the status of chemistry content in the professional ...archive.ajpe.org/legacy/pdfs/aj640304.pdf ·...

The Status of Chemistry Content in the Professional Pharmacy Curriculum: Results of a National Survey

Victoria F. Rochea, Patrick J. Davisb, Marvin C. Pankaskiec, Bruce L. Currie1,d, Edward B. Rochee, Robert D. Sindelarf, James E. Wynng and S. William Zitoh aSchool of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, Creighton University, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha NE 68178; b College of Pharmacy, University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX 78712-1737; cGold Standard Multimedia, Inc., Tampa FL 33606; dChicago College of Pharmacy, Midwestern University, Downers Grove IL 60515-1235; eCollege of Pharmacy, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha NE 68198-6000; fSchool of Pharmacy, University of Mississippi, University MS 38677-9814; gCollege of Pharmacy, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston SC 29425-2301; hCollege of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, St. John’s University, Jamaica NY 11439

A national survey which evaluated the current and anticipated future emphasis of chemistry-related con-tent, the credentials of the faculty teaching the content and pedagogical methods used in the delivery of the content was conducted in 1997-1998. Thirty-three schools or colleges of pharmacy participated. Twenty-one content areas related to General Principles, Medicinal Chemistry, Clinical/Biological Chemistry and Computational/Analytical Chemistry were addressed in the survey instrument. The first section of the survey asked about past, current and anticipated future emphasis on each topic, as well as the discipline(s) of the individuals responsible for delivery. The second section asked about the format of the course(s) that offered the content, pedagogical methods employed in those courses, and perceived adequacy of coverage. The majority of the respondents reported a steady emphasis on the content areas over the past five years with little change anticipated in the foreseeable future. In general, coverage of the General Principles and Medicinal Chemistry content areas was perceived as adequate. Coverage was most commonly deemed inadequate in the Computational/Analytical area, although the Clinical/Biological topics of biotechnology and herbals and natural products were also viewed as in need of augmentation. Faculty educated in the chemical sciences were heavily engaged in the instruction of all topics, and were joined appropriately by pharmacology and pharmaceutics faculty in selected topic areas. Courses in the Computational/Analytical area are most likely to be taught by a single instructor, or by a team of faculty within a single discipline. Multi-disciplinary coverage (either within a single course or in multiple courses) was common in all of the other content areas. Case studies and computerized learning aids were com-monly utilized in the delivery of chemistry-related content, with recitations, laboratories and demonstra-tions used less frequently to augment lecture. Schools and colleges of pharmacy are offering a wide vari-ety of chemistry-related elective coursework to professional students. Respondents view the foundation-al nature of chemistry, the critical-thinking and problem-solving skills the discipline instills, and the ease with which it can be integrated with other science and practice-based courses as the major strengths of this basic pharmaceutical science.

INTRODUCTION Concurrent with the increased emphasis on clinical course work that has been an integral part of the curriculum reform process in pharmacy education has come concern over the fate of chemistry-related content in the contemporary professional curriculum. Many medicinal chemists have willingly and cre-atively modified their discipline’s content to make it relevant to future practitioners. Innovations such as the chemically-based case study and structurally-based therapeutic evaluation(1-4), as well as diverse active learning strategies(5-7), have been developed and utilized extensively by medicinal chemists. Even so, when the dust of curricular reform had settled, sever-al colleagues in the Section of Teachers of Chemistry expressed frustration over having credit hours cut from their courses and/or fear that their subject, so unique and important to the scientific practice of pharmacy, will disappear from the curriculum altogether.

The last formal national survey of chemistry-related con-tent in the professional curricula of schools and colleges of pharmacy, and the faculty teaching it, was published in 1981(8,9). Two others of similar format and scope were initi-ated in 1984 and 1990 and the preliminary results reported the following years at the Section meeting held in conjunction with AACP Annual meetings in San Francisco and Boston, respec-tively. These studies provided a “snapshot in time” and report-ed information on the credit hours that were then devoted to specific didactic and laboratory courses, the number of schools and colleges requiring them, and whether they were taught by

1Current address: College of Pharmacy, South Dakota State University, Brookings SD 57007-0099.

2Data available on the AACP Section of Teachers of Chemistry web page or on request from corresponding author.

Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 64, 239-250(2000); received 4/11/00, accepted 6/9/00.

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Vol. 64, Fall 2000 239

Fig. 1. Topics addressed in the Chemistry Curriculum Survey

pharmacy faculty. The surveys also asked about changes in credit hour assignment for the various courses, and investigat-ed the prevalence of team-teaching in the chemistry curricu-lum. The survey published in 1981 was conducted prior to the establishment of the Commission to Implement Change in Pharmaceutical Education and the national curriculum reform movement, and did not specifically address issues of relevance of content to practice or integration of content with other phar-maceutical and clinical science course work. In addition, the respondents’ opinions of the current and future adequacy of the content was not addressed.

By 1997 the Section of Teachers of Chemistry had devel-oped and approved a revised set of chemistry-related compe-tencies to guide schools and colleges in covering critical chem-istry content deemed essential to the scientific and rational practice of pharmacy. However, with so much curricular movement going on at a national level, and with so much uncertainty about the fate of chemistry in the curricular revo-lutions being staged at almost every school and college of pharmacy, it was deemed prudent to update and expand the information available to academicians. To that end Bruce Currie, in his role as Chair of the Section of Teachers of Chemistry, charged a special Committee to conduct a survey to identify the current status of chemistry in the pharmacy cur-riculum. The Committee set about its work in earnest in early 1997 and collected data through the fall of 1998.

Study Objectives The Chemistry Curriculum Committee was unanimous in

its view that chemistry content, rather than specific courses, should be the focus of the survey. There was active interest in identifying the qualifications of those teaching the content, as well as in the format of content delivery and the active learn-ing strategies used to help students master the content. The Section’s Chemistry Competencies document, as well as the Center for the Advancement of Pharmaceutical Education (CAPE) Competencies document were resources consulted by the Committee as they discussed the scope of the project and constructed the survey instrument. After much discussion, the Committee identified the following as major study objectives.

Fig. 2. Content delivery formats and pedagogical methods assessed in the Chemistry Curriculum Survey

• identify changes in chemistry content emphasis in curric-ula over the past several years and the planned change in content in the near future;

• identify the perceived adequacy of current coverage of content and the anticipated adequacy of coverage in the near future;

• identify pedagogical methods used to deliver content; • identify the extent of integration of content with other

pharmaceutical sciences and/or therapeutics content; • identify the academic discipline of faculty providing

chemistry instruction at the professional level; • provide information to Section members on courses avail-

able at other institutions to facilitate new course develop-ment;

• project future chemistry faculty needs; • help Section members retain or augment chemistry-related

content during the curriculum reform process; and • generate programming ideas for future Section officers.

Survey Design The survey was organized into three sections, the first two

of which were focused on 21 chemistry-related topics com-monly taught in pharmacy curricula. The 21 topics were orga-nized into four general categories: General Principles, Medicinal Chemistry, Clinical/Biological Chemistry and Analytical/Computational Chemistry (Figure 1).

The first section of the survey asked about past, current and anticipated future emphasis on each topic, as well as the discipline(s) of the individuals responsible for delivery. The second section asked about the format of the course(s) that offered the content, pedagogical methods employed in those courses, and perceived adequacy of coverage, both now and in the future (Figure 2). The final section contained questions addressing institutional demographics, open-ended questions about chemistry in the pharmacy curriculum, and asked respondents for their input on important issues for the Section to address in the future.

