Directors of Pharmacology Graduate Programs: Pharm Phorum1

Getting Started

The meeting began at Meharry Medical College with an address by Lee Limbird, Vice President for Research and Chair of the Department of Biomedical Sciences at Meharry Medical College. Dr Limbird challenged the audience to think of pharmacology with a broad definition, one that encompasses state-of-the-art approaches, such as proteomics, to expand the impact and influence of the discipline. Limiting our appreciation for pharmacology to a narrowly defined, classical definition of the discipline was equated to delegating pharmacology to the status of a “dead” field. The challenge to embrace an expanded and dynamic definition of pharmacology was reiterated by Dennis Hall, Associate Provost for Research at Vanderbilt University. Dr Hall, a physicist by training, expressed his enthusiasm for the meeting in light of the white paper NDEA21: A Renewed Commitment to Graduate Education (1), just released by a task force of the Council of Graduate Schools. The report emphasizes the success of graduate training in the US, the challenges facing graduate education, and efforts to reinvigorate and support graduate education in the country.

Industry Perspectives

Robert Gould, Vice President of Licensing and External Research, Merck Research Laboratories, reinforced Dr Limbird’s remarks by underscoring the importance of embracing new approaches and new technology. Dr Gould described industrial pharmacologists as “well-trained guides to shepherd others through the drug discovery process.” In fact, a central image that emerged was the crucial role of pharmacologists at the interface between emerging technologies and classical approaches. How we might contribute to the training of these “guides” was pointedly addressed by Marlene Cohen, Distinguished Lilly Fellow, and Vice President, Creative Pharmacology Solutions, LLC. She appealed for an elective course in drug discovery. In this way, students could be introduced to industrial operations and concepts such as licensing, contracts, and patentability.

…Pharmacology is more than just combined components of several disciplines.

Franz Hefti, Executive Vice President, Drug Development, Rinat Neuroscience, raised the point that career dynamics in the biotech arena are often misconceived. Companies often have short life spans, due to failure or acquisition, but even relatively short-lived experiences can be viewed positively, as a sign of experience and maturity in the field. In fact, scientists in biotech should plan on jobs in a succession of companies. All three speakers commented on misconceptions that trainees often have about careers in industry. The most common of these are that the pay is considerably higher, that the expectations or qualifications are lower, and that job security is greater than other venues. However, trainees are usually quick to recognize that real assets found in industry careers include the ability to do certain types of experiments that aren’t easily done in the academic environment (e.g., high-throughput screens and clinical studies) and the ability to work on problems directly relevant to human health.

Program Challenges

Three challenges for pharmacology programs were identified by program directors: 1) the need to improve the visibility of pharmacology as a discipline; 2) the requirement to operate under an “umbrella” or “interdisciplinary” program; and 3) the recruitment of minority students. Barbara Beckman, Professor and Assistant Dean of Admissions at Tulane Medical School presented strategies to increase the profile of pharmacology through an undergraduate course. Dr Beckman identified several key aspects to a successful course. One aspect is teaching topics relevant to undergraduates by focusing on drugs that they recognize, such as recreational drugs or drugs for erectile dysfunction. These familiar examples can be used to illustrate the principles and allure of pharmacology more effectively than exhaustive surveys of drugs. An undergraduate course is also a perfect opportunity to integrate senior graduate students who can share (and thus reinvigorate) their enthusiasm for science. Although there are relatively few options for undergraduate study in pharmacology, those that exist provide an important mechanism for generating applicants to pharmacology PhD programs across the country. Several meeting participants agreed that a survey to identify undergraduate pharmacology courses and programs should be prepared. This information could be used strengthen existing undergraduate programs, aid in initiating new efforts, and recruit students into graduate programs.

…A central image that emerged was the crucial role of pharmacologists at the interface between emerging technologies and classical approaches.

