1910-1959
Success in a professional career requires the ability to learn from the past. It is important to note that the time period between 1910 and 1959 was characterized by several incidences that acted as major platforms for the transformation of pharmacology in the world. Pharmacy in this period was composed of great levels of disorganization. Education and Pharmaceutical Standards were not available for determining the authenticity of pharmacists.
It is also necessary to note that there are significant aspects of current pharmaceutical practice that developed during this era. 1910 was characterized by the development of New York State Board of Pharmacy which helped in the creation of syllabus for the board as well as pharmacology schools which later become a standard for practice.
Five revisions were made to the standard in 1932 even though none of the fourth or final editions were adopted. American Council of Pharmaceutical Education was actually formed during this time. In addition, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, as well as, American Council of Educationwas formed.
The most significant milestone in Pharmacology that was witnessed between 1910 and 1959 era include the formation of pharmaceutical organizations. This provided platforms for the formation of standards used in the practice. This is beneficial since it has led to the development of the pharmaceutical practice today.
The new technologies were based on developments of such standards. The establishment of simple syllabus for the college of pharmacy during that era has also helped to shape the current syllabi in schools. The curriculum used between 1910 and 1959 within pharmacy schools was mainly characterized by simple programs such as B.S program. Learning was based on simple formulations of drugs.
This is a contrast to the current curriculum which is full of development of both technological and complex chemical solutions used in the formulation of drugs and learning. This period was largely significant in terms offormulation of legislations related the practice of pharmacy.
In my opinion, these legislations should have remained because of the fraud cases currently being witnessed in the practice today. On the other hand, I am glad that the technological and scientific developments emerged. This has since led to the changes in the ways of production and manufacturing of drugs (Elenbaas and Worthen 10-13).
1960 to 1999 was critical in terms of highlighting transformations in the history of the pharmacy. The use of human knowledge to advance pharmacy was the most critical aspect of pharmaceutical practice that emerged during this period. This period was also composed of a few evolutions in the practice, such as pharmacists being considered as information sources. Pharmacists operated their businesses and took pride in their entrepreneurial skills.
In addition, this period was also characterized bypharmacists showing interests for involvement in healthcare. However, there were several factors that acted as major impediments to the practice, such as inadequate training, laws, ethics, and perceived opportunity (Maehle, Prüll and Halliwell637–41). It is also important to note that trends for involvement in the institutional practice increased in this era.
There are a few notable differences in trend that can be observed between the practice in the 19th century and the trend that has been witnessed since 2000. The major difference is in the use of technology. There are more technological developments that have led to more complex and sophisticated ways of formulation and development of drugs. This is increased accuracy and speed of production. In addition, research within the pharmaceutical field has increased during this era.
This is due to increase in awareness and pressure from the international organizations for the development of curative drugs for most illnesses facing the society. The training offered to students between 1960 and 1999 was mainly characterized by a system of guided instructions in pharmacology (Newton, Alasdair and Chris 1). However, this has since changed because the current era mainly focuses on excessive use of modern technology to enhance teaching.
This is accomplished through reliance on the internet libraries to supplement teaching. Training has been facilitated by improved approach, and several students around the world are currently able to pursue pharmaceutical courses within short periods of time due to the improved infrastructure for learning (Nagle and Barbara 45).
The future prospects indicate that pharmacy is moving to the electronic stage. By 2020, the manufacturing and development processes in drug processing will be highly electronic. Research development in the pharmaceutical field is also likely to increase with the increase in information. There is extensive expansion of knowledge, and this is most likely to increase in the near future. The use of computer technology is also likely to facilitate research. This will lead to more development in the field of pharmacology (Vallance 23).
In my opinion, practicing pharmacology 100 years ago would have prompted me to change the syllabus used in the colleges, as well as, several legislative policies that led to the deterioration of professionalism in the practice. I believe that the curriculum used 100 years ago led to delays in the progress of the practice. A change in the curriculum could have facilitated tremendous increase in effectiveness regarding the practice today.
Works Cited
Elenbaas, Robert, and Worthen Dennis. Clinical Pharmacy in the United States: Transformation of a Profession. New York: Harper Collins, 2000. Print.
Maehle,H. Andrea, Prüll R. Cay, and Halliwell Robert. “The emergence of the drug receptor theory.”Nat Rev Drug Discovery, 2002: 1 (8): 637–41. Print.
Nagle, Hinter, and Barbara Nagle. Pharmacology: An Introduction. London: Sage Publishers, 2005. Print.
Newton, David, Alasdair Thorpe, and Otter Chris. Revise A2 Chemistry. New York: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 2004. Print.
Vallance, Smart. “The future of pharmacology.”British journal of pharmacology, 2006. Print.