Pharmacy vs. Pharmacology

Started by Vilhjalmr
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
V

Vilhjalmr

*
10+ Year Member
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I'm not very clear on the difference, so I was hoping someone here could help me out. I wasn't even really aware there was a difference, but I was just told that pharmacists don't get to do any research or anything like that - they just dispense drugs. Pharmacology (I am told) is where it's at if you're actually interested in the subject. That doesn't seem right to me, since I was pretty sure that pharmacists had to know a little about drugs too 😛, but is there any truth to the idea? Any help or advice is appreciated. Thanks. 🙂
 
google.com
wikipedia.org
dictionary.com

etc.
You'll find the answer in no time!
Best of luck!
 
Last edited:
Pharmacology is a subset of pharmacy. Pharmacology is just the study of drugs, how they interact, what side effects they cause, indications, etc. Pharmacy as a career is the monitoring of drugs (and their pharmacology) as well as disease states being treated, monitoring drug outcomes, managing patient compliance and so forth. Basically pharmacology is a part of pharmacy.


Look here for more:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=314592
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
gotmilklol said:
Pharmacology is a subset of pharmacy. Pharmacology is just the study of drugs, how they interact, what side effects they cause, indications, etc. Pharmacy as a career is the monitoring of drugs (and their pharmacology) as well as disease states being treated, monitoring drug outcomes, managing patient compliance and so forth. Basically pharmacology is a part of pharmacy.


Look here for more:
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=314592
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot. I only searched for recent results, so I'm glad you pointed this out. Looks like I'll stay with pharmacy after all, especially since I enjoy learning about the clinical use of drugs a lot. 🙂
avuong said:
google.com
wikipedia.org
dictionary.com

etc.
You'll find the answer in no time!
Best of luck!
Click to expand...

Real witty, dickhead.
 
It's the youth of today.

A wealth of information available from Google and Wikipedia and they'd rather have someone on a forum give them a full link than just take 3 extra steps to find it themselves.

In 10 years, kids will probably be asking other people what color the god damn sky is.
 
themulya said:
Hey, sometimes you gotta do some research. Can't have everything spoon fed.
Click to expand...

Isn't coming on here and asking a part of research? Why don't we all just stop coming to these forums and asking questions then. We must all be getting spoon fed answers. No one says you have to answer it. I was interested in this question too b/c a girl in one of my classes was doing pharmacology, but I didn't know what the difference was from pharmacy... so good question.
 
I never said to stop asking questions. This forum is a very helpful guide and resource. But there have to be some guidelines before posting.

1. Research. Try to find info on the web. If you've done your research and still don't understand it, then post but at least convey that you've done the slightest bit of work and still need help.
2. Use SDN. We have a FAQ that is very helpful and a search function to find threads that have already been discussed.
3. If you have tried all of the above then post.

You asked why I posted. First, he insulted someone who answered his question. It was obvious the OP didn't do any research or he wouldn't have asked the questions he did. Second, I hope others read this thread and realize that you don't post every question that pops into your head. Do some research before you post, it's not that hard.
 
themulya said:
I never said to stop asking questions. This forum is a very helpful guide and resource. But there have to be some guidelines before posting.

1. Research. Try to find info on the web. If you've done your research and still don't understand it, then post but at least convey that you've done the slightest bit of work and still need help.
2. Use SDN. We have a FAQ that is very helpful and a search function to find threads that have already been discussed.
3. If you have tried all of the above then post.

You asked why I posted. First, he insulted someone who answered his question. It was obvious the OP didn't do any research or he wouldn't have asked the questions he did. Second, I hope others read this thread and realize that you don't post every question that pops into your head. Do some research before you post, it's not that hard.
Click to expand...

I had three posts and have been registered for three months. Does it seem like I ask a lot of frivolous questions?

I think the fact I asked the question at all should be enough to convey that I did research and still needed help. Instead of being an arrogant jackass and assuming I'm ******ed, why not try to be helpful?

