The word “scientist” should be restricted to those individuals who are (or who have) participated in an active research career. If you mean, by using “doctor”, an individual who has an MD degree, then they are not necessarily a scientist. They will read about research in their field of medicine and perhaps even put the results of that research into practice. But, unless they are carrying out some research with their practice of medicine, I can’t refer to them as scientists.

That said, a lot of MDs do science in conjunction with their medical practice or as their career. They need to be judged on their work and the published results of their work, not just the initials behind their name.

a doctor is not necesary a scientist it depends on what kind of doctor; or degree he/she has.example a precher could have a degree in sholar pastoral and he can be called a doctor because he is a man of god who preaches the bible and he has a doctor degreein preaching, and the same thing with a teacher. when i was in high school my teacher had a degree in teaching. and she had a tithule that read doctor an her door and in all of her school work, she was not a medical doctor but she was a language doctor. so you got to get on line and look up the definition for doctor and for scientist and find which scient you want to research. good luck.

I believe that doctors have their doctorate in medical science. Why don’t you go for something interesting like a forensic biologist, geologist or anthropologist.

A forensic anthropologist I enjoy is Kathy Reichs. She writes the books which the television series “Bones” is based on. It’s a fascinating science.

Yes a docter is a scientist. In a medical, human body kind of way. A pharmasist could be a good one too but a pharmasist is pretty much a docter so yeah.