration, sometimes they would ask me to re-calibrate them instead of getting a pro to come up from Boston. In the case of the big surgical lasers used for retinal procedures, I would just perform checks on the power draw, cycle time, etc. In the case of the smaller lasers that were used to zap stuff in the anterior portion of the eye, I would calibrate the converging aiming beams and ensure that the laser's power was directed at the aim-point. I'd make a target out of copy paper to track the calibration. Every actuation of the laser (at high enough power levels) resulted in a "snap" and a neat little hole in the target.
There are valuable positions in the medical field for engineers/technicians. You have to do some research to figure out where you might want to work. I gave my examples because laser surgery is a really high-billing field in ophthalmology and if the lasers crap out, the doctors running the practice freak out. They don't mind paying you $$$$ to fix the machines, because they are losing much more in receivables if they don't have their machines. Just a thought.
Edit: If you want to do this kind of stuff full-time, you'll have to hook up with the companies that manufacture and/or service surgical lasers, get very equipment-dependent training, and be prepared to be deployed (within reason) anywhere there is equipment that is malfunctioning. Working in support of ophthalmic surgery is a pretty secure field and pretty high-paying, in large part because maintaining a patient's vision is seen (by the insurance companies and by the general populace) as a very high priority.
1. what jobs are available for someone with a masters in medical physics? (just name a few)
2. what are the actual job titles that i would be researching?
3. what are some schools around the north east where i can study?
4. do i have to be licensed/certified to work in NJ?
1. There are lots of jobs available in medical physics to qualified personnel. Generally speaking a master's degree is the minimum needed to get into the field these days. Ideally, you want a Ph.D. from a CAMPEP-accredited program followed by a CAMPEP-accredited residency to be competative for the most desirable jobs. There is some talk about moving towards a "Doctor of Medical Physics" degree, but to my knowledge it has not yet been invoked.
2. The job title is "medical physicist."
3. http://www.campep.org/campeplstgrad.asp
4. Certification requirements vary and even if you don not require certification now, there is a good chance this could change of the next few years (ie. while you're getting your degree) so it's best to aim for certification with an organisation like the American Board of Radiology (ABR).
Does anyone here know anything about transitioning into medical physics from nuclear physics? I am finishing a PhD in experimental nuclear physics and recently became very interested in medical physics, specifically radiation oncology.
alexofander
Mar7-09, 06:31 AM
I'm currently in my third year of undergrad in the US looking to go on to grad school, but I'm not exactly sure what direction to go in. I've read this entire thread and found it very interesting. Is there a place to read articles about medical physics so that I could get a better idea of what medical physics entails?
Also, I looked for programs in the US and noticed that some are CAMPEP accredited and others aren't. If I go to a program that's not accredited will I not be able to find a job after I graduate?
Having been an occasional member of this forum for a while, I find myself dissapointed by the lack of discussion about medical physics. It really is an exciting field (I would say that...) and is usually totally shadowed by all of the other applications to physics. Space science and astronomy are great, but medical phyiscs is very down to earth (forgive the pun) subject, and is a fascinating and rewarding career path. I personally work in Radiotherapy, but many other applications are available, and there is much research to be done in this importnat and fast expanding field.
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
hello sir,
i am c.p.bhatt, from india also working as medical physicist.
medical physics is a challenging field.
radiation treatment is name and game of precise and accuracy.
so medical physics has a important role in radiation treatment.
as this field is depending on advance treatment procedure so we also have to do more work on this so that we can be confident on our work.
nice to see you in this.
Does anyone here know anything about transitioning into medical physics from nuclear physics? I am finishing a PhD in experimental nuclear physics and recently became very interested in medical physics, specifically radiation oncology.
One of my colleagues did an M.Sc. in nuclear physics before pursuing a Ph.D. in medical physics and did quite well with the transition. These days it's becomming more and more difficult to get into the field if you don't have a graduate education that's specific to medical physics. The physics isn't so far different as is the context of application. I know of multiple cases where people with PhDs in other areas of physics have done a 2 year M.Sc. and then moved into residency positions. In some cases it is possible to get directly into a residency, but the bottom line is you are less competative compared to those with graduate degrees in medical physics.
I'm currently in my third year of undergrad in the US looking to go on to grad school, but I'm not exactly sure what direction to go in. I've read this entire thread and found it very interesting. Is there a place to read articles about medical physics so that I could get a better idea of what medical physics entails?
Also, I looked for programs in the US and noticed that some are CAMPEP accredited and others aren't. If I go to a program that's not accredited will I not be able to find a job after I graduate?
You might want to check out:
http://medicalphysicsweb.org/cws/home
With respect to CAMPEP accreditation, there is a move to make it so that in the near future you will need to come through a CAMPEP program in order to write your board exams. I don't know when or if this is going to come into effect. Essentially coming from a CAMPEP program makes you that much more competative in residency/job hunting, but you can still get a job if you graduate from a non-accredited program. Different employers place different weights on this.
So am I correct in this order of the education track for medical physics?
BS
MS/PhD
2-year residency
Employment
Also, does lack of college level chem or bio put a medical physics grad applicant at a significant disadvantage? I have a BS in physics but did not take any chem/bio in college.
And finally, I've read that this is a field that is fairly reliable for employment. Will most new medical physicists have to relocate, or is there a decent chance that you could find employment in this field in your given area (assuming you live in a major city)?
So am I correct in this order of the education track for medical physics?
BS
MS/PhD
2-year residency
Employment
Also, does lack of college level chem or bio put a medical physics grad applicant at a significant disadvantage? I have a BS in physics but did not take any chem/bio in college.
And finally, I've read that this is a field that is fairly reliable for employment. Will most new medical physicists have to relocate, or is there a decent chance that you could find employment in this field in your given area (assuming you live in a major city)?
The order is generally correct. Not everyone does it that way. Some people skip the residency, for example, although this is becoming less and less common. Others will fit some post-doctoral work in there. Between residency and 'employment' I would insert board exams.
Ideally you should take first year biology and chemistry, although this isn't necessarily a requirement for admission to most graduate medical physics programs. Some of the core components of medical physics such as radiobiology and radiation protection will draw on the basics, so if you don't have these, you will have some remedial work to do (although you can do it). First and foremost a medical physicist is a physicist.
The last question is a good one. In general, there is a significant demand for qualified medical physicists. For the forseeable future there will be work available. But you won't always get your pick of city - especially when you're first starting out. Not every center has a standing opening and you have to take your pick of what's available when you're finished your program. That beind said, there's no reason you can't eventually end up where you desire.
Freddy_Turnip
May11-09, 03:14 PM
Am I the only person on the forum interested? Does anyone want to know more about medical physics as a career?
yes tell me some
homonide
May24-09, 05:26 PM
i would love to know more about oportunities for graduate studies available in medical physics.i am an undergraduate physics student graduating this year from nigeria,i'm looking to do my Msc in a relatively "new" field.
Shooter2
May24-09, 09:35 PM
I have been reading this thread with great interest; thank you all for your valuable discussion. As an undergraduate, I am trying to best prepare myself for graduate studies in physics. I am currently leaning toward medical physics, but would like to leave my options open at this point in time. Which classes would be most helpful for my graduate study preparation, other than the traditional physics curriculum (which I will be graduating with a BS in)? Should I take math courses? If so, which ones? I have taken calc 1-3, differential equations, and will be taking linear algebra. Should I take introductory biology or chemistry? Should I take an electronics course? Thank you all for your feedback.
I have been reading this thread with great interest; thank you all for your valuable discussion. As an undergraduate, I am trying to best prepare myself for graduate studies in physics. I am currently leaning toward medical physics, but would like to leave my options open at this point in time. Which classes would be most helpful for my graduate study preparation, other than the traditional physics curriculum (which I will be graduating with a BS in)? Should I take math courses? If so, which ones? I have taken calc 1-3, differential equations, and will be taking linear algebra. Should I take introductory biology or chemistry? Should I take an electronics course? Thank you all for your feedback.
The courses in a traditional undergraduate physics curriculum are usually sufficient for admissions to a medical physics program, but I would look closely at the entry requirements for any graduate school you might be interested in. In general medical physics is very interdisciplinary: drawing not only on physics, but elements of medicine, engineering, biology and chemistry, so having a diverse background is to your advantage.
As for your specific questions: with respect to math, I would recommend a "mathematical methods for physicists" course that has applications to signal/image processing. Both first year biology and chemistry would be ideal to have, as they are important in understanding the radiobiological aspects of medical physics. Electronics would also be very useful. If it's available, you may also want to look into a basic anatomy and phyisiology course.
I am a second-year Ph.D. student in Electrical Engineering in US. I am also very interested in Medical Physics. I was told that the job market is quite saturated right now and it is difficult to find entry level job. If I have a Ph.D. of EE, is there any help for me to find a accredited medical physics program then find a job later on?
I am a second-year Ph.D. student in Electrical Engineering in US. I am also very interested in Medical Physics. I was told that the job market is quite saturated right now and it is difficult to find entry level job. If I have a Ph.D. of EE, is there any help for me to find a accredited medical physics program then find a job later on?
Entry-level positions are very competative these days, however, there is still a significant demand for qualified medical physicists and I don't see this going away any time soon.
In theory, you can cross over from EE into medical physics. However, you will not be as competative for residency positions as a graduate from an accredited medical physics program. So you may be able to find a job, but it likely won't be an ideal one (ie. you may end up having to move to a less-than-desirable location, there won't be any guarantee that you'll receive appropriate training, and you could even end up in a position where your responsibilities outweigh your qualifications).
One trend I've seen lately is people with Ph.D.s in other fields taking a 2 year M.Sc. in accredited medical physics programs. This essentially makes them as competative as Ph.D. med phys graduates.
Another option is to keep an eye on the AAPM job positings for post-doctoral positions. To attract top quality candidates to these positions, employers will sometimes be willing to balance post-doctoral research with part-time clinical training.
Entry-level positions are very competative these days, however, there is still a significant demand for qualified medical physicists and I don't see this going away any time soon.
In theory, you can cross over from EE into medical physics. However, you will not be as competative for residency positions as a graduate from an accredited medical physics program. So you may be able to find a job, but it likely won't be an ideal one (ie. you may end up having to move to a less-than-desirable location, there won't be any guarantee that you'll receive appropriate training, and you could even end up in a position where your responsibilities outweigh your qualifications).
One trend I've seen lately is people with Ph.D.s in other fields taking a 2 year M.Sc. in accredited medical physics programs. This essentially makes them as competative as Ph.D. med phys graduates.
Another option is to keep an eye on the AAPM job positings for post-doctoral positions. To attract top quality candidates to these positions, employers will sometimes be willing to balance post-doctoral research with part-time clinical training.
Thank you very much for your reply. It will be my honor that we can discuss through my email I sent you in the message too.
Does anyone know if Resident-Scientist programs for Medical Physics exist (for physicians in their residency)? How difficult would it be for a physician with no physics background to enter these programs?
Does anyone know if Resident-Scientist programs for Medical Physics exist (for physicians in their residency)? How difficult would it be for a physician with no physics background to enter these programs?
A medical physicist is a physicist and as such a background in physics is necessary for entry into the field. Usually, physicians with an interest in medical physics will pursue either radiation oncology or radiology. In known radiation oncology there is a research component to the residency at the facility I work in and many of the residents end up working rather closely with medical physicists. Beyond this, many radiation oncologists partake in a research fellowship for one year after the residency. So if one has the interest, the opportunities will be there.
Also, just for clarification, a 'medical physics residency' is not a medical residency. It encompasses the clinical component of medical physics training and entry-level work beyond graduate school.
Thanks Choppy. What I was referring to is that instead of doing an MD/PhD curriculum in medical school, some programs (Stanford, VCU) allow an MD to pursue a PhD during their medical residency (hence Resident Scientist), but are usually restricted to Molecular/Cellular Biology.
Also, just for clarification, a 'medical physics residency' is not a medical residency. It encompasses the clinical component of medical physics training and entry-level work beyond graduate school.
When you go to the job market, will the 2-year-residency account for the 2-year working experience?
Thanks Choppy. What I was referring to is that instead of doing an MD/PhD curriculum in medical school, some programs (Stanford, VCU) allow an MD to pursue a PhD during their medical residency (hence Resident Scientist), but are usually restricted to Molecular/Cellular Biology.
Yes, I don't know too much about these programs, but biology isn't too far of a jump from medicine - especially if one already has an undergraduate degree in the subject of interest. This kind of thing might be plausible if one has an undergraduate/graduate degree in physics, but I haven't heard of anyone doing it.
When you go to the job market, will the 2-year-residency account for the 2-year working experience?
Yes, absolutely. In fact, in a lot of ways a residency can be better than 2 years of work in a generic 'entry-level' position, because residencies are usually set up to expose the resident to as many different aspects of the field as possible, whereas some entry level work is essentially QA 24/7. (The down side is that residents typically are paid less).
Thank you very much for your reply, again. I also go to www.aapm.org, do you think it's possible for me to get a student account even if I am EE student? Thanks
Thank you very much for your reply, again. I also go to www.aapm.org, do you think it's possible for me to get a student account even if I am EE student? Thanks
I think so, but you'll have to check out their membership rules. From what I recall, you need a letter from your supervisor or department stating that you are indeed a registered student, but I don't think they're too picky about actual program content or title.
NeoDevin
Jun8-09, 11:46 AM
Go Me! I just got accepted to the MSc. Medical Physics program here (Univ. of Alberta).
Go Me! I just got accepted to the MSc. Medical Physics program here (Univ. of Alberta).
Congratulation NeoDevin, could you please share some details of your application? Thank you so much!
NeoDevin
Jun8-09, 10:42 PM
Congratulation NeoDevin, could you please share some details of your application? Thank you so much!
What details would you like? I filled out the application forms, got letters of reference from my past research supervisors, submitted my transcript and wrote a cover letter. Nothing terribly special, standard application procedure. They took their time with the admissions decisions though (only heard back from them a couple of weeks ago).
If you want to know anything specific, let me know and I'll post it.
Ian_Brooks
Jun18-09, 04:43 AM
alot of these posts coincide with nuclear medicine.
I think so, but you'll have to check out their membership rules. From what I recall, you need a letter from your supervisor or department stating that you are indeed a registered student, but I don't think they're too picky about actual program content or title.
Hi, Choppy, how are you these days? I asked one professor of Medical Physics at LSU, he replied me that I can direct apply the Medical Physics Residency if I have my PhD in EE. What do you think? Thank you.
Hi, Choppy, how are you these days? I asked one professor of Medical Physics at LSU, he replied me that I can direct apply the Medical Physics Residency if I have my PhD in EE. What do you think? Thank you.
There's no reason that you can't apply for a residency position with a PhD in a seperate, but related field. The issue that would come up would be that you wouldn't be as competative for the positions available as someone from an accredited medical physics graduate program (and residencies are quite competative to get into).
I know multiple graduate students who already have their PhDs, but have decided to enter a medical physics M.Sc. program because they wanted to get into the field, but weren't able to get hired on as residents or junior physicists anywhere.
A lot can depend on what's available at the time you graduate.
SonyAlmeida
Jun19-09, 01:35 PM
Couple of questions. I'm a senior undergrad.
- Is undergrad research that important? I don't really have any of it and will only have a very little bit before I start applying.
- How does the financial aid angle usually look for master's students?
- Is a master's sufficient to go straight for a residency?
Couple of questions. I'm a senior undergrad.
- Is undergrad research that important? I don't really have any of it and will only have a very little bit before I start applying.
- How does the financial aid angle usually look for master's students?
- Is a master's sufficient to go straight for a residency?
1. The more research experience you have, in general, the more competative you will be when applying, but it's not really necessary. Lots of students are accepted without it. I might recommend doing a senior thesis project if that's an option for you. That counts as research experience and more importantly it will likely lead to a good letter of recommendation.
2. This is highly dependent on the program. When I went through, I was supported by a teaching assistanceship and research stipend. But not all programs guarantee this for a master's student. In some places you can also get part-time work doing quality assurance, which is very valuable, not just from an immediate financial point of view, but it makes you more competative for residency positions.
3. Sufficient - yes. Especially in the US. In general, a Ph.D. will make you more competative, but this depends on the institution you want to work in.
SonyAlmeida
Jun21-09, 05:20 PM
Thanks. I've been really worried about my career lately, since I don't feel like I'm 'passionate' about physics even though I'm doing really well in the classes.
lovelife136
Aug31-09, 10:28 AM
I am a year 13 student in the UK. I am very interested in medical physics as I have until recently been planning on doing biochemistry at uni and heading for some pharmaceutical company. However, my AS results (despite being good, 3As and a B) have rather pushed me in the physics direction. I find the medical applications of other science subjects facinating and therefore think that medical physics would be a good destination to aim for. I am in the process to applying to unis through UCAS, at the moment im trying to write my personal statement. Would you recomend doing a pure physics degree with some optional modules of medical physics, or a degree that specialises more heavily on medical physics? I plan on doing an Msc. Any advice would be welcomed.
Thanks
alexgmcm
Aug31-09, 12:18 PM
I am a year 13 student in the UK. I am very interested in medical physics as I have until recently been planning on doing biochemistry at uni and heading for some pharmaceutical company. However, my AS results (despite being good, 3As and a B) have rather pushed me in the physics direction. I find the medical applications of other science subjects facinating and therefore think that medical physics would be a good destination to aim for. I am in the process to applying to unis through UCAS, at the moment im trying to write my personal statement. Would you recomend doing a pure physics degree with some optional modules of medical physics, or a degree that specialises more heavily on medical physics? I plan on doing an Msc. Any advice would be welcomed.
Thanks
These are the MSc degrees accredited by IPEM so it would probably be easier to study at these universities, http://www.ipem.org.uk/ipem_public/default.asp?id=998 there are lots of them as you can see with a whole range of UCAS grade offers, but with your grades I'd advise Surrey or Imperial etc. (i.e the decent ones)
LoveLife136,
I recommed doing a pure physics degree. Specializing too early can sometimes close more doors than it opens.
A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist. Sometimes 'medical physics' undergraduate programs can water down the physics side of things, limiting the number of traditional advanced physics classes such as E&M, quantum, stat mech, mathematical methods, etc., for survey-type courses that introduce topics that you'll cover in necessary detail once you get into graduate school. Not all programs do this, but it's just something to be aware of.
mushpuppy
Sep15-09, 02:04 PM
Hi LoveLife
I concur with the previous post - don't narrow your options too much as you can always specialise later. You should study what you are interested in & that will sustain your motivation, but remember that general physics topics are relevant to many areas, whereas studying specific areas narrows you down immediately.
If you choose to do an MPhys for example, that's 4 years including the Masters but you would need to do an accredited MSc in Medical Physics as part of your training anyway. So you either need to apply to the Universities which provide this or choose a good generic physics / physics with subspecialty (or less ideally, physics joint honours unless it's something along the lines of physics and maths) or else just choose a good BSc course at the place of your choice and go on a year earlier direct to focusing on an accredited MSc.
At this point you may not have work experience, but that's another good way to demonstrate commitment once you start applying for training posts. In the meantime, concentrate on finding a physics course in a uni that you feel is right for you - extracurricular, place, course, tutors...you want to keep your namesake attitude for sure.
all the best with your search
You guys are joking, right?
Differential equations for medical physics? Been in the program for a year and never saw one. Advanced EM? If you knew advanced EM you'd be able to one-up the professors. Graduate course work in physics? Almost unnecessary, and I'm in a Ph.d. program.
Obviously the people writing on this forum have no experience in medical physics and are basing their posts off of school homepages that boast the rigor of their programs.
For a realistic take on medical physics education at the graduate level, see posts here:
http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2466#p24320
You guys are joking, right?
Differential equations for medical physics? Been in the program for a year and never saw one. Advanced EM? If you knew advanced EM you'd be able to one-up the professors. Graduate course work in physics? Almost unnecessary, and I'm in a Ph.d. program.
Obviously the people writing on this forum have no experience in medical physics and are basing their posts off of school homepages that boast the rigor of their programs.
For a realistic take on medical physics education at the graduate level, see posts here:
http://www.physicsgre.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2466#p24320
While you are probably right for some posts in this thread, Choppy actually works in medical physics if memory serves. Don't be so quick to dismiss and assume. Just because your experience is one way, does not mean everyone else's will.
While you are probably right for some posts in this thread, Choppy actually works in medical physics if memory serves. Don't be so quick to dismiss and assume. Just because your experience is one way, does not mean everyone else's will.
A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist? This makes me think he either doesn't work in medical physics, as claimed, or that he is covering for the fact that medical physicists are little more than over-glorified medical technicians.
This is, in fact, the great secret of medical physics. You don't need to know anything about medicine or physics.
A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist? This makes me think he either doesn't work in medical physics, as claimed, or that he is covering for the fact that medical physicists are little more than over-glorified medical technicians.
This is, in fact, the great secret of medical physics. You don't need to know anything about medicine or physics.
This makes me think this poster has yet to pass his or her qualification exam.
I think some people look at the first, basic courses in medical physics and form their opinion about the entire field based on those. They see for example some basic dosimetry calculations that use the inverse square law, some TMRs and a wedge factor and think that's all there is to the field. But that's like basing your opinion of astrophysics on a first year astronomy course.
It is true that we don't use differential equations or advanced E&M or quantum every day in the clinic. But they come up in research, or when you're given a problem in the clinic that the "technicians" (dosimetrists, radiation therapists, imaging technicians), engineers, trades, and physicians can't solve.
One of the problems my research group is interested in for example is combining a linear accelerator with an MRI unit. Try solving some of the RF issues that come up without any background in E&M. Or for that matter try designing any of your own equipment beyond simple phantoms. I have many days where I wish I had a stronger background in electrical engineering.
Or what if a physician asks you to perform a BED (biologically equivalent dose) calculation that accounts for aspects of tumor proliferation that aren't covered in the "standard" formulas? If you have to tell the physician that they had better call a "real" physicist, who took a differential equations class, then you're not doing your job.
What about medicine? To the physicist, a human being is just an irregularly shaped bag of water with a few heterogeneities, right? We don't ever have to account for tissue tolerances when checking treatment plans, or estimate dosimetric uncertainties based on patient motion, or assist physicians with contouring, or write up clinical protocols and procedures, or fuse anatomical images. In fact an argument could be made that medical physicists know more about anatomy and physiology than physicians in some medical disciplines.
I would close by saying that just because we aren't working on a neutrino oscillation problems, does not mean that medical physicists aren't doing physics.
