Pharmacy Research nearly non-existent

[proteome]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

pharmacy schools always emphasize how much variety in choices those with a BSc phm or PharmD have in careers but I did some rsch and I found that there is basically no pharmacists involved in drug development or research, almost no biotech company seems to hire pharmDs. I am not interested in clinical research but rather R&D of drugs. It seems that nearly all pharmacists end up in either retail or hospital. Which does seem to pay more? for lack of salary information on research pharmacists

This has really challenged my view of pharmacists as active researchers, would anyone like to share the career path they've taken or give me some advice on which path I should take with my pharmacy degree? is the retail/hospital route worth it?

PS. information is based on Ontario careers but i am interested in the depth of career choices in the US as well

thanks🙂

 

[tungsten87]

pharmacy schools always emphasize how much variety in choices those with a BSc phm or PharmD have in careers but I did some rsch and I found that there is basically no pharmacists involved in drug development or research, no biotech company seems to hire pharmDs. It seems that nearly all pharmacists end up in either retail or hospital. Which does seem to pay more? for lack of salary information on research pharmacists

This has really challenged my view of pharmacists as active researchers, would anyone like to share the career path they've taken or give me some advice on which path I should take with my pharmacy degree? is the retail/hospital route worth it?

PS. information is based on Ontario careers but i am interested in the depth of career choices in the US as well

thanks🙂

if you took the time to do a little more research (ie: look at the faculty page of a pharmacy school) you'll see that many pharmacy schools have professors that are also engaged in translational/pharmacoeconomic/molecular therapeutics research. also, there are many examples of these professors that have gone off to work for industry/biotech, likely for the pay increase.

 

[type b pharmD]

Check out this old thread on pharmaceutical industry jobs

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?p=5368204

 

[Filler]

pharmacy schools always emphasize how much variety in choices those with a BSc phm or PharmD have in careers but I did some rsch and I found that there is basically no pharmacists involved in drug development or research, no biotech company seems to hire pharmDs. It seems that nearly all pharmacists end up in either retail or hospital. Which does seem to pay more? for lack of salary information on research pharmacists

One MAJOR reason for the lack of PharmD's in research is that bigger and smaller pharm/biotech companies alike find it cheaper to hire individuals with Master's degrees vs PharmD degrees. A relative recently came out of retirement to work for a former colleague in an industry setting, he came to find out that the company hired a multitude of foreign students who obtained their Masters in the US but were being paid something ridiculous, roughly 25-28K a year. Eventually some internal issue caused those salaries to come up to par with the local rates of Northern NJ.

 

[Priapism321]

pharmacy schools always emphasize how much variety in choices those with a BSc phm or PharmD have in careers but I did some rsch and I found that there is basically no pharmacists involved in drug development or research, no biotech company seems to hire pharmDs. It seems that nearly all pharmacists end up in either retail or hospital. Which does seem to pay more? for lack of salary information on research pharmacists

This has really challenged my view of pharmacists as active researchers, would anyone like to share the career path they've taken or give me some advice on which path I should take with my pharmacy degree? is the retail/hospital route worth it?

This guy totally see where you are coming from:

http://ccr.cancer.gov/staff/publications.asp?profileid=5728&display=all

I doubt he cares about your view of anything....

 

[Priapism321]

And before you let anyone know your "views" on a profession, learn how to spell please (if words in the title of your thread are spelled incorrectly, you look like a ****** when you proceed to criticize)...

 

[Priapism321]

pharmacy schools always emphasize how much variety in choices those with a BSc phm or PharmD have in careers but I did some rsch and I found that there is basically no pharmacists involved in drug development or research, no biotech company seems to hire pharmDs. It seems that nearly all pharmacists end up in either retail or hospital. Which does seem to pay more? for lack of salary information on research pharmacists

This has really challenged my view of pharmacists as active researchers, would anyone like to share the career path they've taken or give me some advice on which path I should take with my pharmacy degree? is the retail/hospital route worth it?

PS. information is based on Ontario careers but i am interested in the depth of career choices in the US as well

thanks🙂

This guy definitely cares where you are coming from:

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/inde...0VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&cpsextcurrchannel=1

 

[Praziquantel86]

pharmacy schools always emphasize how much variety in choices those with a BSc phm or PharmD have in careers but I did some rsch and I found that there is basically no pharmacists involved in drug development or research, no biotech company seems to hire pharmDs. It seems that nearly all pharmacists end up in either retail or hospital. Which does seem to pay more? for lack of salary information on research pharmacists

This has really challenged my view of pharmacists as active researchers, would anyone like to share the career path they've taken or give me some advice on which path I should take with my pharmacy degree? is the retail/hospital route worth it?