Graduate education in biomedicine has seen the growth of organizational structures over the past ten years that centralize PhD-granting programs into a core curriculum. These organizational schemes are generically referred to as “umbrella,” or interdisciplinary, programs. Umbrella programs vary widely in their scope and organization, but certain common advantages and disadvantages have become apparent. Of particular concern is the report that links these programs with the demise of pharmacology and physiology training programs (2, 3). Roger Chalkley, Senior Associate Dean, Biomedical Research, Education, and Training at Vanderbilt University discussed Vanderbilt’s fourteen years of experience with an umbrella program as well as his analysis of such programs across the country. At Vanderbilt, the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program (IGP) is the predominant mechanism by which students are recruited into PhD programs in the biomedical sciences, including pharmacology. In addition to recruitment, the program provides a first-year curriculum focused on biochemistry, cell biology, and genetics, but is also rich with examples of scientific inquiry from each of the participating programs. The first year also provides laboratory rotations, during which students choose a mentor and PhD-granting program. Pharmacology at Vanderbilt has done well over the course of the IGP, being one of the top three PhD-granting programs at recruiting students from the common pool, despite a significantly heavier course load for pharmacology students. The success of pharmacology at Vanderbilt may reflect the appeal of the discipline to students who never would have applied directly to a pharmacology program but who became excited by mentors and research problems presented under the umbrella curriculum. Nevertheless, many pharmacology programs face the struggle of introducing principles of pharmacology into the core curriculum and of developing a manageable specialized pharmacology curriculum that operates effectively within the umbrella program.

Lou DeFelice, Professor of Pharmacology and Director of the Bridges Program for Underrepresented Minorities at Vanderbilt University, discussed efforts to recruit and retain minority students. Pharmacology programs do not face any unique barriers to minority recruitment, but the recruitment and retention of minority students is a major concern for all areas of science and engineering. Dr DeFelice described undergraduate summer research programs and “bridge” programs, through which PhD-granting institutions partner with minority institutions that offer master’s degrees. Dr DeFelice emphasized that strong minority students are highly sought after and that familiarizing the best candidates early with pharmacology programs may be the most effective recruiting strategy. Dr DeFelice noted that minority students, like all students, do best in environments where they feel valued and supported.

NIH Perspectives

Peter Preusch, NIGMS Training Grant Program Director, provided an overview of pharmacology training programs. In the pharmacological sciences, twenty-eight programs with a total of 215 slots were supported in 2004. Dr Preusch reminded us of the importance of evaluating our training programs and that, in 2002, NIGMS had organized a meeting (4) with very similar objectives to the present meeting. He also summarized the attributes that NIGMS values in a training program. He emphasized the need for a strong research faculty, an appropriate applicant pool, a training record, and a commitment to mentoring and monitoring. In addition, a plan for minority recruitment and training in responsible conduct is required. How these goals are met can be variable, and diversity in programs is seen as a strength. Dr Preusch also discussed the concern over the need for integrative and systems training, and he reviewed the development of NIGMS-sponsored short courses to address this important issue. Four short course programs have been funded, and it is hoped that trainee participation will be high [see http://www.nigm.nih.gov/Training/IOSP.htm and (5)].

Pharmacology programs that lack formal cousework in pharmacokinetics: 40% PharmFact³

Anne Zajicek, Pediatric Medical Officer, NICHD, presented current initiatives in obstetric and pediatric clinical pharmacology at the NIH. In general, issues related to pharmacology in children are receiving increasing interest and priority at the NICHD. Opportunities for training in basic pharmacology in children and embryonic development are likely to expand. Developing partnerships between pharmacology, clinical pharmacology, and pediatric programs may provide unique mechanisms for addressing these issues and providing support for trainees.

Pharmacology programs participating in “umbrella” admissions: 50% PharmFact³

Program Profiles

One goal of this meeting was to collect data concerning key features of training programs. A questionnaire (see Web site) elicited data from forty-eight PhD programs, establishing an average of twenty-six trainees per program and an average of 5.1 years to graduation; ninety-two percent of trainees typically obtain their degree. Forty respondents described their training efforts as department-based, with the remainder being defined as a “program.” Fifty percent of the training programs participate in umbrella admissions programs; however, eighty percent also use direct admission. Thirty-six programs reported access to training grant slots, with an average of six slots per program; funding for graduate students was identified as a major concern.

