Research with a Pharm.D (?)

Started by rekesk
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
R

rekesk

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
I'm currently completing my first degree, a combined bachelors-masters degree in pharmaceutics. I've had a research project and classes which have given me a good deal of exposure to the pre-clinical side of drug development and research.

At this point, I think to myself that the next step would be to get a Ph.D. But for how long it takes, I can't say that I've warmed up to the idea much yet. I still will consider it. But more and more I've been coming across information about how 1) the pharmaceutical industry needs Pharm.Ds and 2) Pharm.D students who actually have legitimate research projects. I had always been under the impression that most Pharm.Ds end up in retail or in the clinical side of things. Thats why I ended up doing the pharmaceutical science degree, because I wanted to get exposure to bench work or lab research. This leads me to ask:

Are there actually research-related careers within the drug industry for people who get a Pharm.D as opposed to the Ph.D? If you have any information on this, please do provide! I want to find out as much about research opprotunities with a Pharm.D as this forum can give.
 
I've never known a Pharm.D to do bench research. IMO, we're not educated enough in drug research techniques.

However, I have known many Pharm.D's who coordinate the clinical trials. I've also known those who keep the regulatory issues in order when a drug is being taken from its original NDA to the final clinical trial level & approval.

If you really want to do lab research, my opinion is to pursue a PhD in a pure science - chemistry, molecular biology, etc...I think you'd be limited with a Pharm.D. Just my opinion....
 
rekesk said:
Are there actually research-related careers within the drug industry for people who get a Pharm.D as opposed to the Ph.D? If you have any information on this, please do provide! I want to find out as much about research opprotunities with a Pharm.D as this forum can give.
Click to expand...

Yes you can do bench work with a PharmD. However the people that do so typically endured several years of fellowship training in order to gain the necessary skill to be competitive in a research arena. It should also be noted that most of the PharmDs who do "pure bench" work will be predominantly in the pharmacokinetics/pharmacogenomics arena which can be easily incorporated into drug development arena. Examples are William D. Figg, Pharm.D w/ expertise in pharmacokinetics/ pharmacogenomics/ clinical/pre-clinical trials in oncology w/ residency and fellowship training (at NCI/NIH), Val R. Adams, PharmD w/ residency and fellowship training at Univ of KY w/ expertise in pharmacokinetics/ pharmacogenomics/ clinical/pre-clinical trials in oncology , C. Lindsay DeVane, Pharm.D. at MUSC w/ expertise in pharmacokinetics/pharmacogenomics in psych meds w/ fellowship training, and Larry Ereshefsky, PharmD expertise in psych meds/CYP450 drug interactions/kinetics w/ just residency training (formerly at UTSA now Executive Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer at California Clinical Trials).

DeVane, Figg, and Adams have fellowship programs for training. Adams also has a residency program. However reality is that fellowship will take at least
2yrs (maybe even 3-4 yrs if you want to secure funding for future research) so your timing may be similar to if you were to of completed the PhD. If you really just want bench research than the PhD is the degree to obtain. The PharmD/PhD combo has the advantage of having the PharmD for a back up (either to supplement salary w/ part time work), marketing, or for having a more "real world" application/appreciation of ones research. Honestly the latter argument will be more subjective to the individual researcher. PhD will also help w/ competing for NIH funding. The name of the game is to obtain/maintain funding and produce publications that reflect your work. Most PharmDs in industry are there for clinical trial oversight/ development/side effect monitoring/medical science liaison (i.e. evaluating literature and educating prescribers and drug reps) as SDN1977 stated so those that do bench work w/ just a PharmD are certainly rare and typically have taken several yrs of training/producing to get to that level.
 