I do worry because there are some medical physicists who hold similar opinions to this poster. These are largely the ones who have done the minimum required to get into the field, contribute little or no research, and who trust manufacturers of medical equipment to get it right and follow pre-defined check-lists for their QA without question.
That sound you hear is Harold Johns rolling in his grave.
And if you have any questions about my credentials, feel free to PM me.
It is true that we don't use differential equations or advanced E&M or quantum every day in the clinic. But they come up in research, or when you're given a problem in the clinic that the "technicians" (dosimetrists, radiation therapists, imaging technicians), engineers, trades, and physicians can't solve.
Solving engineering problems does not make you a physicist.
Or for that matter try designing any of your own equipment beyond simple phantoms. I have many days where I wish I had a stronger background in electrical engineering.
Electrical engineering is not physics.
Or what if a physician asks you to perform a BED (biologically equivalent dose) calculation that accounts for aspects of tumor proliferation that aren't covered in the "standard" formulas? If you have to tell the physician that they had better call a "real" physicist, who took a differential equations class, then you're not doing your job.
Radiobiology is not physics.
To the physicist, a human being is just an irregularly shaped bag of water with a few heterogeneities, right?
An unfortunately reductionist viewpoint of the human body.
We don't ever have to account for tissue tolerances when checking treatment plans, or estimate dosimetric uncertainties based on patient motion, or assist physicians with contouring, or write up clinical protocols and procedures, or fuse anatomical images.
None of which are physics.
In fact an argument could be made that medical physicists know more about anatomy and physiology than physicians in some medical disciplines.
This is a joke, right?
I would close by saying that just because we aren't working on a neutrino oscillation problems, does not mean that medical physicists aren't doing physics.
To which I would add: just because you are solving mathematical problems or doing research doesn't mean you *are* doing physics.
Andy Resnick
Sep17-09, 07:48 PM
Um, qball? Who are you to tell Choppy (or anyone else) that what they do is or is not physics? I didn't know you held claim to the subject.
Solving engineering problems does not make you a physicist.
Electrical engineering is not physics.
Radiobiology is not physics.
You must have a VERY narrow view of what physics is and what it means to be a physicist. Are you one of those types who believes that condensed matter physicists don't do physics either?
Engineering is a profession that directly derives from the application of physics to real world problems. (I mean, last I checked, engineers had to take some pretty rigorous physics classes. I know I'm getting older, but have things really changed that much?)
The question, maybe, is where one defines the border between physics and engineering. Whenever you have to explore the physics behind a problem to derive a solution, you're DOING physics. Yes engineers do this as a part of what they do. Physicists, professional ones anyway, are those who specialize in this process, often to the point of going so far as to formulate new theories and laws.
With respect to radiobiology not being physics, I suspect you're thinking along the lines of survival curves. You should look up the words "microdosimetry" and "nanodosimetry." Or better yet, try to figure out why it is Monte Carlo approaches to these calculations almost always use a medium of density-scaled water vapor rather than water.
None of which are physics.
In your rush to retort, you must have missed the spot where I was arguing these were aspects of medicine (radiation oncology specifically), not physics.
This is a joke, right?
Not at all. When you take someone who spends a career studying medical images, and compare him or her with someone who spent 4 years in medical school and then specialized in something like psychiatry I think the MD would have some pretty hearty competition.
Good luck on your quals.
Um, qball? Who are you to tell Choppy (or anyone else) that what they do is or is not physics? I didn't know you held claim to the subject.
Choppy can believe whatever he wants, but if he believes that electrical engineering is physics then he is wrong.
You must have a VERY narrow view of what physics is and what it means to be a physicist. Are you one of those types who believes that condensed matter physicists don't do physics either?
Engineering is a profession that directly derives from the application of physics to real world problems. (I mean, last I checked, engineers had to take some pretty rigorous physics classes. I know I'm getting older, but have things really changed that much?)
The question, maybe, is where one defines the border between physics and engineering. Whenever you have to explore the physics behind a problem to derive a solution, you're DOING physics. Yes engineers do this as a part of what they do. Physicists, professional ones anyway, are those who specialize in this process, often to the point of going so far as to formulate new theories and laws.
With respect to radiobiology not being physics, I suspect you're thinking along the lines of survival curves. You should look up the words "microdosimetry" and "nanodosimetry." Or better yet, try to figure out why it is Monte Carlo approaches to these calculations almost always use a medium of density-scaled water vapor rather than water.
In your rush to retort, you must have missed the spot where I was arguing these were aspects of medicine (radiation oncology specifically), not physics.
Not at all. When you take someone who spends a career studying medical images, and compare him or her with someone who spent 4 years in medical school and then specialized in something like psychiatry I think the MD would have some pretty hearty competition.
Good luck on your quals.
Perhaps I'm a bit of a purist. But by your definition pretty much any technical profession can be called a physics career. Let's be clear:
Physicists discover the laws of nature. Engineers apply them. Anytime you use existing physics to solve a problem you are not engaging in physics. There is no "often" in the definition. Physicists ALWAYS uncover something new. In that sense there is no "physics" in "medical physics."
If you think that solving problems is physics then you are operating with an undergraduate mindset.
If you want to include radiobiology under the heading of medicine, that's fine by me. My point is that you don't need to be a physicist to solve differential equations.
Monte Carlo calculations aren't physics either, by the way. Monte Carlo is a technique used to make predictions based on known laws of nature. You can't get any new physics out of Monte Carlo because you have to put all the physics you know *into* Monte Carlo. If there is a new law that's more than just a statistical property of the system you will not discover it with Monte Carlo.
Good luck on your quals.
I'm assuming this is your attempt to discredit me by making the community believe I've yet to pass the quals. Good luck playing that angle.
Let's be clear:
Physicists discover the laws of nature. Engineers apply them. Anytime you use existing physics to solve a problem you are not engaging in physics. There is no "often" in the definition. Physicists ALWAYS uncover something new. In that sense there is no "physics" in "medical physics."
Yes, you are definitely not a physicist if this is what you believe a physicist is. But try telling this to all those experimentalists out there trying to test theories with their experiments. Yeah... they are not doing physics. By your definition, one of the main goals of the largest physics collaboration on Earth is not physics. You know the LHC is just looking for the Higgs, which has theoretically been understood for some time now... definitely just applying existing physics to solve a problem.
And just to be clear...
Physicists ALWAYS uncover something new.
is laughable. You can talk to me after you have done a few years of research and tell me about all the new things you have discovered and have your name on them...
Yes, you are definitely not a physicist if this is what you believe a physicist is. But try telling this to all those experimentalists out there trying to test theories with their experiments. Yeah... they are not doing physics. By your definition, one of the main goals of the largest physics collaboration on Earth is not physics. You know the LHC is just looking for the Higgs, which has theoretically been understood for some time now... definitely just applying existing physics to solve a problem.
And just to be clear...
is laughable. You can talk to me after you have done a few years of research and tell me about all the new things you have discovered and have your name on them...
They are doing physics, because the Higgs may or may not exist. It doesn't matter if it's understood theoretically if it doesn't exist actually. This falls within the scope of my definition, because they are working to understand a part of nature that has never been understood before.
Contrast that with ANY branch of medical physics. In imaging research medical "physicists" work to improve existing medical imaging modalities by designing better detectors or better reconstruction techniques. This is applied math, or engineering, but it is not physics. In radiation oncology the main problem is to calculate the dose distribution better. In research you might come up with a new algorithm to do it, or run some Monte Carlo simulations, but in any case all the physics is known. There is nothing new here. The other major area that's growing in popularity is CAD, which involves only image processing and observer studies.
If you think that medical physics is physics then contrast what's happening presently in physics departments with what's going on in medical physics departments. If medical physicists are really doing physics, as you claim, you will find some overlap in the research because both would be working to uncover new physics. Except you don't find any overlap, because medical physicists are working to improve existing technologies, and physicists are looking for new and/or better descriptions of nature.
So in that sense you always discover something new if you are doing physics. Isn't that what the physics Ph.d. is all about -- making an original contribution to knowledge? My friends in physics are constantly testing the laws of nature, trying to figure out why things are the way they are. In medical physics you can make some novel phantom measurements and get your Ph.d.
I may not discover anything new, but then again I don't claim to be a physicist either.
There is a limited amount of useful information on medical physics available. Little has been written that is directed at the student. My goal is only that students interested in medical physics should have a realistic view of what the field is all about, and a realistic view is not given by the graduate colleges that offer degrees in medical physics.
I used to explain to my friends what I did in the lab, and they would say to me, "so why can't a technician just do that?" I was offended, but the more I would try to explain why a physics degree was necessary to do the work the more I realized there really was no good justification. My friends were of course correct in their assessment of the field, and it was I who was deceiving myself.
Andy Resnick
Sep17-09, 11:31 PM
Wow... I thought hard-line jihadists were confined to religion.
Just a few thoughts before I go to bed for the evening...
This has somehow drifted towards what is and what is not physics. I can't change your mind if you're going to walk around with your own personal definitions.
This discussion started out as a challenge about whether medical physicists need to understand graduate level physics. Simply put, I would not be able to perform my job without it. The same is true for my colleagues.
You argue that you are somehow looking out for students coming into this field by telling them they are essentially going to become "glorified technicians" and your posts would imply that they don't need to know any advanced physics (or even senior undergraduate physics for that matter). I don't see this as looking out for anyone because not only is it false, but it can lead new students into positions where they don't have the tools to pursue the career they want, or even worse place them in a position where they could do serious harm to someone if they slip through the cracks and manage to get into the profession.
Not to mention, as a person who spent the last year busting my hump to complete a residency, pass board exams, mentor students and carry on with a research program (all of which seemed to involve everyone else's definition of "doing" physics), being called a "glorified technician" by a student who likely just started a PhD research project, is just a little bit insulting.
Just a few thoughts before I go to bed for the evening...
This has somehow drifted towards what is and what is not physics. I can't change your mind if you're going to walk around with your own personal definitions.
This discussion started out as a challenge about whether medical physicists need to understand graduate level physics. Simply put, I would not be able to perform my job without it. The same is true for my colleagues.
You argue that you are somehow looking out for students coming into this field by telling them they are essentially going to become "glorified technicians" and your posts would imply that they don't need to know any advanced physics (or even senior undergraduate physics for that matter). I don't see this as looking out for anyone because not only is it false, but it can lead new students into positions where they don't have the tools to pursue the career they want, or even worse place them in a position where they could do serious harm to someone if they slip through the cracks and manage to get into the profession.
Not to mention, as a person who spent the last year busting my hump to complete a residency, pass board exams, mentor students and carry on with a research program (all of which seemed to involve everyone else's definition of "doing" physics), being called a "glorified technician" by a student who likely just started a PhD research project, is just a little bit insulting.
If you still think you are right, look at the graduate programs and see how many of them require graduate physics. I think the number of programs that require more than 2 or 3 courses is close to zero, and those courses are electives. Apparently the departments don't think it's important what physics students takes, no doubt because they won't be applying any of it.
You can believe what you want to believe, but you're still wrong. My medical physics department is populated by biology, chemistry, physics, and engineering students. All of them are doing quite well without any knowledge of graduate physics. That includes the professoriate, many of whom have degrees in pure medical physics with little graduate education in physics.
Think about what you're saying. If graduate physics were REALLY a requirement, wouldn't medical physics programs require a masters in physics instead of a bachelor's in physics, chemistry, engineering, or other related disciplines? And if it were really important, wouldn't graduate programs require students to take a full sequence of graduate level physics courses?
If you want to go with your all-encompassing definition of physics, be my guest. But you are bullshitting only yourself and maybe a few others who desperately want to believe they are physicists when they are not.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that under any circumstances in medical physics are graduate level QM, E&M, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory or classical mechanics applicable.
Also, don't worry about people "slipping through the cracks" and threatening the field. To prevent the encroachment of biomedical engineers into the field (and one can easily argue that they are at least if not more qualified for the field than a medical physicist), the ABR and AAPM are working hard to make physics degrees a requirement to take the board exams. Anyway, let the graduate programs decide who they think is qualified for their programs.
By the way, using Jackson as a paperweight for QA forms is not the same as using graduate physics in your day to day work...
Locrian
Sep18-09, 04:25 PM
being called a "glorified technician" by a student who likely just started a PhD research project, is just a little bit insulting.
Certainly understandable. I (and likely others) have found the discussion interesting and have found your input valuable, so thanks for being willing to take the time to post.
If you still think you are right, look at the graduate programs and see how many of them require graduate physics. I think the number of programs that require more than 2 or 3 courses is close to zero, and those courses are electives. Apparently the departments don't think it's important what physics students takes, no doubt because they won't be applying any of it.
That's what you're basing your argument on?
All CAMPEP accredited programs have extrermely heavy courseloads in the first year. These are graduate level courses offered through departments of physics, engineering and medicine that cover radiation physics, nuclear physics, radiobiology, medical imaging, instrumentation, anatomy and physiology, etc. that require senior undergraduate physics (and mathematics) courses as prerequisites. Finishing these courses establishes a minimum level of didactic learning necessary to graduate with an MSc.
All programs that I'm familiar with require PhD students to complete additional coursework. Some explicitly require graduate quantum, or E&M or whatever (mine did), others will leave this to the discretion of the supervisory committee, hence leaving open options for a student to take, for example, a graduate electrical engineering course in signal processing.
Now here's the thing. The debate about whether or not to include "core" physics classes as part of the cirriculum came up from time to time at the institution I used to work at. (It doesn't at our current institution because the department director would laugh in your face if you suggested taking them out). The argument against these courses is based only on TIME, not futility. Medical physics graduate students are overloaded with courses in their first year, and one of the CAMPEP requirements is that it should be reasonable for a student to finish an MSc program in two years. At some point the students have to do research (although from what I understand there are programs moving away from even that idea).
If you want to go with your all-encompassing definition of physics, be my guest. But you are bullshitting only yourself and maybe a few others who desperately want to believe they are physicists when they are not.
From dictionary.com:
phys·i·cist (fĭz'ĭ-sĭst)
n. A scientist who specializes in physics.
From AIP:
http://www.aip.org/careersvc/pify/yellow.html
From Wikipedia:
A physicist is a scientist who studies or practices physics. Physicists study a wide range of physical phenomena in many branches of physics spanning all length scales: from sub-atomic particles of which all ordinary matter is made (particle physics) to the behavior of the material Universe as a whole (cosmology).
From CAP: (requirements for professional designation as a physicist)
http://www.cap.ca/cert/req.asp
I would be glad to see some references supporting the 'qball' definition of physicist.
You'd be hard-pressed to convince me that under any circumstances in medical physics are graduate level QM, E&M, statistical mechanics, quantum field theory or classical mechanics applicable.
Something else that a lot of people only learn with time is that a field like medical physics isn't static. The technology in use now is not going to be the technology in use for the rest of one's career. We can train our new students very well in the technology we have, but no one can tell the future. The best means we have for preparing ourselves for the unknown is to hammer home the fundamentals.
Anyway, let the graduate programs decide who they think is qualified for their programs.
Yes. Let's. And while we're at it, let the senior physicists in medical physics departments decide who they think is qualified for their jobs..
From dictionary.com:
phys·i·cist (fĭz'ĭ-sĭst)
n. A scientist who specializes in physics.
From AIP:
http://www.aip.org/careersvc/pify/yellow.html
From Wikipedia:
A physicist is a scientist who studies or practices physics. Physicists study a wide range of physical phenomena in many branches of physics spanning all length scales: from sub-atomic particles of which all ordinary matter is made (particle physics) to the behavior of the material Universe as a whole (cosmology).
From CAP: (requirements for professional designation as a physicist)
http://www.cap.ca/cert/req.asp
I would be glad to see some references supporting the 'qball' definition of physicist.
You just listed them. None of them say, "technician."
The CAP site is a ****ing joke, by the way. Be of good character? Hey, guess Feynman wasn't a physicist by YOUR definitions....
Something else that a lot of people only learn with time is that a field like medical physics isn't static. The technology in use now is not going to be the technology in use for the rest of one's career. We can train our new students very well in the technology we have, but no one can tell the future. The best means we have for preparing ourselves for the unknown is to hammer home the fundamentals.
Yes. Let's. And while we're at it, let the senior physicists in medical physics departments decide who they think is qualified for their jobs..
I didn't say you weren't qualified, I just said you weren't a physicist. I'm sure you're an excellent "medical physicist."
symbolipoint
Sep18-09, 09:39 PM
Would all the medical physicists reading this thread please tell your definitions of "medical physicist" and how your job conforms to the meaning/definition? I ask this after now reading the posts between Choppy and qball.
Some people seem to misinterpret the meaning of "technician". A technician might be albe to do and understand an unpredictable variety of specific things. The word, having only the most general of reliable definitions on its own, is very imprecise. I have seen job advertisements for "technician" with the stated educational qualifications fo PhD. Too, I've seen some "technician" job ads listing qualifications as "M.S. degree and 5 years experience". I really do not know how all this relates to medical physics, since I am not one, nor am I any physicist. Still, if any medical physicist is titled in his job as "Technician", he may very well have a bachelor's degree or higher. There is nothing bad about having elaborate technical skills and conceptual decision-making power while also functioning in a job as a technician. Along this line, a technician may also be either a scientist or an engineer.
Would all the medical physicists reading this thread please tell your definitions of "medical physicist" and how your job conforms to the meaning/definition? I ask this after now reading the posts between Choppy and qball.
Some people seem to misinterpret the meaning of "technician". A technician might be albe to do and understand an unpredictable variety of specific things. The word, having only the most general of reliable definitions on its own, is very imprecise. I have seen job advertisements for "technician" with the stated educational qualifications fo PhD. Too, I've seen some "technician" job ads listing qualifications as "M.S. degree and 5 years experience". I really do not know how all this relates to medical physics, since I am not one, nor am I any physicist. Still, if any medical physicist is titled in his job as "Technician", he may very well have a bachelor's degree or higher. There is nothing bad about having elaborate technical skills and conceptual decision-making power while also functioning in a job as a technician. Along this line, a technician may also be either a scientist or an engineer.
I am in medical physics, and my definition of a physicist doesn't include what I do.
HungryChemist
Oct9-09, 03:07 AM
Very interesting discussion. First of all, let's say both Choppy and qball is doing their best to represent their own personal views regarding the profession called 'medical physicist' and this is very educational and fulfilling the purpose of internet forum. So I thank you both. Hearing from Choppy, I can only guess he is up in the ladder of this medical physics community(pass the board and all, congrat!) while qball only began his carrier. Perhaps, the disagreement b/t them is only natural since they're in different stages of their carrier path.
I'm also a medical physics student at an well-known CAMPEP accredited program and I did finish a lot of didactic courses work while participating research actively. So let others hear my opinions regarding what's been discussed so far by Chubby and qball.
Regarding whether or not medical physicist is real physicist. In my personal opinion I must back qball in saying that medical physicist is not physicist (in academic sense) for the reasons qball stressed so much already. Now, I'm sure there are some great physicist working as a medical physicists (or used to be great physicist either by education or their previous work), but being a medical physicist doesn't automatically mean that you are a physicist (it's not backward compatible!).
Of course, everyone's definition of being physicist is little different. But I must say, making medical physicist a subset of physicist is almost equivalent to making TV repair technician a subset of electrical engineer. Heck, I could even call a high school kid taking physics class a physicist just because he's applying laws of physics to solve his physics problem? But it really doesn't matter what the two medical physicists (I reckon one's a student yet) here say on how they should call each other. What matters is what others think of medical physicist (again personal opinion).
Let's do some thought experiment. Can you imagine a typical physics department hiring a medical physicist (let's say someone who has Ph.d in medical physics from CAMPEP) to do any of typical physics research work that gets published in any of typical physics journals like physics reviews? I myself certainly can't. Can you imagine a typical physics department hiring a medical physicist to teach Quantum Mechanics class or even an general physics class? Again, I can't.
For all practical purpose, let's just call medical physicist a medical physicist and physicist a physicist and don't mix them up.( but if the physicians want to call us by physicist, we let them, just because physicist sounds much smarter than medical physicist).
Now, back to qball's comment about medical physicist just being "Glorious Tech". I think that was unfair call for all the medical physicists out there who strive to investigate and research to improve the clinical outcome and even advance the field of medicine as well as some of its involved engineering fields( EE, NE, and what not, but definitely not HEP). I can only infer qball meant the word for clinical physicist who is not involved in any type of research activity. But still, we should call them by clinical medical physicist.
I still strongly disagree. A medical physicist is first and foremost a physicist.
In your thought experiment, you seem to have somehow equated "physics professor" with "physicist." I would agree that all physics professors are physicists, but I would not agree that all physicists are professors. Just because one doesn't teach quantum mechanics, doesn't mean one is not a physicist. (For the record, however, I could certainly imagine PhD graduates from the CAMPEP programs I am familiar with teaching at these levels if they chose to do so, based on having taken the same level of E&M and QM as every other PhD student in their physics departments and having passed qualifying/candidacy exams.)
Secondly, I don't understand what's practical about refusing to call yourself a physicist. If you don't want that title, then that's fine. But don't tell me that I can't use it and don't limit an ENTIRE PROFESSION because of it. Like qball, you're a student and you have limited scope of what it means to be a practicing physicist - even if you have taken some courses in a CAMPEP program.
One day, if you continue in medical physics, you're going to be working with radiation therapists and treatment planners. What makes you, as a medical physicist, different from them? The answer is your background in physics. If medical physicists ever forget that, our profession will disappear.
It is true that we don't use differential equations or advanced E&M or quantum every day in the clinic. But they come up in research, or when you're given a problem in the clinic that the "technicians" (dosimetrists, radiation therapists, imaging technicians), engineers, trades, and physicians can't solve.
One of the problems my research group is interested in for example is combining a linear accelerator with an MRI unit. Try solving some of the RF issues that come up without any background in E&M. Or for that matter try designing any of your own equipment beyond simple phantoms. I have many days where I wish I had a stronger background in electrical engineering.
Or what if a physician asks you to perform a BED (biologically equivalent dose) calculation that accounts for aspects of tumor proliferation that aren't covered in the "standard" formulas? If you have to tell the physician that they had better call a "real" physicist, who took a differential equations class, then you're not doing your job.
Choppy; I enjoy your posts. Could you give some more detailed examples from your work where you used trainning in mathematics or physics to solve the problem (an unusual problem where the trainning was useful)? I'm curious at what level a person needs to be in these areas to really be effective in the clinic.
HungryChemist
Oct11-09, 11:45 PM
In your thought experiment, you seem to have somehow equated "physics professor" with "physicist."