METHODS The survey instrument was designed by the Committee and approved for distribution by AACP. Letters inviting participation in the survey project were sent to selected medicinal chemistry faculty members and/or the chair of the department of medicinal chemistry/pharmaceutical sciences at each school and college of pharmacy in the country. Since the Committee was interested in learning about chemistry content across the entire curriculum (as opposed to that provided in medicinal chemistry or related courses only), we asked that the survey be completed by the individual most knowledgeable about the comprehensive phar-

240 American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Vol. 64, Fall 2000

Table I. Topic emphasis and adequacy of general principles: Total responsea

Biochemistry Acid-base chemistry

Physicochemical properties

Receptor theory & mechanism

Stereochemistry

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

0-5 5 (15.2) 0-5 5 (15.2) 0-5 8 (24.2) 0-5 10 (30.3) 0-5 19 (59.4)5-10 1 ( 3.0) 5-10 15 (45.5) 5-10 13 (39.4) 5-10 9 (27.3) 5-10 9 (28.1)10-15 0 10-15 8 (24.2) 10-15 8 (24.2) 10-15 7 (21.2) 10-15 3 ( 9.4) 15-20 2 ( 6.1) 15-20 4 (12.1) 15-20 2 ( 6.1) 15-20 4 (12.1) 15-20 1 ( 3.1) 20-25 2 ( 6.1) 20-25 0 20-25 1 ( 3.0) 20-25 1 ( 3.0) 20-25 0

Clock hours currently spent on content

>35 23 (69.7) >35 1 ( 3.0) >35 1 ( 3.0) >35 2 ( 6.1) >35 0

No change 28 (87.9) No change 23 (69.7) No change 28 (90.3) No change 25 (80.6) No change 24 (77.4)Increase 3 ( 9.1) Increase 4 (12.1) Increase 2 ( 6.4) Increase 5 (16.1) Increase 5 (16.1)[33.7]b [3.5] [3.5] [4.6] [2.6] Decrease 1 ( 3.0) Decrease 6 (18.2) Decrease 1 ( 3.2) Decrease 1 ( 3.2) Decrease 2 ( 6.5)

Change in ours in last 5 years

[15] [3.6] [4] [1] [2]

No change 29 (90.3) No change 27 (69.7) No change 27 (93.1) No change 24 (77.4) No change 29 (96.7)Increase 2 ( 6.5) Increase 1 (12.1) Increase 1 ( 3.4) Increase 5 (16.1) Increase 1 ( 3.3) [12.5] [2] [1] [3.4] [2] Decrease 1 ( 3.2) Decrease 2 (18.2) Decrease 1 ( 3.4) Decrease 2 ( 6.5) Decrease 0

Planned change in hours in next 1-3 years

[5] [3] [2] [3]

Inadequate 2 ( 6.2) Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 2 ( 6.2) Inadequate 4 (12.9)Adequate 19 (59.4) Adequate 18 (56.2) Adequate 21 (65.6) Adequate 21 (65.6) Adequate 21 (67.7)Optimal 10 (31.2) Optimal 9 (28.1) Optimal 8 (25.0) Optimal 9 (28.1) Optimal 6 (19.4)

Adequacy of current coverage

Excessive 1 ( 3.1) Excessive 2 ( 6.2) Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0

Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 1 ( 3.1) Inadequate 3 ( 9.7) Adequate 18 (56.2) Adequate 21 (65.6) Adequate 19 (59.4) Adequate 21 (65.6) Adequate 22 (71.0)Optimal 11 (34.4) Optimal 8 (25.0) Optimal 10 (31.2) Optimal 10 (31.2) Optimal 6 (19.4)

Anticipated adequacy of coverage in 1-3 years Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0

aThirty-three surveys returned. Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are those responding to the question. bNumbers in brackets represent the average number of clock hours by which content emphasis has changed or will change.

macy curriculum at the institution. A postage-paid envelope was provided with the survey questionnaire.

Individual committee members were assigned as liaisons to each institution, and were responsible for sending a stan-dardized follow-up letter if a response was not obtained within three months after the initial mailing. Phone calls requesting institutional participation in the project were made by Committee liaisons to non-responders as late as one year after the initiation of the survey project. By December, 1998 a total of 33 usable surveys were returned, for a response rate of 42 percent. Of these, 23 came from public institutions and 10 came from private schools or colleges. Twenty-two of the 33 responding institutions offered only the entry level Doctor of Pharmacy degree, while 10 offered both the PharmD and BS Pharmacy degree. One institution offered only the BS degree at the time of response.

RESULTS The data on content emphasis and delivery obtained from the survey were tabulated and total response data were generated (Tables I-VIII). The data were also split out by type of institution (public or private) and degree(s) offered (PharmD or dual degree options), but few new insights were gained from that analysis.2

General Principles The data on content emphasis and perceived adequacy of

the five General Principles addressed in this survey are provid-ed in Table I. While biochemistry is well emphasized, relative-ly few curricular clock hours are devoted to the foundational

topics of acid-base chemistry, physicochemical properties, receptor theory and mechanism, and stereochemistry. In gener-al, however, respondents believed both the current and future coverage of these topics to be adequate and, in some cases, optimal. The curricular emphasis on these topics has reached “steady state” and few schools had planned to either increase or decrease content within the next 1-3 years.

Table II reveals how the General Principles content is delivered and by whom. Biochemistry is still largely taught in a single discipline team-taught format or by a single instructor, while the other general principles topics are being delivered by individuals in different disciplines. With the exception of stere-ochemistry, these topics are most commonly included in only two courses, although a few schools are integrating this content over as many as six courses. Medicinal Chemistry faculty are actively involved in the instruction of all of General Principles. They are matched by Pharmaceutics faculty in the acid-base and physicochemical properties areas, and by pharmacologists in the area of receptor theory and mechanism. Not surprising-ly, biomedical science faculty are routinely involved in teach-ing biochemistry content. Lecture remains the predominant form of content delivery for the General Principles, although case studies are having an impact in all topic areas. Many respondents still offer laboratories in acid-base chemistry and physicochemical properties, indicating that “hands-on” experi-ence is considered to be helpful in solidifying this content in the students’ minds. Computer-aided instruction augments learning in all topics, but most commonly in the areas of recep-tor theory and mechanism and stereochemistry.


Table II. Topic organization and delivery of general principles: Total responsea

Biochemistry Acid-base chemistry

Physicochemical properties

Receptor theory & mechanism

Stereochemistry

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)SI 10 (31.2) SI 8 (25.0) SI 7 (21.9) SI 4 (12.5) SI 12 (38.7)TT/SD 16 (50.0) TT/SD 5 (15.6) TT/SD 5 (15.6) TT/SD 5 (15.6) TT/SD 11 (35.5)MD/MC 4 (12.5) MD/MC 18 (56.2) MD/MC 19 (59.4) MD/MC 22 (68.8) MD/MC 8 (25.8)

Organizational Formatb

MD/SC/NI 1 ( 3.1) MD/SC/NI 1 ( 3.1) MD/SC/NI 1 ( 3.1) MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0 MDSC/I 1 ( 3.1) MD/SC/I 0 MD/SC/I 0 MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.1) MD/SC/I 0

1 6 (18.3) 1 0 1 3 ( 9.4) 1 4 (12.1) 1 10 (32.2)2 10 (30.3) 2 10 (31.2) 2 11 (34.4) 2 9 (27.3) 2 6 (19.4)3 8 (24.2) 3 9 (28.1) 3 6 (18.8) 3 6 (18.2) 3 9 (29.0)

Number of Courses including content 4 3 ( 9.1) 4 5 (15.6) 4 5 (15.6) 4 3 ( 9.1) 4 2 ( 6.4) 5 2 ( 6.1) 5 3 ( 9.4) 5 3 ( 9.4) 5 5 (15.1) 5 1 ( 3.2) >5 4 (12.1) >5 5 (15.6) >5 4 (12.5) >5 6 (18.2) >5 3 ( 9.7)

BioSci 16 BioSci 6 BioSci 2 BioSci 5 BioSci 3 LibArts 2 LibArts 2 LibArts 1 LibArts 0 LibArts 2 MCP 23 MCP 29 MCP 28 MCP 28 MCP 29