kwizard said:
Yes you can do bench work with a PharmD. However the people that do so typically endured several years of fellowship training in order to gain the necessary skill to be competitive in a research arena. It should also be noted that most of the PharmDs who do "pure bench" work will be predominantly in the pharmacokinetics/pharmacogenomics arena which can be easily incorporated into drug development arena. Examples are William D. Figg, Pharm.D w/ expertise in pharmacokinetics/ pharmacogenomics/ clinical/pre-clinical trials in oncology w/ residency and fellowship training (at NCI/NIH), Val R. Adams, PharmD w/ residency and fellowship training at Univ of KY w/ expertise in pharmacokinetics/ pharmacogenomics/ clinical/pre-clinical trials in oncology , C. Lindsay DeVane, Pharm.D. at MUSC w/ expertise in pharmacokinetics/pharmacogenomics in psych meds w/ fellowship training, and Larry Ereshefsky, PharmD expertise in psych meds/CYP450 drug interactions/kinetics w/ just residency training (formerly at UTSA now Executive Vice President & Chief Scientific Officer at California Clinical Trials).

DeVane, Figg, and Adams have fellowship programs for training. Adams also has a residency program. However reality is that fellowship will take at least
2yrs (maybe even 3-4 yrs if you want to secure funding for future research) so your timing may be similar to if you were to of completed the PhD. If you really just want bench research than the PhD is the degree to obtain. The PharmD/PhD combo has the advantage of having the PharmD for a back up (either to supplement salary w/ part time work), marketing, or for having a more "real world" application/appreciation of ones research. Honestly the latter argument will be more subjective to the individual researcher. PhD will also help w/ competing for NIH funding. The name of the game is to obtain/maintain funding and produce publications that reflect your work. Most PharmDs in industry are there for clinical trial oversight/ development/side effect monitoring/medical science liaison (i.e. evaluating literature and educating prescribers and drug reps) as SDN1977 stated so those that do bench work w/ just a PharmD are certainly rare and typically have taken several yrs of training/producing to get to that level.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kwizard! Great examples of outstanding researchers! I think these folks put in as much time as any PhD candidate....and they had great opportunities (in no way do I say that to diminish their abilities!). So...you need to be really good at what you do, know the area you want to go into, network, get great fellowships/post graduate opportunities & continue to secure funding (which goes along with publishing). Not an easy path for sure - but for the right candidate....very fulfilling and for the rest of us - vital for the information we use every day!

Again - thank you Kwizard!
 
sdn1977 said:
Thanks Kwizard! Great examples of outstanding researchers! I think these folks put in as much time as any PhD candidate....and they had great opportunities (in no way do I say that to diminish their abilities!). So...you need to be really good at what you do, know the area you want to go into, network, get great fellowships/post graduate opportunities & continue to secure funding (which goes along with publishing). Not an easy path for sure - but for the right candidate....very fulfilling and for the rest of us - vital for the information we use every day!

Again - thank you Kwizard!
Click to expand...

Not a problem and I agree w/ your opinion about # of yrs put in for fellwship vs PhDs. Without the PhD you kind of need the "stars to line up appropriately". Basically you need a good fellowship w/ good mentors and supportive environment for growth and development in addition to mentors willing to further nurture the young investigator after completing fellowship training typically via a NIH K-grant (http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm) again very competitive.

Given all of these potential necessities the typical PhD program aligns most of the "stars" for you and provides ample time to develop a skill set via didactics then also fosters production/application via lab studies. A really good fellowship does the same but w/ more emphasis on "on the job training" given minimal time for developing skill set and completing research which is why the fellowship often takes as long as PhD. Avg time for completion of PhD (~4yrs) and most fellowships advertise only taking 2yrs to complete but in reality take 3yrs on avg and some take 4yrs given the time it takes to accomplish all of these hurdles.
 
patmcd said:
Getting your Phd shouldnt take you any longer than a pharmd, especially since you already have a masters and will have completed a number of graduate level classes.
Click to expand...

It will depend. If you are in a program that will allow you to continue on to the PhD in the same program it may not take longer.

But if you move to a different school with a PhD program, expect to spend the next 5-6 years of your life devoted to gaining knowledge and long hellacious nights at the bench 🙂
 
Well a further question to pose is this: Do Pharm.Ds who work in clinical trials have to do a fellowship or a residency?