PS. information is based on Ontario careers but i am interested in the depth of career choices in the US as well

thanks🙂

Yeah, that's not really true at all. I've been involved in research since my P2 year, and many of my classmates started even earlier than that. My school (and it is not unique in doing this) actively encourages research and pursuit of post-graduate fellowships. One of the requirements in obtaining a tenured faculty spot is producing research, and a lot of it.

If you're looking outside of academics, major pharmaceutical companies, such as Novartis and Pfizer, have quite a few post-PharmD fellowships that are very competitive to obtain.

As was previously mentioned, you just have to look a little and you'll find pharmacists doing research everywhere.

 

[Argentium]

Yeah, that's not really true at all. I've been involved in research since my P2 year, and many of my classmates started even earlier than that. My school (and it is not unique in doing this) actively encourages research and pursuit of post-graduate fellowships. One of the requirements in obtaining a tenured faculty spot is producing research, and a lot of it.

If you're looking outside of academics, major pharmaceutical companies, such as Novartis and Pfizer, have quite a few post-PharmD fellowships that are very competitive to obtain.

As was previously mentioned, you just have to look a little and you'll find pharmacists doing research everywhere.

He's not incorrect. Pharmacists typically don't carry out research such as Drug Discovery, etc because the PharmD does not lend itself to that type of research. You need a PhD.

 

[Priapism321]

He's not incorrect. Pharmacists typically don't carry out research such as Drug Discovery, etc because the PharmD does not lend itself to that type of research. You need a PhD.

He made many more generalizations than that. Drug development is largely biology and chemistry based, so it is obvious that this would not be a "typical" line of work for a PharmD. However, I would counter your statement by saying that one does not "need" a PhD to be involved in this sort of work.

The assertion that virutally no pharmacists are involved in research or are hired by biotechnology companies is simply false.

 

[proteome]

And before you let anyone know your "views" on a profession, learn how to spell please (if words in the title of your thread are spelled incorrectly, you look like a ****** when you proceed to criticize)...

it's a typo, you're being unreasonable. I suggest you need to learn to be more respectful and deal with that anger management issue.

Before you make some more ridiculous accusations, you should read my post again.

 

[Argentium]

He made many more generalizations than that. Drug development is largely biology and chemistry based, so it is obvious that this would not be a "typical" line of work for a PharmD. However, I would counter your statement by saying that one does not "need" a PhD to be involved in this sort of work.

The assertion that virutally no pharmacists are involved in research or are hired by biotechnology companies is simply false.

The assertion that virtually no pharmacists conduct research in industry is pretty true. They are a small, small percentage. Pharma and Biotech definitely do hire pharmD's in more clinical roles though.

 

[Priapism321]

The assertion that virtually no pharmacists conduct research in industry is pretty true. They are a small, small percentage. Pharma and Biotech definitely do hire pharmD's in more clinical roles though.

The original post did not say "research in industry," by the way.

 

[Priapism321]

it's a typo, you're being unreasonable. I suggest you need to learn to be more respectful and deal with that anger management issue.

Before you make some more ridiculous accusations, you should read my post again.

I did not "accuse" you of anything other than having the inability to spell, and likely not having a clue what you are talking about. Ridiculous? I think not.

 

[proteome]

I did not "accuse" you of anything other than having the inability to spell, and likely not having a clue what you are talking about. Ridiculous? I think not.

I think you might want to look up the definition of the word "typo"

I am not saying that there are absolutely no researchers with a pharmD. I am saying there isn't a substantial number of pharmacist researchers in ON, Canada so that research can be even considered as a career path for those with only a pharmD. or BSc phm as phd/pharmD or with MBA combined programs do not exist in Canada.

 

[Priapism321]

This lady does not seem to have a problem:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/358/17/1819

http://www.hpme.utoronto.ca/about/faculty/list/jackevicius.htm

Look, I do not want to be a jackass, but I get tired of these threads talking about what "cannot be done" or what is "not typical." I can show you hundreds of PharmDs that are not typical and make things happen. Guess what, 90+ percent of physicians or PhDs are not as accomplished when it comes to research compared to some of the PharmDs I can list.