In this particular case, I had indeed Googled. I am aware of the definitions. What I wanted was an answer, from someone who would presumably have experience with one or both, that enlightened me as to the practical difference in majors and careers. I.e., do pharmacologists really know that much more about drugs than pharmacists? Google says pharmacologists are the researchers, but I've read about pharmacists being researchers at pharmaceutical companies - do they do different research than pharmacologists? I read that pharmacologists also work in hospitals - what exactly do they do there? It seems like more of a pharmacist job to me. Etc., etc., etc.

Luckily, someone decided not to be a jackass and post a result that I missed. Next time I know to look more thoroughly through the forum search engine. And I learned this without him telling me "lol use teh search engine n00b", too.

Sorry if I seem a little irked. It annoys me that someone will type out a post about using Google rather than, if it's so easy, taking even less time to just post a link. Or maybe even trying to help.
 
Last edited:
Guys, just stfu
I answered the OP's question, there's no need to criticize him or go any further into this futile argument. Jeez...
 
The question, or rather statement, that was not addressed is whether pharmacists can do research or not. With the switch from RPh to PharmD, this allowed pharmacists to do more with their degree. One of those things is to go into research. You will have to do some residencies and/or PhD. There are several programs where you can earn both PharmD and PhD simultaneously. I know there is one person in my school getting her PhD from UT Austin while doing her PharmD. It will take some extra time, but you will walk out with two high level degrees and you will be better set to go into research if that is what you desire.

The main difference between a pharmacologist and pharmacist is the pharmacist holds a professional license and can work in more diverse areas. A pharmacologist is usually, but not always, employed by either a school of pharmacy/regular undergrad university or a pharmaceutical company. They will be doing mainly research or teaching if not both. You will learn pharmacology all throughout pharmacy school because of the different drug classes you will study.
 
Passion4Sci said:
Fortunately for you this time, I actually saw Gran Torino as an avid Clint Eastwood fan, so you're probably right.

=]
Click to expand...

You're an avid Clint Eastwood fan? Jeez, I was trying to avoid making old man jokes, but now you're making it hard...

Hopefully you don't have a life-size cardboard cutout of Clint like my Orgo professor did.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
IrishHammer said:
Real Clint fans carry a .44 Magnum.
Click to expand...

The ammo is too expensive for range shooting. I like the ability to use a .38 shell in lieu of the .357.

.44 magnum shells from anyone but like, Federal, are a little prohibitive when you go out firing 300 or 400 of them on a weekend. A bit too much recoil for rapid-fire rapid-reload, too. Although not as neutered as a 9mm, the .357 is more easily manageable than the .44. IMO, anyway. The same reason I preferred the M4A1 to the M16.
 
Passion4Sci said:
The ammo is too expensive for range shooting. I like the ability to use a .38 shell in lieu of the .357.

.44 magnum shells from anyone but like, Federal, are a little prohibitive when you go out firing 300 or 400 of them on a weekend. A bit too much recoil for rapid-fire rapid-reload, too. Although not as neutered as a 9mm, the .357 is more easily manageable than the .44. IMO, anyway. The same reason I preferred the M4A1 to the M16.
Click to expand...

The priest who was active at my parish at the time of my First Reconciliation owned and operated a .44. Shot competitively and often times won. True story. So Federal or Clergymen.
 
IrishHammer said:
The priest who was active at my parish at the time of my First Reconciliation owned and operated a .44. Shot competitively and often times won. True story. So Federal or Clergymen.
Click to expand...

Oh, I don't mean that they're not excellent match pistols. I meant in terms of cost, that's all. And Federal is a brand of ammunition... I didn't mean the Feds, as in like the FBI and ATF. I'm pretty sure all those guys have to carry firearms chambered in 9mm lest bullets fly through people and do collateral damage.
 
IrishRxMan said:
The question, or rather statement, that was not addressed is whether pharmacists can do research or not. With the switch from RPh to PharmD, this allowed pharmacists to do more with their degree. One of those things is to go into research. You will have to do some residencies and/or PhD. There are several programs where you can earn both PharmD and PhD simultaneously. I know there is one person in my school getting her PhD from UT Austin while doing her PharmD. It will take some extra time, but you will walk out with two high level degrees and you will be better set to go into research if that is what you desire.

