PhD vs MD for Biotech ER

Let me clarify. I meant Harvard philosophy (bachelors) vs university of alabama biology (bachelors).

Obviously when you take into account PhDs and MDs those degrees trump undergraduate education.

@NegativeEPS I'll try not to belabor my points inasmuch as my views are consonant with @Draper Specter and Co. & also because I don't seek to make enemies, given that ER is — ipso facto — a small industry and I strongly suspect you were trained as a MD yourself

Nevertheless:

• Very very difficult to get into a medical school anywhere in the states. Best medical school has a 2% acceptance rate vs 5% for some of the worst. PhD programs are plentiful very easy to get accepted into one.
  - Even as I accept your statement that PhD programs are plentiful, isn't the medical school acceptance rate argument just a heuristic you've leveraging for brevity's sake without interrogating any of the underlying drivers? From a macro perspective, a great deal of that vaunted low acceptance rate is simply one second-order effect of an erroneous policy decision made during the otherwise deregulatory Reagan administration as I once wrote for a client:
  
  Beyond population growth and aging, one primary driver underlying our current physician deficit can be traced back to policy reforms outlined in 1981 by the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee; chief among its conclusions was that an impending physician surplus had to be prevented to better manage physician-induced demand for services and control national healthcare costs
  
  Does this mean, perforce, that medical schools will lose a great deal of their cachet — in your estimation — if & when MD-granting institutions normalize supply in accordance with demonstrated market needs, given our slowing yet still positive population growth rate?
   
• PhD's are objectively easier to get.
  - As I can only speak on the topic of biomedical PhDs, isn't it more than a tad hubristic to make such a claim not only from an epistemological perspective — without any empirical evidence, at least — but also without acknowledging that a biomedical PhD naturally entails making a novel contribution (e.g., identifying some new point mutation, engineering a synthetic protein for which one can obtain IP if non-obvious quoque); clearly, that's beyond the scope of a MD even as I once worked in the laboratory of a MD/PhD & have met MDs (e.g., Arie Belldegrun, Patrick Soon-Shiong) who can shift therapeutic-cum-corporate landscapes
   
• Point is raw intelligence is raw intelligence.
  - Your certitude is perplexing inasmuch as our best surrogate remains a nebulous concept yet to be informed by any objective understanding of human consciousness or even a complete accounting of our neuroarchitecture via brain mapping — understandable for a species that's only been able to write for ~1.6% of its ~300k existence according to biocultural anthropological studies
   
• Additionally, MDs have the most difficult training program out of all advanced degrees.
  - This strikes me as a sophistic claim without clarification; are you referring to the totality of MD training — inclusive of medical school through to beginning practice, which took a demonstrable physiological toll on my physician friends — or just the 4-year MD program versus the ~5 to 7-yr PhD program? 
  
  I was assuming the latter, but if you meant the former, it would be remiss of you not to include those PhDs who opt for the academic track with all the pain the postdoc experience apparently entails owing — once more — to supply & demand derangements
  
  Secondly, are you referring to the mental resilience required in your comparison, or are you focused on the intellectual rigor?
  
  Given the intrinsically heterogenous nature of a PhD, I can only proffer an experiential anecdote, but suffice it to say that my MD colleagues — some of whom I once tutored during their Pre-Med days — were invariably discombobulated whenever I'd explain that I was running experiments for an overarching translational medical project involving, say, the binding of anti-mitotic drugs to their cognate receptors through quantum effects via fluorescence spectroscopy or using polarized light via circular dichroism spectroscopy 
  
  I also don't think the smartest people are necessarily going to medical school. . .There are plenty of really smart people whom have no desire to practice medicine.
  - Having to borrow a line from @Draper Specter and Co. here, but I'd be an example as I originally wanted to be an Infectious Disease physician — owing to a Japanese game series depicting a virologist so obsessed with a viral vector he'd engineered that he ultimately became his own creation — which prompted me to get my hands on & learn this text  while peers were typically learning how to ride bikes; after all, the very idea of something there at the nanoscale yet invisible to the human eye that can nevertheless manipulate the body struck me as pure fiction prior to being disabused of that notion
  
  As you might imagine, that curiosity subsequently led me down the path of research — once I learned the difference between the different types of doctors even as PhDs (~1100) precede MDs (~1800s) & PharmDs (1960s) — and business without necessarily practicing medicine
   
• Not saying it's impossible, but MD > PhD > Better school > worse school.
  - The formulation of that opinion as a hierarchical fact is what I find irksome not only because WSO is among the best industry-based commons I've encountered but also because — empirically speaking — the analysts I've chatted with, PhDs mind you, have detailed how their respective career pivots into finance were premised on being tired of research while also realizing that their hypothesis-driven understanding of molecular phenomena provided them with the informational asymmetry needed to succeed in the field

In the spirit of magnanimity, though, might we both say that the MD/PhD represents an acceptable mediocritas aurea between our respective positions?