Active discussions

WikiProject PharmacologyEdit

I'm interested in hearing from anyone else interested in pharmacology who really wants to work together to turn this pharmacology section into something to be proud of.

Work on style and referencing are my main interests but would like to work with anyone who has an idea on making it better. So if you have a love for pharm drop me a line. Bartimaeus 13:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In addition I'd like to suggest moving the most of this page into catagory:Pharmacology and creating a new page for types of medication. I will leave time for objections before doing this. Bartimaeus 13:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

What to do with things like adrenochrome, which have pharmacological effects, but no (at least AFAIK) therapeutic use? And do people really use it as a street drug? Who would want psychosis? -- The Anome

Pharmacology as such is a basic science and does not deal with therapy at all. Applied pharmacology is called Pharmacotherapy.

So, everything with pharmacological effects has its place in pharmacology and/or toxicology, if it is used theraupeutically or not.

Adrenochrome is not used in medicine, unless for research purposes. And I would be very surprised, if it was used as a street drug. There are "better" and certainly cheaper solutions for that.

Concerning your last question: There are in fact *many* people *wanting* a *temporary* psychosis, in sharp contrast to a lasting psychosis, which, I am sure, virtually nobody could honestly want. -- DA

A question on terminology. The matter is under discussion in Talk:succinylcholine chloride but it relates to all drugs. Under what headings do we wish to list individual substances? There is probably a IUPAC name for every substance on the planet but that is often not useful. Most drugs have generic chemical names as well as brand names (which vary from country to country) plus a IUPAC name. Where should the main entry for a substance go and what should link there? How are things handled in chemistry?

In Template:Drugbox the IUPAC name is strongly featured. JFW | T@lk 13:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I think also that the ATC nomenclature (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System) could be added when reffering to a given substance. Although it is not much commom to use it, it is a classification system developed by the WHO that would allow a more accurate definition of a given substance. Riacrdo 00:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who uses Wikipedia all the time, who is associated with Wikipedia formally, and researches intellectual property and access to medicines, I am somewhat dismayed at the industry-bias that has crept into a page that is supposedly about "pharmacology." The first few sections of this page:

<<<If the structure of a medicine is altered slightly, this will slightly alter the medicine's properties. This means when a useful activity has been identified, chemists will make many similar compounds called analogues, to try and maximise the beneficial effects. This development phase can take up to 3 years typically and is expensive.[2]

These new analogues need to be developed. It needs to be determined how safe the medicine is for human consumption, its stability in the human body and the best form for dispensing, like tablet or aerosol. After lots of testing, which can take up to 6 years the new medicine is ready for marketing.[2]>>>

...are not about pharmacology at all. They seem to have been written by someone from the pharmaceutical industry, since they are more concerned with justifying frivolous changes to drugs (i.e. evergreening - for a definition and explanation see Generic drug) and the high prices charged by pharmaceutical companies for their products.

There is a wealth of information out there - indeed, far too much to cite - and more than enough to qualify as common sense, that this section needs some cleaning up. My suggestions would be to leave out the qualifications of what it costs for the pharmaceutical industry to come up with small changes to existing drugs, to leave out any sections that relate to industrial activity around pharmacology except where it can be expressed from the scienctific point of view - not the industry's.

I'm happy to redraft. Aprabhala 06:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology as a basic scienceEdit

In addition to just having a list of drugs acting in various physiological systems, wouldn't it be wise to delve into the basic science of pharmacology? Drug-receptor interactions, ligands, receptor classes, structure-activity relationship, etc?

I have written something very basic about the basics of pharmacology. The subjects you mention still require coverage. JFW | T@lk 23:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why has the category: science been removed? Pharmacology is a science, and as such, shouldn't it be grouped along with the rest? --FMephit 18:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Work on this articleEdit

This article was just a list of classes of medication. I'm quite convinced this list should move to a seperate article, like I've done with list of withdrawn drugs. This article should concern itself with the scientific field of discovering medical drugs, testing their safety and reliability and their pharmacological profile. My edits today have added only a small bit of the required stuff. Any more ideas? JFW | T@lk 23:17, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Merge from Drug developmentEdit

Drug development seems like it would best be a section of this article. I'm not too knowledgable on the subject, so I'd love to hear some opinions from people who are. --BorgHunter (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