I'm looking to see if my current background can help me down the road, if I were going to take the path of the Pharm.D.
 
rekesk said:
Well a further question to pose is this: Do Pharm.Ds who work in clinical trials have to do a fellowship or a residency?

I'm looking to see if my current background can help me down the road, if I were going to take the path of the Pharm.D.
Click to expand...

Not the ones I know, but they work in Phase IV clinical trials only. Kwizard may be more familiar with those who work in the earlier phases. However, the ones I know who do this work have either been with a physician group or are employed by a company which coordinates Phase IV trials. To get to know this group nowdays, you may need to do a fellowship. Otherwise...you need to get real familiar with the PD's within the physician group to be hired. They won't hire just anyone - obtaining timed samples when studying a cardiovascular drug is far different from an oncology drug, for example. Altho any one trial may go on in multiple sites across the country, each site may enroll only a small number of pts....so the physicians need to know you know your stuff.

Their jobs entail far more than just that...but...you may need a fellowship to get into the network of people you want to work with. IMO...a residency will only benefit you in the future - I'd encourage all pharmacists to pursue one these days. There's a whole other thread on that somewhere.
 
PharmD's can be the PI on clinical research trials.. check out the Name Dan Buffington, PharmD. he has his own research practice. there is also a guy in VA (i think) that is doing the same thing, but he mostly does CV drugs.
 
Yes, a Pharm.D. technically can be an NIH-PI. Yes, a Pharm.D. technically can lead basic research teams. No, this is not common.

A Pharm.D. doing bench research used to be severely discriminated against when pitted against a Ph.D. when it comes to grants, space, and funding. Even now, I see this in my own observations as an already trained pharmacist (Pharm.D.) pursuing a Ph.D. The NIH pretty much tosses applications that just have a Pharm.D. alone when there are other researchers involved (The dreaded "We feel that the PI does not have the relevant experience to conduct this study" comment). If you have your heart set on bench research, just go for the Ph.D. If you want to do clinical trials, a Pharm.D./MPH or Pharm.D./Residency + Fellowship are the minimum union cards for each position.

Pharm.D.'s do not recieve much in the way of research training. They receiving a clinical education. This is a good thing. I find no point in putting a practitioner through the vagracies of Bayesian Gamma-Shrinker Poisson methods, but a Pharmaceutics Ph.D. should be exposed to this and more. This qualifies a Pharm.D. to do limited clinical research, but with a large support team (i.e. the pharmacist is the PHB), I guess they can undertake basic research.

There are exceptions, particularly in applied kinetics, but without further training, you have no shot at even reading the current literature in the basic sciences, much less contribute to it.
 
Caverject said:
She has some flappers! wow

I'm also not impressed with her CV. Of her "selected" articles, she is lead author on three. hmmmm
Click to expand...

Good point, but she is final author on ~16 of them which implies that on those publications she is the senior investigator on the research and/or the work was done in her lab under her supervision. First author typically implies that this author is the one who did most of the work (writing the manuscript, performing tests, literature searches, etc.). Nonetheless, it is really good that you took the time to look at her publications to evaluate authorship as overembelishing is always a potential issue. Another thing to be concerned about would be grantsmanship and from whom grants are obtained. If you can't find a way to fund yourself than you'll have a hard time doing research for a while. The type of grants tend to help with prestige and marketing so if you can get funding from NIH (very competitive) vs drug industry (not as competitive) then NIH funding looks a whole lot better and may increase your publication potential in higher ranking journals, looks better on the CV, and may be more likely to increase ones promotion potential in academia.
 
lord999 said:
Yes, a Pharm.D. technically can be an NIH-PI. Yes, a Pharm.D. technically can lead basic research teams. No, this is not common.

A Pharm.D. doing bench research used to be severely discriminated against when pitted against a Ph.D. when it comes to grants, space, and funding. Even now, I see this in my own observations as an already trained pharmacist (Pharm.D.) pursuing a Ph.D. The NIH pretty much tosses applications that just have a Pharm.D. alone when there are other researchers involved (The dreaded "We feel that the PI does not have the relevant experience to conduct this study" comment). If you have your heart set on bench research, just go for the Ph.D. If you want to do clinical trials, a Pharm.D./MPH or Pharm.D./Residency + Fellowship are the minimum union cards for each position.

