[Kalibasa]

I am well underway on a premed track, and I've also taken a huge amount of biochemistry and molecular biology- I'll be in mostly 400-level classes of those this fall, and I'm doing research in a cell biology lab.

The thing is, after all this I think I want to go on in chemistry! I fell passionately in love with organic chemistry when I took it this year (how many people can say that?), and I've been fascinated with plant compounds ever since I was 14. I spent hours as a teenager wandering the forests around my house looking for medicinal and poisonous plants, and then at seventeen I started avidly reading a database of medicinal compounds discovered in Amazonian rainforests. I really think I'm meant to be an organic chemist or a drug developer.

I'm now planning on an MD-PhD track. To date I've only taken two years of chemistry, and I only have a year left so I have to choose my classes carefully. Given what I've described, what classes (chem or otherwise) would be most useful? If anyone has experience in drug research or organic chem research I'm all ears...

[nj_bartel]

From what I've been told, there isn't really any need for an MD in any aspect of drug synthesis. Hypothetical drug designs are apparently easy enough to come up with, then the organic chemists take it from there.  Secondly, most MD/PhD programs are designed such that your MS I and MS II classes fulfill some of your doctoral degree requirements. That would probably only be the case with biochemistry for chemistry.

That said, I'm pretty sure I know someone  currently pursuing an MD/PhD with the doctorate in chem, and I could potentially forward him over here if you'd like.   

[Kalibasa]

Well, maybe a PhD route would be better then. But do you think I could get into a straight-up PhD program in chemistry if I've done mostly biochem? It's just that I haven't done either physical chem or analytical chem, and I probably only have time to take one more semester of chemistry.

I would actually be curious to talk to this person. From what they said in my Ochem textbook, there are two main routes to finding new drugs. One is for doctors and biochemists to come up with an ideal molecule and then ask chemists to synthesize it. Is that what you were referring to? Because they also mentioned, of course, the traditional route: studying plants (or any traditional remedy) that seem promising and then identifying the compounds that could be responsible. I had thought the MD could be very useful for this route, but I could be wrong...

[nj_bartel]

People other than me would be much more qualified to judge your competitiveness for PhD programs, but I agree that based on what you've said, it seems like PhD is the route better suited to you.

Yes, that is the route to drugs I was referring to. The plant route is the other option. Depending on the scarcity of the plant used and the demand for the drug, the chemical often goes back to chemists to work out a synthesis.

I'll see if I can find him and point him in this direction for you. 

[nj_bartel]

Sent him a PM.

[Doc Oc]

Sorry if I sound brutish, I'm just being honest.  If you haven't taken inorganic or physical chemistry you will have no chance of getting into a top-tier chemistry Ph.D program.  A low to mid-tier program might take you, and this is the route I took as I was in a similar situation as you.  I studied biological sciences in undergrad, but after working in pharma I became more interested in chemistry and applied to a Ph.D program in organic chemistry.  As I said, I went to a lower tier school because I also lacked inorganic and physical chemistry, but the school I went to allowed me to take these courses (although I wasn't allowed extra time to finish anything, I still had to finish both inorganic and physical chemistry as well as my required graduate courses by the end of my 2nd year, so my workload was considerably greater than those of my colleagues).

A few things you should consider:
1) There is a MASSIVE oversupply of Ph.D scientists, particularly in the pharmaceutical business that you seem to be interested in.  Many of the jobs have been outsourced to Indian and Chinese scientists at a fraction of the cost and it's possible that many of these jobs will never return.  Layoffs over the past two years number in the 10s of thousands, with some large research facilities being completely evacuated of all personnel.  It may be easier for you to find a Bachelor's level position within one of these companies, although if you have your heart set on doing the synthetic chemistry you will not be a good candidate due to your focus on biological science and again, lack of full chemistry training (inorganic and P. chem).

2) If you do decide that you MUST go to grad school and get a Ph.D, going to a lower tier program will make your life challenging later as you will be competing with people from Stanford, Yale, and the like for the same positions.  Unless you work for a well-known professor in your field/that professor is very good friends with such a person you will probably have to scrap and claw for good positions later.

3) In terms of isolating bioactive compounds from plants or other natural sources, you don't need to get an MD to do that.  There are several research programs in analytical chemistry that do this exact type of research (my graduate institution happens to be one of them).  If you are really interested in doing this, it might benefit you to research going to one of these institutions and finishing a BS in Chemistry (ie; doing physical and inorganic chemistry there) and trying to do research in one of these labs, rather than adding your name to the list of unemployed/underemployed Ph.Ds.  However, as far as I know, most pharmaceutical companies that used to conduct this type of research have shut down their programs so you will not likely find this type of research opportunity with a company.  But you WILL have solid analytical chemistry training and that is very valuable.

[Kalibasa]

I figured I would have no chance at a top PhD program without higher-level chem. And not to be a snob, but I would insist on going to a top one, even if I did have to actually spend more time in school to get the upper-level classes. I know that how hard you work matters much more than where you go to school, and I wouldn't automatically look down on someone from a lower-tier program, but... I don't want to be the one snubbed in the job market down the road! My grades are awesome and I've learned my chemistry so far inside and out, so at least if I did take more chem courses my prospects would be good.

I didn't realize there were so many unemployed PhD's, and that is worrisome. On the other hand, my first bachelor's is in English. I'm no stranger to poor job prospects And I figured that at the least I could try to take analytical chem this year. Even if I would need more courses down the road, for now I thought that was the best option too

Thank you to both of you!

[nj_bartel]

I'm very against going for the whole prestige thing, but academics is a field where it can certainly matter a lot.  Have you taken the math prereqs necessary for p. chem?  If so, you should be able to get your required coursework out of the way in a year.  If not, it could take anywhere from 2 to 2.5, unless you're allowed to take some simultaneously.  That's not a lot of time in the grand scheme of things, but it's definitely a fair bit of money to tack on debtwise (assuming you're taking on debt with school).

Good luck

[Doc Oc]

I'm also not a huge fan of institutional prestige (for obvious reasons), but with the job market being the way it is every advantage helps.