o chem/med chem use when actually working

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
B

BBC117

New Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Members don't see this ad.
Those of you who are pharmacists, how often do you have to apply anything from organic chem or medicinal chem while actually working? I understand learning the structures and mechanisms, etc. while in school, however, is there any use for it on a day to day basis as a retail pharmacist let's say? I know this may be a strange question but I am far more interested in the biological and physiological aspects of science and am trying to determine whether pharmacy is a good fit as I am not naturally gifted in chemistry. I worked in a pharmacy for a year or two a few years ago and don't recall any of that being used behind the counter.

Thanks guys for any input or advice.
 
More gen chem than o/med, but had a professor say the other day during lecture, "Guess how many times I've used the michaelis menten during my career (and the guy is like 50something)....0!". I think that med chem just reinforces the concepts in therapeutics or pharmacology. Ochem otoh....
 
I find med chem/ochem to be absolutely useless. You will never have to look at a chemical structure of a drug for any therapeutic purpose. The only individual who would worry about this would be a med chemist doing R&D... and they wouldn't be in a PharmD program.
 
I think ochem should be there, other wise other healthcare professions will look down upon us. We are suppose to have the answers to drugs. Also this is a doctorate degree, not a B.S.
 
Last edited:
OP, I'm not a pharmacist, but I think that ochem and med chem are not going to come up on any sort of regular basis in maybe 98% of pharmacy jobs. The exceptions would be pharmacist jobs in the pharmaceutical industry and perhaps a few academic jobs. So if you don't like chemistry, then you should be okay once you get through whatever your school requires.

On a side note, I do think it is important to take these courses. Although they may essentially never be directly applicable to most pharmacists, they lay the foundation for understanding. If you truly want to understand drug therapy and treatment, then you need some understanding of the pathophysiology behind the disease. To understand physiology and pathophys, you need some understanding of biochemistry. And to understand biochem, you need some grasp on organic. Having a doctorate degree and being a professional in a field is not about simply looking at a tablet in a bottle, comparing it to an image on the computer screen, and clicking Enter. It is about having a deep, fundamental knowledge about what you are doing.
 
Rouelle said:
O
On a side note, I do think it is important to take these courses. Although they may essentially never be directly applicable to most pharmacists, they lay the foundation for understanding. If you truly want to understand drug therapy and treatment, then you need some understanding of the pathophysiology behind the disease. To understand physiology and pathophys, you need some understanding of biochemistry. And to understand biochem, you need some grasp on organic. Having a doctorate degree and being a professional in a field is not about simply looking at a tablet in a bottle, comparing it to an image on the computer screen, and clicking Enter. It is about having a deep, fundamental knowledge about what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Some truth to this, but not all. Sure you need to have an understanding of diseases but many times, the pathophysiology/physiology is unknown. Similarly, many drugs out there have unknown mechanisms. Crap that you learn in med chem is generally useless. Determining what chemical characteristics quinolone antibiotics have that cause photosensitivity is utterly useless. That sort of knowledge is best suited for trivia at a bar. I don't give a crap about the medicinal chemistry of anything, really. Knowing them won't make a bit of difference in my therapeutic treatment of anything. This stuff just costs me an A on exams because they are generally worth 10 points and honestly, I think the therapeutic side of therapeutic exams is much more important to know than being able to draw random toxic metabolites.
 
Never use it. Pharm schools need to get rid of most of that crap in P1 year and replace with intro therapeutics. It would be nice to get IPPE students that know anything practical.
 
spacecowgirl said:
Never use it. Pharm schools need to get rid of most of that crap in P1 year and replace with intro therapeutics. It would be nice to get IPPE students that know anything practical.
Click to expand...

well, let's not be hasty. Most students won't ever use it again, but its probably critical for a few who are going into drug research for pharmaceutical industry.

Otherwise, o-chem is useful foundation for understanding the solubility, lipophilicity, rule of 5, drug penetration, biovailability, selectivity etc. Probably not very useful for most, but I would hope that good pharmacists would know, and be able to explain things to other practitioners when asked.
 