Discipline of faculty teaching contentc PceuPh 5 PceuPh 27 PceuPh 24 PceuPh 7 PceuPh 3 Pcol 8 Pcol 6 Pcol 10 Pcol 28 Pcol 3 PhPr 1 PhPr 2 PhPr 2 PhPr 1 PhPr 1

Small group 4 Small group 7 Small group 5 Small group 3 Small group 2 Case studies 12 Case studies 16 Case studies 10 Case studies 9 Case studies 6

Teaching/ learning toolsc Recitation 3 Recitation 4 Recitation 6 Recitation 7 Recitation 6 CAI 7 CAI 5 CAI 5 CAI 10 CAI 12 Lab 4 Lab 12 Lab 11 Lab 4 Lab 2 Lecture 30 Lecture 31 Lecture 29 Lecture 31 Lecture 30 Demo 2 Demo 5 Demo 4 Demo 3 Demo 7

aThirty-three surveys returned. Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are of those responding to the question. bSI (Single Instructor), TT/SD (Team Taught/Single Discipline), MD/MC (Multi-Disciplinary/Multiple Courses), MD/SC/NI (Multi-Disciplinary/Single Course/Not Integrated), MD/SC/I (Multi-Disciplinary/Single Course/Integrated).

cMultiple answers permitted. Medicinal Chemistry

A review of Table III shows a wide variance on the emphasis of Medicinal Chemistry topics in the pharmacy cur-riculum. While most of the responding Schools indicated few clock hours devoted to drug design or drug nomenclature, emphasis on the topics of molecular mechanisms of action and structure-activity relationships (SAR) runs the gamut from lit-tle none to full course emphasis. Drug metabolism is most commonly covered in 5-10 clock hours. Again, most schools are currently emphasizing these topics to the extent they plan to, and most respondents felt that coverage was adequate or optimal. Planned change, where it existed, was most common-ly to augment clock hour emphasis.

Table IV shows that Medicinal Chemistry topics are deliv-ered by a variety of instructional formats. Multidisciplinary multi-course approaches are common in the instruction of drug metabolism, molecular mechanisms of action and drug nomen-clature, while the single instructor or single discipline approach predominates in the drug design area. The greatest variance in delivery format of medicinal chemistry content was in the area of SAR. Medicinal chemists and, in the molecular mechanisms of action area, pharmacologists have primary responsibility for content delivery, and most commonly address these topics in two or three courses.

Clinical/Biological Chemistry Table V summarizes the data on topic emphasis and ade-

quacy of chemistry topics best classified as clinically or biolog-ically oriented. Pharmacological actions are adequately cov-

ered, with over 65 percent of the respondents indicating 35 or more clock hours devoted to that topic. Drug-drug and drug-food interaction emphasis most commonly ranges between 0-10 clock hours. The emphasis on biotechnology and clinical chem-istry was commonly on the low end of the scale but still spread over the range of response choices. Even with the increased interest in herbal therapies and biotechnology by health care professionals and consumers alike, these topics are not viewed as adequately addressed in the contemporary pharmacy curricu-lum. Only approximately one fourth of the responding schools plan to increase content in these areas within the next 1-3 years, and three schools plan to decrease emphasis in natural products.

Table VI documents that the multidisciplinary-multi course instructional format is more widely used for these top-ics than any others assessed by the survey. Pharmacological actions and drug interactions are more widely integrated throughout the curriculum, while herbal products and biotech-nology are more commonly offered in only one or two cours-es. Consistent with the identified delivery format and number of courses addressing the topics, the individuals providing con-tent in this chemical content area come to the classroom with diverse backgrounds (chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacy practice and, in some cases, pharmaceutics). Case studies are a popular means of assisting students in mastering content and clinical relevance, but lecture is still the primary mode of con-tent delivery for the Clinical/Biological chemistry topics.


Table III Topic emphasis and adequacy of medicinal chemistry: Total responsea

Drug Metabolism

SAR & structure-property relationships

Molecular mechanisms of action

Drug design

Drug nomenclature

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

0-5 7 (22.6) 0-5 6 (18.8) 0-5 4 (12.5) 0-5 20 (64.5) 0-5 13 (41.9)5-10 12 (38.7) 5-10 5 (15.6) 5-10 7 (21.9) 5-10 7 (22.6) 5-10 8 (25.8)10-15 6 (19.4) 10-15 1 ( 3.1) 10-15 7 (21.9) 10-15 1 ( 3.2) 10-15 2 ( 6.5)

Clock hours currently spent on content 15-20 4 (12.9) 15-20 7 (21.9) 15-20 4 (12.5) 15-20 2 ( 6.5) 15-20 1 ( 0.2) 20-25 1 ( 3.2) 20-25 4 (12.5) 20-25 4 (12.5) 20-25 1 ( 3.2) 20-25 5 (16.1) >35 1 ( 3.2) >35 9 (28.1) >35 6 (18.8) >35 0 >35 2 ( 6.5)

No change 23 (76.7) No change 28 (90.3) No change 26 (83.8) No change 23 (79.3) No change 29 (100)Increase 6 (20.0) Increase 1 ( 3.2) Increase 5 (16.1) Increase 6 (20.7) Increase 0

Change in hours in last 5 years [2.3]b [5] [ 6.2] [3.8] Decrease 1 ( 3.3) Decrease 2 ( 6.4) Decrease 0 Decrease 0 Decrease 0 [2] [12.5]

No change 26 (89.6) No change 26 (86.7) No change 28 (93.3) No change 26 (89.7) No change 28 (96.6)Increase 3 (10.3) Increase 1 ( 3.3) Increase 2 ( 6.7) Increase 2 ( 6.9) Increase 0 [1.3] [1] [3.5] [2]

Planned change in hours in next 1-3 years Decrease 0 Decrease 3 (10.0) Decrease 0 Decrease 1 ( 3.4) Decrease 1 ( 3.4) [3.7] [5] [5]

Inadequate 5 (15.6) Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 5 (17.2) Inadequate 2 ( 6.7)Adequate 18 (56.2) Adequate 19 (59.4) Adequate 20 (62.5) Adequate 19 (65.5) Adequate 18 (60.0)

Adequacy of current coverage Optimal 9 (28.1) Optimal 9 (28.1) Optimal 9 (28.1) Optimal 5 (17.2) Optimal 10 (33.3) Excessive 0 Excessive 1 ( 3.1) Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0

Inadequate 4 (12.5) Inadequate 3 ( 9.4) Inadequate 3 ( 6.2) Inadequate 5 (17.2) Inadequate 2 (6.7)Adequate 17 (53.1) Adequate 18 (56.2) Adequate 20 (62.5) Adequate 18 (62.1) Adequate 16 (53.3)Optimal 11 (34.4) Optimal 10 (31.2) Optimal 10 (31.2) Optimal 6 (20.7) Optimal 12 (40.0)

Anticipated adequacy of coverage in 1-3 years Excessive 0 Excessive 1 ( 3.1) Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0 aThirty-three surveys returned. Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are of those responding to the question bNumbers in brackets represent the average number of clock hours by which content emphasis has changed or will change.

Computational/Analytical Chemistry As a group, the topics found in the Computational/

Analytical Chemistry content area receive the least curricular attention of all topic areas addressed in the survey (Table VII). Between 53 and 93 percent of responding institutions report spending only 0-5 clock hours on these topics. This figure rises to between 80 and 93 percent when in vitro chemical stability and biopharmaceutical analysis are omitted from the list. Little change has occurred in this chemical area over the past five years, and little is planned in the foreseeable future. The one exception to that statement comes in the computational chem-istry and computerized molecular visualization areas, where approximately one quarter of the respondents claimed an increase in clock hour emphasis over the past few years with further increases in store. In general, coverage of this chemical content is seen as adequate by most but inadequate by many. The respondents do not hold out much hope for more satisfac-tory coverage in the future, other than in the computerized mol-ecular visualization content area.

