It Is Time for Physician–Scientists to Lead Their Own Development

The term physician–scientist is now familiar within the Korean medical and research community, but just a decade ago, the term medical scientist was more commonly used.1 According to Cho (2024),2 during the graduate-level medical education system, MD–PhD dual degree programs were implemented to train medical scientists. However, following the return to an undergraduate medical education system, the term physician–scientist came into broader use. This shift reflects a more specific strategy for training professionals—not only those with medical knowledge, but licensed physicians who also hold a PhD degree. Additionally, the scope of physician–scientist training was expanded to include clinicians actively involved in research.1 This training strategy has continued to evolve over the years, leading to the establishment of a structured system that now encompasses the full developmental continuum—the so-called “full-cycle training system.”

In this opinion article, we review major research efforts—many of which have not been widely recognized—that contributed to the formulation of Korea’s current physician–scientist training system and policies, and propose essential developmental strategies that should be considered by the soon-to-be-established Korean Physician–Scientist Association.

Research Efforts on Physician–Scientist Development in Korea

In Korea, numerous studies have been conducted to examine strategies for developing physician–scientists, many of them led by physician–scientists themselves. Key initiatives are summarized below.

In 2018, the Ministry of Health and Welfare launched a project titled “Study on the Competency-Building Program for Physician Scientists” as part of the Health Technology R&D Program.3 This laid the groundwork for the initiation of an Integrated Physician–Scientist Training Program. Subsequently, the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) conducted two major studies: “Study on the Reform Plan for the Physician Training System to Support Physician–Scientists” in 2019 and “Study on the Policy Planning for the Development of Physician–Scientist” in 2022.4,5 These studies identified the foundational requirements for physician–scientist training, proposed practical educational curricula, outlined definitions and challenges, and presented ten key policy recommendations—some of which have since been implemented.

More recently, the Training Center for Innovative Medical Scientists conducted a study titled “Strategic Planning for Physician–Scientist Development,” which evaluated the strategic importance and urgency of physician–scientist training.6 Based on survey data from physician–scientists, recent graduates, and current students, the study highlighted key policy priorities such as expanding R&D support by career stage and establishing a framework for calculating research-based salary compensation (Fig. 1). These findings led to the proposal of seven major policy directions, sparking ongoing discussions for establishing a more structured training foundation.

Fig. 1. Importance and urgency of key policies.

In addition, the National Academy of Medicine of Korea published a report on “The Current Status and Training Strategies for the Next Generation of Basic Medical Scientists,”7 and the Korea Association of Medical Colleges (KAMC) released a report on “The Status and Prospects of Basic Medical Education,”8 emphasizing the importance of nurturing future researchers in basic medical science.

In 2018, Choi et al.9 analyzed international cases and presented implications for Korea's physician–scientist training pathways. Since then, further research in Korea has addressed not only the current status and support needs of physician–scientists but also strategies for building a hospital-centered innovative research ecosystem.2,10,11,12 Some of these studies offered broad policy recommendations, while others focused on stage-specific strategies. However, gaps remain, particularly in reaching consensus on the definition of physician–scientists and in developing detailed, stage-based implementation plans. Moreover, the scope of research has gradually expanded to include basic medical education as well as the training of Korean medicine-based physician–scientists.13,14

A recent comprehensive study proposed an operational definition of physician–scientists as

“a physician who has completed medical education and training, obtained a master’s degree or higher, and actively engages in biomedical research.”1

The study also provided a comprehensive analysis of previous projects, research and literature, offering a structural analysis and strategic recommendations for Korea’s physician–scientist training system across the entire developmental continuum. Despite these ongoing efforts, critical challenges remain. Although a full-cycle support framework has been established since 2019, issues such as limited research opportunities for students, lack of research-intensive curricula, absence of a systematic MD–PhD track, underdeveloped career support systems, and the absence of baseline data on the physician–scientist workforce continue to hinder progress. These unresolved issues remain significant barriers to building a physician–scientist–friendly ecosystem in Korea (Fig. 2).1,6

Fig. 2. Relative progress of key policies. Arrow length reflects the relative progress of each policy item, with longer arrows indicating more advanced stages of planning or implementation.