If you want to be ordinary, work in drug development, and probably never do anything great, then get a PhD and stay in Ontario. Excellent. But I can show you plenty of individuals that directly contradict your position. Even people from Ontario.

 

[proteome]

^that's not the kind of research I am talking about and she has a MSc.

I am interested in seeing if those with only a pharmD have a reasonable shot at entering R&D of drugs.

There's a difference between being not typical and being delusional. There is no reason to pursue a career pathw with this degree if there are nearly opportunities available. I want to know if the pharmD degree has the potential in R&D that pharmacy schools are saying it has.

 

[tungsten87]

^that's not the kind of research I am talking about and she has a MSc.

I am interested in seeing if those with only a pharmD have a reasonable shot at entering R&D of drugs.

There's a difference between being not typical and being delusional. There is no reason to pursue a career pathw with this degree if there are nearly opportunities available. I want to know if the pharmD degree has the potential in R&D that pharmacy schools are saying it has.

even though the pharmd curriculum does not have an in-depth focus of drug design (ie: synthetic organic chemistry), any pharmd can pick up a drug design textbook and learn the concepts and methods involved with these processes. it is also very possible to work in a medicinal chemistry/pharmaceutics lab while in pharmacy school to become familiar with the subject matter.

your posts in this thread come off as very naive. before you make a post based on the way you perceive things to be or because you talked to 4-5 people, do your own thorough research and the best place to start are the websites of pharmacy schools where you can look at the research interests of faculty and their publications.

 

[Praziquantel86]

^that's not the kind of research I am talking about and she has a MSc.

I am interested in seeing if those with only a pharmD have a reasonable shot at entering R&D of drugs.

There's a difference between being not typical and being delusional. There is no reason to pursue a career pathw with this degree if there are nearly opportunities available. I want to know if the pharmD degree has the potential in R&D that pharmacy schools are saying it has.

I think you're focusing on the simply on the first stage of R&D at a pharmaceutical company. The first stage of drug development, i.e., rational drug design, is largely done by biochemists, pharmacologists, medicinal chemists, etc. You're largely correct in saying that this is not performed by PharmDs (or MDs, for that matter) without a PhD or similar research degree. This is not to say it doesn't happen, as I'm sure there are examples out there, but it is probably not very common.

Typically a clinician will become involved after the potential uses of the molecule become known, and the drug enters clinical trials (Phase I/II/III). You won't have to look very hard to find a PharmD involved in this portion of the process.

Basically, the point is this. If you go in with preconceived notions about what you can and cannot do with a PharmD, then you will do nothing. Keep an open mind, and while it might not be the easiest path, enough dedication will get you there.

 

[StaviZFingerZ]

get a PhD. pharmd is a professional degree not a research degree. you certainly arent going to beat out a US pharmd or PhD for a US research job as a canadian bs pharmacist.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

The assertion that virtually no pharmacists conduct research in industry is pretty true. They are a small, small percentage. Pharma and Biotech definitely do hire pharmD's in more clinical roles though.

Clinical roles that are pretty much the entire drug process. So while you say small, small percentage, I say a significant percentage. I mean you got huge amount of pharmacists working in phase I, phase II, phase III, filing reports to the FDA and making sure everything goes smoothly. Sure they are a small, small percentage... but relative to what? I say they are on pars with MDs, nurses, and PHDs.

 

[Argentium]

Clinical roles that are pretty much the entire drug process. So while you say small, small percentage, I say a significant percentage. I mean you got huge amount of pharmacists working in phase I, phase II, phase III, filing reports to the FDA and making sure everything goes smoothly. Sure they are a small, small percentage... but relative to what? I say they are on pars with MDs, nurses, and PHDs.

Sorry for not clarifying - I was referring the to discovery/pre-clinical aspect of drug development, not the clinical trails, marketing, regulatory affairs, drug information, medical writing, etc. If we were to include the entire process, you are right of course. PharmD's definitely play a large role in industry

 

[deltaforce]

Hello folks,

I have been in read-only mode for quite a while and had nothing much to add in any posts. This is my first post, so please be gentle on me (I have read other posts but not the links provided)

What OP says is kind of true. I am a Pharmacist (Not from northern America), have worked in phase 3 clinical trial with one of the reputed company before heading to Masters and now about to finish my PhD in Genetics/Developmental Biology. Been there, have seen a little bit.