The “purest” chemistry content in the curriculum falls in this area, as the topics of computational chemistry, computer-ized molecular visualization, chemical nomenclature and syn-thetic methods are taught almost exclusively by chemistry-edu-cated faculty, and most commonly covered in a single course (Table VIII). Chemical stability and, to a lesser extent, chemi-cal nomenclature were more likely to be delivered in a multi-disciplinary-multi course format, while other topic areas relied

heavily on a single instructor. Stability and analytical areas are addressed equally by medicinal chemistry and pharmaceutics faculty, and are most commonly addressed in one or two cours-es. Lecture is the major route of content delivery in all Computational/Analytical content areas, but laboratories are common in biopharmaceutical analysis courses. CAI is used extensively in teaching about molecular visualization.

Chemistry Faculty Respondents were asked to identify how their institution’s

need for chemistry faculty of various types had changed over the past five years, and to predict anticipated need within the next few years. Table IX shows that there has been a very mod-est increase in the average number of chemistry faculty at the responding institutions over the past five years, but that rela-tively few institutions are looking to hire chemists in the near future. Two of the responding institutions had no medicinal chemists on faculty while 13 indicated that no natural products chemists were on the teaching staff. Some institutions indicat-ed that their biochemistry needs were met by other academic units (e.g., colleges of medicine). One institution had hired only biochemists to meet its chemistry education needs.

Elective Courses Respondents were asked to share the chemistry-related

elective course work offered at their institution. These data are reported in the Appendix. A wide variety of elective courses is


Table IV. Topic organization and delivery of medicinal chemistry: Total responsea

Drug Metabolism

SAR & structure-property relationships

Molecular mechanisms of action

Drug design

Drug nomenclature

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

SI 9 (28.1) SI 7 (21.9) SI 4 (12.5) SI 11 (40.7) SI 6 (20.0)TT/SD 5 (15.6) TT/SD 13 (40.6) TT/SD 7 (21.8) TT/SD 11 (40.7) TT/SD 10 (33.3)MD/MC 17 (53.1) MD/MC 10 (31.2) MD/MC 19 (59.4) MD/MC 4 (14.8) MD/MC 13 (43.3)


MD/SC/NI 1 ( 3.1) MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0 MDSC/I 0 MD/SC/I 2 ( 6.2) MD/SC/I 2 ( 6.2) MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.7) MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.3)

1 4 (12.9) 1 5 (15.6) 1 2 ( 6.2) 1 15 (55.6) 1 8 (25.8)2 5 (16.1) 2 11 (34.4) 2 11 (34.4) 2 6 (22.2) 2 8 (25.8)3 10 (32.2) 3 9 (28.1) 3 4 (12.5) 3 3 (11.1) 3 8 (25.8)

Number of Courses including content 4 4 (12.9) 4 1 ( 3.1) 4 5 (15.6) 4 2 ( 7.4) 4 2 ( 6.4) 5 2 ( 6.4) 5 2 ( 6.2) 5 5 (15.6) 5 1 ( 3.7) 5 3 ( 9.7) >5 6 (19.4) >5 4 (12.5) >5 5 (15.6) >5 0 >5 2 ( 6.4)

BioSci 4 BioSci 3 BioSci 6 BioSci 2 BioSci 2 LibArts 1 LibArts 1 LibArts 1 LibArts 1 LibArts 1 MCP 28 MCP 29 MCP 29 MCP 25 MCP 27

Discipline of faculty teachingcontentc

PceuPh 6 PceuPh 2 PceuPh 5 PceuPh 3 PceuPh 4 Pcol 19 Pcol 5 Pcol 21 Pcol 2 Pcol 8 PhPr 3 PhPr 0 PhPr 1 PhPr 0 PhPr 2

Small group 3 Small group 4 Small group 3 Small group 2 Small group 3 Case studies 20 Case studies 13 Case studies 13 Case studies 5 Case studies 7

Teaching/ learning toolsc Recitation 6 Recitation 8 Recitation 7 Recitation 2 Recitation 4 CAI 3 CAI 9 CAI 8 CAI 4 CAI 4 Lab 3 Lab 1 Lab 1 Lab 5 Lab 1 Lecture 31 Lecture 31 Lecture 31 Lecture 25 Lecture 28 Demo 1 Demo 4 Demo 4 Demo 4 Demo 1

aThirty-three surveys returned. Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are of those responding to the question. bSI (Single Instructor), TT/SD (Team Taught/Single Discipline), MD/MC (Multi-Disciplinary/Multiple Courses), MD/SC/NI (Multi-Disciplinary/Single Course/Not Integrated),MD/SC/I (Multi-Disciplinary/Single Course/Integrated).

cMultiple answers permitted.

offered by faculty at the responding institutions, and all major areas of chemistry are represented in the composite list. Some respondents indicated that their electives are dual listed in their institution’s graduate college.

Impact of Curricular Reform Respondents were asked to share the impact of curricular

reform on the discipline of chemistry at their institution. Two institutions had only been established a few years prior to this study and three others indicated they experienced no problems during their institution’s curriculum reform process. Three pro-grams stated integration of chemistry content with therapeutics or consolidation of courses into totally integrated mega-cours-es addressing chemistry, pharmacology and therapeutics was the biggest challenge of curriculum reform. Two respondents indicated that colleagues at their School did not perceive a need for medicinal chemistry in the curriculum. However, another indicated that interdivisional work and cooperation had gotten the process moving at their institution, and helped ease faculty anxiety over new approaches to educating students. Four respondents indicated that chemistry fared well at their School during the reform process, and that both content and credit hours were retained at the pre-reform level. Others were not as fortunate, and retained content only after significant negotiation (two institutions) or lost curricular ground (five institutions). One respondent indicated that chemistry retained

it’s pre-reform emphasis only because the level was so minimal that no one felt it could be decreased further.

Strengths of Chemistry to the Pharmacy Curriculum Three major themes were found in the answers to the

question of what strengths chemistry brings to the profession-al curriculum. Chemistry is viewed as a foundational science that underpins therapeutic decision-making, and is a predictor of future academic success. The discipline lends itself beauti-fully to integration with pharmacology, biopharmaceutics and therapeutics to present a cohesive foundation for the practice of the profession. Several respondents said that chemistry teaches the critical thinking and problem-solving skills essential to confident practitioners.

To keep chemistry strong in the professional program, respondents advocated content integration, use of case studies and other active learning strategies in the classroom, and effec-tive communication with colleagues in other disciplines. Many urged strengthening of research and graduate education pro-grams as well.

DISCUSSION Between 18 and 33 percent of respondents indicated that most of the topics included in the General Principles, Medicinal Chemistry and Clinical/Biological Chemistry categories were covered in five or more courses, indicating that this content is


Table V. Topic emphasis and adequacy of clinical/biological chemistry: Total responsea

Pharmacological actions

Drug-drug and drug-food interactions

Herbals and natural products

Biotechnology

Clinical chemistry

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) 0-5 3 ( 9.4) 0-5 10 (33.3) 0-5 15 (48.4) 0-5 8 (26.7) 0-5 9 (29.0)5-10 3 ( 9.4) 5-10 12 (40.0) 5-10 7 (22.6) 5-10 8 (26.7) 5-10 7 (22.6)10-15 3 ( 9.4) 10-15 2 ( 6.7) 10-15 2 ( 6.5) 10-15 7 (23.3) 10-15 3 ( 9.7)15-20 1 ( 3.1) 15-20 5 (16.7) 15-20 2 ( 6.5) 15-20 4 (13.3) 15-20 6 (19.4)

Clock hours currently spent on content 20-25 1 ( 3.1) 20-25 1 ( 3.3) 20-25 1 ( 3.2) 20-25 0 20-25 2 ( 6.5) >35 21 (65.6) >35 0 >35 4 (12.9) >35 3 (10.0) >35 4 (12.9)

