What to major in to create and research drugs

[panicthedigital]

I am looking to go back to school to work the the field of drug creation and research, and I was wondering if Chemistry or Organic Chemistry would be better? I am hoping to do a chemical analysis of the Sergeant Major (A trippy fish according to erowid), and was curious as to the best way to go about this. Any info would be appreciated.

 

[tathra]

Organic Chemistry or Chemical Engineering would probably be the best choices for creating; as for studying drugs and their effects, go for Pharmacology

 

[BilZ0r]

Well unless you find the worls most supportive, and hallucinogen loving Supervisor, I don't think you'll be very likely to succed in your goal. If you just wanted to do a chemical analysis (which might be possible in afterhours research) then doing a chemistry degree (not chemical engineering) would be the way to do.

 

[ChuangTzu]

You might find this relevant/interesting:

www.maps.org/news-letters/v07n4/07421for.html

 

[PlurredChemistry]

if you are well and truly interested in this you can do it, it will be a good 10 year journey, but it is doable. if you are interested in drug design and research you will need to work your way up to the PhD and post-doc level. if you stay at the bachelor's level you'll never have the freedom to explore what you want. otherwise you'll have to do an afterhours under the radar type thing which is just asking for trouble.

do you have any drug related convictions on your record? any drug related researchers will be checked out by the DEA (in the US, i dunno about elsewhere).

ideally, you'd want a double bachelor in chemistry and pharmacology, then move on to a phd program studying drug design (maybe a phd/md dual program).

chemistry is hard, but if you put the time into it anyone can succeed.

drop me a line if you've got any questions

 

[Jamshyd]

As plurred chemistry said, it is a very long and hard journey, and half-way through that 10-year+ period chances are you'll lose interest.

That being said, it will not be a bad idea to take the basic courses required for a combined chemistry/pharmacology (or pharmacy) degree, besides your actual major (or your job if you have one already). What I mean is that I really don't recommend you attempt to make a career out of it.

Chances are if you are still interested aftergoing the whole way, you will still be doing your research underground.

---

Of course, I do not mean to discourage you - I am just being realistic. And hey, say you go through it and lose interest... you'd still be able to work in those large pharmaceutical companies and design the next prozac and get rich. It can't be that bed, eh?

 

[panicthedigital]

I already have a BA in History, but would like to use my science skills for something. The school that I plan on attending only offers chemistry and bio-chemistry. It seems that bio-chem is the way to go. I don't plan on becoming the next Shuglin or anything like that, but I would like to do something in the field of drugs.

Thanks for the info, but please keep it coming.

 

[BilZ0r]

Combined chemistry/pharmacology is a waste of time in my mind. All of the chemistry you need to know to do pure pharmacology can be learnt in an afternoon or two. All the pharmacology you need to know to do medicinal chemsitry can be taught in an hour. There is nothing to gain from doing a double, and a lot to loose.

 

[Smyth]

Even students with a PhD in organic chemistry will struggle to find employment in a large pharmaceutical industry. Synthesis-type jobs are harder to find than analytical positions and where they are advertised they have a lot of potential candiates to choose from.

 

[TheDEA.org]

Combined chemistry/pharmacology is a waste of time in my mind.

Granted, dual degrees would be overkill...but in my opinion anybody in a biology related field without a pretty solid understanding of basic chemistry (particularly the effects of electronegativity/charge density on intermolecular interactions) is limiting themselves.

At any rate.... If you want to create and design drugs, go pharmacy (or biochem.) You'll get enough chemistry in the process to synthesize basic drugs, and you can always just ask a dedicated chemist for help with more difficult structures.

Believe it or not, Shulgin's work didn't require any great technical expertise. Most of the chemistry is strait-forward, and from a pharmacological standpoint all he really did was methodically explore structural variations, tweaking this and that and seeing what the result was. He's looked up to and admired not for his technical skill but his sheer audacity and determination. Building hundreds of novel substances and then ingesting them is an admirable sort of insanity.

My advice would be to go into a field related to medicine or chemistry that you find interesting and worthwhile regardless; get a productive career, then play around on the side. (Which is pretty much what Shulgin did.)

 

[fastandbulbous]

Building hundreds of novel substances and then ingesting them is an admirable sort of insanity.

He did do a basic sort of structure activity relationship type evaluation of his creations, but if you want to point a finger at the real bloke on the cutting edge of psychedelic SAR studies, his co-conspirator Dave Nichols is the man. He's done a hell of a lot more in the field of linking the chemical structure of the 5HT2a agonists to the receptor binding profile

 

[PlurredChemistry]

As plurred chemistry said, it is a very long and hard journey, and half-way through that 10-year+ period chances are you'll lose interest.

welcome to my world...

Granted, dual degrees would be overkill...but in my opinion anybody in a biology related field without a pretty solid understanding of basic chemistry (particularly the effects of electronegativity/charge density on intermolecular interactions) is limiting themselves.

argh! the number of biology students i've dealt with that have next to no basic chemistry understanding is mind numbing....

Believe it or not, Shulgin's work didn't require any great technical expertise. Most of the chemistry is strait-forward, and from a pharmacological standpoint all he really did was methodically explore structural variations, tweaking this and that and seeing what the result was. He's looked up to and admired not for his technical skill but his sheer audacity and determination. Building hundreds of novel substances and then ingesting them is an admirable sort of insanity.

true true, but pharmacology was not nearly as developed as it is today. the developement of that field is constantly changing - though basic drug development remains pretty similar - find a semi-active compound and keep tweaking it until you get the result you like...