In particular, medical schools and affiliated teaching hospitals that explicitly prioritize the training of physician–scientists must take proactive steps to advance this agenda. The recent transition to a six-year integrated medical education system offers a timely opportunity to restructure curricula so that physician–scientist training is embedded from the early stages of education, helping medical students identify and pursue this career path. This could involve the implementation of integrated bachelor’s and master’s degree programs or other combined MD–PhD programs that shorten and streamline the academic pathway. Furthermore, long-term sustainability of physician–scientist training requires strategic policy planning that extends beyond short-term pilot projects. Both government and private initiatives should be sustained for at least a decade to ensure continuity and growth in research environments and career development support. Academic institutions must therefore collaborate closely with policymakers to establish a robust, enduring ecosystem for physician–scientist development.

Current Status and Future Directions

Over the years, the government, academia, and research institutions in Korea have made significant efforts to construct and improve the physician–scientist training system. However, the focus must now shift beyond institutional diagnosis to a more fundamental question: who will lead this transformation? The answer is clear—physician–scientists themselves must take the lead.

Physician–scientists are not simply experts who straddle clinical medicine and basic science; they are academic leaders who integrate both domains to generate new knowledge. Accordingly, it is the physician–scientists themselves who are best positioned to design and drive the systems that will train future physician–scientists.6,12

Recent government-led initiatives, including the Integrated Physician–Scientist Training Program and the Global Physician–Scientist Training Program, have provided a practical foundation for strengthening research competencies. In particular, the KAMC Training Center for Innovative Medical Scientists, which supports international research fellowships, has played a pivotal role in building both domestic and international networks and in contributing to policy development for physician–scientist training. These initiatives mark a critical turning point. Yet the success of these systems ultimately depends on the proactive engagement of the individuals within them.6,12

The upcoming establishment of the Korean Physician–Scientist Association will represent another major inflection point. This association must become more than a professional network—it should serve as a platform that strengthens physician–scientist identity, clarifies career paths, and introduces the next generation of doctors to research-oriented careers.6 Senior physician–scientists must actively take on roles as mentors, system designers, and policy advocates.1,6 Moving forward, the association should lead the formulation of key development policies and contribute to solving persistent challenges. The forthcoming association is expected to be driven not only by senior physician–scientists who bear responsibility for training, but also by passionate early-career physician–scientists committed to strengthening the next generation.

It is particularly important that the association collaborate closely with the government and academic institutions, not for short-term results, but to help sustain long-term, consistent policy development.1 Identifying and promoting success stories will not only be crucial in helping young physicians envision realistic and appealing paths toward research careers, but will also foster a sense of professional identity and pride in the profession of physician-scientists.6 Furthermore, establishing social consensus on the definition of physician–scientists and developing a national database on their current status and activity are foundational tasks.

Physician–scientists must also take the lead in major national discussions, such as building a supportive research ecosystem and establishing a Korean equivalent to the NIH. They should approach policy development, public discourse, and strategic planning with the same rigor as they apply to scientific research. Collaboration with the KAMC Training Center for Innovative Medical Scientists will also be vital to expand global networks and to establish training and research environments that meet international standards. In doing so, physician–scientists can take leadership in both domestic and global academic communities, while enhancing Korea’s international research competitiveness.

In the United States, the American Society for Clinical Investigation and the American Physician Scientists Association (APSA) are two representative organizations that support physician–scientists. Notably, APSA works to expand access to research careers for trainees. Together, these organizations collaborate to offer mentorship programs and serve as role models for physician–scientist–led development.15 Other international associations include the International Consortium of Clinician Scientist Trainee Organizations, the Association Médecine Pharmacie Science, the Clinician Investigator Trainees Association of Canada, the Swiss MD–PhD Association, the European MD–PhD Association, and the Asian Medical Students Association, all of which aim to promote physician–scientist training and advocacy.16

Perspectives

Korea has already established much of the institutional groundwork for physician–scientist development. However, genuine transformation will only begin when physician–scientists on the ground step forward and take ownership of this foundation. We no longer need to ask, “Who will solve this problem?” The time has come to ask, “How will we solve it?” Through the collective efforts of the Korean Physician–Scientist Association, the Training Center for Innovative Medical Scientists, and the physician–scientists dedicated to research and education in their respective fields, we can begin to shape a research environment that will inspire and support the next generation.

Now is the time for physician–scientists to act—with purpose, leadership, and a shared vision for the future.