If yes, what should be the broader perspective of the stream? What are the exact components which should be considered while relating any research with pharmaceutical biology?
Perhaps we should not confuse between tools and aims. Pharmacognosy needs pharmacology and chemistry, but it is neither pharmacology nor chemistry. Likewise pharmacology uses chemistry, molecular biology, gene technology and many other disciplines as sources of tools, but its inherent aim is to understand the effects of drugs on living organisms. This is what makes it pharmacology. Pharmaceutical biology may be seen by many as somewhat broader discipline than pharmacognosy, and perhaps a bit more "modern" expression of this branch of science. In my understanding both are interested in search of active compounds in nature.
it will form something very close to ethnopharmacology, because of the natural remedies are strongly dependent on floklore medicine.
No. Basically pharmacology deals with effects of drugs and their clinical use, so it is a branch of medicine. Pharmacognosy deals with making medicines, so it is a branch of pharmacy. The earliest physicians made their own medicines and sold them, but those two professions were separated for obvious reasons hundreds of years ago, and physicians should not make money by selling drugs. Therefore also the sciences of pharmacology and pharmacy should not be confused although scientifically there may be much in common.
@Juoko Tuomisto.. I respect ur views. But pharmacology is considered a core branch of Pharmacy also. The day we enter the pharmacy schools, We learn about four branches in pharmacy i.e., Pharmacognosy, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Pharmacology and Pharmaceutics. I agree that pharmacology has lot to do with medicine and their clinical effects. But it would not be correct to rule out its place from pharmacy. Because unless and until the pharmacist don't know the effects of drugs on biological systems, how can a pharmacist formulate the correct medication.
@jouko tuomisto..........
I too respect your view because there are many of drug used as folk medicine and for which a higher claimed are made for favoring such herbs without any scientific proof but still we should not forget various phytochemical constituents after well established clinical efficacy are incorporated well in modern system of medicine.
As a pHAMACY GRDUATE OR MEDICAL STUDENTS it is expected from us to know the what herbs they are taking because its vary common for indigenous people to get treat themselves with the herbs and no doubt because these herbs have pharmacological action so their effect may some time affect the treatment by modern system of medicine (food-drug effect or drug-drug interaction).
So we cant avoid Pharmacognosy as @Dr Alok suggested .
Very interesting discussion but in my opinion Pharmacy itself is a good combination of all four specialities as Dr. Alok mentioned. We should not make any other mixture of it although there are many probabilities.
Of course pharmacology is important for pharmacy as well as for medicine. My point was to make the principles clear. Pharmacology has a lot to do with physiology, but it would not be wise to combine it as a scientific discipline with physiology. It has a lot to do with biochemistry and molecular biology, too. But its purpose is to understand the effects of medicines in a patient, and therefore it is logically part of medicine. Pharmacognosy also has a lot in common with botany, but it is not a botanical science, because its aim is to search and study medicines. I know the concepts are somewhat different in Continental Europe and in Anglo-Saxon countries, in Britain and in America pharmacology is seen more as a basic natural science, in Central Europe and in the Nordic countries it is more clearly part of medicine. Clinical pharmacologists are thus more urgently needed in Anglo-Saxon countries, because basic pharmacology is more distant from the practice of medicine.
There is some information which I found on the internet regarding the discipline of Pharmacognosy and Pharmaceutical biology. Rather it is an inquiry funded by the Society of Medicinal Plant Research (GA). I would like to share the pdf with all concerned with the topic.
Would welcome the feedback.....................
Regards
The poster presents views that are very close to my understanding of pharmacognosy and pharmaceutical biology.
It seems by seeing the poster that they consider pharmacognosy and pharmaceutical biology to be one or just synonyms. Is it so???
The question still remains unanswered in the sense that pharmacology can't be ruled out. Whenever any phytochemical study is done, it is followed by pharmacological studies only.
Perhaps we should not confuse between tools and aims. Pharmacognosy needs pharmacology and chemistry, but it is neither pharmacology nor chemistry. Likewise pharmacology uses chemistry, molecular biology, gene technology and many other disciplines as sources of tools, but its inherent aim is to understand the effects of drugs on living organisms. This is what makes it pharmacology. Pharmaceutical biology may be seen by many as somewhat broader discipline than pharmacognosy, and perhaps a bit more "modern" expression of this branch of science. In my understanding both are interested in search of active compounds in nature.
Pharmacology is the study of the effects of chemicals on the body and the effect of the body on those chemicals. Pharmacognosy is that branch of pharmacology where the source of the chemicals in question are plants, so you could call it the study of medicinal plants. Pharmaceutical Biology is new to me, but it doesn't invoke in me any novel relationship that is not already covered by pharmacology., although the poster referred to by Alok suggests that it has to do with those bits of biology that one needs to know in order to be able understand pharmacology to some extent.
Pharmacognosy without pharmacology or toxicology is a branch of basic science that will be very similar to botany. It is dealing with effects of active material on biological materials as tissue or body. I mean you can not exclude effect of chemical sysnthesis compounds from organic chemistry to the pharmacology. Both natural medicinal plants and chemical synthesis compounds have direct relation to pharmacology. Therefore, pharmaceutical biology will be narrow expression or a branch of pharmacology.
Nowadays, there are several branches of pharmacology from basic to clinical subdivisions, so it is very hard to accept this for research or postgraduate but it might be goves without any questions for undergraduates studies in some universties or countirs.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Chemistry
- Pharmacology