No, I didn't. I simply picked physics professor in my thought experiment because they are mostly physicist (you and I both agree to that one) As it is with any experiment, I simply chose one design over the other to test. I could have as well chose 'semi-conductor research lab looking for a physicist' which again, a person with didactic medical physics education/work background would not be (in general) a good candidate. (Now, don't go on and saying that you and others you know can definitely do semi conductor physics research, cuz I know, since I believe you, but I'm talking in general!)
I would agree that all physics professors are physicists, but I would not agree that all physicists are professors.
I did not said all physicists are professors. You can't disagree with me on the things that I did not claim.
Just because one doesn't teach quantum mechanics, doesn't mean one is not a physicist.
Again, I did not say that.
(For the record, however, I could certainly imagine PhD graduates from the CAMPEP programs I am familiar with teaching at these levels if they chose to do so, based on having taken the same level of E&M and QM as every other PhD student in their physics departments and having passed qualifying/candidacy exams.)
Again, let me remind you that most of existing CAMPEP program dose not require any of graduate level physics classes. Many of ABR approved physicists never had physics education at the level that is equivalent to graduate level physics degree. So, while I fully admit that you and your colleges can indeed teach physics courses at the graduate level and all, there are many fully qualified medical physicist(who are great at what they do) but who can't teach graduate level physics(myself included). And this is no way of degrading or looking down on any of the medical physicists who can't. I'm simply acknowledging that our professional training and education as a medical physicist is quiet different from that of typical physicists.
Secondly, I don't understand what's practical about refusing to call yourself a physicist.
Well, its practical because by calling different name for medical physicist, we acknowledge our training and skills are very special, and indeed unique from general physicists. For all practical purpose, this is why when radiation oncology department post their job opening to fill a clinical medical physicists they will (and should) say medical physicist wanted rather than physicists wanted. This not only eliminates some confusion to general physicists wondering about the job position, it also gives sense of special professionalism for medical physicists.
But don't tell me that I can't use it and don't limit an ENTIRE PROFESSION because of it.
Again, I did not say you CANT call yourself a physicist. Whether you're a physicist or not is not my concern. My concern was to whether or not the term medical physicist should be considered subset of physicists. And again, you make it sound like I'm against my own profession. I'm a medical physicist wanna be. That is why I'm spending significant youth of my life studying the didactic courses as well as actively participating research that might bring some benefit to the clinics. I'm proud of what I'm doing. As for you're claiming that I'm limiting my profession because I want 'medical physicist' to be called 'medical physicist' is nonsense. How is calling our profession by special name is limiting? By ensuring others to acknowledge us as a very specialized professionals called 'medical physicist' we're doing ourselves a favor. This way we can keep our professionalism intact from some rogue physicists who are not properly trained in medical physics to think that he can do what we do.
Like qball, you're a student and you have limited scope of what it means to be a practicing physicist - even if you have taken some courses in a CAMPEP program.
You may be right. Maybe one day, I will go to linac to prepare for my water phantom QA and find a new particle called 'medphy-trino' and become a particle physicist.
One day, if you continue in medical physics, you're going to be working with radiation therapists and treatment planners. What makes you, as a medical physicist, different from them? The answer is your background in physics. If medical physicists ever forget that, our profession will disappear.
Wow, so all my professors and fellow collegues who doesn't have that 'physics background' you claimed to have are not different from other professions you mentioned? Medical physicist job is different from other jobs you listed above because what medical physicist 'do' is different from others. Certainly not because you know more physics than them.
Choppy; I enjoy your posts. Could you give some more detailed examples from your work where you used trainning in mathematics or physics to solve the problem (an unusual problem where the trainning was useful)? I'm curious at what level a person needs to be in these areas to really be effective in the clinic.
Hi SbF5,
The most interesting problems are the ones that we tackle for research, or when have to introduce a new technology into the clinic. One of the first tasks I got involved in after finishing my graduate studies was developing an in-house Monte Carlo-based treatment planning and verification system. The nuts and bolts of that were largerly computer-science type stuff (like parallel computing optimization), but then I got into variance reduction and de-noising algorithms where courses like signal processing and mathematical methods helped considerably. This then served as a platform for a number of research investigations, where in some cases, even the formulation of the basic cross-sections cames into question.
It's hard to say exactly what one would "typically" encounter. Developing the kind of system I just mentioned isn't exactly typical in a smaller facility with only a few working physicists. But even these physicists could be asked to do things like develop an in-house monitor-unit calculator, or do some deformable image registration so that the oncologists can compare images from different modalities. Or they might need to figure out questions that come up when a new technology enters the clinic. Say for example, your facility is getting an X-band linac - is the RF generated by the machine the same as for an S-band - are there potential consqeuences for pacemaker patients? Or they might need to figure out why a properly calibrated well chamber consistently gives a low reading during brachytherapy seed QA.
The kinds of problems that come up clinically (especially those in smaller centres) are often discussed on medical physics list servers such as:
http://lists.wayne.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=medphys&A=1 (global)
http://lists.wayne.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=medphysusa&A=1 (USA)
Personally, I think students/residents should subscribe to these, but as a warning, on some days they can rather quickly fill up your inbox.
Thanks, I'll check those out.
Clancy Brown
Jan3-10, 08:25 AM
Hi Gang,
Thanks for the initial post Jono, the contributions has been interesting and lively to say the least. I was introduced by mistake to the exciting field of Medical Physics while searching on a topic in my current studies.
I am half way through my Electronics engineering degree with a specialization in Biomedical engineering and am hoping to further a career as a Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP) here in Australia; for I feel this position will fulfill my interests and also to work as an engineer and a scientist. In Australia it is a long road to be an accredited ROMP, with at least MSc Medical Physics and 5 years clinic practice.
I thoroughly enjoyed the work experience tips that were posted earlier.
Is there still a skills shortage of Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist world wide?
Cheers.
Is there still a skills shortage of Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist world wide?
There are a number of factors influencing the demand and supply of medical physicists.
First, due largely to an aging population, the number of worldwide cases of cancer is expected to increase by a factor of about 40% over the next 20 years, so if absolutely nothing else changed, one would expect the demand for all cancer-related professions to increase by a similar factor over the same period.
On top of that, radiation therapy complexity has increased drastically over the last decade. Starting in the late nineties, there was a shift towards intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatments - where inverse planning allowed radiation dose distributions to be optimized within a given target volume. This type of treatment required substantially more work from a physics perspective: algorithm optimization, procedure definitions, plan optimizations, patient-specific QA, more machine QA, etc. which led to a small explosion in demand for medical physicists.
More recently, over the last five years or so, we're seeing a shift towards image guidance and adaptive radiation therapy. Again - more complex technology, more work for the physicists. Now when I commission a linac for example, it's not just the therapy beam, I also have to commission the imaging system as well. In the near future we're likely going to see an increase in proton therapy facilities, and possibly even MRI-guided radiation therapy, which will expand the role and responsibilities of medical physicists even further, and thus mean that more qualified medical physicists will be needed.
In North America, you're also likely to see an artificial bottleneck placed on qualified medical physicists in the coming years. By 2014, I believe, applicants for ABR certification will need to have completed a CAMPEP-accredited graduate degree and residency. To my knowledge this is specific to the ABR, but it is reasonable to expect the CCPM and other equivalent agencies across the world to follow suit. Because there are only a limited number of accredited graduate programs, the number of new qualified medical physicists will likely slow.
On the other side of the equation, right now, you have a slow economy, which effects hiring in the healthcare sector and thus medical physicists. This doesn't mean the demand isn't there.
Just wanted to add that in my experience Medical Physicists are definitely more than just technicians.
In our rad onc department, the physicists are heavily involved in some really cool research. A lot of engineering, programming, and radiation physics. Now, are they thinking about the physics of a black hole? Of course not. But they are definitely actively engaged in physics. They are no more a technician than a Radiologist is a technician because he looks and and reads chest radiographs.
Medical physics is an amazing field!
Plus, like choppy was saying soon they will have even more responsibility. I believe they will begin to be able to charge medicare for their services as a provider.
MDPhysics
Jan10-10, 07:54 PM
I think the discussion on this thread is great. The duties of a medical physicist are so varied depending on the route you choose to specialize and work--it's not black and white; there are a lot of shades of gray. Some "medical" physicists are purely in research--they are no where near the clinic. While others you will find work day in and day out in a clinical setting (e.g. a cancer center) where they are actively involved in treating patients. It is an amazing field that gives you a lot of options in terms of job responsibilities. IMHO, however, a medical physicist is a physicist no matter how you look at it: no matter if you're in research or clincal, physics is an integral part of your work.
I will make a plug for my site, Edit: Spam deleted you will see just how different the responsibilities are. A "medical physicist" can work in academics (at a university), in industry (for GE, Elekta, Varian, etc) or at a hospital. It really all depends on what your passion is.
AtomicPile
Jan20-10, 09:07 PM
I think the discussion on this thread is great. The duties of a medical physicist are so varied depending on the route you choose to specialize and work--it's not black and white; there are a lot of shades of gray. Some "medical" physicists are purely in research--they are no where near the clinic. While others you will find work day in and day out in a clinical setting (e.g. a cancer center) where they are actively involved in treating patients. It is an amazing field that gives you a lot of options in terms of job responsibilities. IMHO, however, a medical physicist is a physicist no matter how you look at it: no matter if you're in research or clincal, physics is an integral part of your work.
I will make a plug for my site,Edit: spam deleted you will see just how different the responsibilities are. A "medical physicist" can work in academics (at a university), in industry (for GE, Elekta, Varian, etc) or at a hospital. It really all depends on what your passion is.
The medical physics field is oversupplied and getting worse each semester. [Edit: link deleted] is a web site owned and operated by people trying to fill academic programs and maybe make a few bucks with google-adsense. Please do yourself a favor:
1. Talk to real people about this profession. Meet them in person and not through some website or e-mail group.
2. Check with your local hospital to see what professionals the hospital is genuinely hiring.
The medical physics field is oversupplied and getting worse each semester.
Do you have some data on this, or is this just an opinion? Personally, I'm not sure I would agree, for the reasons I outlined in a previous post.
1. Talk to real people about this profession. Meet them in person and not through some website or e-mail group.
Excellent advice. While there is some value in researching any profession online, nothing beats first hand experience. If you're thinking of entering this field, I would highly suggest job shadowing.
To the editors: why delete the links? I actually wanted to see what website he was talking about. Use some discretion and common sense when deciding which posts are spam and which are legitimate.
AtomicPile
Jan21-10, 08:35 PM
Do you have some data on this, or is this just an opinion? Personally, I'm not sure I would agree, for the reasons I outlined in a previous post.
Excellent advice. While there is some value in researching any profession online, nothing beats first hand experience. If you're thinking of entering this field, I would highly suggest job shadowing.
I shadowed someone who was clinical faculty at The University of Texas MD Anderson. I specifically remember the person saying that he attended my university. It turns out that person lied. The person also lied to me about medical physics job prospects. Guess what? That person still works there.
Lesson learned: Do not ask the teacher if there is a demand. Even a school like Harvard, needs someone to be their student.
---
I really like the baby boomer retiring logic that is often used to describe the pending medical physics shortage. If there is a labor shortage then the hospital will hire more therapists, dosimetrists and engineers.
Lesson 2: Do your homework and talk to people who are hiring. Find out what job titles they will be hiring in the future.
---
Then there is the 2012/2014 CAMPEP certification requirement. This is a sales and marketing scheme achieved by creating a sense of shortage and a false time constraint. That way "medical physics" will have a perceived future value that is higher and realizable in the near term.
Lesson 3: This would be similar to physicists in the 1990's being told that the faculty would be retiring soon. You can read about that story in the in the newspaper and history books. Econophysics, biophysics, medical physics, our training program wants your money and cheap labor physics!
---
Think about it very long and hard before spending you money and life on this pathway.
Clancy Brown
Jan22-10, 10:02 AM
AtomicPile may I ask your current area of profession, I take it you are current not in a position within Medical Physics, as you seem very enthused and keen as posted.
I actually came across the profession Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP) quite by mistake. I have done a great deal of research into the profession in the last three weeks, and am meeting my State Government's director in Radiation Oncology in the coming weeks to discuss the profession futher.
From my perspective (down under), there is a shortage of ROMPs; why would the director be so keen to meet with me and inform and show me aspects of the profession first hand. The shortage forecast is said to be so severe, that IAEA has provided a training program manual free to the public as a framework for new entrants to the profession.
I am sorry that you felt that you have been misrepresented and lead up the garden path in the past.
AtomicPile
Jan22-10, 07:51 PM
AtomicPile may I ask your current area of profession, I take it you are current not in a position within Medical Physics, as you seem very enthused and keen as posted.
I actually came across the profession Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP) quite by mistake. I have done a great deal of research into the profession in the last three weeks, and am meeting my State Government's director in Radiation Oncology in the coming weeks to discuss the profession futher.
From my perspective (down under), there is a shortage of ROMPs; why would the director be so keen to meet with me and inform and show me aspects of the profession first hand. The shortage forecast is said to be so severe, that IAEA has provided a training program manual free to the public as a framework for new entrants to the profession.
I am sorry that you felt that you have been misrepresented and lead up the garden path in the past.
Hi Clancy Brown, where is "down under"?
Can you post the study estimating the number of ROMP's that will be needed for this worldwide shortage?
It's true that the IAEA gives away a free manual. So what does giving away a manual for free have to do with the price of rice in China? Will the IAEA serve-up a physician, equipment, facility and a little ROMP with that manual?
Let's say that I did the medical physics training, got the badge and could not find a job as a medical physicist (or any of its derivative titles).
P.S. I thought the movie Highlander was fantastic. ;)
I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about the job market in medical physics.
(1)
To my knowledge there is no shortage of people with a background in physics trying to get into the medical physics profession. However, from an employer's point of view, when you have an opening, finding a qualified medical physicist (ie. certified by the ABR, the CCPM or equivalent) and preferably with some experience, is very difficult.
(2)
The single greatest risk factor for the most common cancers is age. As the population ages and people live longer, the demand for radiation therapy will increase. You cannot meet this demand by hiring selective occupations (as AtomicPile implied). Some hospitals may try, but this will create a workload bottleneck.
(3)
With respect to training programs wanting your money and cheap labour, I think this is incredibly misleading. Graduate programs in medical physics don't turn a profit.
AtomicPile
Jan23-10, 07:04 PM
I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about the job market in medical physics.
(1)
To my knowledge there is no shortage of people with a background in physics trying to get into the medical physics profession.
Are those "physicists" trying to get into "medical physics" really the issue? I am guessing that this is a very common theme. A "medical physicist" is a "physicist", but a "physicist" is not a "medical physicist".
But lets phrase this in terms of a sales gimmick:
-You do not have enough education so get a bachelors (1st sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a masters in medical physics (2nd sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a Ph.D. in medical physics (3rd sale)
-Wait that is not enough, now you need to do a residency in medical physics. (4th sale)
-Guess what, a residency is not enough, because now you need ABR certification. (5th sale)
-The next line of the argument is that ABR certification means that you have met a minimum level of qualification but it does not mean you have enough experience to do your job. (6th sale)
However, from an employer's point of view, when you have an opening, finding a qualified medical physicist (ie. certified by the ABR, the CCPM or equivalent) and preferably with some experience, is very difficult.
Look at the biography of Geoff Ibbot (http://www.aapm.org/org/history/bio/2013/) Geoff Ibbot was given the title of medical physicist in 1974. Geoff received his BA in 1979. Geoff was called a "medical physicist" before he had his bachelor's degree. Geoff Ibbot is a trustee of the ABR.
So is ABR certification really that relevant or just some carrot to be dangled in front of children?
(2)
The single greatest risk factor for the most common cancers is age. As the population ages and people live longer, the demand for radiation therapy will increase. You cannot meet this demand by hiring selective occupations (as AtomicPile implied). Some hospitals may try, but this will create a workload bottleneck.
Your age argument is sound, but it lacks clarity of thought. What workload bottleneck?
(3)
With respect to training programs wanting your money and cheap labour, I think this is incredibly misleading. Graduate programs in medical physics don't turn a profit.
Help me out here...where does the money to pay the teacher's salary come from?
Lesson learned
Unless a teacher works for free, then the graduate program makes money off of its student. Shareholders may not exist, but income must be made. That fits the definition of profit.
But lets phrase this in terms of a sales gimmick:
-You do not have enough education so get a bachelors (1st sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a masters in medical physics (2nd sale)
-You do not have enough education so get a Ph.D. in medical physics (3rd sale)
-Wait that is not enough, now you need to do a residency in medical physics. (4th sale)
-Guess what, a residency is not enough, because now you need ABR certification. (5th sale)
-The next line of the argument is that ABR certification means that you have met a minimum level of qualification but it does not mean you have enough experience to do your job. (6th sale)
Alright, so at what point would you argue someone has sufficient training and experience to work independently as a medical physicist? Keep in mind that the people that make this decision have to balance it against the potential for lawsuits from cohorts of patients potentially over or underdosed, not to mention a moral obligation to provide an acceptable standard of care.
From a cost-effectiveness point of view, graduate programs don't bring enough money into the department to offset the cost of the program. If they did, you would see all sorts of small graduate programs popping up at smaller independent centres. But they only exist in larger institutions capable of absobring these costs.
Further, from the point of view of someone potentially going through the process, you have to keep in mind that as a graduate student you receive a stipend. It's not a lot. But it covers the cost of tuition and modest living. Beyond that, as resident, you're getting paid a reasonable salary. So even if you want to believe this process is some sort of a cash grab, the student/resident gets both money and an education out of it.
Look at the biography of Geoff Ibbot (http://www.aapm.org/org/history/bio/2013/) Geoff Ibbot was given the title of medical physicist in 1974. Geoff received his BA in 1979. Geoff was called a "medical physicist" before he had his bachelor's degree. Geoff Ibbot is a trustee of the ABR.
So is ABR certification really that relevant or just some carrot to be dangled in front of children?
The first airplane was built in 1903 by a pair of bicycle mechanics. Are the regulations of the aeronautical engineering industry really all that relevant?
Your age argument is sound, but it lacks clarity of thought. What workload bottleneck?
Let's put it this way - say you're in the business of building houses and you need to expand, so you hire more carpenters, bricklayers, electricians, and roofers, but you keep the same number of plumbers. The plumbers will keep the construction at the same pace as always because the plumbers won't be able to work any faster (or if they do, you'll end up with shotty plumbing, which will lead to lawsuits, and lost business). This is a workload bottleneck.
Medical physicists play a critical role in the clinical operations of a radiation therapy department. They can't be replaced by dosimetrists, therapists, or technicians.
Help me out here...where does the money to pay the teacher's salary come from?
In my department, the medical physicists are given adjuct appointments within the department of physics at the local university, but we get paid the same whether we teach or not.
AtomicPile
Jan24-10, 09:41 PM
Alright, so at what point would you argue someone has sufficient training and experience to work independently as a medical physicist? ...
The point is that there is an over supply of medical physicists. Which is why the qualifications for the job keep rising.
Also, I am very concerned about someone lobbying for "medical physics" in a physics forum who make this statement:
To my knowledge there is no shortage of people with a background in physics trying to get into the medical physics profession.
AtomicPile is just bitter =/
The point is that there is an over supply of medical physicists. Which is why the qualifications for the job keep rising.
Again - do you have any data on this?
One study I'm aware of suggested a need for approximately 200 new medical physicists (in radiation oncology) per year to meet the projected demand in 2020. [Mills et al. Med. Phys. 36 2769 (2009)] Granted it is a single study, but the number isn't unreasonable - even if you assign it some rather large error bars. The number of people passing the board exams every year, ABR and CCPM combined, is in the ballpark of 100. This is without any program accreditation prerequisites (they haven't come into effect yet).
So, even if that study overestimates the need by a factor of 2, the profession would be just breaking even - hardly a saturated market.
As I've mentioned before, healthcare is effected by a slow economy just like all other industries. The hiring will likely be slow for a while, but this doesn't mean that the demand has disappeared, or that there is a conspiracy to raise the qualifications to artificially inflate the value of the currently employed physicists.
AtomicPile
Jan27-10, 02:54 PM
Again - do you have any data on this?
The conference abstract that you cite undercounts the existing workforce by defining and using the phrase "qualified medical physicist". Under this definition neither an MS graduate, Ph.D. graduate, postdoctoral fellow, nor a residency graduate is considered a "qualified medical physicist" even though the graduate is in the employment pipeline. Furthermore a hospital can legally operate without employing a "qualified medical physicist" or for that matter a "medical physicist".
The "conference abstract" which is not considered "peer reviewed" is by M Mills(1), J Thornewill(2), and R Esterhay(2)
[(1) University of Louisville James Graham Brown Cancer Center, Louisville, KY, (2) University of Louisville School of Public Health, Louisville, KY]
I try to encourage people to get out there and talk to real people in their community.
Michael Mills, Ph.D., MSMPH, FAAPM
Radiation Oncology Dept.
James Graham Brown Cancer Center
529 S Jackson St
Louisville , KY 40202
work phone: 502-561-2700
email: mdmill03@gwise.louisville.edu
CV http://browncancercenter.org/CancerResearchers/tabid/85/Default.aspx?id=1617
Michael Mills has a Masters in Public Health from the Univ. of Louisville School of Public Health and he shares a history with his co-authors. Michael has worked at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and has worked with many other academic faculty (e.g. MG Herman, KR Hogstrom, MT Gillin, PR Almond) who are trying to lengthen the training period for their respective academic programs. In 1993 PR Almond started a residency program at Univ. of Louisville, KY.
Call up Michael Mills, pretend you are a "qualified medical physicist" and ask him for a job.
AtomicPile
Jan27-10, 04:25 PM
AtomicPile is just bitter =/
Oh, c'mon, "global warming" was an honest mistake...we just need more "medical physicists" to study the problem. ;)
First of all, I would like to clarify a few points.
A "medical physicist" is a "physicist", but a "physicist" is not a "medical physicist".
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Medical physicists do not study physics, and physicists do not study "medical physics." Radiation oncology physics was old 50 years ago. No one studies it any more. What they study now is the incorporation of new imaging technology into rad. onc., or better ways to calculate dose. Both use known physics. On the imaging side, the physics is also not new. What's different is the way it's applied. Physicists certainly don't care about any of these things.
Second, the field of medical physics is not just limited to radiation oncology. You only need ABR certification if you're doing some kind of clinical work. For pure research it is not necessary.
