Pharmacy- Research field

[Jaybee]

---

Members do not see this ad.

It seems most threads on here are about retail pharmacy. My interest is in doing research for a university or pharmaceutical company. Basically, I'm interested in doing research on drugs used to treat depression.

I don't have my pharmd degree, but am applying to UF, PBA, and NOVA for fall 2004.

My question is, does anyone out there have experience doing any kind of drug research?

I'm currently volunteering at the VA hospital, but would like to find some volunteer work related to research. I live in Gainesville, FL and haven't been able to find anything.

Any info/experiences you have with this would be great!

Oh yeah, any ideas on income in this area of pharmacy?

 

[phuture pharmer]

If you're really stoked about research you may want to concentrate more on a masters or skip it and go for a Ph.D. To do either it would really be in your best interest to gain experience as an udergrad through projects for professors and internships in academia or with drug companies during the summers. If research is really your goal, I don't think the Pharm D. is going to open vary many doors by comparison, but I'm no expert.

 

[dgroulx]

UF has a combined PharmD/PhD program that is designed for people going into pharmaceutical research. You'll be in school for 7 years, so make sure you really want to commit that much time to your education. Since you're in G'ville, you should drop by the COP and get some info.

 

[GravyRPH]

Many schools are now starting to offer the PharmD/PhD degree. UOP has had one for awhile as well. Sounds like it might be up your alley.

http://www1.uop.edu/pharmacy/pharmd-phd.html

 

[TCB]

If you're considering research you should probably look at schools in the North... State like Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, etc....... have many pharmaceutical industries.

 

[Triangulation]

A lot of schools are developing tracks w/in their curriculum dedicated to pharm research, so i think pursuing a pharm d would be an excellent choice, and in my mind the best one. Pharm d training provides the broadest cross-section of aspects pertaining to pharmacy that is only give you a jump on the competition when trying to secure a positiion in the research field.

I've thought about this a lot bc i'm trying to enter a field where mostly saturated PhDs, but i'm undaunted bc i'll come in w/an understanding that they just won't possess.

You're coursework, externships, internships, and residencies can provide a breadth unmatched in the PhD field.

Also having the pharm d provides an safety net as far as job options that a phd cannnot

 

[GravyRPH]

I was told over the weekend by a reasearch associate of mine that PhD's received from these combination programs are considered to be of lesser quality. He called them fake PhD's. I'm not sure what that means in the real world, but that was his take on it.

He said if it were him he would get the PharmD and then do post-doc work elsewhere.

 

[dgroulx]

Originally posted by GravyRPH
I was told over the weekend by a reasearch associate of mine that PhD's received from these combination programs are considered to be of lesser quality.

When I looked into it, the program took 7 years to complete. That pretty much sounds like a full PhD. 4 years of pharmD and 3 years of phD, with part of the pharmD years being spent on your phD dissertation.

 

[BMBiology]

Originally posted by GravyRPH
I was told over the weekend by a reasearch associate of mine that PhD's received from these combination programs are considered to be of lesser quality. He called them fake PhD's. I'm not sure what that means in the real world, but that was his take on it.

That is like saying researchers with MD/PhD have "fake PhD's". It is harder to get accepted into a MD/PhD program than a PhD program. If this is also true for PharmD/PhD programs, then I would think students in a PharmD/PhD program are more qualify than students in a PhD program.

Students in a PharmD/PhD program would not only have to satisfy the same requirements as PhD students, but have to satisfy additional requirements for the PharmD degree as well. I therefore believe researchers with PharmD/PhD degree are more knowledgeable about drugs and qualify than researchers with just a PhD degree.

Note: Of the California pharmacy schools, only Western doesn't have a PharmD/PhD program, but it's developing a MS/PharmD program. UCSD and Loma Linda are developing a PharmD/PhD program; while UOP, USC and UCSF already have a well-established PharmD/PhD program.

 

[GravyRPH]

Ya, I don't really think I agree with him. I'm just repeating what he said. I hadn't really heard anything negative about the combination programs before, so I thought I would just throw that out there.
🙂

 

[Jaybee]

wow. thanks for the replys. really opening my eyes a little!

 

[lord999]

GravyRPH, What your associate means about "lesser quality" dates back to the first MSTP graduates from the programs. When the MSTP started, there was widespread criticism that the cross-counting of some med. classes did not match the rigor or intensity of the grad school classes and vice-versa. The criticism of the MD/Ph.D was that the candidates clinical background were not solid enough in normal MD training and not enough of a lab background for Ph. D. training because they had to do both. I find that argument invalid, because dissertations from a joint program are required to incororporate elements of both fields, making it a longer time committment.
However, I do agree with the criticism that there are VERY few joint degree holders that can actually utilize both degrees. Most find that they commit to either basic science bench work or clinical practice. If you intend to do both a Pharm. D./Ph.D., the hope is that your Pharm. D. clinical background will translate into practical lab experience on the bench. Pharm. D. + MS or Ph. D. in the basic disciplines makes sense though, and most pharmacal labs are headed up by at least a BSPharm, Ph. D.

 

[Heyyyyy]

I have heard that both MD/PHD and PharmD/PHD work in the same field and pretty much the same pay.

If you have received pharmD degree and later on decide to pursue the phd portion, do you have to do masters or just skip it(like the joint programs)???

 

[lord999]

Depends on your attitude....This applies to all grad students, not just Pharm. D.

If you have worked in the lab before, know what you want to do, know how to get funded (grant writing is life or death nowadays), go for the Ph. D. directly. The direct route takes at least 4 years depending on dissertation status. If you don't know what you are doing in the lab, this route is possible, albeit with a much steeper learning curve.

If you really don't know how to research and need to learn the art, go first to M. S. This course generally is "Ph.D.-lite" with much more training and devotion to basic issues in the lab as well as a taste of research. It takes 2 years for M.S. and anywhere from 2-4 years for the Ph. D. afterward (5 years total). If you go for MS, see how they are treated at a university.

The difference is, you pay the school for the masters, but (hopefully) the school pays YOU to get the Ph. D through TA/RA experience. Some schools do not offer the MS option anyway, they expect you to dissertate.

Graduate school is more of an apprenticeship in research, not really a set course of study like Pharm. D. The time it takes to finish the dissertation is a reflection of the research, not the student (although above 6 years for a Ph. D. is considered excessive).

Certain programs for pharmacy are "favored" by research companies and the government. Pharmaceutics, Pharmacology, and Clinical Therapeutics are always in need of good people. If you go the NIH/NLM route, the MS and Ph. D. in bioinformatics is absolutely free with a job guarantee afterwards.

 

[Heyyyyy]

I just want to correct you lord999. most schools actually pay you for doing masters(meaning free tuition) plus becoming a t.a. if one desires to. Honestly, masters degree in the science field is a waste of time because it is worthless(just like getting a bachelors degree but with a slight edge). Masters in non-science fields is a different story. I would rather do a pharmd/phd then a masters/phd.

 

[lord999]

BTW, a domestic Pharm. D., Ph. D. can write his or her ticket for their career future.

 

[lord999]

Thanks for the correction, but I've gotten more than one response that Masters are not paid for by the respective university. They can be paid by the PI's grant/allocation though...

I was writing from the perspective of a post Pharm. D., since grad school considers Pharm. D. to be an entry-level professional degree (better than undergraduate but still no research training).

I still am of the opinion that people who don't know how to research should go for the masters to Ph. D. rather than a direct Ph. D. route if possible. I completely agree that an MS in a basic science is worthless, and that MS in Admin or Epi are viable degrees.