Pharm.D.'s do not recieve much in the way of research training. They receiving a clinical education. This is a good thing. I find no point in putting a practitioner through the vagracies of Bayesian Gamma-Shrinker Poisson methods, but a Pharmaceutics Ph.D. should be exposed to this and more. This qualifies a Pharm.D. to do limited clinical research, but with a large support team (i.e. the pharmacist is the PHB), I guess they can undertake basic research.

There are exceptions, particularly in applied kinetics, but without further training, you have no shot at even reading the current literature in the basic sciences, much less contribute to it.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree with lord999. The PharmDs functioning as PIs are certainly the exception and not the rule. To address sdn1977 comments, I'd also agree that most PharmDs in industry are working in the Phase IV portion (ADR monitoring or helping coordinate study protocols) or are MSLs (medical science liaisons) functioning as educators of prescribers and/or drug reps about the drugs and clinical trial data. These are typically clinical or investigational pharmacists who worked in hospital pharmacies, DI centers, or academic medical centers for a couple of yrs typically w/ some publications and documented research experience and for any # of reasons decided to move on to industry. Other types of pharmacists you may see in the Phase IV arena are the PharmD/MPH (already mentioned) given their potential in epi/stats or the PharmD/PhD (PhD in pharmacoepi/outcomes) or PharmD w/ fellowship training in pharmacoepi/outcomes related work.

The people that are doing Phase I stuff are basically all kinetics people who often mastered their craft in academic medical centers >10yrs ago so they are the exceptions and probably shouldn't be used for examples for someone to try to achieve today given changes in the landscape. I only pointed some out previously as a point that yes it can be done, but yes it is also pretty rare.

From a historical perspective a good article to review would be by ACCP in 2000 "Clinical Pharmacist as the PI": http://www.accp.com/position/pos25.pdf. But if you really want to do research (i.e. benchwork) than the PhD is the best way to go. Another template to look at would be Scott Akers, PharmD, PhD at UKY. An interesting example as he did the PharmD did residency training (2yrs) + fellowship training (2yrs) then went back to get the PhD because he felt it was necessary to complete himself as a researcher for the level of research he wants to do. Now he's on faculty at UK and only practices clinically (rounding) about one-two months/yr and functions as a mentor for the Clin PharmD/PhD program in addition to also running a cardiovawscular fellowship for those who want research training, but aren't trying to go the PhD route.

Note the research training in residency training is very minimal and at best goes no further than being able to to a good retrospective review or apply basic epi/stats to one's success in implementing a clinic and comparing it to another service.

If you want anymore than that then you either have to dedicate more free time to training yourself in the pharmacoepi/MPH arena but finding time to do so may prove difficult.

Fellowships are often for those people who find themselves somewhere in the middle. Think of it as how you would like to spend your time in a 40hr work week.

Most PharmD/PhD positions in academic are 70-80% research/ 20-30% clinical (i.e. 28-32hrs research vs 8-12hrs clinical). Most places are on the 80/20 ratio. Another point is that research may often take >40hr/wk so that may further inhibit you clinical time or you'll spend more nights in the lab completing research. Difference b/w PharmD/PhD vs PharmD/res+fellowship is that their time ratio research/clinical may be the same (i.e. 70-80% research/ 20-30% clinical) but the type of research and grants the PharmD/fellowship will be able to compete for will be on the avg. far less than the PharmD/PhD so the PharmD/PhD is simply better equipped to succeed in a basic/bench/translational research arena.

The PharmD/res+fellowship may be better equipped to succeed in the outcomes/epi arena; however, the debate would be if you don't want to do clinical practice than just go for the the PharmD/PhD pharmacoepi type degree as the PhD will help with funding and success in academia. But if you want to practice mainly and "dabble" in outcomes trials/pharmacoepi go for a residency get the clinical job in a teaching/academic medical center or clinical faculty in academia-->consider MPH?? or try to learn it on your own and try to find a mentor in your clinical practice who can assist w/ your development as a researcher and with publications and possibly some small grants along the way.