It is my suspicion that the new requirements for 2012/2014 are designed to prevent physics Ph.d's from entering the field directly. Currently there is no restriction and someone with a Ph.d. in any relevant field can do a residency and enter the field of medical physics. According to the AAPM's Bruce Gerbi (http://chapter.aapm.org/nccaapm/Gerbi_Bruce.pdf) 54% of all medical physicists are trained on the job. While this probably sufficient (let's face it, this ISN'T rocket science) it seems that the current medical physics community doesn't believe the field is insular enough.
Additionally, there is talk about instituting PDMP programs in medical physics. This obviously won't affect the current students, but future students (post-2014) will have to deal with it. This essentially a Ph.d. program you have to pay for, like med. school. The only good thing that could come out of this is that paying students can demand excellence in teaching that the rest of us can only pray for. Also, it seems counter-intuitive to claim that the need for medical physicists is rising but propose to solve this by increasing the number of programs students have to pay to attend. Would this really increase the quality of medical physicists if any Johnny Richdaddy can pay to get into a program and become a medical physicist?
Anyone in this profession needs to seriously question the direction the field is moving, especially in the US (AAPM). Anyone thinking of getting into the field needs to find a way to get an honest assessment of what the field is like from someone they trust, by reading these forums, or through whatever means they have available.
AtomicPile
Jan28-10, 12:54 AM
Radiation oncology physics was old 50 years ago... On the imaging side, the physics is also not new.
Agreed that there is no new basic science.
Second, the field of medical physics is not just limited to radiation oncology. You only need ABR certification if you're doing some kind of clinical work. For pure research it is not necessary.
The AAPM, ACMP, ASTRO and ACR are trying to train everyone within the healthcare community to expect ABR certification. In addition they are loading academics into national and international advisory boards.
The nasty part of this is that if enough people subscribe to the practice, then it becomes the standard of care. This then trickles down into law.
This is what is so horrible about the "qualified medical physicist" definition; the definition is constantly being altered so that it translates into a certification "ponzi scheme" that produces more people than job slots.
54% of all medical physicists are trained on the job.
Be wary of posts encouraging people to go to school and train for this. Gerbi is part of the same subset of people who share the same slides to lobby for a residency. One of the key flaws is that their statistics do not cite a valid unbiased study. The real cure is to call some hospitals/clinics and get the real facts.
The only good thing that could come out of this is that paying students can demand excellence in teaching that the rest of us can only pray for.
I disagree here. The current standard of practice in healthcare/medical training contradicts this. Medical students tend to view lectures as inefficient learning tools and do not go to lectures. The reality is closer to the fact that you are bribing someone for the opportunity to take a standardized exam.
Anyone in this profession needs to seriously question the direction the field is moving, especially in the US (AAPM). Anyone thinking of getting into the field needs to find a way to get an honest assessment of what the field is like from someone they trust...
I would add that academics programs and residencies are selling "medical physics". The self-interest ingrains a biased and unrealistic view of the job market.
Granny11
Jan28-10, 01:04 AM
AtomicPile, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what exactly is your connection to the medical physics field? I'm just curious why you seem to be so exasperated by medical physics. If you're in the field and hate it...why not switch?
I'm not trying to sound critical, I'm just genuinely curious what it is that happened to make you think this way.
For those just joining the discussion:
Qball uses a unique definition of physics which excludes any form of applied physics, and hence fields such as astronomy, space physics, geophysics, computational physics, and about 95% of experimental physics in particle and condensed matter is also not physics.
AtomicPile still has yet to provide any actual evidence to support this idea that the medical physics job market is saturated and has instead nit-picked evidence that suggests the contrary. Obviously, I have a vested interest in the the medical physics community over the coming years, and despite arguing the contrary point, I would try to be open-minded about growth or lack thereof in the field.
I did a back of the envelope calculation last night and if you take all of the student members of the AAPM, DOUBLE that number to account for those not registered, as a basis pool of potential medical physicists (regardless of program) and then adjust to account for things like time spent in graduate school, other career options (academia, industry, going into other branches of medical physics besides radiation oncology physics), etc. we would barely be meeting the projected demand.
For those just joining the discussion:
Qball uses a unique definition of physics which excludes any form of applied physics, and hence fields such as astronomy, space physics, geophysics, computational physics, and about 95% of experimental physics in particle and condensed matter is also not physics.
AtomicPile still has yet to provide any actual evidence to support this idea that the medical physics job market is saturated and has instead nit-picked evidence that suggests the contrary. Obviously, I have a vested interest in the the medical physics community over the coming years, and despite arguing the contrary point, I would try to be open-minded about growth or lack thereof in the field.
I did a back of the envelope calculation last night and if you take all of the student members of the AAPM, DOUBLE that number to account for those not registered, as a basis pool of potential medical physicists (regardless of program) and then adjust to account for things like time spent in graduate school, other career options (academia, industry, going into other branches of medical physics besides radiation oncology physics), etc. we would barely be meeting the projected demand.
... and Choppy lives in a fantasy world where the day to day calibrations of machines and QA forms counts as basic research.
And FYI:
Astronomy != physics. No pretense of physics here, either.
As for the other fields, I would not say they are doing "physics research" either. But then again you don't seem to understand the difference between being in an applied field and being in a field that does basic research.
From a recent NYTimes article on how medical physicists are a bunch of screw-ups,
"In the world of radiotherapy, medical physicists play a vital role in patient safety — checking the calibration of machines, ensuring that the computer delivers the correct dose to the proper location, as well as assuming other safety tasks."
QED
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?pagewanted=3
AtomicPile
Jan28-10, 08:37 PM
For those just joining the discussion:
AtomicPile still has yet to provide any actual evidence to support this idea that the medical physics job market is saturated and has instead nit-picked evidence that suggests the contrary...
In the flavor of a StarKist tuna commercial:
"Sorry, Choppy. Physicists want good sound advice, not advice that sounds good."
First of all, nothing beats the reality of applying for jobs.
1.) You meet people trying to find jobs for their students, family members and in laws.
2.) You find out quickly that companies just put out obligatory job ads to see who is on the market.
Let's assume Choppy's number are right. Your future vis a vis some of the major headlines of medical physicist employers:
-01/2010 Varian Medical Systems Receives Certification to Assemble X-Ray Tubes in China
-11/2009 Varian Medical Systems lays off 150 people, Palo Alto CA
-12/2008 TomoTherapy Inc, the manufacturer of Hi Art system, said it has reduced workforce by approximately 12% through a combination of layoffs and the elimination of open positions. As of September 30, 2008, the company had 721 employees.
-4/2009 Elekta implemented a "deep hiring" freeze and has reduced its existing role-call by attrition.
-4/2009 GE Healthcare plans to layoff 179 employees at its GE Healthcare Monitoring Solutions plant in Milwaukee.
AtomicPile
Jan28-10, 10:12 PM
AtomicPile, I hope you don't mind me asking, but what exactly is your connection to the medical physics field? I'm just curious why you seem to be so exasperated by medical physics. If you're in the field and hate it...why not switch?
I'm not trying to sound critical, I'm just genuinely curious what it is that happened to make you think this way.
Hi Granny,
Facts can be used to fix problems. Unfortunately, I find that the job statistics are based on a practice comparable to "cargo cult science". So I am taking the time to show people where to go in their own research. It is not perfect, but I am learning how to best express my experience in a "retaliation free" environment.
Granny11
Jan29-10, 01:16 AM
Hi Granny,
Facts can be used to fix problems. Unfortunately, I find that the job statistics are based on a practice comparable to "cargo cult science". So I am taking the time to show people where to go in their own research. It is not perfect, but I am learning how to best express my experience in a "retaliation free" environment.
I'm not sure that quite answers my question. Are you involved in the medical physics field, or just 'researching' it?
AtomicPile
Jan29-10, 03:01 AM
I'm not sure that quite answers my question. Are you involved in the medical physics field, or just 'researching' it?
Hi Granny,
Got the training, got the badge, and I still apply to medical physics positions. I take the third and last part of the ABR therapy exam in the summer.
In the flavor of a StarKist tuna commercial:
"Sorry, Choppy. Physicists want good sound advice, not advice that sounds good."
First of all, nothing beats the reality of applying for jobs.
1.) You meet people trying to find jobs for their students, family members and in laws.
2.) You find out quickly that companies just put out obligatory job ads to see who is on the market.
Let's assume Choppy's number are right. Your future vis a vis some of the major headlines of medical physicist employers:
-01/2010 Varian Medical Systems Receives Certification to Assemble X-Ray Tubes in China
-11/2009 Varian Medical Systems lays off 150 people, Palo Alto CA
-12/2008 TomoTherapy Inc, the manufacturer of Hi Art system, said it has reduced workforce by approximately 12% through a combination of layoffs and the elimination of open positions. As of September 30, 2008, the company had 721 employees.
-4/2009 Elekta implemented a "deep hiring" freeze and has reduced its existing role-call by attrition.
-4/2009 GE Healthcare plans to layoff 179 employees at its GE Healthcare Monitoring Solutions plant in Milwaukee.
I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that the economy in north america is in a slump right now. Not that I pay much attention to politics, but didn't President Obama's state of the union address just underscore a need for job creation? Automobile manufacturing for example is barely keeping its head above water.
So why should the healthcare industry be any different? It is somewhat insulated from economic fluctuation because it is so heavily influenced by govenment funding (more so in Canada), but when money is tight, hiring stalls just like anywhere else.
What I'm saying, is that this is temporary. In the coming years, the projected increases in cancer cases is going to drive up the demand for radiation therapy significantly. In my own province, the number of linacs is going to increase by about 30% over the next 5-8 years.
I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that the economy in north america is in a slump right now. Not that I pay much attention to politics, but didn't President Obama's state of the union address just underscore a need for job creation? Automobile manufacturing for example is barely keeping its head above water.
So why should the healthcare industry be any different? It is somewhat insulated from economic fluctuation because it is so heavily influenced by govenment funding (more so in Canada), but when money is tight, hiring stalls just like anywhere else.
What I'm saying, is that this is temporary. In the coming years, the projected increases in cancer cases is going to drive up the demand for radiation therapy significantly. In my own province, the number of linacs is going to increase by about 30% over the next 5-8 years.
Not necessarily. New research may provide alternatives to radiation therapy that are equally or more effective. Radiation therapy has a lot of side effects, including the introduction of secondary cancers, and is a less-than-ideal option for treatment. As our understanding of carcinogenesis evolves there will surely be treatments to stop it in its tracks before it becomes life threatening.
Not necessarily. New research may provide alternatives to radiation therapy that are equally or more effective. Radiation therapy has a lot of side effects, including the introduction of secondary cancers, and is a less-than-ideal option for treatment. As our understanding of carcinogenesis evolves there will surely be treatments to stop it in its tracks before it becomes life threatening.
This is a good point. There is always the probability that new treatments will come along that will change the current paradigm. Of course, the chances of something like that happening exists in just about any field.
The higher probility, in my opinion, is that the technology for cancer treatments is going to get more complex in the future. We're likely to see more detailed image guidance and adaptive RT, MRI-based guidance, and laser-accelerated ion beams which will substantially bring down the cost of proton facilities. So medical physicists are likely to see their clinical duties increase.
That, of course, is just an opinion.
AtomicPile
Jan31-10, 12:34 AM
In my own province, the number of linacs is going to increase by about 30% over the next 5-8 years.
What province, are you in Canada?
What province, are you in Canada?
Alberta.
AtomicPile
Jan31-10, 11:20 PM
Alberta.
Canada's cold might create a local problem, but that translates into saying, "Canada has a shortage of medical physicists."
When passing out advice in a .com forum, as opposed to a .ca, you should state this clearly. The plain fact is that you are misleading a lot of people by your point of view.
I live in the USA. I have met medical physicists from all over the world. Australia, South America, France, Russia, India, Asia, England, Japan, New Zealand and Canada.
There is no shortage of medical physicists in the USA. For that matter there is no shortage in Australia or Japan. Some countries have a shortage by the mere fact that they use a different job title.
Clancy Brown
Feb1-10, 01:07 AM
I have met medical physicists from all over the world. Australia, South America, France, Russia, India, Asia, England, Japan, New Zealand and Canada.
For that matter there is no shortage in Australia or Japan.
Wow Atomicpile you surprised me, I thought you were too ignorant to understand that there was a world beyond the North American borders ie USA and Canada.
"Australia wide there is a vacancy rate of almost 14% for Radiation Oncology Medical Physicists (ROMPs). A worldwide shortage of qualified physicists (ROMPs) makes it difficult to fill the vacancies by overseas recruitment. "
http://www.qld-cpc.org.au/domain_Medical%20Physics%20Career%20Information.ht m
Clancy Brown
Feb1-10, 01:09 AM
Also in New Zealand
Job Outlook
Medical physicists are in demand throughout New Zealand and chances of getting a job in this area are excellent.
Skill shortage information
There is an immediate term skill shortage for this job.
Source: Department of Immigration NZ, Skills Shortages
AtomicPile
Feb1-10, 08:01 PM
Also in New Zealand
Job Outlook
Medical physicists are in demand throughout New Zealand and chances of getting a job in this area are excellent.
Skill shortage information
There is an immediate term skill shortage for this job.
Source: Department of Immigration NZ, Skills Shortages
Hi Clancy,
How many physicists does New Zealand & Aus need? Have fun bashing me, but that is my point. If your program outputs 100 medical physicists and your shortage is 5, then you are creating unemployed professionals. Are the people in your program expecting jobs in their home country? Are you sure that medical physics is different than health physics? Has that occurred to you?
In the USA you could contact Paul Keal at Stanford University (paul.keall@stanford.edu). He left New Zealand to come to the USA. Paul received his degrees at:
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand, B.S. (Physics and Mathematics)
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, M.S. (Health Physics)
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, Ph.D. (Physics)
Note that Paul did not get a degree in "medical physics". That should tell you something very powerful.
Here is a link to Australian College of Physical Scientists & Engineers in Medicine:
http://www.acpsem.org.au/index.php/component/jobline/
Note that engineer is part of the society's name and not physicists.
I imagine that Paul would appreciate a pay raise, so you could ask him to return and train the locals.
Clancy Brown
Feb1-10, 08:45 PM
How many physicists does New Zealand & Aus need?
As many that are willing to come and work here I guess.
Have fun bashing me
I was being honest, and you did suprise me.
If your program outputs 100 medical physicists and your shortage is 5, then you are creating unemployed professionals.
There not enough people in the program to satisfy demand, hence 100% employment.
Are you sure that medical physics is different than health physics? Has that occurred to you?
I am actually highlighting the shortage of "Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP)" ie Medical Physicist here in Australia
In the USA you could contact Paul Keal at Stanford University (paul.keall@stanford.edu). He left New Zealand to come to the USA.
Cool, thanks for the contact, for future reference
Here is a link to Australian College of Physical Scientists & Engineers in Medicine:
http://www.acpsem.org.au/index.php/component/jobline/
surely I would know my own accreditation body
I imagine that Paul would appreciate a pay raise, so you could ask him to return and train the locals.
Moot point, he may be paid more where he is; the pay is not the issue. I can make more as a Biomedical engineer as I would as a ROMP and with far less training.
Atomicpile, why don't you venture down here and work, you already have a link to the job board.
AtomicPile
Feb1-10, 09:41 PM
Atomicpile, why don't you venture down here and work, you already have a link to the job board.
OK, Clancy. Send me your e-mail.
Clancy Brown
Feb1-10, 11:51 PM
Atomicpile, you can reach me here << e-mail address deleted by berkeman >>
berkeman
Feb2-10, 01:10 PM
Atomicpile, you can reach me here << e-mail address deleted by berkeman >>
Please send e-mail addresses by PM. We discourage posting e-mail addresses in the open forums.
AtomicPile
Feb2-10, 07:06 PM
I actually came across the profession Radiation Oncology Medical Physicist (ROMP) quite by mistake. I have done a great deal of research into the profession in the last three weeks, and am meeting my State Government's director in Radiation Oncology in the coming weeks to discuss the profession futher.
From my perspective (down under), there is a shortage of ROMPs; why would the director be so keen to meet with me and inform and show me aspects of the profession first hand. The shortage forecast is said to be so severe, that IAEA has provided a training program manual free to the public as a framework for new entrants to the profession.
... I can make more as a Biomedical engineer as I would as a ROMP and with far less training.
Interesting point. A biomedical engineer is a more versatile job, why consider medical physics? Why start a program of study for medical physics as you said earlier? Have you changed your mind?
Clancy Brown
Feb2-10, 08:58 PM
Cool, thanks for the correction Berkeman.
Interesting point. A biomedical engineer is a more versatile job, why consider medical physics? Why start a program of study for medical physics as you said earlier? Have you changed your mind?
I wanted to study Science/Engineering degree, my local campus only offers Health Sciences, where the fun stuff ie Physics (Quantum computers, Photonics) is offered at the University's other campus.
I stumbled across Medical Physics, as it was advertised at the same location as a Biomedical Engineering vacancy. Intrigued I researched and found that it combined my interests of physics, engineering and patient care all in one little profession.
Plus I want an electron tree and one can not have too many options.
AtomicPile
Feb2-10, 11:06 PM
I stumbled across Medical Physics, as it was advertised at the same location as a Biomedical Engineering vacancy. Intrigued I researched and found that it combined my interests of physics, engineering and patient care all in one little profession.
Do your research. Long term unemployment because your chosen profession is not desired is not a lot of fun.
Plus I want an electron tree and one can not have too many options.
Use your favorite search engine to find a lichtenberg sculpture/lichtenberg figures.
Hi everyone,
I urgently need to hear your thoughts on a career path I am considering. I am considering to return to school for a medical physics degree, starting with a Master's, finishing the coursework, and continue to directly work on my PhD project - so at least 4 years (followed by residency or postdoc). Here is my background:
-Bachelor's of engineering in Engineering Physics
-Master's of engineering in Biomedical Engineering (thesis on nanoparticles for biomed applications)
-Work experience in finance and management consulting
I basically completed an M. Eng. in BME and then went to work for a year and a half. I was a good student.
I want to return to science and am looking for PhD programs. Of course continuing in BME or some project related to nanotech is a natural option and I know many profs with whom I could work. But to do what afterwards? BME being so large and the nanotech side so new without an established industry.
I have the impression that MedPhys - In addition to being highly compatible with my educational background and areas of interest - is a more established field, with less uncertainty than BME or Physics: You are board accredited, you must graduate from CAMPEP institutions, you know pretty much where you will work, you are less subjected to economic cycles, it's a specific area with a limited number of specialists, my background in engineering will open me the doors of industry if needed, the salary is decent and stable (unemployment is rare) ... in other words it seems to be a safe discipline ... and I find it very interesting (in fact I hesitated between MedPhys and BME before my master's).
My questions, thoughts, and concerns:
-Is my perception right?
-Is it worth another 4-5 years (minimum) with at least 8 months of heavy coursework? does the security and certainty I will find after the graduate degree compensate for the work experience I will not get meantime.
-A PhD in Biomed would not have the coursework that MedPhys has.
-If I'm putting all this effort in a terminal degree, I want to be sure that I can breath afterward: Get a decent job (interest, hours, salary, etc) and not risk losing it every time the stock market goes down or when jobs are outsourced (or restructured) to a cheap labor country.
-I can work pretty much anywhere in the world: wherever there is a strong hospital.
-I can also do other things through a MedPhys degree: teach, industry, etc.
I'm strongly leaning towards doing it because I consider it meaningful work ... but I don't want to graduate and find out there are no jobs or that the latter are low paying, and that I was just an idealist, disconnected from reality!
Thank you for your time
Rakhaa.
I have the impression that MedPhys - In addition to being highly compatible with my educational background and areas of interest - is a more established field, with less uncertainty than BME or Physics: You are board accredited, you must graduate from CAMPEP institutions, you know pretty much where you will work, you are less subjected to economic cycles, it's a specific area with a limited number of specialists, my background in engineering will open me the doors of industry if needed, the salary is decent and stable (unemployment is rare) ... in other words it seems to be a safe discipline ... and I find it very interesting (in fact I hesitated between MedPhys and BME before my master's).
My questions, thoughts, and concerns:
-Is my perception right?
More or less, but there are some points that perhaps require clarification. Medical physics isn't necessarily a meal ticket. Medical physics is a profession in the healthcare field and as such it is relatively insulated from economic swings compared to other industries. That does not mean that it is completely insulated. If you read back a few posts, you can see the discussion a few posters and I have been having about the job market for medical physicists over the coming years. Right now there's a lag in hiring due the slow economy. In my opinion though, this is a good time to get into the field as over the coming decade we're likely to see a significant increase in demand for the profession.
-Is it worth another 4-5 years (minimum) with at least 8 months of heavy coursework? does the security and certainty I will find after the graduate degree compensate for the work experience I will not get meantime.
That's a tough question. The PhD will be hard work and you won't earn a lot of money while doing it. And there are no guarantees. For me it turned out to be completely worth it, though.
-If I'm putting all this effort in a terminal degree, I want to be sure that I can breath afterward: Get a decent job (interest, hours, salary, etc) and not risk losing it every time the stock market goes down or when jobs are outsourced (or restructured) to a cheap labor country.
As I said, there are no guarantees. I don't see too many physicists losing their jobs as a result of the economic downturn, although in all fairness there are rare cases where hospitals have laid people off. The degree and certification aren't going to do the work for you. The biggest factors that medical physicists have keeping us in demand are the rising cancer rates due to the aging population.
-I can work pretty much anywhere in the world: wherever there is a strong hospital.
It's not exactly like you can pick a spot on a map and say I want to go here. What typically happens when you graduate from a medical physics program is that you will start networking to find a residency or post-doctoral program. Then you go where you get in. Sometimes those jobs aren't in optimal locations and they require moving across the counrty. And if you're like me and prefer living in smaller rural areas, your options can be limited. You may want to talk this over if there's a significant other in your life.
-I can also do other things through a MedPhys degree: teach, industry, etc.
Yes. In fact it's not uncommon for some students to embark on entreprenurial ventures based on their projects. Some of those ones do quite well.
Hope this helps.
Thanks for your answers and advice Choppy,
I think that if I pursue a PhD in nanotechnology, BME, or NeuroEngineering (which are also very interesting), chances are there will be less coursework and therefore it may be shorter. The problem is that there is a higher risk of finishing school and not getting a good job than if I graduate from MedPhys. There are no established industries in those fields and although you will probably find a job, the latter will not be very well paying and subjected to economic swings ... at least more so than in the case of MedPhys (which is not recession proof either from what you've told me).