At the moment Pharmacology seems to be a list of drug types and targets. I think it would be a good idea to have drug discovery, development, regulatory and clinical trials separate from this: it's quite possible to want to know how drugs are made without really caring about the pharmacology behind that process. I agree, however that the sections on drug development, discovery and regulatory could do with reorganisation or synthesis, since there's a good deal of duplication. Perhaps a new section on "pharmaceutical development"?--Dogbertd 15:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed quite possible, but I don't think the subjects are differentiated enough to warrant separate articles, at least for the moment. Of course, if merged, Drug development would be redirected to Pharmacology. --BorgHunter (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Are you going to merge drug discovery as well? I don't see how discovery merits a separate article, but development does not (I should say that I'm biased since development is what I do!)?--Dogbertd 16:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
It would logically follow, yes. --BorgHunter (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
These articles should not merge. By your reasoning why not shove everything about pharmacology into a single article. If you don't know anything about the subject why make the suggestion? Bartimaeus 19:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Hey hey, no need to get snippy. I don't know much about pharmacology, but I do know a fair bit about Wikipedia, and I didn't think we needed a separate article on such a similar subject. --BorgHunter (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is like saying automobiles should be merged with the wheel. Bartimaeus 08:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it isn't...the wheel has uses apart from automobiles. The development of pharmaceuticals is an aim pharmacology has. --BorgHunter (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
And Pharmacology has uses other than drug development. Now I'm sorry I don't mean to be rude but you have said you know nothing about pharmacology, It is clear from the pharmacology page that most of its contributors are in the same boat. So please stop insisting on this silly suggestion, I'm sure my PhD in the subject and the fact that I lecture in it makes me slightly more knowledgeable on this topic than you. Bartimaeus 23:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree, Mr. Ph.D., you are indeed more knowledgeable on the subject of pharmacology than I. But unfortunately, having a Ph.D. does not give you a monopoly on having an opinion, nor does it make your opinion automatically correct. Especially when it comes to a subject which has nothing to do with pharmacology, i.e. how Wikipedia articles are set up. Incidentally, wouldn't that be a Sc.D. and not a Ph.D? --BorgHunter (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
well Mr. Sarcasm, I'm glad your know better than I what qualification I have coz I'm sure the peice of paper the Dean gave me said PhD in fact I'm looking at it right now and it still says PhD, hmmm? Must have been a typo, still I don't remember ever becoming a semiconductor device. Drug development and pharmacology are both far too broad to stick on the same page and though pharm is small now I intend to change that over the next month. Bartimaeus 07:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge withdrawn, as Jfdwolff down there has convinced me. However, could you do me one small favor? Please read through WP:CIV. Thank you. --BorgHunter (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I read it and don't worry I won't hold your incivility against you, I understand that you don't know any better. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bartimaeus (talk • contribs) .
Well, I don't know much about Wikipedia, but I do know something about Pharmacology. I still think there's scope for a good article on drug discovery and development, but I'm afraid I don't think it should be part of the Pharmacology article, which (IMHO) should be more about how drugs act, not how they're made. --Dogbertd 08:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
In that case, I'd like to see article once it's finished (or at least as finished as a wiki article can get)—I'll be more than happy to withdraw my proposal in the article gets enough meat to it. In that case, a section summarizing the article should be placed on Pharmacology, with a link in the format Main article: Drug development or similar. However, shouldn't the article be moved to pharmaceutical development? --BorgHunter (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Drug discovery overlaps pharmacology, but is a seperate discipline. Pharmacologists are not by definition interested in the high-throughput screening experiments that are used nowadays to find useful drugs. In contrast, the drug discovery people are not necessarily interested in the interaction between their new drug and, say, warfarin or rifampicin. I do agree that there should be a "{{see}}" tag with good links to drug discovery/drug development at the right places in this article.

"Pharmaceutical development" is synonymous with drug development, and is a candidate for a redirect. JFW | T@lk 08:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You've convinced me. Merge tags removed and merge suggestion withdrawn. --BorgHunter (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Analgesic drugsEdit

I removed a long rambling section that was largely written in a very unencyclopedic style ("like walking on ice before knowing what 'ice' is"), full of POV ("drugs like celecoxib (celebrex) and Vioxx are the MOST dangerous...avoid these at all costs", "morphine is a hundred times safer, and won't give you cancer"), was redundant with analgesic (which is more balanced), and so on.

It's a bit long to reproduce verbatim here, but here's the diff. JFW | T@lk 18:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


I'm looking for someone who is good at drawing professional looking diagrams to help me out with some pharmacology articles. Anyone interested should drop me a line at my talk page. Bartimaeus 09:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclean foodEdit

The Unclean animals article and the Clean animals article has a section marked "scientific studies" that concentrates on the results of a notable pharmacologist David Macht.

Does anyone know if his results are uncontested, or are contested, and therefore if the section is neutral or not?

(Please edit that article rather than contacting me, I'm not that interested, I just noticed it had a neutrality problems sticker when I was going past it) Clinkophonist 16:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

fuck unclean food, it tastes like shit!

Pharmacology - what a messEdit

This article is a mess - and incredibly US biased - but also most of the pharmacology type articles are poorly written (and sometimes incorrect) stubs.

Now I am really a medicinal chemist and pharmacist - but there is a great need for development of all these articles, as at the end of day pharmacology is the basis of nearly all modern medicine therapeutics. Blimey there is not even an article on Molecular pharmacology.