Curriculum

Forty-six programs reported the existence of a formal core curriculum for trainees; on average, eighty-five hours of graduate student–specific pharmacology courses are provided. Thirty-two programs (i.e., nearly two-thirds of respondents) teach a pharmacology course specifically designed for graduate students. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of programs combine medical student pharmacology lectures with graduate student–specific lectures and problem sets to create a graduate course. Therefore, the reorganization of medical school curricula, which may tend to exclude the participation of graduate students (i.e., organ- or systems-based curricula), remains an area of deep concern. Given the national emphasis on bench-to-bedside research, the early segregation of MD and PhD trainees—and the resulting lack of exposure of PhD students to clinical pharmacology and human biology—seems worthy of reevaluation.

Umbrella programs vary widely in their scope and organization, but certain common advantages and disadvantages have become apparent.

The disassociation of graduate study from whole-organism biology is further emphasized in that thirty-five percent of the respondents do not include a formal physiology course in their training program. Likewise, forty percent lack formal coursework in drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics; for the remaining sixty percent, an average of twenty-five hours of instruction is provided. Although it must be appreciated that some very strong programs provide pharmacology training with a distinctly molecular focus, the disappearance of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics as well as organismal biology in training programs bears watching. The loss of these components has met with concern from academic, government, and industrial researchers (4, 6, 7). Given that pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism are essential core knowledge in pharmacology, their absence from predoctoral pharmacology training programs is concerning. The development of improved and novel therapeutic agents will require that these issues be addressed.

Differences among training programs in many ways represent the strength of diversity. The meeting attendees expressed general agreement as to the importance of diverse training in pharmacology. Attendees were also clear in conveying the continuing need to engage in a dialogue with other program directors to meet common challenges and offer a diversity of strengths to trainees within the pharmacology community.

J.R. Haywood, Chair at Michigan State University, introduced the Task Force on Learning Objectives for Graduate Students in Pharmacology, which was established by the Association of Medical Pharmacology Chairs (AMSPC) to define the key principles and concepts to which all graduate students trained in pharmacology should be exposed. Dr Haywood stressed that the Task Force is in need of more members and input, noting that an external benchmark is likely to be helpful even to well-established programs that must at times alter and reevaluate their curricula.

Reflections

Many current PhD programs in pharmacology lack didactic medical school courses that focus on human biology and pathophysiology. Reorganization of many medical school curricula to an organ- or systems-based model has eliminated medical physiology and pharmacology courses traditionally available to graduate students (4). Further, many basic science departments are adopting interdisciplinary approaches that do not emphasize traditional disciplines in graduate training (2, 3). At a time when the population of clinical investigators is decreasing, a severe shortage of in vivo pharmacologists (6) and integrated biologists contributes to the widening gap between basic and applied studies in drug development. Interestingly, the training of basic scientists in integrated biology and human pathobiology has been suggested as a mechanism to obviate the shortage of clinical investigators (8). Pharmaceutical companies have identified a dire need for “the ability to think intelligently about the relevance of animal models to the human clinical situation rather than mere technical skills in a particular animal model” (4). Historically, pharmacology training programs have satisfied this need by training scientists that can think broadly across research arenas related to biomedicine.

Average time to complete PhD in pharmacology: 5.1 years PharmFact³

An ever-increasing list of new technological approaches and paradigms compete for space in the curriculum. Pressures to provide exposure to industry-desired skills such as drug discovery, business and legal principles, and communications compete with the desire to hone teaching skills and succeed at the bench. Perhaps we should remind ourselves that graduate school is only a small part of the educational experience for scientists. The educational experience continues throughout fellowship training, where trainees hone their experimental skills and collect additional skills and perspectives that will make them uniquely suited to address specific questions. The questions raised in this meeting define many of the issues that apply to all stages of scientific training. Pharmacology is a discipline with a rich history, and problems of drug discovery and characterization are increasingly important. Whether pharmacology will be relegated to just one technique among many that can be used to address these problems, or whether it will grow as a discipline with a unique set of approaches and theoretical perspectives, is up to us. doi:10.1124/mi.6.1.1