The only problem is that after 4 years of engineering, 3 years of master's with intense research (yes the average duration in our BME department is 2.8 years) I still have to foresee about 5 years. Also, the idea that my master's may have been in vain and that I'll be starting at the same level a bachelor holder would, is a little frustrating!
I'd like to think that with my BME background, I will be able to do interesting and multidisciplinary research and that MedPhys can really be fused with BME in some respects, especially through nanotech and medical imaging. Do you see interesting emerging research trends in the discipline? Are there indicators that the field will witness significant breakthroughs or novelties in the coming decade (requiring a more multidisciplinary approach)?
Do you have approximate numbers for salaries (Master and PhD) for beginners as well as in mid career? I suppose residents don't make much (50k max) but that's ok. I've heard it's a well paying field, at least relative to engineering.
I am considering the McGill program as well as Duke, which seems to emphasize "frontier science" i.e. research in emerging areas.
Thank you again,
Rakhaa.
Thanks for your answers and advice Choppy,
The only problem is that after 4 years of engineering, 3 years of master's with intense research (yes the average duration in our BME department is 2.8 years) I still have to foresee about 5 years. Also, the idea that my master's may have been in vain and that I'll be starting at the same level a bachelor holder would, is a little frustrating!
I don't think those years will have been a waste of time. However, changing to a different field will require a larger time investment. The thing is, those 5 years are going to pass anyway. Where do you want to be when they're over?
I'd like to think that with my BME background, I will be able to do interesting and multidisciplinary research and that MedPhys can really be fused with BME in some respects, especially through nanotech and medical imaging. Do you see interesting emerging research trends in the discipline? Are there indicators that the field will witness significant breakthroughs or novelties in the coming decade (requiring a more multidisciplinary approach)?
Absolutely. MRI development, for example, is one branch of BME that comes together with medical physics. MRI as both a diagnostic and treatment planning modality has a tremendous future, in my opinion. What I would recommend is that you speak to some of the professors at the institutions you're considering applying to about potential projects and how your specific background will compliment them.
Do you have approximate numbers for salaries (Master and PhD) for beginners as well as in mid career? I suppose residents don't make much (50k max) but that's ok. I've heard it's a well paying field, at least relative to engineering.
The best numbers that I'm aware of are in the AAPM annual salary survey. This is available to anyone with a student membership (I don't remember exact costs, but its in the ballpark of $25).
HungryChemist
Mar15-10, 11:56 PM
I found some interesting blog and felt like sharing it here. Please, read the user comments to peak inside of the true stories of medical physics job market.
http://healthcareers.about.com/b/2009/07/22/medical-physicists-careers.htm
Medical Physics job market is saturated. I know too many campep phd graduates struggling to land on a job after a year of their graduation. My prediction is that it's only going to get worse.
Most recent graduates are having trouble finding a job, if you're going after maseter's degree in medical physics, expect the worst. Because most open positions require ABR certificate, and for this reason recent graduates are forced to apply for residency position and the competition for residency spots are getting fierce. So if you're master student, you would have to compete against phd students and if you look up profiles of current residents in place like stanford/ucsd/mdacc/mgh/ucsf/uwm/etc....there are no masters. Then why the heck is campep accredited institution is big on admitting master student?
Also, I did some back of the envelope calculation too (like Choppy did). There are about 25 campep grad schools, so assuming each school accepts about 10 students per year (they do more, but to be safe, let's say 10) that means there are about 250 students graduating. There are only about 30 residency programs and most programs accepts two residents per year. After 2014 (year in which residency must be required to be board certified), this means that 250 students will compete for 60 or so spots. Competition for residency now is much higher due to non-campep applicants but even if they select only campep applicants, the competition is still fierce. One might argue, not everyone is going to apply for residency. Let me say it again, there's no job opportunity unless you have ABR certificate, and to have clinical experience for you to take ABR test, your only option is residency, so there will be elimination process, everyone will bleed for residency spots.
Of course, I can't say my personal experience born out of a few acquaintance of my current and former student represents the whole community. But calling 70 different position to hear 'No we're not hiring' got to be something. I will bet that It WILL get worse.
Mcfly11
Mar16-10, 09:46 PM
Also, I did some back of the envelope calculation too (like Choppy did). There are about 25 campep grad schools, so assuming each school accepts about 10 students per year (they do more, but to be safe, let's say 10) that means there are about 250 students graduating. There are only about 30 residency programs and most programs accepts two residents per year. After 2014 (year in which residency must be required to be board certified), this means that 250 students will compete for 60 or so spots.
.
I may be wrong, but I think you are overestimating the number of students graduating from CAMPEP programs who are competing for residences on a yearly basis. I think it is generally well known that it'll be considerably tougher to get a good job in the field nowadays with only an MSc, and that PhD's are generally necessary for residencies. Of the 25 CAMPEP programs, I believe 7 of them only offer MSc degrees, so there are only about 18 PhD granting institutions in North America. Of these 18, 7 are located in Canada, and I don't think a single one of them accepts 10 students per year. According to their respective websites, McGill only has 5 PhD students, U of Alberta has 12 PhD students, U of Calgary has 6, and Carleton has 15 to name a few. This means each school only gives out a couple of PhD's per year, if any.
I realize enrollments in the States are generally larger than Canadian schools, but my point is that only 11 of them grant PhD's. I doubt there are much more than 100 PhD's given out per year by those 11 programs. Also, a percentage of those may pursue non-clinical jobs that don't require ABR certification etc. This is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think there are anywhere close to 250 qualified applicants with PhD's competing for residencies each year. I'm by no means an expert in this matter though, so perhaps someone who knows better than I (Choppy?) can correct me if I'm way off the mark on this one.
Of course, you also considered those with MSc degrees, while I'm considering only those with PhD's, because I think it is becoming more and more of a fact that PhD's are necessary to become a medical physicist. I've been wondering if the shortage of medical physics jobs people have been discussing actually exists, or whether it only exists for those people with MSc degrees and no residency. Are there many people who have taken the recommended path of CAMPEP PhD followed by CAMPEP residency who are unable to find jobs? I don't know the answer to that question, but I'd be quite interested to find out.
I may be wrong, but I think you are overestimating the number of students graduating from CAMPEP programs who are competing for residences on a yearly basis. I think it is generally well known that it'll be considerably tougher to get a good job in the field nowadays with only an MSc, and that PhD's are generally necessary for residencies. Of the 25 CAMPEP programs, I believe 7 of them only offer MSc degrees, so there are only about 18 PhD granting institutions in North America. Of these 18, 7 are located in Canada, and I don't think a single one of them accepts 10 students per year. According to their respective websites, McGill only has 5 PhD students, U of Alberta has 12 PhD students, U of Calgary has 6, and Carleton has 15 to name a few. This means each school only gives out a couple of Ph.D's per year, if any.
I don't know what enrollments are like in the States, but even if they're much larger than Canada's, I doubt there are much more than 100 PhD's given out per year by those 11 programs. Also, a percentage of those may pursue non-clinical jobs that don't require ABR certification etc. This is a roundabout way of saying that I don't think there are anywhere close to 250 qualified applicants with PhD's competing for residencies each year. I'm by no means an expert in this matter though, so perhaps someone who knows better than I (Choppy?) can correct me if I'm way off the mark on this one.
You're forgetting that people from other fields also compete for medical physics residencies. In fact, all of the medical physics residents I have met over the last few years have had Ph.d.'s but have not come from medical physics backgrounds.
Mcfly11
Mar16-10, 11:27 PM
You're forgetting that people from other fields also compete for medical physics residencies. In fact, all of the medical physics residents I have met over the last few years have had Ph.d.'s but have not come from medical physics backgrounds.
That may be true, but would you not agree that if you hold a medical physics PhD, you have a significant advantage over all of the people applying for residencies without one? Most of the advertisements for residences I've seen state that they give preference to people with medical physics degrees.
Anyway, I think my point is still valid. Perhaps there is a large volume of people applying, but still a small volume of well qualified candidates. If you have a medical physics PhD, and decent qualifications (ie publications, good grades etc) then you have a pretty decent shot at getting a residency. Who cares if 1000 people are applying for the job, if you're more qualified than them.
Again, I'm not an expert in this, so I welcome feedback on these opinions.
Where I think HungryChemist has a point is in the fact that the number of accredited residencies in north america is currently too small to produce the number of qualified medical physicists needed to satisfy the demand over the coming decade. Therein, you have a shortage of qualified medical physicists.
An interesting artile from Physics Today (May 2009) was posted up on a blog, that discusses this:
http://www.mdphysics.com/new-abr-certification-rule/
That may be true, but would you not agree that if you hold a medical physics PhD, you have a significant advantage over all of the people applying for residencies without one? Most of the advertisements for residences I've seen state that they give preference to people with medical physics degrees.
Anyway, I think my point is still valid. Perhaps there is a large volume of people applying, but still a small volume of well qualified candidates. If you have a medical physics PhD, and decent qualifications (ie publications, good grades etc) then you have a pretty decent shot at getting a residency. Who cares if 1000 people are applying for the job, if you're more qualified than them.
Again, I'm not an expert in this, so I welcome feedback on these opinions.
I have not seen job listings claiming to give preference to people with medical physics Ph.d.s. What I have seen are listings that give preference to ABR certified candidates who have completed CAMPEP residencies. You do not need a medical physics Ph.d. to have either of those qualifications. This is the reason for the 2012/2014 initiative: it's going to make it harder for people outside medical physics to get jobs in the field.
Mcfly11
Mar17-10, 11:26 AM
I have not seen job listings claiming to give preference to people with medical physics Ph.d.s. What I have seen are listings that give preference to ABR certified candidates who have completed CAMPEP residencies. You do not need a medical physics Ph.d. to have either of those qualifications. This is the reason for the 2012/2014 initiative: it's going to make it harder for people outside medical physics to get jobs in the field.
You're kind of reinforcing my point here, althought I was speaking specifically about entry into residencies, not any job. I'm saying that it is considerably easier to get into a CAMPEP residency if you have a CAMPEP PhD. As you said, it's not necessary to get a PhD to get into a residency, but I'm sure you'll agree that someone with a CAMPEP PhD has a significantly better shot of landing a residency position than someone with another degree nowadays. As you said, many jobs prefer applicants to have completed a CAMPEP residency, so I think it is true that a PhD improves your job prospects, if only in this roundabout way. Although I have to disagree with you on one point....I've seen several advertisements that state they prefer a PhD to an MSc.
People here often discuss how difficult it is to get a job in medical physics. The point that I'm trying to make is that although it may be difficult for some people (ie people from other physics-related fields) to find jobs, I think a person who follows the recommended route of CAMPEP PhD followed by CAMPEP residency will find a job reasonably easily. Perhaps my own experience is limited, but I haven't seen any people with these qualifications complain about the lack of jobs.
You're kind of reinforcing my point here, althought I was speaking specifically about entry into residencies, not any job. I'm saying that it is considerably easier to get into a CAMPEP residency if you have a CAMPEP PhD. As you said, it's not necessary to get a PhD to get into a residency, but I'm sure you'll agree that someone with a CAMPEP PhD has a significantly better shot of landing a residency position than someone with another degree nowadays. As you said, many jobs prefer applicants to have completed a CAMPEP residency, so I think it is true that a PhD improves your job prospects, if only in this roundabout way. Although I have to disagree with you on one point....I've seen several advertisements that state they prefer a PhD to an MSc.
People here often discuss how difficult it is to get a job in medical physics. The point that I'm trying to make is that although it may be difficult for some people (ie people from other physics-related fields) to find jobs, I think a person who follows the recommended route of CAMPEP PhD followed by CAMPEP residency will find a job reasonably easily. Perhaps my own experience is limited, but I haven't seen any people with these qualifications complain about the lack of jobs.
Although my experience is somewhat limited, as I've said all the residents I've ever met have had Physics Ph.d.'s and not medical physics Ph.d.'s. Think about what this means. Say not all medical physics graduates decide to compete for residences; say it's only half. There are a lot more physics graduates every year then medical physics, but let's suppose that only a few percent of them apply for residency positions. If spots in residencies are filled by equal number of physics graduates and medical physics graduates that means you have an overall lower chance of getting accepted into a residency vs. if you were a student of pure physics.
While I don't know what the true numbers are like I don't think this is too far off.
Mcfly11
Mar17-10, 02:49 PM
Although my experience is somewhat limited, as I've said all the residents I've ever met have had Physics Ph.d.'s and not medical physics Ph.d.'s. Think about what this means. Say not all medical physics graduates decide to compete for residences; say it's only half. There are a lot more physics graduates every year then medical physics, but let's suppose that only a few percent of them apply for residency positions. If spots in residencies are filled by equal number of physics graduates and medical physics graduates that means you have an overall lower chance of getting accepted into a residency vs. if you were a student of pure physics.
While I don't know what the true numbers are like I don't think this is too far off.
I think our opinions are different because we both have had vastly different personal experiences. I haven't met a resident who didn't have a medical physics PhD, and you haven't met one who did have one. I guess we're at opposite ends of the spectrum haha. I admit my sample size isn't very large, I think I've only met 8 or 9.
Anyways, I still believe that on average a person with a medical physics PhD has a significantly better chance at landing a residency than someone with a pure physics PhD. I think if two candidates are otherwise equal (ie research quality, academic records etc) but one has a degree in med phys, and one in pure physics, then 9 times out of 10 the position would be given to the person with experience in medical physics. Either way, I agree that obtaining a residency is way more difficult than it probably should be.
I'd love to see statistics from a few residency programs regarding how many applications they receive each year, and what the spread of degrees (ie med phys vs phys, MSc vs PhD) is. Would also be interesting to see which degrees have the highest acceptance rate. I've heard that they get ~100 applications for 1 or 2 openings quite often, but I'm curious as to how many of those 100 are very well qualified.
I think our opinions are different because we both have had vastly different personal experiences. I haven't met a resident who didn't have a medical physics PhD, and you haven't met one who did have one. I guess we're at opposite ends of the spectrum haha. I admit my sample size isn't very large, I think I've only met 8 or 9.
Anyways, I still believe that on average a person with a medical physics PhD has a significantly better chance at landing a residency than someone with a pure physics PhD. I think if two candidates are otherwise equal (ie research quality, academic records etc) but one has a degree in med phys, and one in pure physics, then 9 times out of 10 the position would be given to the person with experience in medical physics. Either way, I agree that obtaining a residency is way more difficult than it probably should be.
I'd love to see statistics from a few residency programs regarding how many applications they receive each year, and what the spread of degrees (ie med phys vs phys, MSc vs PhD) is. Would also be interesting to see which degrees have the highest acceptance rate. I've heard that they get ~100 applications for 1 or 2 openings quite often, but I'm curious as to how many of those 100 are very well qualified.
Programs must have strange definitions of "well-qualified" then. I would think anyone who completed a Ph.d. in medical physics would be many times more qualified than someone who did not. However, the fact that anyone with a non-medical physics degree can get into a residency says that this isn't so. You have to assume at least one person with a medical physics background is applying for any given medical physics residency slot. If the residencies still decide that a person with a physics Ph.d. is still more qualified than you are, what does that say about your degree? Furthermore, the residency program I'm familiar with not only has been accepting a large number a pure physics graduates, it also requires them to take medical physics courses for the duration of their residency. So instead of accepting medical physics graduates who already have the requisite training they accept graduates from other disciplines and train them. What the hell is the point of the medical physics degree?
Think about it this way. Say there was an opening for a plumbing job. Say 100 people apply and of those 100 people 1 has a degree in plumbing and 99 come from other fields like carpentry, electrical work, etc. Presumably that person with knowledge of plumbing is a superior applicant compared to the others. This should be a no-brainer, right? But suppose that company chooses to hire a carpenter for the job, then train him to be a plumber. Suppose this happens repeatedly. What does that say about having a degree in plumbing?
Mcfly11
Mar17-10, 03:33 PM
Programs must have strange definitions of "well-qualified" then. I would think anyone who completed a Ph.d. in medical physics would be many times more qualified than someone who did not. However, the fact that anyone with a non-medical physics degree can get into a residency says that this isn't so. You have to assume at least one person with a medical physics background is applying for any given medical physics residency slot. If the residencies still decide that a person with a physics Ph.d. is still more qualified than you are, what does that say about your degree? Furthermore, the residency program I'm familiar with not only has been accepting a large number a pure physics graduates, it also requires them to take medical physics courses for the duration of their residency. So instead of accepting medical physics graduates who already have the requisite training they accept graduates from other disciplines and train them. What the hell is the point of the medical physics degree?
Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you're saying. It seems as though the definition of 'well-qualified' isn't remotely uniform across North America. The programs I'm familiar with are basically the opposite of the ones you're familiar with.
I should mention, if I haven't already, that I'm Canadian, so I'm really only familiar with the Canadian programs that are available, and only to a limited extent. From looking at their websites though, it seems like its generally true in Canada that a medical physics degree puts you at a significant advantage in terms of getting a residency.
I assumed that it was a similar situation in the States, since CAMPEP is a North America-wide body, but apparently I may be wrong in that assumption. The situation you've described seems like a bit of a mess to me, and I can definitely understand your frustration with it. On the bright side, maybe that program you're familiar with is the exception, rather than the rule. That's why I'd love to see stats from a few different residencies.
There are a few point's I'd like to address in the recent discussion in this thread.
First of all, for a student who wants to get into medical physics, the ideal path is to obtain a PhD from an accredited program. I haven't known personally any PhD graduates from accredited programs who've had trouble getting a medical physics position/residency after graduation. I have seen some MSc graduates have a more difficult time finding positions, but for the most part this has meant that they didn't get their first choice of city to live in. [We're looking at a sample size of ~ 50 over the past seven years.]
Second, as with any career, it's not a case of jumping through the right hoops to get the prize. Obtaining a PhD from an accredited program is not going to guarantee you a residency. Getting into an accredited residency is not going to guarantee that you pass your certification exams. Passing your certification exams is not going to guarantee you a perfect job for the rest of your life.
Third, residencies can come in different forms. Some institutions will, for example, offer a residency combined with what is essentially a post-doctoral research position. And if the post-doc position requires a specific skill set (say for example a background in compuational physics or image processing), candidates from areas outside of a standard medical physics background may be considered and even chosen over those from accredited programs. It is worth noting that this situation will not qualify the candidate for certification under the new rules.
Fourth: some of my personal insight into the hiring process for residencies. Typically, by the closing date the institution will have received a large number (say 50-100) CVs. The vast majority of these are not qualified for the position in that they have no medical physics (or at least medical physics-related) background at all. A short list of qualified candidates is then made. Now, most institutions that offer residencies are also affiliated with a graduate program, so from what I've seen, the highest ranked candidates will often come from the school's own program because there's a lot less risk in hiring someone you've known for the past four years. PhDs are preferred over MScs. Candidates from accredited programs are preferred over non-accredited ones.
Fifth, with respect to the ABR and CCPM requiring candidates from accredited programs, you have to remember that these organizations are tasked with certifying competance in the field. The reason why candidates' backgrounds are considered is because it is recognized that performance on a single exam alone cannot guarantee competance. It is accepted that you need experience in the field. But even with the current experience requirements, that pass rates are very low (in the 50 - 60% range for first time oral takers). Accreditation cerifies that a candidate has a broad enough experience base to demonstrate competance in the field. It also helps protect the residents so that they don't end up doing 2 years of basic QA work without any real training.
ksubbara
Apr24-10, 04:17 PM
I am a new member of this forum. I graduated with a Ph.D in condensed matter physics 13 years ago. I have been working in the software industry ever since. I am looking to start a new career in Medical Physics. What are my options ? Where and how do I start ? Any advice will be appreciated.
I am a new member of this forum. I graduated with a Ph.D in condensed matter physics 13 years ago. I have been working in the software industry ever since. I am looking to start a new career in Medical Physics. What are my options ? Where and how do I start ? Any advice will be appreciated.
While some people with PhDs in other branches of phyiscs are able to find junior physicist or resident positions, the competition for these jobs is fierce and you have to compete with people that are coming from accredited graduate programs in medical physics. Some institutions will offer post-doctoral positions that transition into residencies and will sometimes accept candidates who do not have a medical physics background.
The most common path I've seen for people in your position though, is to go through an accredited master's program and then move into a residency.
Hi everyone,
Are there any Medical Physicists here who work in R&D, as in scientists or engineers in the design and development of new MedPhys related products. I know there are some big companies in this industry: Elekta, Siemens, Varian, etc.
What is their perception of a Medical Physicist, compared to that of an engineer or just general physicist? Are medical physicist employed in these organizations?
Rakhaa.
Hi Rakhaa,
Companies like these do employ medical physicists. Medical physicists are involved in both research and development and in customer support - once a company develops a product physicists are then needed to explain it to other physicists and to trouble shoot. Such companies will employ physicists and engineers with backgrounds in other areas as well and this usually depends on the particular products they are attempting to develop and the particular specialties needed.
Can anyone please explain the basic concept of dose gradients as applied to the gamma index where used with Dose difference and DTA etc.
Can anyone please explain the basic concept of dose gradients as applied to the gamma index where used with Dose difference and DTA etc.
Conceptually, the gamma concept is used for comparing two data sets. Examples might be a 2D portal image prediction vs. a measured image, or a water tank scan taken presently vs. one taken at the time of commissioning. Either way you have a reference data set
Dr(rr)
and a comparison data set
Dc(rc).
The concept suggests defining an ellipsoid of acceptance in the dose phase space around the reference data set. (You can imagine it for a 1D scan by plotting dose on the y-axis against position on the x-axis. Then draw ellipsoids around the reference data set with your dose acceptance criterion and distance-to-agreement criterion on the semi-major and semi minor axes.) For each point in the reference set you then search the comparison data set for the point the minimum "phase-distance" away (ie. try to see if the closest point in the comparison data set falls inside the acceptance ellipsiod). Mathematically you ascribe a value to this - your gamma - which is less than or equal to 1 for acceptance and > 1 otherwise.
\gamma(rr) = min|r_c{\GAMMA(Dc,rc)}
where
\GAMMA(Dc,rc) = SQRT{ (\delta r)^2/(dta)^2 + (\delta D)^2/(AD)^2}
dta = acceptable distance to agreement
AD = acceptable dose difference
(Apologies for the crappy formatting. I don't type out expressions in HTML too often.)
It's worth noting that there are more rigorous algorithms out there. As I've described it, the gamma is suceptable, for example, to sampling artefacts.
Thanks choppy that helps a lot but how and what are high and low dose gradients as used with DTA and percentage dose difference respectively, thanks, just hard to get my head around this topic.