The reason why Pharmacists are not in the industry for pre-clinical work is essentially due to 2 main reasons that I figured. Our Organic Chemistry knowledge sucks. Those Masters in Organic Chemistry do design molecules nicely than us, On the top of that, they cost far less than us to the company. I have seen chemists working on drug design who have no freaking clue of medicine but all they do is design a molecule. They have been given a target and they have to design a molecule that will hit the target. Thats all they know and care. Once such molecule is designed then some clinical aspects come into focus and folks expert in molecular biology come in picture to perform some in-vitro assays. If the results show up good then they go on for in-vivo assays. Pharmacologists and clinicians play a role here. If at all, things go smoothly beyond this step then again chemists would come into picture to design manufacturing process. If thats successful then Clinical studies with PK/PD studies. The processes till this place rarely take place in pharma companies nowadays. There are literally thousands are start ups who get these contracts. If certain molecule passes then giant pharma will buy it out. After that the issue of formulation comes in picture. We ARE good at formulation but now there are so many streamlined processes that you don't really need to have a super cool acumen to design a formulation. I have seen few drugs where the companies tried 3 or 4 formulations and the PK/PD studies were not good enough so they directly went and made capsules. The cost increased a bit but they saved a year of work in their labs. This one year could mean a lot if you have already spent 10 years on this molecule.

I could be little bit deviating from the true story but don't think I am too far. Please correct me if I am. I realized this rather soon so I went to the school again.
I guess, we all are super misguided on the first day of Pharmacy school, how big change you can bring to the community but truth is something else.

 

[p-rog]

Sorry for not clarifying - I was referring the to discovery/pre-clinical aspect of drug development, not the clinical trails, marketing, regulatory affairs, drug information, medical writing, etc. If we were to include the entire process, you are right of course. PharmD's definitely play a large role in industry

Ok, which pharmacy school lead you to believe that PharmD's typically get involved in pre-clinical drug discovery research without getting a PhD or at least some sort of other advanced training?

You really should have been more clear in your original post because you look like a ***** when you say things like "PharmD's aren't hired to do research by pharma".

 

[Argentium]

Ok, which pharmacy school lead you to believe that PharmD's typically get involved in pre-clinical drug discovery research without getting a PhD or at least some sort of other advanced training?

You really should have been more clear in your original post because you look like a ***** when you say things like "PharmD's aren't hired to do research by pharma".

lol is there a reason you're quoting me because i don't think i said anything of the sort?

 

[p-rog]

lol sorry, I thought you were the OP for a some reason.

 

[p-rog]

I think you're focusing on the simply on the first stage of R&D at a pharmaceutical company. The first stage of drug development, i.e., rational drug design, is largely done by biochemists, pharmacologists, medicinal chemists, etc. You're largely correct in saying that this is not performed by PharmDs (or MDs, for that matter) without a PhD or similar research degree. This is not to say it doesn't happen, as I'm sure there are examples out there, but it is probably not very common.

Typically a clinician will become involved after the potential uses of the molecule become known, and the drug enters clinical trials (Phase I/II/III). You won't have to look very hard to find a PharmD involved in this portion of the process.

Basically, the point is this. If you go in with preconceived notions about what you can and cannot do with a PharmD, then you will do nothing. Keep an open mind, and while it might not be the easiest path, enough dedication will get you there.

This, exactly

 

[proteome]

You really should have been more clear in your original post because you look like a ***** when you say things like "PharmD's aren't hired to do research by pharma".

Can you not read? I never said that, I am saying that pharmacy schools are promoting the pharmD and BSc phm degree as sufficient for entry into the R&D of drugs and work in the biotech industry yet this does not match reality.
When you assume, you're just making an ass out of yourself

Ok, which pharmacy school lead you to believe that PharmD's typically

learn how to spell please, honesty, you sound like a ******

 

[proteome]

The original post did not say "research in industry," by the way.

actually it did

 

[Praziquantel86]

Can you not read? I never said that, I am saying that pharmacy schools are promoting the pharmD and BSc phm degree as sufficient for entry into the R&D of drugs and work in the biotech industry yet this does not match reality.
When you assume, you're just making an ass out of yourself

They do, and it is. You're completely ignoring the second part of R&D (the clinical development). You can't cherry-pick facts to make reality match your skewed vision.

learn how to spell please, honesty, you sound like a ******

it's a typo, you're being unreasonable. I suggest you need to learn to be more respectful and deal with that anger management issue.

