• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

phD Pharmacology - bs biochem or ochem?

R

rjshades

Bluelighter
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
2
Hello,

I am currently a student, and am highly interested in persuing a phD in pharmacology/pharmaceutical sciences. Hopefully to do R&D in industry once out of school.

I would like to ask any knowledgable people out there what they feel is the best undergraduate prep for this path - biochemistry or chemistry (focusing on synthetic organic chem).
 
Many schools with PhD. programs in pharmacology will have some sort of BSc. specialization program for pharmacology. It's somewhere in-between a BSc. general with a major and a heavily focused Honours degree. At my school, it's roughly 50/50 chemistry and medicine, with the chemical focus on organic, biochem and analytical, and the medical focus on anatomy and introductory pharmacology.

I'd go with that if it's available. You'll know best by the end of your BSc. whether or not you want to continue at the grad level, and you will have learned enough that you might know a thing or two about pharmacology.

If you have to choose between ochem and biochem, biochem would be a bit more relevant but it's much more specialized and requires a good existing comprehension of ochem. Try for an undergrad pharmacology program.
 
Six and two threes

I did a biochem degree and my mrs did a pharmacology degree, what is important is what you decide to specialize in for your final year. Org chem is a bit more removed, as it tends to veer of later on, being concerned with the organic chem of transition elements etc (according to a friend who did an applied org chem degree)
 
I'd say biochem would be better for understanding the effects of various pharms on the human body, while ochem, while probably providing a better understanding of the chemical structure of the pharms, would not focus on the biological part.

Truthfully though, I think you could major in either one and end up taking the exact same classes (at least at my school.)
 
If you ending up as a pharmacologist in a phamacuetical company, you would not need any special O-chem knowledge at all. Depending on what skills you had (basically whether you did behavioural pharmacology, molecular biology or electrophysiology) you would get put to task figuring out what drug X does (generally speaking).

Of course they have chemists working on the synth of new chems, and refining the efficacy of the production of old ones (thought I don't know much about that side of things). But that's not pharmacology.

So my recomendation would be either biochemisty/molecular biology, if you want to end up looking at gene/protein changes a drug induced (boring!). Psychology if you wanted to look at whether drug X made a mouse explore an open field more (yawn!)
Physiology if you wanted to look at the changes drug X induced on neuronal firing patterns (YAY!).

Or that's how I see it. Of course I'm biased cause I do electrophysiology; but recording from single neurons with micro-electrodes is so much cooler than doing western blots.
 
My vote would be biochem, that way you can do structural biology, drug/protein and protein/protein interaction studies. Then again, I like structural biology, so I am a tad biased. Besides, doing westerns isn't all bad, if you go into electrophysiology, you may realize this after attempting (and failing) to patch clamp a cell for the 1000th time :)
 
I patched 4 outa 5 cells the other day, and held one cell for 3 hours while giving an interview! Meanwhile I can't evoke an extracellular population spike... so I don't know whats going on there.
 
Thanks for all of the input. There is quite an overlap in undergraduate level courses for both programs. While I am always interested in organic chemistry and synthesis, I think biochem is more relevant, however it probably depends on what I actually want to do.

I am very interested in natural product synthesis, yet at the same time, I want to be in a role in drug discovery/development.

It is funny b/c I am sort of at a crossroads right now in my education. I am headed into second semester organic chemistry at a california cc, have been accepted into a UC for chemistry or biochemistry for fall 05, and I am headed to interview at a top pharmacy school for a PharmD degree. Many things to choose from!
 
I agree fastandbulbous.

I did traditional chem subjects (applied chem major) with a Bio-med minor. Then, 1/2 way through, the course offerings were changed. Old subjects were dropped from the curriculum and subjects like drug discovery and forensic chem were introduced. The new subjects were much less involved than the classical organic, inorganic and phys chem subjects. So I would advise to go with a course offering trad chem subjects.

As peptide and scaffolding techniques have gradually formed the basis for much "in pot" drug discovery, the need for the organic chemist has changed in this area. But following this initial identification of a potential drug, a "traditional"synthesis is usually still required as the picogram amounts produced in the "one pot" technique will still usually require a viable synthesis route in order for practical amounts of the drug to be produced.

I had thought for many years I would do post grad studies in pharmacology or something related. But chemistry is much more fun IMO -and still considered a very good major to have. At age 45, and without any other relevant tertiary education, virtually out of nowhere I've been offered a PhD position in Forensic Toxicology. Sure I've got a project in mind, but what I'm trying to stress is that while Chemistry -start to finish - is not an easy subject, the skills learned can be easily applied to other fields of science.

It's like learning with lego =D


When in a Bio-med lab, you can easily recognize the chem majors from the bio-med majors. The Chemists are those who can (well...think they can) accurately measure standards without the need for serial dilutions ;)
 
Like trying to measure 15micromoles by drawing up 15 microlitres of a 1M soln!

I've seen it done (well attempted). With some people, if the reasoning is sound, then that's the way to go (as they aren't afflicted by the dread human error!)
 
^^
No. I mean the complexes some of the transition elements form with groups like porphorin or haemoglobin. For ecample, cobalt ions form a complex with two cyclopentadiene rings that is quite stable.

That's why I said the organic chemistry of the transition elements. You come across plenty of them in biochemistry as well (B12, chlorophyll, weird copper based oxygen carriers in the blood of invertabrates etc), as well as the usual ones from organic chem like organozinc, organotin, grignard reagents and alkyl/aryllithium (I know lithium isn't a transition element, nor is magnesium, but you get where I'm going)
 
Last edited:
in my experience, most of the transition metal ligand chemistry is done in inorganic chemistry papers, and the tiny bit that you do in ochem is hardly a reason against doing it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top