In a high dose gradient region (say on a field edge) it's likely that if you define acceptance by a percentage of the central axis dose only, that all points in that high gradient region will fail. Because of the high gradient, moving only a few mm results in changes in dose that are larger than your acceptance criterion. But we need to recognize issues such as error in detector positioning, and tolerances in field position.
So, the gamma concept basically says that if there is a point within your dose tolerance that is within a specified DTA (rather than right at the reference point) the metric will return an acceptable value.
In a low dose gradient region, differences between reference and comparison data sets will fail if the differences are greater than the allowable dose difference because the nature of the low dose gradient means you generally won't find an agreeable point within the DTA.
Thanks for that choppy, thats makes more sense than explained by low et al.
I wonder form a practical perspective to which i applying the gamma index why the following occurs: I am evaluating two dose matrices calculated and measured obviously using a 2 d array. When using a global reference the gamma index for the matrices is in agreement for 95% -100% for 3mm/3% criteria- happy with that.
However when applying local dose reference the comparison fails due to DTA. I am also suppressing dose below 5% due to use of the local reference. I am unsure why I am not getting similar results to that in the global reference. I would have thought it would be due to dose difference because it is a a stricter criteria in local dose. Much of the failure is cold spots on the periphery or outside the PTV. This surely is not a bad thing.
Could be be to the degeneration of the gamma index to DTA due to the low dose gradient? or the resolution of the device (10 mm). but why is this not happening in gobal gamma reference.
Any thoughts would be much appreciated.
Thanks for all your insights.
We're getting a little off the topic of the thread here. I'll PM you.
This post is to everyone who claimed there is a shortage of jobs in medical physics. It's to everyone who claimed that it should be very easy to get a job in medical physics after graduation.
There was a memo from the American Board of Radiology dated July 29, 2010. It reads:
"ABR RP Trustee Statement
a.) Waiver for Part 1 Employment Requirement
b.) Reminder of Application Submission Deadline
Date: July 29, 2010
The ABR has become aware that because of current economic circumstances many recent graduates are experiencing difficulty finding employment in medical physics. Because of this situation, the ABR is waiving the requirement for employment in medical physics as a condition for taking Part 1 effective immediately. All other Part 1 requirements remain in effect.
The requirement for clinical experience prior to taking Part 2 remains unchanged.
Please note also that the deadline for submitting complete applications for the 2011 written examinations in Radiologic Physics is September 30, 2010. With the exception of the Special Circumstances category [http://theabr.org/ic/ic_rp/ic_rp_process.html], applications received after that date will be returned to the candidate unopened with the next opportunity for submission being in July 2011 under the requirements in place for the 2012 examinations. " [emphasis mine]
You are all wrong.
You can ban me all you want, but you cannot silence the truth.
Game. Set. Match. And QED.
Worrying, especially for someone about to start grad school in this field!
How do things look for the coming five year period, or ten year period? What are the reasons for this lack of demand? Is it temporary or a systematic oversupply of medical physicists?
And finally, how does all of this fit in with the new CAMPEP rules applicable from 2012 and 2014?
I'm not sure who was arguing that it's easy for recent gradutes to get a job in medical physics right now.
To answer Rakhaa's questions, I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone that the economy is rather slow right now and healthcare is not immune from that. But the population is aging, which means over the next decade, there is going to be a significant increase (to the tune of 40%) in the number of people needing radiation therapy. Estimates of the number of qualified medical physicists needed to meet the anticipated demand for 2020 range from as high as 400/yr1 to about 150/yr.2
Of course the concern is that the requirement that these new physicists come through CAMPEP programs will create a bottle neck in which this demand will not be met. Further, for graduating students, the existing residencies will be extremely competative.
1. TG-133 Report at: http://www.aapm.org/pubs/reports/RPT_133.pdf
2. Mills et al., "Future trends in the supply and demand for radiation oncology physicists," JACMP 11 (2) 209-219 (2010).
MSstrawberry
Aug31-10, 05:32 AM
Hi, I'm a newbie here, but am I glad I found you :-)
I wonder what would you advise to a Canadian medical physicist entering the job market next summer? CAMPEP accredited MS, ditto accredited residency... And we are thinking about moving south of the border.
Thanks for every bit of information.
Hi, I'm a newbie here, but am I glad I found you :-)
I wonder what would you advise to a Canadian medical physicist entering the job market next summer? CAMPEP accredited MS, ditto accredited residency... And we are thinking about moving south of the border.
Thanks for every bit of information.
Do you have any specific questions?
The single biggest factor to have in your favour is membership with the CCPM, or if you specifically are interested in the US, certification with the ABR.
My understanding is that the US job market for medical physicists is tough right now. Canada is somewhat more stable - following general economy trends. Also, from what I've observed it's more difficult for MSc-level graduates to land positions compared to PhD conterparts in Canada, and that's generally speaking because there is a stronger emphasis on research in Canadian institutions. That's not to say that there aren't opportunities though. There are several new institutions being built in the western provinces over the next few years.
MSstrawberry
Sep1-10, 02:58 AM
Thank you, Choppy. I'm familiar with the Canadian job market, so I'm trying to learn more about the situation in the US. There appear to be more job ads on the major sites (like AAPM) lately, but it's rare that one ad lasts longer than two months (we might say one month is rather typical)
There were financial and personal reasons why I couldn't afford a PhD at the time, however I still managed to land a residency. True, I'm not a research guy either. I enjoy clinical work and problem solving on a daily basis.
I hope to pass the Canadian Board exam next year, but as you mentioned lack of a PhD makes it harder to find a career job here.
Anyways, if anyone here is familiar with the situation south of the border, I would love to read your opinions. Does the bottleneck still exist? What lies ahead for a Canadian with board exam and a very strong resume, lack of PhD, and so on...
I've noticed more job postings on the medical physics list-server lately too. New ones seem to come out every week or so. I don't know that this necessarily signals the end of the drought though. Numerous posters on this site and others have expressed frustration with the job situation in the US.
Another avenue might be to contact some of the medical physics head hunters.
The best places for networking, I've found, have been conferences. The ASTRO meeting is coming up at the end of October.
I'm looking for a used version of "The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging" from Bushburg (2nd edition-2002).
Anyone willing to sell this book? Or if you can recommend a place I could find it, would be great!
Thanks,
R.
GuillaumeA
Sep14-10, 04:49 PM
Hi everyone !
I need some help about high energy electron beams...
The SURFACE percent depth dose increases while energy beam increases. I did not find any courses or papers establishing the reasons of this well-know phenomenon (I mean known by people working in radiation therapy). I suppose it is due to contamination electrons from the linac head but I am not sure at all. If anyone knows, please let me know and if you can give me your reference/paper it would be awsome.
I am desperate :-) because I have been searching for two weeks...
Thanks in advance
GuillaumeA
Hi everyone !
I need some help about high energy electron beams...
The SURFACE percent depth dose increases while energy beam increases. I did not find any courses or papers establishing the reasons of this well-know phenomenon (I mean known by people working in radiation therapy). I suppose it is due to contamination electrons from the linac head but I am not sure at all. If anyone knows, please let me know and if you can give me your reference/paper it would be awsome.
I am desperate :-) because I have been searching for two weeks...
Thanks in advance
GuillaumeA
It does increase with increasing energy and the reason is due to the increased energy of the scattered contamination electrons.
I cannot direct you to the source of this information because I do not know it. Most medical physicists I know of memorize it and then take it as gospel. This is one of the major problems with medical physics education.
Doubell
Sep17-10, 06:44 PM
I enjoy mechanics and things of this nature. It is really easy to forget the other branches of physics like the medical field. ATB for starting a thread on it. Medical physics has lead to great devices like the MRI. IMO it is among the most interesting devices in physics only topped by tesla coils and particle accelerators. Anyway, besides the hair raising name like Magnetic Resonance Imaging, it has really aided in the diagnosis of ailments which is never a bad thing.
so how long would one have to study at the university level for a profession in medical physics
Hi everyone !
I need some help about high energy electron beams...
The SURFACE percent depth dose increases while energy beam increases. I did not find any courses or papers establishing the reasons of this well-know phenomenon (I mean known by people working in radiation therapy). I suppose it is due to contamination electrons from the linac head but I am not sure at all. If anyone knows, please let me know and if you can give me your reference/paper it would be awsome.
I am desperate :-) because I have been searching for two weeks...
Thanks in advance
GuillaumeA
It sounds like you're asking about clinical electron beams, in which case I'm not sure you would really define something as a "contaminant" electron.
The shape of the electron PDD is determined by the scattering properties of the electrons themselves - the differential cross-sections of which are dependent on energy. You should be able to look these up in any standard medical physics textbook like Johns and Cunningham and that will have references to their original derivations. Solving the system for a PDD is a rather complex task to perform analytically. Your best bets for solving them for a specific geometry are the Monte Carlo method or grid-based numerical techniques.
so how long would one have to study at the university level for a profession in medical physics
There are a number of threads about this.
Minimum: 4 year BSc + 2 year MSc = 6 years
This is not typical however. Most positions will expect board certification which will require a 2 year residency and it's difficult to get into a residency without a PhD. To go from highschool to a practicing, certified medical physicist you're typically looking at 8-12 years.
It sounds like you're asking about clinical electron beams, in which case I'm not sure you would really define something as a "contaminant" electron.
The shape of the electron PDD is determined by the scattering properties of the electrons themselves - the differential cross-sections of which are dependent on energy. You should be able to look these up in any standard medical physics textbook like Johns and Cunningham and that will have references to their original derivations. Solving the system for a PDD is a rather complex task to perform analytically. Your best bets for solving them for a specific geometry are the Monte Carlo method or grid-based numerical techniques.
The contaminants are the scattered electrons since they enter at oblique incidences and contribute to the surface dose.
GuillaumeA
Sep22-10, 06:27 AM
Thank you for all your answers. I found something very interesting. Look at the fourth page of this pdf. The increase of Ds/Dm with the energy in electron beams is well explained.
GuillaumeA
GuillaumeA
Sep22-10, 06:42 AM
jpg not pdf :-)
AtomicPile
Nov22-10, 12:09 AM
This post is to everyone who claimed there is a shortage of jobs in medical physics. It's to everyone who claimed that it should be very easy to get a job in medical physics after graduation.
There was a memo from the American Board of Radiology dated July 29, 2010. It reads:
"ABR RP Trustee Statement
a.) Waiver for Part 1 Employment Requirement
b.) Reminder of Application Submission Deadline
Date: July 29, 2010
The ABR has become aware that because of current economic circumstances many recent graduates are experiencing difficulty finding employment in medical physics. Because of this situation, the ABR is waiving the requirement for employment in medical physics as a condition for taking Part 1 effective immediately. All other Part 1 requirements remain in effect.
The requirement for clinical experience prior to taking Part 2 remains unchanged.
Please note also that the deadline for submitting complete applications for the 2011 written examinations in Radiologic Physics is September 30, 2010. With the exception of the Special Circumstances category [http://theabr.org/ic/ic_rp/ic_rp_process.html], applications received after that date will be returned to the candidate unopened with the next opportunity for submission being in July 2011 under the requirements in place for the 2012 examinations. " [emphasis mine]
You are all wrong.
You can ban me all you want, but you cannot silence the truth.
Game. Set. Match. And QED.
There is no shortage in the medical physics field nor will there be in the foreseeable future. I realize that I might seem like the "glass half empty" type, but think about this:
1. The "slow" economy is not the source of the current problem as some would portray in other threads. There was never a shortage. Some guys, say Peter Balter (MD Anderson Cancer Center), or his brother James Balter (Univ Michigan) , or their father Stephen Balter (Columbia University Medical Center) made this statement up to draw in new recruits to their training programs around the US. Their programs, and others, are certification mills that feed each other. Once you are out of the queue, you are unemployed.
2. The aging population argument that some wish to place their "faith" in is a red herring. It is true that the population IS aging. But it would negate the "slow" economy supposition of #1. Consider that the population is aging and consequently, because they are baby boomers, expanding the need for medical physicists. Then the slow economy could not hold back the floodwater of demand for these same physicists.
The one place that has even tried to justify a shortage of medical physicists by publishing a study is looking for, u-hum, now pay attention, a health physicist. This is the University of Louisville advertising on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine website.
QED
Sorry - you've resurrected this topic to argue that the economy isn't slow right now?
I think I'm missing your point. If you've got some hard data please post.
AtomicPile
Nov22-10, 10:32 PM
There is an oversupply of medical physicists! The ABR has publicly acknowledged that there are more medical physicists than jobs.
The economy IS slow. However pundits who wish to grow more training programs falsely argue a need for growth based on the fact that the baby boomer population is aging.
Suppose for the moment that the aging baby boomer population argument is sound. Disease progression isn't subject to the vagaries of a poor economy. So the need to hire more people to treat this growing pool of disease would be immune to economic circumstances. But that has not been the reality of the job market for quite a number of years.
I argue that there has always been an oversupply of medical physicists. And anyone who claimed there is was a shortage of medical physicists consciously engaged in an act fraud.
I argue that there has always been an oversupply of medical physicists. And anyone who claimed there is was a shortage of medical physicists consciously engaged in an act fraud.
Why are you so full of animosity that you would accuse people of a criminal act just to further your argument?
At my institution I live daily with the fact that we are grossly understaffed.
Further, your argument doesn't hold much water. If a hospital administrator has no money to hire a physicist, an increase in clinical demand won't change that - at least not immediately. Funding timescales work on the order of years.
You also have to separate qualified medical physicists from people who want to become medical physicists. I don't believe there is a shortage of the latter. But you might want to talk to someone who's been involved in the recruitment of the former.
Why are you so full of animosity that you would accuse people of a criminal act just to further your argument?
At my institution I live daily with the fact that we are grossly understaffed.
Further, your argument doesn't hold much water. If a hospital administrator has no money to hire a physicist, an increase in clinical demand won't change that - at least not immediately. Funding timescales work on the order of years.
You also have to separate qualified medical physicists from people who want to become medical physicists. I don't believe there is a shortage of the latter. But you might want to talk to someone who's been involved in the recruitment of the former.
Choppy, can you explain this? If you are so understaffed why don't you hire someone? This shouldn't be a problem if the market is over-saturated (and it is an indisputable fact that it is). And if you're not looking to hire someone then that job doesn't really exist as far as the market is concerned.
NeoDevin
Nov23-10, 02:19 PM
Choppy, can you explain this? If you are so understaffed why don't you hire someone? This shouldn't be a problem if the market is over-saturated (and it is an indisputable fact that it is). And if you're not looking to hire someone then that job doesn't really exist as far as the market is concerned.
They can't hire anyone without the money to do so. The money is not there because of the economy. Once the economy recovers, and the budget is increased, one would expect that they will fill the position.
AtomicPile
Nov24-10, 12:18 AM
They can't hire anyone without the money to do so. The money is not there because of the economy. Once the economy recovers, and the budget is increased, one would expect that they will fill the position.
I would like to know who "they" are. I always worry when someone puts in an ambiguous descriptor like "they".
Do you work with Choppy? Your post implies that you have some kind of intimate knowledge of Choppy's workplace environment and the future hiring practice of Choppy's workplace.
I would add that I have the CV's of at least 20 medical physicists seeking work. Some of them have been board certified for over 5 and 10 years.
NeoDevin
Nov24-10, 10:11 AM
I would like to know who "they" are. I always worry when someone puts in an ambiguous descriptor like "they".
I would think it's abundantly clear that "they" in my post refers to the hospital administration (whomever is in charge of hiring for the particular positions that are short-staffed at the moment). I don't think my use of "they" was at all ambiguous.
Do you work with Choppy? Your post implies that you have some kind of intimate knowledge of Choppy's workplace environment and the future hiring practice of Choppy's workplace.
I know what the economic situation is like where Choppy works.
I would add that I have the CV's of at least 20 medical physicists seeking work. Some of them have been board certified for over 5 and 10 years.
That's a wonderful anecdote, I'm glad you shared. Was it posted for a purpose?
So, I have an undergrad in EE from U of Alberta, and I have thought a lot about going back to school for a more physics centric education. Obviously medical physics is an interesting option, but I am unsure exactly how much upgrading I may require to get accepted into an MSC program. FYI, if I do go back to school, I will likely go somewhere other than UofA or UofC.
For the past 9 years I have been doing industrial automation, which is pretty far removed from any of the signal processing or electromagnetics classes that I took within my degree.
So, I have an undergrad in EE from U of Alberta, and I have thought a lot about going back to school for a more physics centric education. Obviously medical physics is an interesting option, but I am unsure exactly how much upgrading I may require to get accepted into an MSC program. FYI, if I do go back to school, I will likely go somewhere other than UofA or UofC.
For the past 9 years I have been doing industrial automation, which is pretty far removed from any of the signal processing or electromagnetics classes that I took within my degree.
It would depend on the specific program whether or not they would accept you or if you would need some upgrading. I know people who've entered with an engineering physics background and done fine. Further, most of the people who entered medical physics through a BME graduate route started out with an EE undergrad.
I'm curious why wouldn't want to go through either of the schools in Alberta. They have extremely good programs.
NeoDevin
Dec3-10, 09:32 PM
I would second the recommendation. If you want to do MSc in Medical Physics, University of Alberta is an excellent place to be. There is lots of interesting research going on regarding the Linac-MR (most of which is covered by an NDA, so don't bother asking me for details), and an EE background would likely be an asset at the moment. You may need to take a few undergrad physics courses to get any background you're missing, but it shouldn't be too much. Feel free to PM me for more information, I'm a grad student here right now.
Well, it's not that I am anti-UofA or UofC, but, I didn't realize they were both so highly regarded in this regard and primarily my reason for discounting both is that I have lived in Alberta my entire life and experiencing something new and gaining additional perspective on the world is appealing to me.
Sounds like I shouldn't discount them too early though. If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.
Well, it's not that I am anti-UofA or UofC, but, I didn't realize they were both so highly regarded in this regard and primarily my reason for discounting both is that I have lived in Alberta my entire life and experiencing something new and gaining additional perspective on the world is appealing to me.
Sounds like I shouldn't discount them too early though. If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.
You don't actually need to know any physics to be successful in medical physics so don't waste your time.
What kind of chance would an international student have of getting into a CAMPEP accredited Medical Physics PhD and subsequently into a residency program? Is it similar to medicine, where the likelihood of an international student getting into a US Medical School is basically 0%?
NeoDevin
Dec4-10, 07:38 PM
What kind of chance would an international student have of getting into a CAMPEP accredited Medical Physics PhD and subsequently into a residency program? Is it similar to medicine, where the likelihood of an international student getting into a US Medical School is basically 0%?
We have several international students in our department already. Don't know off hand if its any more difficult for international students than citizens, but it's certainly not impossible.
NeoDevin
Dec4-10, 07:44 PM
If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.
Not knowing which topics you have and haven't covered in your courses, I can't say. Check out the medical physics website (http://mp.med.ualberta.ca/index.html), there is contact information there. You'll be able to ask specific questions regarding any additional background you might need, and get better answers than we can give you here.
NeoDevin
Dec4-10, 07:46 PM
You don't actually need to know any physics to be successful in medical physics so don't waste your time.
If your goal in medical physics is just to do clinical QA measurements for the rest of your life, you may be able to get away without using much physics. If you actually want to make a contribution to the field, you need a solid physics background.
AtomicPile
Dec4-10, 10:08 PM
Well, it's not that I am anti-UofA or UofC, but, I didn't realize they were both so highly regarded in this regard and primarily my reason for discounting both is that I have lived in Alberta my entire life and experiencing something new and gaining additional perspective on the world is appealing to me.
Sounds like I shouldn't discount them too early though. If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.
Perhaps you should start by reading earlier posts on this thread.
Goto
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=6780&highlight=Medical+Physics&page=8
Start at thread #116
Well, it's not that I am anti-UofA or UofC, but, I didn't realize they were both so highly regarded in this regard and primarily my reason for discounting both is that I have lived in Alberta my entire life and experiencing something new and gaining additional perspective on the world is appealing to me.
Sounds like I shouldn't discount them too early though. If I needed to do some physics upgrading, which is what I suspected, what classes are most likely needed? I am doing some self directed learning atm to refresh myself in certain areas and although I am currently mostly refreshing I am also interested in learning something new. For new things I have considered learning Lagrangian mechanics and then parlaying that into Quantum Mechanics, but I am honestly floundering a bit at the moment.
As far as moving on from your current (or previous) location, that's' totally understandable. I think there is a lot of value in doing that, even if it's just for social reasons.
One thing that's worth pointing out is that there are differences between CAMPEP-accredited programs, which I suspect is a strong source of some of the debates posted in this thread. The accreditation process examines the course content of the programs - ensuring that sufficient material is covered in the exam to prepare the candidate for board exams. Little, if any emphasis is on the research component. Hence in some programs, you are still completing a physics PhD, you still go through a comprehensive and/or candidacy examination, tackle standard graduate level classes such as E&M and quantum, publish papers, write a thesis, etc - on top of completing the didactic course work. In other programs, you just have to complete the didactic course work and the focus is purely on clinical training.
My observations are that people who come out of the research-oriented (but still accredited) programs appear to have a much easier time finding a job than people who come out of more clinically-oriented programs.
As for specific classes, NeoDevin's got good advice. Contact the specifc schools you're interested in. Generally you need to be at the level of a student coming out of a physics undergrad program - including E&M, quantum, advanced lab, thermodynamics, etc. Arguably, to complete the didactic course work you won't need any advanced QM courses, but you should be on a level where you understand Fourier transforms, convolutions, and general signal processessing - which as an EE, I'm assuming you will very likely have covered.
What kind of chance would an international student have of getting into a CAMPEP accredited Medical Physics PhD and subsequently into a residency program? Is it similar to medicine, where the likelihood of an international student getting into a US Medical School is basically 0%?
This will vary from program to program, but my experience is that international students are just as competative as those from within the country.
Linac-MR is totally a joke. It will never materialize. It is just like some physicists have nothing to do and just apply for some money to fill up their time. Or make their jobs sound like important......
I would second the recommendation. If you want to do MSc in Medical Physics, University of Alberta is an excellent place to be. There is lots of interesting research going on regarding the Linac-MR (most of which is covered by an NDA, so don't bother asking me for details), and an EE background would likely be an asset at the moment. You may need to take a few undergrad physics courses to get any background you're missing, but it shouldn't be too much. Feel free to PM me for more information, I'm a grad student here right now.