Do you really need to explain what part of the drug molecule makes it lipophilic? No. No one cares. The only concept I have ever thought about since med chem is isomers and again, no one cares beyond "escitalopram is like a sibling to citalopram". Or really "escitalopram is more expensive than citalopram". I don't think it has one thing to do with a being a "good" pharmacist because no other practioner cares about the theoretical considerations of bioavailability, just the practical ones.
 
spacecowgirl said:
Do you really need to explain what part of the drug molecule makes it lipophilic? No. No one cares. The only concept I have ever thought about since med chem is isomers and again, no one cares beyond "escitalopram is like a sibling to citalopram". Or really "escitalopram is more expensive than citalopram". I don't think it has one thing to do with a being a "good" pharmacist because no other practioner cares about the theoretical considerations of bioavailability, just the practical ones.
Click to expand...

That and if you're doing drug research or development, you shouldn't be getting a PharmD - you should be getting your MS or PhD.
 
ValeUC said:
That and if you're doing drug research or development, you shouldn't be getting a PharmD - you should be getting your MS or PhD.
Click to expand...

Ph.D is main degree if you are doing bench research, which is early drug discovery stage. However when it's time to formulate it for human testing its a different story. One of the reason why I returned to pharmacy school is because seeing internal job postings of Pharm.Ds for the clinical trials unit. $130K/year salary back in 2005. 😀

Of course there are others, our patent lawyers is a Pharm.D/JD who make $250K+, and the director of our research section was a RPh/Ph.D who made $200K+. Ah the good old days of big pharma.
 
spacecowgirl said:
Do you really need to explain what part of the drug molecule makes it lipophilic? No. No one cares. The only concept I have ever thought about since med chem is isomers and again, no one cares beyond "escitalopram is like a sibling to citalopram". Or really "escitalopram is more expensive than citalopram". I don't think it has one thing to do with a being a "good" pharmacist because no other practioner cares about the theoretical considerations of bioavailability, just the practical ones.
Click to expand...

For example, I have had to explain more than once to MD and PAs already why I'm recommending trying Crestor in a patient who complained of myalgia on Lipitor or Zocor. Basic organic chem. They might not remember or even care in the end, but when they can see that you've got the goods, their faith and trust in you increases. That leads to more recommendations being accepted.
 
I disagree and I've been practicing longer than you. /discussion
:meanie:
 
spacecowgirl said:
I disagree and I've been practicing longer than you. /discussion
:meanie:
Click to expand...

Whatever style that floats your boat, as long as recs gets accepted. 🙂 Our pulmonologist already introduced me as the walking encyclopedia to other docs. I'm a nerd and proud of it. 😀
 
owlegrad said:
Is that a Seinfeld reference? I don't get how it applies though . 😕

I am not sure A4MD would want your soup anyway. :meanie:
Click to expand...

But I bet she would want her money back :meanie:

But what if xiphoid already spent it on H&B? :laugh:

Owle, remember that conversation from forever ago? :laugh:
 
owlegrad said:
Is that a Seinfeld reference? I don't get how it applies though . 😕

I am not sure A4MD would want your soup anyway. :meanie:
Click to expand...
It's hard to love the "practicing longer" quote when you're still a resident.
 
owlegrad said:
Is that a Seinfeld reference? I don't get how it applies though . 😕

I am not sure A4MD would want your soup anyway. :meanie:
Click to expand...

Yep, Seinfeld, showing my age there. It's the "soup nazi". No soup for you too! Come back oooone years! NEXT! :laugh: Pretty soon, only old-timer will be allowed to say anything in this forum.
 
crazybob said:
But I bet she would want her money back :meanie:

But what if xiphoid already spent it on H&B? :laugh:

Owle, remember that conversation from forever ago? :laugh:
Click to expand...

I remember when many in this forum doesn't even know what H&B is. :meanie:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

BC_89
Liability Insurance While Working In Federal Govt
Replies
5
Views
2K
sunnyandseventytwo
sunnyandseventytwo
N
Working holidays
Replies
18
Views
2K
confettiflyer
confettiflyer
A
Anyone working on BCACP CE's?
Replies
0
Views
749
ajlwngs
A
R
I actually witnessed a dumpster fire at Walgreens today!
Replies
6
Views
2K
RxPreceptor
RxPreceptor
Lexington2012
USAtoday exposes sweatshop-style working conditions at CVS
Replies
10
Views
2K
Gombrich12
G
Top