Cookie policy: This site uses cookies (small files stored on your computer) to simplify and improve your experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information please take a look at our terms and conditions. Some parts of the site may not work properly if you choose not to accept cookies.

Join

Subscribe or Register

Existing user? Login

Science is the backbone of the pharmacy profession

The Pharmacy Schools Council (PhSC) was disappointed to see reports in The Pharmaceutical Journal (9 September 2014) of Bill Scott’s comments at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society conference, which asserted a need to remove the science from the MPharm to focus on healthcare. The PhSC represents 27 schools of pharmacy and our members wish to highlight that the MPharm is rooted in science and to suggest science should be removed is entirely inappropriate. Pharmacists could not do the job without science. Indeed, a focus on healthcare requires a high degree of scientific knowledge. Pharmacists are the experts in medicines and a strong grounding in chemistry is essential to this. It is not a simple choice between being a healthcare professional and a scientist; it is the combination of both that makes a pharmacist.

Pharmacists make a vital contribution as healthcare professionals and there is an opportunity for the role of the pharmacist in hospital and community to be expanded, as is suggested in ‘Prescription for excellence’, the ambitious plan for pharmacy in Scotland. The position of a pharmacist as a scientist in the healthcare team is a unique selling point for the profession and should be seen to be a great strength rather than a weakness.

There is also an opportunity to consider the role of the pharmacist to ensure the strength of science within the MPharm is used to its full potential. These clinical skills can only be built on a strong foundation of science. In addition, the skill set developed by pharmacists can be applied in a number of settings, including, but not limited to, medicine design, medical information, medicine manufacture and design, the pharmaceutical industry and academia.

Discussions on undergraduate education in future must recognise that science is the backbone of the profession and is key to expanding the contribution made by pharmacists. Indeed, in its 2011 report, the Modernising Pharmacy Careers Programme Board highlighted that the vision of a pharmacist is of a “professional, a clinician and a scientist”.

The PhSC agrees that there is an opportunity to raise the profile of the contribution pharmacists make to healthcare and doing so would address the “mystery” of the profession. However, we strongly believe that taking an approach that reduces the emphasis placed on science will be to the detriment of the profession. Recognising the importance of science is central to the developing role of the pharmacist.

Yvonne Perrie

Chairman

Pharmacy Schools Council

Citation: The Pharmaceutical Journal URI: 20066594

Readers' comments (1)

  • GPhC standards Appendix 2 are influenced by Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of professional qualifications includes requirements for the initial education and training of pharmacists.
    The Minimum Training Requirement (MTR) includes the following: Training for pharmacists shall provide an assurance that the person concerned has acquired the following knowledge and skills:
    (a) adequate knowledge of medicines and the substances used in the manufacture of medicines;
    (b) adequate knowledge of pharmaceutical technology and the physical, chemical, biological and microbiological testing of medicinal products;
    (c) adequate knowledge of the metabolism and the effects of medicinal products and of the action of toxic substances, and of the use of medicinal products;
    (d) adequate knowledge to evaluate scientific data concerning medicines in order to be able to supply appropriate information on the basis of this knowledge;

    It would help the debate to know what is meant by adequate, which of the above if any need to change and what is taught that does not fit these headings.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

For commenting, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will have the ability to comment.

Recommended from Pharmaceutical Press

Search an extensive range of the world’s most trusted resources

Powered by MedicinesComplete
  • Print
  • Share
  • Comment
  • Save
  • Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Jobs you might like

See more jobs

Newsletter Sign-up

Want to keep up with the latest news, comment and CPD articles in pharmacy and science? Subscribe to our free alerts.