A pharmacist’s prescription for chemistry

Chemicals are chemists’ raison d’etre. A chemist handles chemicals with authority and confidence, gazing at them with eyes so penetrating that they perceive the innermost nature of the things. Pharmaceuticals should be pharmacists’ raison d’etre. But recent changes mean this may no longer apply. As a pharmacist who has journeyed through chemistry, pharmacists seem to be losing interest in empirical medicines and gaining it in clinical aspects of those medicines.

I have always loved chemistry. When young, I grew alum crystals in the airing cupboard, heated iron filings and sulfur together until they glowed. Splashing vinegar on the resultant sulfide was gratifying. Later, banished to my garden shed laboratory, I observed as yellow phosphorus in sodium hydroxide solution bubbled and plopped phosgene gas into a pneumatic trough. Each bubble expanded into a ring of revolting white smoke. I threw a chunk of sodium into a bowl of hot water; a little crater resulted. This was in the innocent 1950s, long before today’s safety regulations. Despite such youthful and thoughtless irresponsibility, I lived to tell this tale.

The results of my three science A levels were too low for entry to medical school but adequate for a school of pharmacy. I remember a six-hour long practical chemistry examination in which any visit to the toilet was invigilated to avoid collusion. After three years of degree-level study in pharmaceutical aspects of chemistry, biology and physics and a little mathematics, I earned a diploma. After one year’s supervised practical training I registered as a ‘pharmaceutical chemist’ or ‘pharmacist’, both titles controlled by law. I felt so proud. Today, pharmacist training, including a master’s degree, lasts five years.