🙂

 

[aboveliquidice]

OP - sounds like you've found some good info relating to the topic. Yes, PharmDs have roles in research. However, the actual creation of molecules is far more likely left to scientist in said specialty (chemist, etc).

Does this address your statement / alluded question?

 

[PumpkinSmasher]

actually it did

We do not want you in the US, stay where you are please.

 

[RxMTM]

pharmacy schools always emphasize how much variety in choices those with a BSc phm or PharmD have in careers but I did some rsch and I found that there is basically no pharmacists involved in drug development or research, almost no biotech company seems to hire pharmDs. I am not interested in clinical research but rather R&D of drugs. It seems that nearly all pharmacists end up in either retail or hospital. Which does seem to pay more? for lack of salary information on research pharmacists

This has really challenged my view of pharmacists as active researchers, would anyone like to share the career path they've taken or give me some advice on which path I should take with my pharmacy degree? is the retail/hospital route worth it?

PS. information is based on Ontario careers but i am interested in the depth of career choices in the US as well

thanks🙂

The way I see it, PhD's in chemistry (organic, physical, analytical, etc.) are the individuals that are qualified to do research in drug development. PharmD's don't have the chemical synthesis knowledge to do that type of work. Drug companies would see little value in hiring a PharmD for this position. On the other hand, clinical research would be suitable for a PharmD.

 

[RxMTM]

It's a sad reality but there are many people in pharmacy school that don't know what a PhD is. I have even had fellow students ask me if the PharmD is a doctorate. I was stunned that this person entered the program without knowing this in advance. Many people that go into pharmacy have no idea what they are doing because all they see is the paycheck at the end. They never took the time to look beyond that.

 

[type b pharmD]

It's a sad reality but there are many people in pharmacy school that don't know what a PhD is. I have even had fellow students ask me if the PharmD is a doctorate. I was stunned that this person entered the program without knowing this in advance. Many people that go into pharmacy have no idea what they are doing because all they see is the paycheck at the end. They never took the time to look beyond that.

unbelievable..


wow..

 

[p-rog]

Can you not read? I never said that, I am saying that pharmacy schools are promoting the pharmD and BSc phm degree as sufficient for entry into the R&D of drugs and work in the biotech industry yet this does not match reality.

Ugh, you are really making me mad with your inability to understand that R & D= research and development and that includes everything from the process of drug DISCOVERY (PhD's here mostly) to the clinical trials (pharmD's/MD's here mostly). All of that (both drug discovery and clinical trials) are part of the the DRUG DEVELOPMENT process.


Ok, now please stop being an idiot by accusing pharmacy schools of lying/misleading you about what pharmD's are capable of/hired to do within the industry.

/thread over now, seriously.

 

[RxMTM]

Ugh, you are really making me mad with your inability to understand that R & D= research and development and that includes everything from the process of drug DISCOVERY (PhD's here mostly) to the clinical trials (pharmD's/MD's here mostly). All of that (both drug discovery and clinical trials) are part of the the DRUG DEVELOPMENT process.


Ok, now please stop being an idiot by accusing pharmacy schools of lying/misleading you about what pharmD's are capable of/hired to do within the industry.

/thread over now, seriously.

LOTS of people think that pharmacy school prepares you to develop drugs. Really, the public perception of health professions is very skewed. Most people have no idea what it the term "scientist" means. It's sad but true. They even enter into pharmacy school with the wrong notion.

 

[spacecowgirl]

They even enter into pharmacy school with the wrong notion.

Isn't it because they are a bunch of douchebags looking for 100K?

 

[type b pharmD]

Isn't it because they are a bunch of douchebags looking for 100K?

majority of them

 

[Quiksilver]

Hello folks,

I have been in read-only mode for quite a while and had nothing much to add in any posts. This is my first post, so please be gentle on me (I have read other posts but not the links provided)

What OP says is kind of true. I am a Pharmacist (Not from northern America), have worked in phase 3 clinical trial with one of the reputed company before heading to Masters and now about to finish my PhD in Genetics/Developmental Biology. Been there, have seen a little bit.