NeoDevin
Dec7-10, 09:20 PM
Linac-MR is totally a joke. It will never materialize. It is just like some physicists have nothing to do and just apply for some money to fill up their time. Or make their jobs sound like important......
Good to have the opinion of someone with firsthand knowledge... :rolleyes:
I have never commented publicly about the medical physics job market, and have never tied jobs to the global economy. While I may have opinions (in fact I would disagree with the opinion that you incorrectly attribute to me), I believe guaging the market is a very complex task. I have not directed the Michigan training program for the past 3 years, and as far as I know neither of the other Balter family members directs a training program or actively recruits trainees to their department's programs (Stephen Balter is not even in Radiation Oncology). You might want to try to get your facts straight.
There is no shortage in the medical physics field nor will there be in the foreseeable future. I realize that I might seem like the "glass half empty" type, but think about this:
1. The "slow" economy is not the source of the current problem as some would portray in other threads. There was never a shortage. Some guys, say Peter Balter (MD Anderson Cancer Center), or his brother James Balter (Univ Michigan) , or their father Stephen Balter (Columbia University Medical Center) made this statement up to draw in new recruits to their training programs around the US. Their programs, and others, are certification mills that feed each other. Once you are out of the queue, you are unemployed.
2. The aging population argument that some wish to place their "faith" in is a red herring. It is true that the population IS aging. But it would negate the "slow" economy supposition of #1. Consider that the population is aging and consequently, because they are baby boomers, expanding the need for medical physicists. Then the slow economy could not hold back the floodwater of demand for these same physicists.
The one place that has even tried to justify a shortage of medical physicists by publishing a study is looking for, u-hum, now pay attention, a health physicist. This is the University of Louisville advertising on the American Association of Physicists in Medicine website.
QED
AtomicPile
Dec20-10, 12:12 PM
I have never commented publicly about the medical physics job market, and have never tied jobs to the global economy.
Your language of "never commented publicly" is duly noted. I guess we will have to wait for the newspaper article, journal article or TV interview for the qualifier "publicly" to be true?
... as far as I know neither of the other Balter family members directs a training program or actively recruits trainees to their department's programs (Stephen Balter is not even in Radiation Oncology). You might want to try to get your facts straight.
I have my facts very straight.
You actively recruit by participating in the medical physics residency interview process. If a person participates in this behavior, then they are actively recruiting.
.
(Stephen Balter is not even in Radiation Oncology).
Really? So he is not in radiation oncology but he likes to publish articles discussing radiation oncology. For example,
"Anniversary paper: A sampling of novel technologies and the role of medical physicists in radiation oncology." Balter S, Balter JM. Med Phys. 2008 Dec;35(12):5641-52.
Assuming that you are James Balter, you should learn to take responsibility for your actions.
landongoggins
Dec29-10, 07:28 PM
I'm a sophomore in college and I'm researching medical physics right now. As I was talking to a classmate who is doing the same, we began to talk about radio-oncology also. What are the main differences between a medical physicist and a radio-oncologist? I mean in terms of education, pay, responsibilities, etc. Thanks for your contribution!
I'm a sophomore in college and I'm researching medical physics right now. As I was talking to a classmate who is doing the same, we began to talk about radio-oncology also. What are the main differences between a medical physicist and a radio-oncologist? I mean in terms of education, pay, responsibilities, etc. Thanks for your contribution!
A radiation oncologist is medical doctor specializing in treating people with radiation. Education-wise you're looking at 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school, then a 4-5 year (paid) residency and possibly a 1 year fellowship. This person is responsible for the care and treatment of individual patients. He or she will have a hand in diagnosing the cancer, determining the stage, and delineating exactly what areas on a set of images are in fact cancer, and then will prescribe the radiation, decide on the modality to use (external beam, brachytherapy, protons, etc.) and define specific limits to various tissues and organs.
You can read this thread for thorough description of a medical physicist, however in a nutshell, a medical physicist is a physicist. Their education is generally a 4 year undergraduate physics degree and at least a masters degree, but it's often a PhD. Further a 2 year (usually paid) residency is required to gain hands-on experience with the clinical aspects of the job. The medical physicist in radiation oncology is responsible for the proper operation of the treatment planning systems and the radiation delivery systems. This involves commissioning work, calibration, establishing and maintaining a quality assurance program, assessing and approving treatment plans, and assessing and fixing problems that occur within the clinic (which can involve everything from estimating the biological consequences of a patient missing several treatments, to writing a deformable image registration program to combine different images). There's a lot of responsibility because when a physicist makes a mistake in something like a calibration, it can effect every patient subsequently treated with the involved device. Personally, I would argue that we actually have more responsibility than a radiation oncologist in this respect, but our relative pay does not reflect this. You can look up the relative salaries in any of the online salary data archives.
landongoggins
Dec30-10, 06:49 PM
A radiation oncologist is medical doctor specializing in treating people with radiation. Education-wise you're looking at 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school, then a 4-5 year (paid) residency and possibly a 1 year fellowship. This person is responsible for the care and treatment of individual patients. He or she will have a hand in diagnosing the cancer, determining the stage, and delineating exactly what areas on a set of images are in fact cancer, and then will prescribe the radiation, decide on the modality to use (external beam, brachytherapy, protons, etc.) and define specific limits to various tissues and organs.
You can read this thread for thorough description of a medical physicist, however in a nutshell, a medical physicist is a physicist. Their education is generally a 4 year undergraduate physics degree and at least a masters degree, but it's often a PhD. Further a 2 year (usually paid) residency is required to gain hands-on experience with the clinical aspects of the job. The medical physicist in radiation oncology is responsible for the proper operation of the treatment planning systems and the radiation delivery systems. This involves commissioning work, calibration, establishing and maintaining a quality assurance program, assessing and approving treatment plans, and assessing and fixing problems that occur within the clinic (which can involve everything from estimating the biological consequences of a patient missing several treatments, to writing a deformable image registration program to combine different images). There's a lot of responsibility because when a physicist makes a mistake in something like a calibration, it can effect every patient subsequently treated with the involved device. Personally, I would argue that we actually have more responsibility than a radiation oncologist in this respect, but our relative pay does not reflect this. You can look up the relative salaries in any of the online salary data archives.
Thanks for your reply, it's very informative. It's always nice to have a description from someone with experience. I did look up the average salaries, and it seems radio-oncologists do make more on average. However, I think I am a lot more interested in Medical Physics. Also, from what I've read so far, it seems that if I want to do mainly clinical work I should plan on getting an M.S., and If I want to do research I should get a PhD. What is your recommendation? Thanks again!
My experience has been that PhDs are much more competative for the more desired positions compared to the MScs - even if you want to do mainly clinical work.
Diracula
Dec31-10, 09:33 AM
It looks like Vanderbilt has transitioned from a PhD program to a professional doctorate. Any information or opinions on this? How will a DMP affect the medical physics market and the demand for PhDs? Do DMPs still have to do a clinical residency since the last 2 years of their education are clinical in nature and are they more/less/equally competitive to PhDs with a residency? It may be too early to tell on some of these questions, but I'm guessing some people have a good idea on how a DMP will be viewed by hospitals... otherwise Vanderbilt wouldn't have made the switch.
It looks like Vanderbilt has transitioned from a PhD program to a professional doctorate. Any information or opinions on this? How will a DMP affect the medical physics market and the demand for PhDs? Do DMPs still have to do a clinical residency since the last 2 years of their education are clinical in nature and are they more/less/equally competitive to PhDs with a residency? It may be too early to tell on some of these questions, but I'm guessing some people have a good idea on how a DMP will be viewed by hospitals... otherwise Vanderbilt wouldn't have made the switch.
There's been a lot of debate in the medical physics community about whether this is a good idea or not. I see advantages and disadvantages to it, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
So that this isn't a complete rant, I should point out the advantages. First off, for the student you have a guarantee of clinical experience, so you avoid the uncertainty and stress of having to find a residency after your degree, which you need in order to eventually become certified. For the profession, the DMP also provides a somewhat faster track to train physicists (at least compared to anyone going the PhD route). This will assist in meeting the projected demand for medical physicists in the near future (those who believe that the market is already saturated are unlikely to see this as a positive). Further, graduates will have the prestige of the title "doctor" not given to anyone with an MSc. In the long run, if the vast majority of medical physicists have the "doctor" title, it becomes a visible distinction that is not always currently present.
My first major concern with these programs is their lack of emphasis on research and the subsequent consequences. Research, far more than course work, is what creates the skills to solve problems that have not yet been encountered, and for which there is no predetermined solution in the back of the textbook. It instills critical thinking skills, and a level of intellectual independence that cannot come from other forms of training. Further, this is the stage in a physicist's training where the physics is most deeply and intimately learned. While many medical physicists have careers that are almost entirely clinical in nature - "clinical" does not mean you won't encounter new technologies or new methodologies or problems that have not been solved. One of the most fundamental contributions a medical physicist makes to the radiotherapy team is his or her ability to solve problems. By eliminating this aspect of the training, you produce an inferior final product.
If you look back a few pages in this thread, you'll see some of the discussions I've had with others about whether or not a medical physicist is a "glorified technician." Something that hasn't been emphasized is the relationship between physicists and radiation therapists (RTs). RTs are very technically competant professionals and their training programs are now largely becoming degree-based (as opposed to a 2 year technical diploma). They vastly outnumber physicists and as a result have a strong political foundation that physicists can't field. If we produce medical physicsts, with minimal to no research experience, we become not that much different than RTs (there is, of course still an undergraduate physics background, and the didactic course work, which are not to be trivialized). But there is the risk that many medical physicists could be replacd by "advanced" RTs.
Another effect of reduced research emphasis is the overall effect on the radiation therapy field. With less medical physicists trained to do research, less medical physicists will do research and less progress will be made and the field will stagnate rather than grow and advance and improve.
Another concern I would have as a student considering a DMP program is pay. As a resident, you are paid for your services. My understanding is that these programs turn that around. For similar work, you end up having to pay. This extremely undervalues the work contributions that residents make to a department. While it is a learning position, residents will often do a lot of routine, skilled "grunt" work (QA, chart checks, etc) and getting people to pay to do this smacks of Tom Sawyer tricking the neighbourhood kids into whitewashing a fence.
There's been a lot of debate in the medical physics community about whether this is a good idea or not. I see advantages and disadvantages to it, but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
So that this isn't a complete rant, I should point out the advantages. First off, for the student you have a guarantee of clinical experience, so you avoid the uncertainty and stress of having to find a residency after your degree, which you need in order to eventually become certified. For the profession, the DMP also provides a somewhat faster track to train physicists (at least compared to anyone going the PhD route). This will assist in meeting the projected demand for medical physicists in the near future (those who believe that the market is already saturated are unlikely to see this as a positive). Further, graduates will have the prestige of the title "doctor" not given to anyone with an MSc. In the long run, if the vast majority of medical physicists have the "doctor" title, it becomes a visible distinction that is not always currently present.
My first major concern with these programs is their lack of emphasis on research and the subsequent consequences. Research, far more than course work, is what creates the skills to solve problems that have not yet been encountered, and for which there is no predetermined solution in the back of the textbook. It instills critical thinking skills, and a level of intellectual independence that cannot come from other forms of training. Further, this is the stage in a physicist's training where the physics is most deeply and intimately learned. While many medical physicists have careers that are almost entirely clinical in nature - "clinical" does not mean you won't encounter new technologies or new methodologies or problems that have not been solved. One of the most fundamental contributions a medical physicist makes to the radiotherapy team is his or her ability to solve problems. By eliminating this aspect of the training, you produce an inferior final product.
If you look back a few pages in this thread, you'll see some of the discussions I've had with others about whether or not a medical physicist is a "glorified technician." Something that hasn't been emphasized is the relationship between physicists and radiation therapists (RTs). RTs are very technically competant professionals and their training programs are now largely becoming degree-based (as opposed to a 2 year technical diploma). They vastly outnumber physicists and as a result have a strong political foundation that physicists can't field. If we produce medical physicsts, with minimal to no research experience, we become not that much different than RTs (there is, of course still an undergraduate physics background, and the didactic course work, which are not to be trivialized). But there is the risk that many medical physicists could be replacd by "advanced" RTs.
Another effect of reduced research emphasis is the overall effect on the radiation therapy field. With less medical physicists trained to do research, less medical physicists will do research and less progress will be made and the field will stagnate rather than grow and advance and improve.
Another concern I would have as a student considering a DMP program is pay. As a resident, you are paid for your services. My understanding is that these programs turn that around. For similar work, you end up having to pay. This extremely undervalues the work contributions that residents make to a department. While it is a learning position, residents will often do a lot of routine, skilled "grunt" work (QA, chart checks, etc) and getting people to pay to do this smacks of Tom Sawyer tricking the neighbourhood kids into whitewashing a fence.
For once I actually agree with you.
I have just become a member of The Physics Forum. I was happy to see that there is a medical physics thread . Some of what is written below is meant to address some of the previous discussions.
There are a lot of issues associated with being a successful medical physicist; formal education, clinical training, professional status, compensation, responsibility and even personality and temperament (especially encompassing communication and leadership skills).
I am a retired clinical medical physicist having worked in radiation oncology, diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and health physics over 30 yrs. I entered the field through a NIH post doctoral fellowship. I have dealt with all these issues at one time or another.
A firm grounding is physics is essential. You must think like physicist. Medical physics is not a venue to do things by rote. You must make sure you have all the required knowledge and understanding of the pertinent physical principles employed. There is a lot of routine and yes some things can be handled by a technologist or dosimetrist but it must always be timely reviewed by a competent medical physicist before an error can cause harm.
Clinical training not only involves learning what measurements to make and how to make them but also learning aspects of the jobs and needs of the other members of the team, physician, technologist, dosimetrist etc. You have a responsibility to them to provide necessary information and guidance for them to do their job safely and with confidence. You must be able to effectively communicate with them on their terms. You respect them and they will respect you. You are ethically required to intervene on any procedure you know or suspect will cause harm. Know the limits of your authority.
A certified medical physicist is the only non physician professional to be listed in the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not commensurate with a technician status. I know some physicians subvert this. But by enlarge most in my experience treat you as a colleague. Part of this relationship depends on the physicist and his or her ability to engage the physician so that the respect is first established and then maintained. If the cards are stacked aginst this type of relationship then seek other employment.
Is a good physicist worth $170K? You betcha! Of course this is commensurate with responsibilities. One careless lapse can kill or permanently injure scores of persons. One wrong assumption in calibration through improper training or not thinking like a physicist as was reported recently in the New York Times can do the same and bring embarrassment and severe financial repercussions. I was told by a hospital administrator that the reason he made such a high salary was that he would not be respected as well by the medical staff if he didn't. Think what you may but a measure of value is determined by salary. Physicists work hard routinely working 50+ hours a week and at odd hours and more on special projects. Federal and some state regulation require that only a properly trained physicist perform certain functions.
I had mentioned responsibility before relating to the physician and technologist. But it is for the patient that you have been hired. Your hired for the patient not as an assistant to the physician. Clinical physicists have direct patient contact. Patients to you are real persons some of whom you know. You are the only one in the clinic (even a healthcare system) who can do what you do. You are unique but someone always seem to want pigeon-hole you. Once the clinic manager rejected a my request to attend a yearly professional meeting because even nurses don't get to go every year and the budget is stretched. Fortunately the radiation oncologist intervened. Physicians work on the principle that there is alway money for good cause.
Finally and this is important, A lot of physicists create problems for themselves because of personality and temperament issues. They lack good communication skill , are abrasive, disrespectful, or not willing to speak up effectively for their cause. A lot of physicist are relegated to the background or their duties very much complicated because of this. You need to be a people person. You need to express yourself effectively with a whole spectrum of people on their level including fellow physicists, any physician who shares patients with your clinic, government regulators, hospital administrators, nurses, housekeepers, security personnel, maintenance/engineering personnel, vendors as well as your clinical colleagues. If you leave a job you should be able to get a recommendation from most of the persons with whom you have consistently interacted . I add one more item, professional appearance. In this age of "dress down" culture were jeans and T-shirts seem to be the norm, in the clinic wear a clean lab coat. Always wear a shirt and tie. With meetings outside the department a suit or sport coat. You look like a bum so will you be treated.
Medical physics can be an extremely satisfying profession for the right person.
landongoggins
Jan2-11, 03:00 PM
I have just become a member of The Physics Forum. I was happy to see that there is a medical physics thread . Some of what is written below is meant to address some of the previous discussions.
There are a lot of issues associated with being a successful medical physicist; formal education, clinical training, professional status, compensation, responsibility and even personality and temperament (especially encompassing communication and leadership skills).
I am a retired clinical medical physicist having worked in radiation oncology, diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and health physics over 30 yrs. I entered the field through a NIH post doctoral fellowship. I have dealt with all these issues at one time or another.
A firm grounding is physics is essential. You must think like physicist. Medical physics is not a venue to do things by rote. You must make sure you have all the required knowledge and understanding of the pertinent physical principles employed. There is a lot of routine and yes some things can be handled by a technologist or dosimetrist but it must always be timely reviewed by a competent medical physicist before an error can cause harm.
Clinical training not only involves learning what measurements to make and how to make them but also learning aspects of the jobs and needs of the other members of the team, physician, technologist, dosimetrist etc. You have a responsibility to them to provide necessary information and guidance for them to do their job safely and with confidence. You must be able to effectively communicate with them on their terms. You respect them and they will respect you. You are ethically required to intervene on any procedure you know or suspect will cause harm. Know the limits of your authority.
A certified medical physicist is the only non physician professional to be listed in the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not commensurate with a technician status. I know some physicians subvert this. But by enlarge most in my experience treat you as a colleague. Part of this relationship depends on the physicist and his or her ability to engage the physician so that the respect is first established and then maintained. If the cards are stacked aginst this type of relationship then seek other employment.
Is a good physicist worth $170K? You betcha! Of course this is commensurate with responsibilities. One careless lapse can kill or permanently injure scores of persons. One wrong assumption in calibration through improper training or not thinking like a physicist as was reported recently in the New York Times can do the same and bring embarrassment and severe financial repercussions. I was told by a hospital administrator that the reason he made such a high salary was that he would not be respected as well by the medical staff if he didn't. Think what you may but a measure of value is determined by salary. Physicists work hard routinely working 50+ hours a week and at odd hours and more on special projects. Federal and some state regulation require that only a properly trained physicist perform certain functions.
I had mentioned responsibility before relating to the physician and technologist. But it is for the patient that you have been hired. Your hired for the patient not as an assistant to the physician. Clinical physicists have direct patient contact. Patients to you are real persons some of whom you know. You are the only one in the clinic (even a healthcare system) who can do what you do. You are unique but someone always seem to want pigeon-hole you. Once the clinic manager rejected a my request to attend a yearly professional meeting because even nurses don't get to go every year and the budget is stretched. Fortunately the radiation oncologist intervened. Physicians work on the principle that there is alway money for good cause.
Finally and this is important, A lot of physicists create problems for themselves because of personality and temperament issues. They lack good communication skill , are abrasive, disrespectful, or not willing to speak up effectively for their cause. A lot of physicist are relegated to the background or their duties very much complicated because of this. You need to be a people person. You need to express yourself effectively with a whole spectrum of people on their level including fellow physicists, any physician who shares patients with your clinic, government regulators, hospital administrators, nurses, housekeepers, security personnel, maintenance/engineering personnel, vendors as well as your clinical colleagues. If you leave a job you should be able to get a recommendation from most of the persons with whom you have consistently interacted . I add one more item, professional appearance. In this age of "dress down" culture were jeans and T-shirts seem to be the norm, in the clinic wear a clean lab coat. Always wear a shirt and tie. With meetings outside the department a suit or sport coat. You look like a bum so will you be treated.
Medical physics can be an extremely satisfying profession for the right person.
Thanks for that post gleem! That has some great advice. I'm a sophomore and currently trying to decide between medical physics and economics, and your post is swaying me toward physics!
Right now I am an Applied Physics major, and I was wondering if that is okay if I wanted to go into Medical Physics, rather than getting a normal Physics degree. With Applied Physics I could take biology/anatomy classes that would count towards the major, making it easier to graduate. Any advice?
I have just become a member of The Physics Forum. I was happy to see that there is a medical physics thread . Some of what is written below is meant to address some of the previous discussions.
There are a lot of issues associated with being a successful medical physicist; formal education, clinical training, professional status, compensation, responsibility and even personality and temperament (especially encompassing communication and leadership skills).
I am a retired clinical medical physicist having worked in radiation oncology, diagnostic radiology, nuclear medicine and health physics over 30 yrs. I entered the field through a NIH post doctoral fellowship. I have dealt with all these issues at one time or another.
A firm grounding is physics is essential. You must think like physicist. Medical physics is not a venue to do things by rote. You must make sure you have all the required knowledge and understanding of the pertinent physical principles employed. There is a lot of routine and yes some things can be handled by a technologist or dosimetrist but it must always be timely reviewed by a competent medical physicist before an error can cause harm.
Clinical training not only involves learning what measurements to make and how to make them but also learning aspects of the jobs and needs of the other members of the team, physician, technologist, dosimetrist etc. You have a responsibility to them to provide necessary information and guidance for them to do their job safely and with confidence. You must be able to effectively communicate with them on their terms. You respect them and they will respect you. You are ethically required to intervene on any procedure you know or suspect will cause harm. Know the limits of your authority.
A certified medical physicist is the only non physician professional to be listed in the American Board of Medical Specialties. That is not commensurate with a technician status. I know some physicians subvert this. But by enlarge most in my experience treat you as a colleague. Part of this relationship depends on the physicist and his or her ability to engage the physician so that the respect is first established and then maintained. If the cards are stacked aginst this type of relationship then seek other employment.
Is a good physicist worth $170K? You betcha! Of course this is commensurate with responsibilities. One careless lapse can kill or permanently injure scores of persons. One wrong assumption in calibration through improper training or not thinking like a physicist as was reported recently in the New York Times can do the same and bring embarrassment and severe financial repercussions. I was told by a hospital administrator that the reason he made such a high salary was that he would not be respected as well by the medical staff if he didn't. Think what you may but a measure of value is determined by salary. Physicists work hard routinely working 50+ hours a week and at odd hours and more on special projects. Federal and some state regulation require that only a properly trained physicist perform certain functions.
I had mentioned responsibility before relating to the physician and technologist. But it is for the patient that you have been hired. Your hired for the patient not as an assistant to the physician. Clinical physicists have direct patient contact. Patients to you are real persons some of whom you know. You are the only one in the clinic (even a healthcare system) who can do what you do. You are unique but someone always seem to want pigeon-hole you. Once the clinic manager rejected a my request to attend a yearly professional meeting because even nurses don't get to go every year and the budget is stretched. Fortunately the radiation oncologist intervened. Physicians work on the principle that there is alway money for good cause.