No change 25 (86.2) No change 26 (96.3) No change 21 (70.0) No change 15 (50.0) No change 26 (89.7)Increase 4 (13.8) Increase 1 ( 3.7) Increase 7 (23.2) Increase 15 (50.0) Increase 3 (10.3)

Change in hours in last 5 years [20]b [6] [9.4] [7.9] [4.7] Decrease 0 Decrease 0 Decrease 2 ( 6.7) Decrease 0 Decrease 0 [22.5]

No change 23 (82.1) No change 24 (92.3) No change 19 (65.5) No change 21 (75.0) No change 26 (89.7)Increase 3 (10.7) Increase 2 ( 7.7) Increase 7 (24.1) Increase 7 (25.0) Increase 2 ( 6.9) [27] [5] [4.1] [10.7] [3] Decrease 2 ( 7.1) Decrease 0 Decrease 3 (10.3) Decrease 0 Decrease 2 ( 3.4)

Planned change in hours in next 1-3 years [7.5] [15.7] [17.5]

Inadequate 0 Inadequate 4 (12.9) Inadequate 11 (36.7) Inadequate 12 (38.7) Inadequate 4 (12.9)Adequate 20 (62.5) Adequate 21 (67.7) Adequate 16 (53.3) Adequate 13 (41.9) Adequate 22 (71.0)

Adequacy of current coverage Optimal 11 (34.4) Optimal 6 (19.4) Optimal 2 ( 6.7) Optimal 6 (19.4) Optimal 5 (16.1) Excessive 1 ( 3.1) Excessive 0 Excessive 1 ( 3.3) Excessive 0 Excessive 0

Inadequate 0 Inadequate 4 (12.9) Inadequate 7 (23.3) Inadequate 6 (19.4) Inadequate 2 ( 6.4)Adequate 17 (53.1) Adequate 19 (61.3) Adequate 20 (66.7) Adequate 17 (54.8) Adequate 24 (77.4)Optimal 13 (40.6) Optimal 8 (25.8) Optimal 3 (10.0) Optimal 8 (25.8) Optimal 5 (16.1)

Anticipated adequacy of coverage in 1-3 years Excessive 2 ( 6.2) Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0

aThirty-three surveys returned. Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are of those responding to the question. bNumbers in brackets represent the average number of clock hours by which content emphasis has changed or will change.

important to other disciplines and is viewed as relative to prac-tice issues. The topics in those categories that were less wide-ly dispersed throughout the curriculum included stereochem-istry, drug design, drug nomenclature, natural products and biotechnology. With regard to stereochemistry, the importance of chirality to drug action is indisputable and has recently been given coverage in several chemistry-related publications(10-13). In terms of their chemical, pharmacological, kinetic and therapeutic properties, enantiomers and diasteriomers behave as distinct compounds, therefore stereochemistry should be a topic of major concern to all disciplines. The Committee urges all faculty to reinforce the importance of three dimensional structure to receptor binding (and subsequent therapeutic activ-ity and utility) when discussing drug action in their classes and clinics.

Academic pharmacy has expressed a keen awareness of the importance of integrating content presented in the profes-sional curriculum(14-18). While true integration (i.e., offering content in a single course by faculty from a variety of disci-plines who make an effort to relate their material to that previ-ously presented and that yet to come) is not yet a reality for most chemically-related pharmacy education topics, those engaged in chemistry-based education seem to be heeding the call for reinforcement of content across the curriculum. There are still a significant number of single-instructor courses deal-ing with chemistry topics, but a large number of topics are dealt with in a multi-disciplinary, multiple course fashion. Not surprisingly, the same topics that were covered in the greatest

number of courses are those that are more consistently offered in the multi-disciplinary multiple course format.

The topics generally considered as “pure chemistry” are found in the Computational/Analytical category, so it was not surprising to find that these topics are confined to a fewer num-ber of courses than the more “discipline permeable” topics of the remaining categories. In addition, they are less extensively integrated than the more biological or pharmacologically relat-ed topics. Even though not widely addressed in the pharmacy curriculum, these topics are none-the-less important. It is inherent upon the faculty who instruct in this area to educate fellow faculty, as well as students, about the impact of their content on the practice of pharmacy so that critical content can be appropriately reinforced throughout the curriculum.

It was gratifying to see that a wide variety of pedagogical methods are being employed by faculty guiding chemically-based learning. In addition to lecture, a significant number of respondents indicated the use of case studies or CAI in cours-es addressing chemistry content. Recitations are employed to a lesser extent, while laboratories and demonstrations appear to be the least utilized methods of learning enhancement. The issue of laboratories is of concern to many in the experimental sciences, as many students claim to learn best by “doing” rather than just hearing or seeing concepts and data presented by faculty. Carefully crafted and thoughtfully guided laborato-ries can be the ultimate in active learning, and schools and col-leges are urged not to abandon them in the continuing process of curricular reform. Independent courses might not need the


Table VI. Topic organization and delivery of clinical/biological chemistry: Total responsea

Pharmacological actions

Drug-drug and drug-food interactions

Herbals and natural products

Biotechnology

Clinical chemistry

N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) SI 2 (6.2) SI 3 ( 9.7) SI 9 (31.0) SI 9 (30.0) SI 6 (19.4)TT/SD 7 (21.9) TT/SD 3 ( 9.7) TT/SD 8 (27.6) TT/SD 7 (23.3) TT/SD 9 (29.0)MD/MC 22 (68.8) MD/MC 24 (77.4) MD/MC 10 (34.5) MD/MC 13 (43.3) MD/MC 16 (51.6)MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 1 ( 3.4) MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0


MDSC/I 1 ( 3.1) MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.2) MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.4) MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.3) MD/SC/I 0

1 1 ( 3.2) 1 1 ( 3.8) 1 10 (33.3) 1 9 (30.0) 1 5 (17.2)2 2 ( 6.4) 2 0 2 9 (30.0) 2 11 (36.7) 2 8 (27.6)3 3 ( 9.7) 3 13 (50.0) 3 5 (16.7) 3 4 (13.3) 3 7 (24.1)4 10 (32.3) 4 4 (15.4) 4 4 (13.3) 4 1 ( 3.3) 4 3 (10.3)5 3 ( 9.7) 5 0 5 1 ( 3.3) 5 3 (10.0) 5 0

Number of courses including content

>5 12 (38.7) >5 8 (30.8) >5 1 ( 3.3) >5 2 ( 6.7) >5 6 (20.7)

BioSci 3 BioSci 1 BioSci 2 BioSci 12 BioSci 5 LibArts 1 LibArts 0 LibArts 1 LibArts 0 LibArts 0 MCP 24 MCP 20 MCP 24 MCP 25 MCP 13 PceuPh 6 PceuPh 7 PceuPh 2 PceuPh 10 PceuPh 5 Pcol 29 Pcol 20 Pcol 11 Pcol 10 Pcol 10

Discipline of faculty teaching Contentc

PhPr 19 PhPr 22 PhPr 5 PhPr 6 PhPr 21

Small group 11 Small group 7 Small group 5 Small group 5 Small group 7 Case studies 22 Case studies 21 Case studies 12 Case studies 10 Case studies 19 Recitation 9 Recitation 8 Recitation 4 Recitation 5 Recitation 3 CAI 7 CAI 3 CAI 0 CAI 6 CAI 3 Lab 6 Lab 2 Lab 1 Lab 2 Lab 11 Lecture 31 Lecture 29 Lecture 29 Lecture 30 Lecture 29

Teaching/ learning toolsc

Demo 5 Demo 1 Demo 2 Demo 3 Demo 4

aThirty-three surveys returned. Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are of those responding to the question. bSI (Single Instructor), TT/SD (Team Taught/Single Discipline), MD/MC (Multi-Disciplinary/Multiple Courses), MD/SC/NI (Multi-Disciplinary/Single Course/Not Integrated), MD/SC/I (Multi-Disciplinary/Single Course/Integrated).

cMultiple answers permitted.

semester- or quarter-long companion laboratories they once had. In those cases, skills laboratories such as those pioneered by the University of Minnesota and the University of Maryland(19) provide a means by which faculty can schedule appropriate time for students to engage in performance-based activities to reinforce content covered in the classroom.