The main difference between a pharmacologist and pharmacist is the pharmacist holds a professional license and can work in more diverse areas. A pharmacologist is usually, but not always, employed by either a school of pharmacy/regular undergrad university or a pharmaceutical company. They will be doing mainly research or teaching if not both. You will learn pharmacology all throughout pharmacy school because of the different drug classes you will study.
Click to expand...

Excellent. This answers my questions better than I knew was possible - thanks a lot! Next time someone tells me all pharmacists do is count pills, I can point them over here. 🙂

Passion4Sci said:
The ammo is too expensive for range shooting. I like the ability to use a .38 shell in lieu of the .357.

.44 magnum shells from anyone but like, Federal, are a little prohibitive when you go out firing 300 or 400 of them on a weekend. A bit too much recoil for rapid-fire rapid-reload, too. Although not as neutered as a 9mm, the .357 is more easily manageable than the .44. IMO, anyway. The same reason I preferred the M4A1 to the M16.
Click to expand...

Federal ammo misfires a lot in my rifles, for some reason. That's why I don't have a .44 revolver, anyway: too expensive, and the recoil makes it a little less fun to shoot. It is a classic, though. I confess, my .22 is really the most fun to plink with.

The M4 is just a carbine version of the M16. They both shoot 5.56mm.
 
Vilhjalmr said:
Excellent. This answers my questions better than I knew was possible - thanks a lot! Next time someone tells me all pharmacists do is count pills, I can point them over here. 🙂 Federal ammo misfires a lot in my rifles, for some reason. That's why I don't have a .44 revolver, anyway: too expensive, and the recoil makes it a little less fun to shoot. It is a classic, though. I confess, my .22 is really the most fun to plink with.

The M4 is just a carbine version of the M16. They both shoot 5.56mm.
Click to expand...

I know they both fire 5.56 (the NATO round, it's the only thing we can use) which is incidentally .22 caliber, I was in the Army for 4 years. However, I found the collapsible butt stock of the M4 to absorb recoil a lot better on rapid-fire rapid-reload firing than the M16. It could've just been my imagination of course, kind of like a "seat of the pants" difference. What I know is, in CQB and when clearing rooms, the M4 performed much better than the M16.
 
Passion4Sci said:
I know they both fire 5.56 (the NATO round, it's the only thing we can use) which is incidentally .22 caliber, I was in the Army for 4 years. However, I found the collapsible butt stock of the M4 to absorb recoil a lot better on rapid-fire rapid-reload firing than the M16. It could've just been my imagination of course, kind of like a "seat of the pants" difference. What I know is, in CQB and when clearing rooms, the M4 performed much better than the M16.
Click to expand...

Just makin' sure. 🙂 I don't doubt that it handled better, being smaller and with a shorter barrel and all. I've never personally fired either... someday...
 
Vilhjalmr said:
Just makin' sure. 🙂 I don't doubt that it handled better, being smaller and with a shorter barrel and all. I've never personally fired either... someday...
Click to expand...

I hope you don't have to fire either in the conditions that I did, but they are fun weapons. Until you have to clean them, that is. 3 hour mission, 5 hours of strip and fun with CLP.

Wish we could've used H&Ks, they are so much easier to clean.
 
Ah, the days of nothing else but cleaning M-16's on the CTA when they didn't have anything for us to do in OSUT, ending the day reeking of CLP and having carbon laced fingers. We got M-4's at my company and they took a bit of getting used to. I found they jumped a lot when qualifying which made getting back on target a little more difficult. The entire company's qualifying scores went down considerably. Nobody got expert and we had a bunch of no go's.

I agree that the .357 is a cheaper gun to shoot, especially if you are melting old wheel balancing weights down into your own wadcutters and reloading. The M-16/M-4 is close to a .22 caliber, but slightly larger at .223. There is also a heck of a powder charge difference. I recently got a .357 Sig Glock 33 to use as my conceal carry and it is one heck of a performer. I have a S&W 4006 .40 that I've had for about a decade now. I love the round but I lust after a Kimber.

One thing I miss about being in the army is all the fun toys I got to play with. Nothing like the smell of burned gunpowder and watching rounds lay waste to things downrange.
 