Finally and this is important, A lot of physicists create problems for themselves because of personality and temperament issues. They lack good communication skill , are abrasive, disrespectful, or not willing to speak up effectively for their cause. A lot of physicist are relegated to the background or their duties very much complicated because of this. You need to be a people person. You need to express yourself effectively with a whole spectrum of people on their level including fellow physicists, any physician who shares patients with your clinic, government regulators, hospital administrators, nurses, housekeepers, security personnel, maintenance/engineering personnel, vendors as well as your clinical colleagues. If you leave a job you should be able to get a recommendation from most of the persons with whom you have consistently interacted . I add one more item, professional appearance. In this age of "dress down" culture were jeans and T-shirts seem to be the norm, in the clinic wear a clean lab coat. Always wear a shirt and tie. With meetings outside the department a suit or sport coat. You look like a bum so will you be treated.
Medical physics can be an extremely satisfying profession for the right person.
I'm going to have to call ******** here. Not one medical physicist who claimed they need a background in physics on this forum has been able to substantiate that claim with examples of how they used physics in their jobs.
Thanks for that post gleem! That has some great advice. I'm a sophomore and currently trying to decide between medical physics and economics, and your post is swaying me toward physics!
Right now I am an Applied Physics major, and I was wondering if that is okay if I wanted to go into Medical Physics, rather than getting a normal Physics degree. With Applied Physics I could take biology/anatomy classes that would count towards the major, making it easier to graduate. Any advice?
In general applied physics is an acceptable background. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, most of medical physics is applied physics. That being said, I don't know what constitutes an "applied physics" degree at your school. I'm assuming that it's a regular honours physics degree, with perhaps more labs and electronics, rather than senior undergrad courses in things like cosmology or general relativity. A quick email to some of the medical physics graduate programs that you might be considering can let you know for sure.
Thanks for that post gleem! That has some great advice. I'm a sophomore and currently trying to decide between medical physics and economics, and your post is swaying me toward physics!
Right now I am an Applied Physics major, and I was wondering if that is okay if I wanted to go into Medical Physics, rather than getting a normal Physics degree. With Applied Physics I could take biology/anatomy classes that would count towards the major, making it easier to graduate. Any advice?
In general applied physics is an acceptable background. As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, most of medical physics is applied physics. That being said, I don't know what constitutes an "applied physics" degree at your school. I'm assuming that it's a regular honours physics degree, with perhaps more labs and electronics, rather than senior undergrad courses in things like cosmology or general relativity. A quick email to some of the medical physics graduate programs that you might be considering can let you know for sure. (
I'm sorry that I did not get back to you sooner. I am in an area with sporadic access to the internet. My responses may take a while (days?) and discussions will be protracted. If necessary I do have fairly prompt access to a reliable email service for text only messages.
I agree that applied physics (aside: There seems to be some controversy about using these words together.) is an appropriate program for pursuing a career in medical physics (aside: again?). The A&P course is good to get out of the way. I concur with Choppy with the additional suggestion that you look for several graduate programs and their research activities that interest you. You might find some electives that will provide you with additional "tools" for your future endeavors. You never know what the future holds for you so prepare as best you can. The more you know the better.
Good Luck.
NeoDevin
Jan4-11, 12:55 PM
I'm going to have to call ******** here. Not one medical physicist who claimed they need a background in physics on this forum has been able to substantiate that claim with examples of how they used physics in their jobs.
You seem to think that because one is not doing "fundamental" physics research that one is not actually doing physics. Applied physics and computational physics (which covers a large percentage of medical physics) are still physics. My research consists almost entirely of computational solutions to E/M problems. Would you consider this to "need a background in physics"?
Magnetic/RF shielding, radiation shielding, and dosimetry calculation are three areas of clinical medical physics that require a background in physics. If you're verifying a dosimetry calculation, and there is a discrepancy, it is important to know why there is a difference in order to know the clinical significance. It is impossible to know 'why' without at least a basic understanding of radiation transport. When designing/testing radiation shielding, it is important to know how much scatter radiation there will be in any given direction to know how much shielding will be required and where to make radiation measurements (also how to position a radiation machine in the first place to minimize shielding requirements). In order to design/test magnetic for an MRI, it is important to know how magnetic and RF fields interact with whatever shielding material you intend to use. All of these require at least a basic understanding of physics. For certain you won't use everything you learned in undergrad physics on every problem in medical physics, but the vast majority of it gets used somewhere. And that is just clinical duties...
For research there are (to list a few): Image reconstruction algorithms, new dosimetry algorithms, MRI pulse sequences, linac design, linac-MR. All of these require a thourough understanding of the underlying physics.
I hope we can finally put the claim that "medical physics doesn't require any physics knowledge" to rest.
AtomicPile
Jan4-11, 10:40 PM
Has anyone noticed that the medical physics job postings are drying up? Right now all I am seeing are lots and lots of residency ads. No permanent work, just residencies.
What about the AAPM website? Do you think the AAPM has given up on 'members only' job postings?
Hello. Are there people who works with Penelope(Monte carlo calculation program)?
You're a MedPhys grad student and you want to buy ONE of the following books ... what would be your pick and why?
I need to decide in 2 days!
1) Physics of Radiology, Fourth Edition
by Harold Elford Johns, John Robert Cunningham
2)The Physics of Radiation Therapy: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management
by Faiz M Khan.
Thanks.
Both are classics.
Johns and Cunningham was last published in 1983 or 1984 I believe, so it's certainly dated. It's considered a "bible" of medical physics though, so the advantage of having it is that the figures in it are what all of your instructors are likely to be familiar with.
I probably open my copy of Khan more often, and he has a new edition out in 2009, I believe, so it's more up to date. It also tends to be a little more practical.
If you're looking for a great go-to book for all things medical physics, you might want to consider The Handbook of Radiotherapy Physics by Mayles, Nahum, and Rosenwald.
You're a MedPhys grad student and you want to buy ONE of the following books ... what would be your pick and why?
I need to decide in 2 days!
1) Physics of Radiology, Fourth Edition
by Harold Elford Johns, John Robert Cunningham
2)The Physics of Radiation Therapy: Mechanisms, Diagnosis, and Management
by Faiz M Khan.
Thanks.
Johns and Cunningham is a much better book for a student. It will help build your intuition about the physical processes that are important in radiology and radiation therapy. Khan contains a lot of fancy diagrams, plots, and data that might be useful for a clinician as a reference but it won't help you learn the material unless you love memorizing raw data and equations.
So my answer is: Johns and Cunningham now, Khan later.
Robot86
Jan13-11, 12:37 PM
Great! The question sunk into Oblivion=(
Great! The question sunk into Oblivion=(
I replied to you via PM.
Catsworth
Jan13-11, 03:24 PM
"Great! The question sunk into Oblivion=( "
Hey, I'd like to know the answer to this too.
And by the way, can anyone lend some insight into the hostile tone of this thread?
Meow,
Catsworth
And by the way, can anyone lend some insight into the hostile tone of this thread?
There seemed to be a few members who are really upset about the Medical Physics education system and/or whether Medical Physics is actually Physics (using their own personal, generally unaccepted definition of physics). They are the ones "yelling the loudest" to make sure everyone hears them. Which is fine. This is the internet and you should ALWAYS take everything on the internet with a healthy serving of skepticism until you review the facts and data personally.
There seems to be, in general, two sides, each with what seems a vested interest in the topic. Why exactly one side is so extremely hostile is unknown to me.
There seemed to be a few members who are really upset about the Medical Physics education system and/or whether Medical Physics is actually Physics (using their own personal, generally unaccepted definition of physics). They are the ones "yelling the loudest" to make sure everyone hears them. Which is fine. This is the internet and you should ALWAYS take everything on the internet with a healthy serving of skepticism until you review the facts and data personally.
There seems to be, in general, two sides, each with what seems a vested interest in the topic. Why exactly one side is so extremely hostile is unknown to me.
One side is generally hostile because the other side is generally oblivious or perhaps willfully ignorant. I recently attended a talk from a noted medical physicist who said himself during the talk: MEDICAL PHYSICISTS HAVE ALREADY BECOME TECHNICIANS. There is no doubt about it as many medical physicists are beginning to realize.
The other side (the willfully ignorant one) does not look at the larger picture. Rather, they draw only on anecdotal evidence from the own subjective experience. When challenged they respond with passive-aggressive language with condescending overtones. They are wrong, but they will never admit to it.
One faction is particularly loud and aggressive because we want to see change in the medical physics community. Only by admitting the shortcomings of the field can it be improved. The problems will not go away by ignoring them. One can imagine a future medical physicists are licensed with minimal training, perhaps only by the vendor whose machines they are responsible for. We would rather maintain the position of medical physicist as a highly trained, problem solving professional who applies his or her knowledge towards solving medical problems, not a technician who simply calibrates machines and schedules patients (as many medical physicists now do).
We claim that there's no physics in current medical physics because there's simply not. Go read any radiation oncology paper and compare it to recently published physics literature and then I defy you to claim that medical physicists are doing physics research. They are not.
The research done in medical physics should be called "medical physics research", where "medical physics" is now read as a single term that defines whatever research is done by medical physicists; it is separate and distinct from the research done in physics, and that is fine, but it needs to be made clear.
Another reason we are so vocal is that many students are drawn into medical physics without a good handle on what it actually consists of. Furthermore, medical physics programs mislead students into thinking physics is the best preparation for their work when in reality biomedical engineering graduates are better trained for medical physics graduate school. Maybe they haven't learned the Schrodinger equation, but they don't need it.
Finally, we are vocal because we believe there is in fact an oversupply of medical physics graduates and that programs and bodies such as the AAPM falsely perpetuate the notion that there is a shortage of medical physicists.
Just to be upfront, I have no stake in the Medical Physics game. I work in nuclear physics and space radiation.
We claim that there's no physics in current medical physics because there's simply not. Go read any radiation oncology paper and compare it to recently published physics literature and then I defy you to claim that medical physicists are doing physics research. They are not.
I have no clue why anyone would read a paper on radiation oncology and expect to find physics in it. That is like picking up a paper on nuclear physics and expecting it to be about radar signatures. They are completely unrelated. :confused:
Another reason we are so vocal is that many students are drawn into medical physics without a good handle on what it actually consists of.
Is this not the students fault? There own notions and ideas are only their own. If they do not understand what they are getting into before they start the program it is their own fault.
In addition, can you back up your assertion of "many students" with any sort of hard numbers? Statements of opinion masked as fact make me very suspicious of anything else you say.
Furthermore, medical physics programs mislead students into thinking physics is the best preparation for their work when in reality biomedical engineering graduates are better trained for medical physics graduate school. Maybe they haven't learned the Schrodinger equation, but they don't need it.
Surely there are multiple ways to go about preparing for any graduate program that does not have an exact undergraduate program backing up the graduate program. Again, I think you are stating opinion as fact. Can you prove that biomedical engineering is a better background? Seems to me you are providing a lot of anecdotal evidence from the own subjective experience.
Diracula
Jan14-11, 11:54 AM
Is it possible to work as a medical physicist with a PhD specializing in high energy theory? The reason I ask is I find HEP more interesting than medical physics, but I acknowledge the superior career options of a medical physicist. I still find medical physics interesting, just not as much as HEP. Basically, I'm trying to decide between doing a PhD for pure interest in the field, or doing a PhD for career prospects.
For example, could I complete a PhD in particle/high energy theory then do a clinical residency in medical physics and be competitive for the best medical physics jobs? Or are clinical residencies only accepting people with MS/PhDs in medical physics?
NeoDevin
Jan14-11, 11:55 AM
We claim that there's no physics in current medical physics because there's simply not. Go read any radiation oncology paper and compare it to recently published physics literature and then I defy you to claim that medical physicists are doing physics research. They are not.
I thought I put that claim to rest with this post (speaking of "willful ignorance", I notice that you chose not to respond to this post):
You seem to think that because one is not doing "fundamental" physics research that one is not actually doing physics. Applied physics and computational physics (which covers a large percentage of medical physics) are still physics. My research consists almost entirely of computational solutions to E/M problems. Would you consider this to "need a background in physics"?
Magnetic/RF shielding, radiation shielding, and dosimetry calculation are three areas of clinical medical physics that require a background in physics. If you're verifying a dosimetry calculation, and there is a discrepancy, it is important to know why there is a difference in order to know the clinical significance. It is impossible to know 'why' without at least a basic understanding of radiation transport. When designing/testing radiation shielding, it is important to know how much scatter radiation there will be in any given direction to know how much shielding will be required and where to make radiation measurements (also how to position a radiation machine in the first place to minimize shielding requirements). In order to design/test magnetic for an MRI, it is important to know how magnetic and RF fields interact with whatever shielding material you intend to use. All of these require at least a basic understanding of physics. For certain you won't use everything you learned in undergrad physics on every problem in medical physics, but the vast majority of it gets used somewhere. And that is just clinical duties...
For research there are (to list a few): Image reconstruction algorithms, new dosimetry algorithms, MRI pulse sequences, linac design, linac-MR. All of these require a thourough understanding of the underlying physics.
I hope we can finally put the claim that "medical physics doesn't require any physics knowledge" to rest.
NeoDevin
Jan14-11, 12:12 PM
One side is generally hostile because the other side is generally oblivious or perhaps willfully ignorant. I recently attended a talk from a noted medical physicist who said himself during the talk: MEDICAL PHYSICISTS HAVE ALREADY BECOME TECHNICIANS. There is no doubt about it as many medical physicists are beginning to realize.
Or perhaps, one side takes offense to being called "willfully ignorant" about medical physics, despite being active members of the medical physics community.
The research done in medical physics should be called "medical physics research", where "medical physics" is now read as a single term that defines whatever research is done by medical physicists; it is separate and distinct from the research done in physics, and that is fine, but it needs to be made clear.
How do you define "research done in physics". If you define away each sub-discipline and applied branch of physics, there wouldn't be anything left.
Another reason we are so vocal is that many students are drawn into medical physics without a good handle on what it actually consists of.
That's their fault. Some of us actually bothered to look into our graduate program and the resulting career prospects before applying. My graduate program told me up front that many of the jobs are QA positions, and that research positions are more competitive.
Furthermore, medical physics programs mislead students into thinking physics is the best preparation for their work when in reality biomedical engineering graduates are better trained for medical physics graduate school.
Physics is the best preparation for medical physics, for the simple fact that most medical physics programs are structured based on the assumption that students are coming from an underground physics background. In my courses, we covered all the BME needed, while glossing over much of the physics. They could certainly redesign the courses so that they don't cover the BME in as much depth, and instead go over basic physics. The fact remains that: Given the way medical physics courses are currently structured, physics is the best preparation. You keep insisting (without supporting your claim) that no physics whatsoever is required for medical physics.
Maybe they haven't learned the Schrodinger equation, but they don't need it.
Oh, wow. One example of one topic covered in undergrad physics that doesn't see much use in medical physics. You sure proved your case that no physics is required. Never mind that anyone doing Monte Carlo radiation transport calculations for their research is indirectly using the Schrödinger equation. Just because you don't refer to it during every calculation, doesn't mean that it's unimportant to know. In order to know which approximations are valid (and there are always some approximations that have to be made), it's important to know where the various parameters come from, and how they are derived.
NeoDevin
Jan14-11, 12:15 PM
Is it possible to work as a medical physicist with a PhD specializing in high energy theory? The reason I ask is I find HEP more interesting than medical physics, but I acknowledge the superior career options of a medical physicist. I still find medical physics interesting, just not as much as HEP. Basically, I'm trying to decide between doing a PhD for pure interest in the field, or doing a PhD for career prospects.
For example, could I complete a PhD in particle/high energy theory then do a clinical residency in medical physics and be competitive for the best medical physics jobs? Or are clinical residencies only accepting people with MS/PhDs in medical physics?
I've never been in a position of hiring someone, so take this with a grain of salt (you'd be better to speak to the medical physics department of your nearest university/hospital about their criteria for choosing residents).
If you bring some specialized skills from your work in HEP that whatever group you are applying to is looking for, it may make your application stand out, and give you an advantage over someone with a medical physics background. Barring that, I would imagine they would hire someone with a known background that someone with an unknown (to them) background.
Just to be upfront, I have no stake in the Medical Physics game. I work in nuclear physics and space radiation.
I have no clue why anyone would read a paper on radiation oncology and expect to find physics in it. That is like picking up a paper on nuclear physics and expecting it to be about radar signatures. They are completely unrelated. :confused:
Is this not the students fault? There own notions and ideas are only their own. If they do not understand what they are getting into before they start the program it is their own fault.
In addition, can you back up your assertion of "many students" with any sort of hard numbers? Statements of opinion masked as fact make me very suspicious of anything else you say.
Surely there are multiple ways to go about preparing for any graduate program that does not have an exact undergraduate program backing up the graduate program. Again, I think you are stating opinion as fact. Can you prove that biomedical engineering is a better background? Seems to me you are providing a lot of
I am perfectly fine basing my arguments on anecdotal evidence. Unless you know of sociological surveys of the community of medical physicists and their students there is no hard evidence.
Or perhaps, one side takes offense to being called "willfully ignorant" about medical physics, despite being active members of the medical physics community.
How do you define "research done in physics". If you define away each sub-discipline and applied branch of physics, there wouldn't be anything left.
That's their fault. Some of us actually bothered to look into our graduate program and the resulting career prospects before applying. My graduate program told me up front that many of the jobs are QA positions, and that research positions are more competitive.
Physics is the best preparation for medical physics, for the simple fact that most medical physics programs are structured based on the assumption that students are coming from an underground physics background. In my courses, we covered all the BME needed, while glossing over much of the physics. They could certainly redesign the courses so that they don't cover the BME in as much depth, and instead go over basic physics. The fact remains that: Given the way medical physics courses are currently structured, physics is the best preparation. You keep insisting (without supporting your claim) that no physics whatsoever is required for medical physics.
Oh, wow. One example of one topic covered in undergrad physics that doesn't see much use in medical physics. You sure proved your case that no physics is required. Never mind that anyone doing Monte Carlo radiation transport calculations for their research is indirectly using the Schrödinger equation. Just because you don't refer to it during every calculation, doesn't mean that it's unimportant to know. In order to know which approximations are valid (and there are always some approximations that have to be made), it's important to know where the various parameters come from, and how they are derived.
I didn't say you were willfully ignorant about medical physics, only about the issues. Your knowledge of the subject is irrelevant.
Anyone doing Monte Carlo calculation is using EGSnrc and plugging in numbers. Are they writing the code? No. You do not need to know physics to perform Monte Carlo calculations any more than you need to know 3D animation to enjoy "The Matrix"
And I'm telling you, from personal experience, that medical physics classes are not structured around physics. Have you even taken medical physics courses? What evidence is there? Well, every example you and Choppy give of things that you do can be done without physics. Every single one. I defy you to come up with an example of something done in medical physics that only training in physics can provide.
I've never been in a position of hiring someone, so take this with a grain of salt (you'd be better to speak to the medical physics department of your nearest university/hospital about their criteria for choosing residents).
If you bring some specialized skills from your work in HEP that whatever group you are applying to is looking for, it may make your application stand out, and give you an advantage over someone with a medical physics background. Barring that, I would imagine they would hire someone with a known background that someone with an unknown (to them) background.
At my location very few persons with medical physics backgrounds land residencies. The reason for that is that medical physics graduate education is largely irrelevant to clinical skills. They will take you in and retrain you to be a clinician in about a year. The fact that that's even possible should tell you something about the state of medical physics and medical physics education.
NeoDevin
Jan14-11, 01:16 PM
Anyone doing Monte Carlo calculation is using EGSnrc and plugging in numbers. Are they writing the code? No. You do not need to know physics to perform Monte Carlo calculations any more than you need to know 3D animation to enjoy "The Matrix"
Not everyone is using EGSnrc (though many are). There are many parameters to adjust in any Monte Carlo program. While you could conceivably run a simulation without knowing anything about those parameters, their significance, or their origins, and simply using the defaults for everything, you would spend far more time than necessary (and far more time than most researchers have available) waiting for results. In order to get results in anything near a reasonable time for any remotely complex system requires many optimizations which simply cannot be done without at least a basic understanding of the underlying process. Are you going to use every single bit of knowledge while working of each problem? Of course not. I never used my knowledge of fluid dynamics when I was doing research in condensed matter either.
And I'm telling you, from personal experience, that medical physics classes are not structured around physics. Have you even taken medical physics courses?
I finished my didactic courses last year, and have been doing research and (basic) clinical work since. There was a lot of assumed knowledge from undergrad physics. When learning about linacs, it was assumed that we understood basic E/M, when learning about radiation physics and radiation biology, it was assumed that we understood QM. It was not assumed, in radiation biology, that we had any background in biology, physiology, or medicine. Anything that should have been covered in undergrad physics, was assumed, and glossed over. Anything biology related that was required, was gone over in (painful) detail. That is why I say that the courses are currently structured around a physics background.
What evidence is there? Well, every example you and Choppy give of things that you do can be done without physics. Every single one. I defy you to come up with an example of something done in medical physics that only training in physics can provide.
You haven't addressed a single one of the examples I referred to in my earlier post. Why should I bother to post more. At this point, I think you are simply trolling. Until you have something constructive to add, I won't be responding to any more of your posts.
I am perfectly fine basing my arguments on anecdotal evidence. Unless you know of sociological surveys of the community of medical physicists and their students there is no hard evidence.
First of all, well done responding to the rest of my post.
Second, I really enjoy how it is OK for you to present "anecdotal evidence from [your] own subjective experience" while complaining about the "willfully ignorant" side not looking at the bigger picture and only presenting their "anecdotal evidence from their own subjective experience."
The other side (the willfully ignorant one) does not look at the larger picture. Rather, they draw only on anecdotal evidence from the own subjective experience. When challenged they respond with passive-aggressive language with condescending overtones. They are wrong, but they will never admit to it.
Third, why should I respect your anecdotal evidence instead of the medical physics communities' anecdotal evidence?
Fourth, the onus is not on me to provide evidence to back up your statements. The onus is on you.
I think the only conclusion to draw from this is neodevin's: you are trolling.
ZapperZ
Jan14-11, 03:11 PM
For some odd reason, discussion on a career in medical physics in this thread seems to spark a lot of nastiness. This thread is closed.
Zz.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.