Concern has been expressed by chemistry faculty about the qualifications of those engaged in chemical education in schools and colleges of pharmacy. The question of “Who’s minding the (chemical) store?” was addressed in the survey study, and those with medicinal or pharmaceutics/pharmaceu-tical chemistry backgrounds were appropriately engaged in the instruction of all topics. Pharmacology-educated faculty were very involved in the instruction of topics with a biological slant (e.g., receptor theory and mechanism, drug metabolism, mole-cular mechanisms of action, pharmacological actions, and drug interactions), and significantly involved in the instruction of physicochemical properties, natural products, biotechnology and clinical chemistry. Pharmacy practice faculty were pre-dominant in the instruction of clinical chemistry and drug interactions, and significantly involved in the presentation of pharmacological actions.

Biological science faculty were the key players in the instruction of biochemistry content, and may reflect the fre-quent use of biomedical science service courses by schools and colleges of pharmacy. There was significant biological science faculty involvement in the instruction of biotechnology, acid-

base chemistry, molecular mechanisms of action, and receptor theory and mechanism. Schools and colleges with a 0-6 or a 1 -5 configuration (0-5 and 1-4 system for baccalaureate-granti-ng institutions) may utilize non-chemists in the instruction of content commonly found in the pre-professional component of programs with the 2-4 configuration. Other institutions may employ faculty with this background to complement the exper-tise of chemistry-educated faculty in the delivery of this con-tent. In general, the Committee was satisfied that individuals with appropriate backgrounds are instructing in the chemical component of the pharmacy curriculum, and encourages schools and colleges to be vigilant in ensuring that chemistry is taught by those qualified to provide instruction of adequate breadth and depth.

One of the primary objectives for conducting this study was to identify the dynamics of the chemistry discipline in the changing pharmacy curriculum, and to assess whether topics viewed as essential were receiving adequate attention in revised programs of study. Figure 3 summarizes the topics addressed in the survey with regard to past and anticipated changes in credit hours and perceived adequacy of coverage. In general, respondents believed the topics addressed in the sur-vey were being adequately addressed in their curriculum. With the exception of herbals and natural products and biotchnolo-gy, 70 percent or more of the respondents indicated there had been no change in clock hour emphasis on the survey topics with no change envisioned within the coming three years. In


Table VII. Topic emphasis and adequacy of analytical/computational chemistry: Total responsea In vitro chemical stability Biopharm. analysis Computational chemistry

N (%) N (%) N (%)

Clock 0-5 17 (53.1) 0-5 22 (71.0) 0-5 25 (80.6) hours 5-10 10 (31.2) 5-10 4 (12.9) 10-15 1 ( 3.2) currently 10-15 5 (15.6) 10-15 2 ( 6.4) 10-15 1 ( 3.2) spent on 15-20 0 15-20 1 ( 3.2) 15-20 1 ( 3.2) content 20-25 0 20-25 0 20-25 0 >35 0 >35 0 ( 6.4) >35 0

Change in No change 28 (90.3) No change 25 (80.0) No change 20 (69.0) hours in Increase 2 ( 6.4) Increase 0 Increase 7 (24.1) last 5 years [3.5]b [4.1] Decrease 1 ( 3.2) Decrease 5 (20.0) Decrease 2 ( 6.9) [2] [Ave 10.6] [0.75] Planned No change 26 (86.7) No change 23 (82.1) No change 25 (86.2) change in Increase 1 ( 3.3) Increase 2 ( 7.1) Increase 3 (10.3) hours in [2] [2] [3.3] next 1-3 Decrease 3 (10.0) Decrease 3 (10.7) Decrease 1 ( 3.4) years [6] [10.3] [0.5] Adequacy Inadequate 7 (23.3) Inadequate 4 (14.8) Inadequate 9 (28.6) of current Adequate 19 (63.3) Adequate 21 (77.8) Adequate 16 (57.1) coverage Optimal 4 (13.3) Optimal 1 ( 3.7) Optimal 4 (14.3) Excessive 0 Excessive 1 ( 3.7) Excessive 0

Anticipated Inadequate 6 (20.0) Inadequate 4 (14.8) Inadequate 7 (24.1) adequacy of Adequate 19 (63.3) Adequate 21 (77.8) Adequate 16 (55.2) coverage in Optimal 5 (16.7) Optimal 2 ( 7.4) Optimal 6 (20.7) 1-3 years Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0

Computerized molecular visualization Chemical nomenclature Synthetic methods

Clock 0-5 27 (84.4) 0-5 25 (80.6) 0-5 28 (93.3) hours 5-10 4 (12.5) 5-10 3 ( 9.7) 5-10 1 ( 3.3) currently 10-15 1 ( 3.1) 10-15 3 ( 9.7) 10-15 1 ( 3.3) spent on 15-20 0 15-20 0 15-20 0 content 20-25 0 20-25 0 20-25 0 >35 0 >35 0 >35 0

Change in No change 21 (70.0) No change 24 (77.4) No change 26 (96.3) hours in Increase 8 (26.7) Increase 0 Increase 0 last 5 years [3.5]b Decrease 1 ( 3.3) Decrease 7 (22.6) Decrease 1 ( 3.7) [0.5] [2.4] [3] Planned No change 22 (73.3) No change 29 (96.7) No change 24 (92.3) change in Increase 7 (23.3) Increase 0 Increase 0 hours in [3] next 1-3 Decrease 1 ( 3.3) Decrease 1 ( 3.3) Decrease 2 ( 7.7) years [0.5] [5] [2] Adequacy Inadequate 10 (37.0) Inadequate 5 (16.7) Inadequate 5 (26.3) of current Adequate 14 (51.8) Adequate 19 (63.3) Adequate 10 (52.6) coverage Optimal 3 (11.1) Optimal 6 (20.0) Optimal 3 (15.8) Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 1 ( 5.3)

Anticipated Inadequate 7 (25.9) Inadequate 6 (20.0) Inadequate 5 (26.3) adequacy of Adequate 16 (59.2) Adequate 17 (56.7) Adequate 11 (57.9) coverage in Optimal 4 (14.8) Optimal 7 (23.3) Optimal 3 (15.8) 1-3 years Excessive 0 Excessive 0 Excessive 0 aThirty-three surveys returned. Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are of those responding to the question. bNumbers in brackets represent the average number of clock hours by which content emphasis has changed or will change.


Table VIII. Topic organization and delivery of analytical/computational chemistry: Total responsea

In vitro chemical stability Biopharm. analysis Computational chemistry

N (%) N (%) N (%)

SI 11 (36.7) SI 13 (50.0) SI 15 (55.5) TT/SD 7 (23.3) TT/SD 7 (26.9) TT/SD 8 (29.6) MD/MC 11 (36.7) MD/MC 5 (19.2) MD/MC 3 (11.1) MD/SC/NI 1 ( 3.3) MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0


MDSC/I 0 MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.0) MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.7)

1 7 (21.9) 1 15 (60.0) 1 19 (65.5) 2 17 (53.1) 2 5 (20.0) 2 7 (24.1) 3 6 (18.7) 3 4 (16.0) 3 2 ( 6.9) 4 1 ( 3.1) 4 0 4 1 ( 3.4) 5 0 5 1 ( 4.0) 5 0


>5 1 ( 3.1) >5 >5 0

BioSci 0 BioSci 0 BioSci 3 LibArts 1 LibArts 0 LibArts MCP 27 MCP 16 MCP 26 PceuPh 22 PceuPh 15 PceuPh 2 Pcol 1 Pcol 1 Pcol 3

