The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 269 No 7223 p675
9 November 2002

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

PDF 55K

  Academic pharmacists
  Patient packs
  Community pharmacists
  Antibiotics
  The Society
  CPD
  The Journal

Letters to the Editor

Academic pharmacists

Reasons why numbers are dwindling

From Professor P. J. Houghton, FRPharmS

Ian Caldwell's letter (PJ, 2 November, p644) has prompted me to join more eminent academic pharmacists in rattling the bars in response to the article by Geoffrey Harding and Kevin Taylor (PJ, 26 October, p604). I had wanted to write to support the views expressed by Professor Sandy Florence in his article (PJ, 13 July, p58) but circumstances prevented me.

The reasons why a dwindling number of professional pharmacists enter academic life in schools of pharmacy are several but I want to mention three which are of importance. Two of these can be addressed by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society but they could be excused for not being able to do much about the first, which is the rates of pay and conditions of service.

Probably many pharmacists do not realise that the academic salary scale starts at about 60 per cent of what an average London tube driver earns. This is after four years of undergraduate penury followed by at least three years as a PhD student earning less than £10,000 a year. In contrast, pharmacists who qualified at the same time as the newly fledged PhD, working in community pharmacy in London, could be earning as much as I currently do as a professor after over 30 years in academic life. There are also no perks such as private health insurance, bonus schemes, etc, apart from a reasonable job security and the delight of teaching bright young people. While leaders of the nursing profession made headlines at their protest against recent tube drivers' strikes, there was the usual deafening silence from Lambeth about the plight of young pharmacists in London wanting to carry out further study or pursue an academic career.

The second point was emphasised by Professor Florence in his article. Some leaders of the profession appear to dismiss, if not despise, the scientific basis of the profession. Interestingly, the claims made by Professor Florence have not been refuted by those he quoted. I know from many personal conversations that the silent majority of pharmaceutical scientists, including those still on the register, share Professor Florence's misgivings. Few candidates for Council mention science or education in their manifestos and the recent proposals for membership of Council make no mention of representatives for the constituencies of academic, industrial or scientific pharmacy.

The third point relates to the ongoing discussion on continuing professional development. If the existing programme stands, academic pharmacists practising experimental science will not consider it worth the effort to engage in it and will drop off the register. Most of us work at least 60 hours a week already and there is little incentive to fill in yet another set of forms largely irrelevant to what we do. In addition, we already have our own form of CPD as members of the university teaching and research professions. Unless separate categories for registration are introduced, one for pharmacists not in general practice but who wish to remain members of the profession, I could not justify, to myself or many of my colleagues, the time and money involved to stay on the register and would regretfully have to terminate my placement. In fact, I would predict that the imposition of CPD on academics, branded as a necessary evil even by those who say they would support it, will result in a severe haemorrhage of professional academic pharmacists from the profession. That will indeed pose an interesting problem for the profession in validating degrees.

Peter J. Houghton
Professor in Pharmacognosy
King's College London

Send your letter to The Editor

Next Topic (Patient packs)