The reason why Pharmacists are not in the industry for pre-clinical work is essentially due to 2 main reasons that I figured. Our Organic Chemistry knowledge sucks. Those Masters in Organic Chemistry do design molecules nicely than us, On the top of that, they cost far less than us to the company. I have seen chemists working on drug design who have no freaking clue of medicine but all they do is design a molecule. They have been given a target and they have to design a molecule that will hit the target. Thats all they know and care. Once such molecule is designed then some clinical aspects come into focus and folks expert in molecular biology come in picture to perform some in-vitro assays. If the results show up good then they go on for in-vivo assays. Pharmacologists and clinicians play a role here. If at all, things go smoothly beyond this step then again chemists would come into picture to design manufacturing process. If thats successful then Clinical studies with PK/PD studies. The processes till this place rarely take place in pharma companies nowadays. There are literally thousands are start ups who get these contracts. If certain molecule passes then giant pharma will buy it out. After that the issue of formulation comes in picture. We ARE good at formulation but now there are so many streamlined processes that you don't really need to have a super cool acumen to design a formulation. I have seen few drugs where the companies tried 3 or 4 formulations and the PK/PD studies were not good enough so they directly went and made capsules. The cost increased a bit but they saved a year of work in their labs. This one year could mean a lot if you have already spent 10 years on this molecule.

I could be little bit deviating from the true story but don't think I am too far. Please correct me if I am. I realized this rather soon so I went to the school again.
I guess, we all are super misguided on the first day of Pharmacy school, how big change you can bring to the community but truth is something else.

Interesting opinion.

I agree in fact I think there should be more involved on the preclinical side. You bring up an interesting point, chemists work to fit a molecule to do a particular function. Thats their job. Imagine if they had our clinical expertise that they could understand how their molecule works in a grander scheme. I see a hole and a lack of pharmacy involvement there. But while a lot of debbie downers here see it as a bad thing, I see it as a good thing. Thats a niche and thats a meal ticket. So when something in a clinical trial doesn't work quite right one could know how to tweak things or at least have a good idea of what to do and what went wrong. Could save companies a lot of money.

I can see that you are trying to do just that.

 

[ucrx]

Can you not read? I never said that, I am saying that pharmacy schools are promoting the pharmD and BSc phm degree as sufficient for entry into the R&D of drugs and work in the biotech industry yet this does not match reality.
When you assume, you're just making an ass out of yourself

R&D includes more than the pre-clinical drug design. It includes the clinical aspects where pharmacists can be very involved. I can't imagine a pharmacy school trying to tell students they can design drug molecules. I can see a school saying that pharmacists can help in drug development, because there are plenty of ways a pharmacist's knowledge would be helpful there.

What specific type of research are you referring to by "R&D of drugs" and "the biotech industry?"

 

[RxMTM]

There are different kinds of chemists. At the ground level you have basic science which would be mostly organic chemists. Higher up would be the pharmaceutical chemists which also hold PhD's. They formulate the actual medication and dosage form. So really, there are different levels occupied by PhD's at the groundwork. I'm not sure where pharmacists fit into the picture but I'm sure it's pretty far from the drug development side, if not at all. PhD's spend their whole 5-7 years learning only one aspect of drugs, while pharmacists browse over everything and mainly get a clinical view of it all. I'm not saying that we should not try to look into more fields, but that we are made for certains parts of the drug development process.

 

[RxMTM]

I found this article that has a wealth of information on PharmD biomedical research:

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/Reports/pharmd_12132006.htm

 

[deleted129840]

There are different kinds of chemists. At the ground level you have basic science which would be mostly organic chemists. Higher up would be the pharmaceutical chemists which also hold PhD's. They formulate the actual medication and dosage form. So really, there are different levels occupied by PhD's at the groundwork. I'm not sure where pharmacists fit into the picture but I'm sure it's pretty far from the drug development side, if not at all. PhD's spend their whole 5-7 years learning only one aspect of drugs, while pharmacists browse over everything and mainly get a clinical view of it all. I'm not saying that we should not try to look into more fields, but that we are made for certains parts of the drug development process.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this blog

http://pipeline.corante.com/

A lot of useful information from an organic chemist in pharmaceutical research. Basic take-away on the job side is that there are many more skilled chemists on the market than are now needed in drug development.