Please forgive the length on this one.
 
kwizard said:
I gotta agree with lord999. The PharmDs functioning as PIs are certainly the exception and not the rule. To address sdn1977 comments, I'd also agree that most PharmDs in industry are working in the Phase IV portion (ADR monitoring or helping coordinate study protocols) or are MSLs (medical science liaisons) functioning as educators of prescribers and/or drug reps about the drugs and clinical trial data. These are typically clinical or investigational pharmacists who worked in hospital pharmacies, DI centers, or academic medical centers for a couple of yrs typically w/ some publications and documented research experience and for any # of reasons decided to move on to industry. Other types of pharmacists you may see in the Phase IV arena are the PharmD/MPH (already mentioned) given their potential in epi/stats or the PharmD/PhD (PhD in pharmacoepi/outcomes) or PharmD w/ fellowship training in pharmacoepi/outcomes related work.

The people that are doing Phase I stuff are basically all kinetics people who often mastered their craft in academic medical centers >10yrs ago so they are the exceptions and probably shouldn't be used for examples for someone to try to achieve today given changes in the landscape. I only pointed some out previously as a point that yes it can be done, but yes it is also pretty rare.

From a historical perspective a good article to review would be by ACCP in 2000 "Clinical Pharmacist as the PI": http://www.accp.com/position/pos25.pdf. But if you really want to do research (i.e. benchwork) than the PhD is the best way to go. Another template to look at would be Scott Akers, PharmD, PhD at UKY. An interesting example as he did the PharmD did residency training (2yrs) + fellowship training (2yrs) then went back to get the PhD because he felt it was necessary to complete himself as a researcher for the level of research he wants to do. Now he's on faculty at UK and only practices clinically (rounding) about one-two months/yr and functions as a mentor for the Clin PharmD/PhD program in addition to also running a cardiovawscular fellowship for those who want research training, but aren't trying to go the PhD route.

Note the research training in residency training is very minimal and at best goes no further than being able to to a good retrospective review or apply basic epi/stats to one's success in implementing a clinic and comparing it to another service.

If you want anymore than that then you either have to dedicate more free time to training yourself in the pharmacoepi/MPH arena but finding time to do so may prove difficult.

Fellowships are often for those people who find themselves somewhere in the middle. Think of it as how you would like to spend your time in a 40hr work week.

Most PharmD/PhD positions in academic are 70-80% research/ 20-30% clinical (i.e. 28-32hrs research vs 8-12hrs clinical). Most places are on the 80/20 ratio. Another point is that research may often take >40hr/wk so that may further inhibit you clinical time or you'll spend more nights in the lab completing research. Difference b/w PharmD/PhD vs PharmD/res+fellowship is that their time ratio research/clinical may be the same (i.e. 70-80% research/ 20-30% clinical) but the type of research and grants the PharmD/fellowship will be able to compete for will be on the avg. far less than the PharmD/PhD so the PharmD/PhD is simply better equipped to succeed in a basic/bench/translational research arena.

The PharmD/res+fellowship may be better equipped to succeed in the outcomes/epi arena; however, the debate would be if you don't want to do clinical practice than just go for the the PharmD/PhD pharmacoepi type degree as the PhD will help with funding and success in academia. But if you want to practice mainly and "dabble" in outcomes trials/pharmacoepi go for a residency get the clinical job in a teaching/academic medical center or clinical faculty in academia-->consider MPH?? or try to learn it on your own and try to find a mentor in your clinical practice who can assist w/ your development as a researcher and with publications and possibly some small grants along the way.

Please forgive the length on this one.
Click to expand...


Forgive? Are you kidding? That was a massive amount of helpful info. However, I'm still mulling over what to do. The both the Pharm.D and the PhD have their fair share of options, and its going to take some time to decide which one to get.

THANK YOU 👍
 
You must log in or register to reply here.