<p>1) I work at a biomedical research facility and I can assure you that a literature review is considered a very weak research activity for scientists and physicians who work in academia. In fact, bibliographic development is more typically done by support staff–i.e. a librarian. Significant literature reviews (those that are published) are usually done by leading experts in their own unique area of expertise. Since you’re not a scientific expert at this point, almost anything you’d do would be not publishable and may not be especially correct or meaningful. To be blunt, at this point in your educational career you lack the necessary discriminatory judgment to conduct a well-done literature review. You also probably lack the necessary background in statistics to complete an accurate analysis about the methodology of most journal articles. </p>
<p>A literature review is typically a necessary first step in developing a research concept to the grant-writing stage. In that sense it’s valuable. Data mining and retrospective data/epidemiological analysis also useful scientific activities/tools–but I doubt you would be doing either since that seems beyond the scope of the BLS program.</p>
<p>I am additionally very skeptical of any “research opportunity” that charges for the privilege. Research opportunities are mostly volunteer or paid activities. (Both my kids certainly got paid for their work in a variety of research labs.) </p>
<p>Pay-to-play opportunities are viewed very negatively in academic circles. What you’re basically doing is paying for the LOR you’ll received at the end of the program. That’s extremely unprofessional since it places an obligation on the letter writer and will cause the letter be to be viewed as “tainted” and unreliable.</p>
<p>2) I hate to break it to you, but lab research is not glamorous and involves a lot of drudge work–which is why research labs accept untrained but willing hands (i.e. undergrads) in the first place. Undergrads have few to zero useful skills when they start out in the lab and are, in 99.9% of cases, a liability and a drain on lab productivity. It’s not surprising in the least that labs expect newbies “pay their dues” by dishwashing or serving as factotums for the more experienced (and productive) lab members. It’s a kind of an apprenticeship period all lab newbies need to endure. I can promise if you hang during the apprenticeship period, follow directions well, do additional outside readings on the research topic, demonstrate an interest and ask intelligent questions, and, most importantly, don’t screw up, you will advance beyond mere grunt work. Scientists for the most part love what they do. (Otherwise they wouldn’t be doing research in the first place. I can tell you as the spouse of a research scientist they certainly aren’t raking in the big bucks doing it.) They are always ready to encourage young minds who demonstrate a genuine interest in and aptitude for research. Those minds are the future of the profession.</p>
<p>The difference between a letter from IRL prof and and “internet source” is huge. The IRL prof hopefully has had contact with you in situation other than you being a passive consumer of their lectures. (And if they haven’t, then that prof is a very poor choice to seek a LOR from.) They can speak about your interests, your enthusiasm for your research project or your career as a physician, your interests, your intellectual curiosity, your interpersonal people skills, your leadership potential. In short, they can address those soft factors which are critical for med school admission. Additionally an IRL professor has a professional reputation to maintain for his acumen and judgment of the potential of his students. Frankly, internet “adjunct instructors” do not. (And may not even be locatable/responsive should a adcomm decide to contact them.)</p>
<p>Internet coursework/internet interaction is an extremely artificial and limited mode of communication and makes it very difficult to accurately assess someone’s real persona.</p>