IrishRxMan said:
Ah, the days of nothing else but cleaning M-16's on the CTA when they didn't have anything for us to do in OSUT, ending the day reeking of CLP and having carbon laced fingers. We got M-4's at my company and they took a bit of getting used to. I found they jumped a lot when qualifying which made getting back on target a little more difficult. The entire company's qualifying scores went down considerably. Nobody got expert and we had a bunch of no go's.

I agree that the .357 is a cheaper gun to shoot, especially if you are melting old wheel balancing weights down into your own wadcutters and reloading. The M-16/M-4 is close to a .22 caliber, but slightly larger at .223. There is also a heck of a powder charge difference. I recently got a .357 Sig Glock 33 to use as my conceal carry and it is one heck of a performer. I have a S&W 4006 .40 that I've had for about a decade now. I love the round but I lust after a Kimber.

One thing I miss about being in the army is all the fun toys I got to play with. Nothing like the smell of burned gunpowder and watching rounds lay waste to things downrange.
Click to expand...

We always used M16s for qualifying. On anything but the 75m ivans, the M4s were somewhat undesirable, but like I said before, going into a CQB scenario (i.e., room clearing), I would always choose the M4.

I was intel, though, so my play with fun toys was generally limited to the side-arm 92FS and the M4.

I vastly enjoyed firing at inanimate objects to moving targets in country, but I'll agree that shooting stuff is fun.
 
Passion4Sci said:
I hope you don't have to fire either in the conditions that I did, but they are fun weapons. Until you have to clean them, that is. 3 hour mission, 5 hours of strip and fun with CLP.

Wish we could've used H&Ks, they are so much easier to clean.
Click to expand...

And that is why the AK-47 and it's variants are superior to the M4A1 and the M16. Sheer reliability, I forget where I saw it but basically these guys dragged the guns through mud, poured water all over, and then tested. The M4A1 jammed after a couple of shots.
 
Sparda29 said:
And that is why the AK-47 and it's variants are superior to the M4A1 and the M16. Sheer reliability, I forget where I saw it but basically these guys dragged the guns through mud, poured water all over, and then tested. The M4A1 jammed after a couple of shots.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, in a dirty war the AK-47 will hold up better than the M4. But I mean, think of Russian jets too. The MiGs can take off on just about any runway surface, our jets require impeccably clean, pristine tarmac to take flight.

I have had the chance to fire several "insurgency" weapons though on a range, and I didn't like the AK at all.
 
Sparda29 said:
And that is why the AK-47 and it's variants are superior to the M4A1 and the M16. Sheer reliability, I forget where I saw it but basically these guys dragged the guns through mud, poured water all over, and then tested. The M4A1 jammed after a couple of shots.
Click to expand...

The big difference, even with a M-16: weight. A fully loaded Kalashnikov weighs a good 10 pounds or more than a fully loaded M-16. Try humping an extra 10 pounds when you don't have to. That's why we went to the M-16 from the M-14. The M-14 was a wood stock .308 caliber which was a very heavy gun. Soldiers in Vietnam would just toss ammo as they humped through the jungle to cut down on weight. Don't get me wrong, the .308 can do some hella damage and is a great round. It's the round of choice for Army snipers in urban settings with the M-24.
 
gotmilklol said:
Pharmacology is a subset of pharmacy. Pharmacology is just the study of drugs, how they interact, what side effects they cause, indications, etc.
Click to expand...

That thread is wrong. Pharmacology is centered around drug-receptor-cellular response mechanisms. Side effects and especially indications are subjects one would classify as pharmacotherapeutics.

Not that any of you care at this point in your careers...
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
WVUPharm2007 said:
That thread is wrong. Pharmacology is centered around drug-receptor-cellular response mechanisms. Side effects and especially indications are subjects one would classify as pharmacotherapeutics.

Not that any of you care at this point in your careers...
Click to expand...

Eh. You're right but technically the side effects and indications are largely due to those drug-receptor-cellular response mechanisms, so at least in my pharm school, they teach all of that crap in the p'cology courses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.