Discipline of faculty teaching contentc

PhPr 0 PhPr 1 PhPr 0

Small Group 3 Small Group 3 Small Group 0 Case Studies 7 Case Studies 5 Case Studies 0 Recitation 5 Recitation 4 Recitation 1 CAI 1 CAI 1 CAI 11 Lab 6 Lab 13 Lab 5 Lecture 29 Lecture 23 Lecture 25


Demo 2 Demo 5 Demo 7 Computerized molecular

visualization Chemical nomenclature Synthetic methods SI 14 (56.0) SI 11 (37.9) SI 10 (58.8) TT/SD 8 (32.0) TT/SD 10 (34.5) TT/SD 4 (23.5) MD/MC 3 (12.0) MD/MC 7 (24.1) MD/MC 3 (17.6) MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0 MD/SC/NI 0

Organizational formatb

MD/SC/I 0 MD/SC/I 1 ( 3.4) MD/SC/I 0

1 16 (57.1) 1 16 (59.3) 1 13 (61.9) 2 6 (21.4) 2 7 (25.9) 2 3 (14.3) 3 5 (17.9) 3 2 ( 7.4) 3 4 (19.0) 4 1 ( 3.6) 4 2 ( 7.4) 4 1 ( 4.8) 5 5 0 5 0


>5 >5 0 >5 0

BioSci 4 BioSci 2 BioSci 0 LibArts 1 LibArts 2 LibArts 2 MCP 25 MCP 27 MCP 20 PceuPh 2 PceuPh 2 PceuPh 2 Pcol 3 Pcol 0 Pcol 0

Discipline of faculty teaching contentc

PhPr 0 PhPr 0 PhPr 0

Small Group 0 Small Group 2 Small Group 2 Case Studies 0 Case Studies 1 Case Studies 2 Recitation 2 Recitation 5 Recitation 3 CAI 13 CAI 1 CAI 0 Lab 5 Lab 1 Lab 0 Lecture 19 Lecture 28 Lecture 16


Demo 9 Demo 2 Demo 1

a Thirty-three surveys returned: Some questions left blank by some respondents. Percentages reported are of those responding to the question. b SI (Single Instructor), TT/SD (Team Taught/Single Discipline), MD/MC (Multi-Disciplinary/Multiple Courses), MD/SC/NI (Multi Disciplinary/Single Course/Not

Integrated), MD/SC/I (Multi-Disciplinary/Single Course/Integrated). c Multiple answers permitted.


Fig. 3. Recent or planned change in content emphasis and perceived adequacy of coverage of chemistry-related topics in the professional pharmacy curriculum

the General Principles, Medicinal Chemistry and Clinical/Biological categories, between 19-34 percent went so far as to claim optimal coverage of many topics at the time of the survey. The higher end of this range rose to 40 percent when future adequacy was addressed, indicating that faculty are optimistic that chemistry has not been, and will not be, lost in the reformed curriculum. The Committee encourages the institutions that responded to the survey to continue their vigi-lance in ensuring that chemistry maintains a prominent place in the professional curriculum. Institutions that chose not to par-ticipate are encouraged to review these data, assess whether the chemical picture is as rosy at their school or college, and to take measures to correct the situation if it is not.

Biotechnology and herbals and natural products were among the topics viewed as the most inadequately served in contemporary professional programs. A white paper on biotechnology in the pharmacy curriculum was published in 1990, and encouraged schools and colleges to move with dis-patch to incorporate this important content in their curricu-la(20). Other well-respected voices in pharmacy education also evaluated the need for, and the impact of, biotechnology on pharmacy education in general, as well as on specific disci-plines within science and practice(21-26). Apparently, although progress has been made in recent years to augment coverage of this rapidly-evolving discipline, it has not been sufficient to meet the perceived need for information on the physical and kinetic properties, development and therapeutic use of biotechnologically-derived drugs. Likewise, the need for increased emphasis on natural products topics has been well-recognized in the academy, and programming at two recent

Table IX. Dynamics of chemistry facultya

Discipline

Average # current facultyb

Average # faculty 5 years ago

# Anticipated new hires in next 1-3 years

Medicinal chemist 3.20 2.79 0 new hires:20 (0-10) (0-10) 1 new hire: 6 2 new hires: 2 Natural products 1.25 1.21 0 new hires:22 Chemist (0-8) (0-7) 1 new hire: 4 2 new hires: 2 Biochemist 1.07 0.79 0 new hires:23 (0-5) (0-5) 1 new hire: 5 Otherc 0.48 0 new hires:26 (0-3) 1 new hire: 2

a28 Institutions responded. bRange provided in parentheses. cDisciplines specified include biotechnology, molecular biology, analytical,

organic, microbiology and organic general chemistry.

AACP annual meetings has been devoted to the importance of pharmacognosy in the contemporary pharmacy curriculum. Institutions should examine their curricula to ensure that these topics are being appropriately emphasized. Those planning to examine content in herbals and natural products/pharmacog-nosy are encouraged to review the 1999 Natural Products Committee Report on AACP Chemistry Section web page (http://www.aacp.org/Sections/chem/ main/chemistry.html). Those wishing to better incorporate biotechnology and/or herbal products into their pharmacy curriculum have access to several recently-published resources to assist them(27-32).

Although respondents indicated that the current and future emphasis on drug metabolism was, for the most part, adequate or optimal, the Committee questioned whether new understand-ing of the importance of pharmacogenetics and pharmacoge-nomics on drug response will change this picture in the near future. Phenotype heterogenicity based on race and ethnicity is a therapeutic reality, and pharmacists of the future will be expect-ed to understand how genetic make-up impacts drug action in a wide variety of human populations and sub-populations. Faculty would be wise to keep a watchful eye on the drug metabolism and biochemistry content in their curricula to ensure that it is keeping pace with critical new developments in human genetics, and to see that the impact on patient-specific drug therapy is addressed in pharmacotherapeutics course work.

Some may claim that topics such as drug design, computa-tional chemistry and computerized molecular visualization are not pertinent to the practicing pharmacist, and should only be offered as electives to interested students. Others argue that stu-dents must have an appreciation of how drug molecules are con-ceptualized, how hypotheses for the design and synthesis of a particular molecule are generated, and how the outcome of activ-ity evaluation is turned around to optimize the structure of com-pounds that eventually make their way to the market. Regardless of one’s position in this debate, it makes sense to identify ways to incorporate important aspects of drug design and computer-ized chemistry into existing courses. In addition to enlightening students to the fact that that drugs don’t just appear on pharma-cy shelves on their own, this approach could stimulate a desire in some students to be a part of the drug design and discovery process, and may motivate interest in graduate education.

A question all chemistry faculty should ask themselves about the chemistry content viewed as inadequately covered is whether we are doing everything we can to communicate its


importance to fellow faculty. We cannot afford to assume that, just because we cover something in depth in our own courses, that others are challenging students to utilize that information to solve scientific and clinically related problems in their courses or at their practice sites. We must not fail to take every opportunity to demonstrate to all in the academic community how these top-ics apply to others in the curriculum, and to the ultimate practice of the profession. Certainly, participating in integrated courses and volunteering to participate in or lead learning exercises in the courses of others are avenues to accomplish this worthwhile goal.

CONCLUSIONS While this study was limited by less than universal participa-tion, some useful data emerged from an analysis of the surveys returned. Chemistry-based content in the professional pharma-cy curriculum has stabilized and, in general, is viewed as ade-quate to meet the needs of students. Major exceptions to this include the topics of biotechnology and herbals and natural products which, despite recent and/or planned increases in clock hour emphasis, are still viewed as in need of augmenta-tion. In addition, content on the traditional “pure-chemistry” topics of stereochemistry, drug design, computational chem-istry and computerized molecular visualization should be reviewed by schools and colleges to ensure that it is adequate-ly incorporated into the curriculum.