If anyone is interested (especially looking for people who work/study in field of pharmacology or related subjects) in setting up a Wikiproject then I will certainly put a load of work in to do so. Ciao Lethaniol 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Terrible mess, seems to be a con-fusion of drug safety and pharmacology. Will try to get hold of a copy of Goodman and Gilman as suggested by the poster below Kev 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


This article is a redirection from Posology. However the whole article lacks any explanation of "posology" ( I believe this is a major caveat that should be corrected by somebody. 16:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)utks.mj

Andy Z peer reviewerEdit

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • This article has no images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • are considered
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Iosef U T C 06:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Madam or Sir,

1. This listing could be greatly improved. Although not inaccurate, the text does not accurately impart the reader with the fundamentals of Pharmcology and Toxicology.

2. Toxicology is contained in Pharmcology, both historically and in practice. If you do not understand this, you do not understand Pharmacology. Toxicology must be clearly defined in any discussion of Pharmacology and defined as being a derivative of Pharmacology.

3. The PHARMACOLOGY BIBLE is "The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics": Leslie Z. Benet's introduction on "The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics" still contains the most lucid and accurate definitions of this science and related sciences. Use this as a starting point. Quote parts of this chapter and rely heavily on these definitions. This is the purists reference, not some recent re-definition of a very old science.

4. Pharmacology can not be separated from pharmacognosy. Pharmacology is still the umbrella term.

5. There is much work to be done on terms. Xenobiotic and endogenous compound need to be clearly defined and differentiated. The relationship to nutrition needs to be mentioned (e.g., very high doese of vitamin E is a Pharmacology and Toxicology question, NOT a nutrition question). The role of the placebo effect is central to understanding the pharmacological basis of efficacy in humans and needs to be mentioned (e.g., the role of the central nervous system is central to understanding the pharmacological basis of efficacy and needs to be mentioned).

6. The reader needs to understand that the intrinsic beneficial and harmful characteristics of a molecule have nothing to do with 1) natrually found in nature and 2) not found in nature and synthesized in a laboratory. NOTHING what so ever. In fact, the public has been mislead terribly into believing that synthetic is bad and harmful. The fact of the matter is, drugs that have been discovered in nature (natural products) can usually be altered chemically to decrease toxicity and increase effectiveness. This is not always the case (safety limited by pharmacodynamics, for example - cardiac glycosides as an example) but in general is true. In my experience, understanding this fact will oftern the commonly head belief that syntheic is "bad" and natural is "good", although most individuals prefer to look for and keep facts and ideas close that reaffirm cherished "beliefs".

7. This discussion should have nothing to do with the Pharmaceutical Industry, which is a business issue, not a scientific issue. There are good and bad aspects of the Pharmaceutical Industry and good and bad usually depends upon your personal perspective.

There are numerous other points I could make. Please Contact ASPET for additional information and definitions. Have someone from ASPET read your text before you insert it.


JV (PhD in Pharmacology). Respond with your phone # if you wish to correspond (I do nothing that will get me any additional SPAM).

What the fuck is this? will//defective words, defective thoughts (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempting RewriteEdit

I'm going to be attempting a rewrite of this article over the next few weeks. Let me know your comments. It needs a major clean up Kev 00:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing from the medicationEdit

This general policy discussion potentially relating to many different articles that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology has been moved to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject PharmacologyEdit

Shanata (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Globalization tagEdit

I have removed the generic globalization tag from this article. If you think the tag is deserved, please feel free to restore it -- but please also add a clear explanation right here on this talk page. Your actual concerns are much more likely to be adequately addressed if you identify them, instead of leaving other people to guess. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Translation of an article from FrenchEdit

I'd like to begin my modest activity on your pages by a request. That mayn’t be the best way to please you, and I pray to forgive. But be sure I wouldn’t do so if I didn't thought it would be useful to you too and, by the same way, to universal knowledge of history of sciences. Here it is:

I've, on French Wiki, created a page about Ernest Fourneau, a French medicinal chemist and pharmacologist of last century. He's been a very important scientist, with an international influence. He discovered Stovaïne (the first synthetic local anaesthetic), therapeutic effects of sulfamide (in collaboration with members of the laboratory he created and managed at Institut Pasteur, among whom a future Nobel Prize, Daniel Bovet), and many other important drugs. He has an article in Encyclopédie Universalis and another one in Grand Larousse encyclopédique (and even in Petit Larousse!) However, he's named only once on English Wiki (in this article), about his discovering of the first H 1-antihistamine.

Would some of you be interested by translating this article or using it to create a different one?--Thierry (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removedEdit

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gut bath listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gut bath. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 02:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Distinction from medicinal chemistryEdit

The head section of the article should explain the difference between pharmacology and medicinal chemistry (if there is one).--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Pharmacology" page.