Individuals engaged in the instruction of chemistry-relat-ed topics appear to be qualified for their roles as chemistry educators, and are employing a wide variety of pedagogical techniques and active learning strategies to teach and reinforce critical content. Laboratories are not widely utilized, however, and should be actively investigated as a means to help all stu-dents, particularly kinetic learners, master content.

Finally, faculty instructing in the chemical area should continue their efforts at content reinforcement and true inte-gration across the curriculum. It is only by infusing chemistry at an appropriate level throughout the pharmacy education experience that students will come to view themselves as the chemical experts of the health care team. When that happens, pharmacists will be able to assume their role as primary care clinicians who thoroughly understand the chemistry of drugs and the chemistry of the human body, and utilize both to opti-mize patient health and well-being.

References (1) Roche, V.F., “The use of case studies in medicinal chemistry instruction,”

Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 57, 436-439(1993). (2) Roche, V.F., “Utilizing chemical knowledge in rational therapeutic deci-

sion-making,” ibid., 49, 254-257(1985). (3) Currie, B.L., Chapman, R.L., Christoff, J.J. and Sikorski, L., “Patient

related case studies in medicinal chemistry,” ibid., 58, 446-450(1994). (4) Alsharif, N.Z., Theesen, K.A. and Roche, V.F., “Structurally-based ther-

apeutic evaluation: A therapeutic and practice approach to teaching med-icinal chemistry,” ibid., 61, 55-60(1997).

(5) Lemke, T.L. and Basile, C., “An odyssey into cooperative learning,” ibid., 61, 351-359(1997).

(6) Harris, M.F., Harrold, M.W., Giudici, R.A., Boni, R.L., Wu, W., Bricker, J.D. and Avila, J.R., “Development and implementation of critical think-ing assignments throughout a pharmacy curriculum,” ibid., 61, 1-12(1997).

(7) Reunitz. P.C., “Promoting in-class student involvement in medicinal chemistry,” ibid., 61, 302-306(1997).

(8) Matuszak, A.J. and Sarnoff, D., “1980 status of the chemical sciences in the undergraduate professional programs of American schools and col-leges of pharmacy,” ibid., 45, 118-122(1981).

(9) Matuszak, A.J. and Sarnoff, D., “1980 Survey of faculty teaching in departments of medicinal/pharmaceutical chemistry at American col-leges of pharmacy,” ibid., 45, 243-251(1981).

(10) Caldwell, J., “Through the looking glass in chiral drug development,”

Modern Drug Disc. (July/August, 1999), pp. 51-60 and references there-in.

(11) Caldwell, J. “Regulation of chiral drugs,” Pharm. News, 2, 22-24(1995). (12) Wainer, I., “Chiral drugs and their effect on the pharmaceutical industry,”

ibid., 2, 19-21(1995). (13) Stinson, S.C, “Chiral drug interactions,” Chem. Eng. News, (11 October,

1999), pp. 101-120. (14) Ives, T. J., Deloatch, K.H. and Ishaq, K.S., “Integration of medicinal

chemistry and pharmacotherapeutic courses: A case-based, learner-cen-tered approach,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 62, 406-411(1998).

(15) Beach, J.W., Cooper, J.W., Francisco, G.E. and Langorf, R.A., “An inte-grated infectious disease course for an entry-level Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum,” ibid., 62, 296-301(1998).

(16) Gora-Harper, M.L. and Brandt, B., “An educational design to teach drug information across the curriculum,” ibid., 61, 296-302(1997).

(17) Hruby, T.W., An integerated case-based curricular model for the entry-level Doctor of Pharmacy degree,” ibid., 60, 265-274(1996).

(18) Robertson, K.E. and McDaniel, A.M., “Interdisciplinary professional education: A collaborative clinical teaching project,” ibid., 59, 131-136(1995).

(19) Hollenbeck, R.G., “The Curricular Laboratory: A Skills Lab Retrospective” 92nd AACP Annual Meeting, Boston, MA, July 8, 1991.

(20) Henkel, J.G., Mangold, J.B., Zito, S.W. and Speedie, M.K., “The impact of biotechnology upon chemistry in pharmacy schools,” Am. J. Pharm. Educ., 54, 65-68(1990).

(21) Speedie, M.K., “The impact of biotechnology upon pharmaceutical edu-cation,” ibid., 54, 55-60(1990).

(22) Block, L.H., “The impact of biotechnology on pharmaceutics,” ibid., 54, 69-70(1990).

(23) Hudson, R.A., “The new biotechnology and biological sciences-related instruction in colleges of pharmacy,” ibid., 54, 61-64(1990).

(24) Black, C.D., Hicks, C.I. and Koeller, J.M., “Impact of biotechnology on pharmacy practice,” ibid., 54, 73-74(1990).

(25) Speedie, M.K., Sindelar, R.D., Yee, G.C., Tami, J.A. and Black, C.D. “Biotechnology in the pharmacy curriculum: A progress report,” ibid., 58, 458-465(1994).

(26) Akin, D.T., “A biotechnology course emphasizing molecular biology and practical experience,” ibid., 59, 348-354(1995).

(27) Zito, S.W. (Ed.), Pharmaceutical Biotechnology. A Programmed Text, 2nd ed., Technomic, Lancaster PA (1997).

(28) Crommelin, D.J.R. and Sindelar, R.D. (edits.), Pharmaceutical Biotechnology: An Iintroduction for Pharmacists and Pharmaceutical Scientists. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1997).

(29) Pezzuto, J.M., Johnson, M.E. and Manasse, H.R. (edits.), Biotechnology and Pharmacy, Chapman and Hall, New York NY (1993).

(30) Hudson, R.A. and Black, C.D., “Biotechnology - The new dimension in pharmacy practice: A working pharmacists guide,” Council of Ohio Colleges of Pharmacy, Toledo, OH (1992).

(31) Miller, L.G., Murray, W.J. (edits.), Herbal Medicinals. A Clinician’s Guide, Haworth Press, New York NY (1998).

(32) Robbers, J.E., Tyler, V.E. and Speedie, M.K. (edits.) Pharmacognosy and Pharmacobiotechnology, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore MD (1996).

APPENDIX: ELECTIVE CHEMISTRY-RELATED COURSE WORK AVAILABLE AT RESPONDING INSTITUTIONS

Elective course

Average annual enrollment

Undergraduate Research 2-15 Drug Design 10 New Drug Development 10 Special Topics in Drug Research 3 Medicinal Chemistry 42 Organic Medicinal Chemistry 3 Advanced Medicinal Chemistry 3 Special Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 2 Principles of Drug Synthesis 1 Pharmaceutical Analysis 2 Analytical Chemistry 20 Instrumental Chemistry 10 ̀


Spectroscopic Methods 2 Spectroscopic Analysis 5 Spectral Methods 3 Drug Metabolism 10 Stereochemistry 5 Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry Not provided Drug Design-Molecular Modeling Not provided Contemporary Pharmacognosy 25 Pharmaceutical Applications of Molecular Biology 25 Biochemical Mechanisms of Action 5 Industrial Pharmacy 50 Process Validation 50 Pharmacobiotechnology Not provided Biotechnology Not provided Separation Methods Not provided Natural Products 5 Chemistry of Natural Products 5 Natural Products Chemistry 100

Advanced Natural Products Chemistry 3 Medicinal Plants 7 Folk Medicine 25 Alternative Medicines Not provided Herbal Medications Not provided Alternative Medicine Not provided Natural Products Not provided Nutrition in Pharmacy Practice 20 Food and Nutrition 10 Scientific Literature Evaluation 150 Advances in Drug Therapy 25 Antimicrobials 60 Emerging Infections 20 Honors Tutorial 5 Abused Drugs 30 AIDS 20 Man and His Chemical Environment 60 Nuclear Pharmacy Not provided


the status of chemistry content in the professional ...archive.ajpe.org/legacy/pdfs/aj640304.pdf ·...

Documents