SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 43
Descargar para leer sin conexión
I shall trace the history of the terms “human pharmacology” and “applied
pharmacology” and discuss how they are related to each other.


In doing so I shall develop a model of pharmacology showing the
inter-relations of human and applied pharmacology.




                                                                           1
There is no dichotomy between basic pharmacology and clinical pharmacology.
They form a seamless scientific weave, and numerous bridges link their
various aspects. However, some of those bridges need to be strengthened.




                                                                              2
The Oxford English Dictionary allows you to trace the histories of words,
their etymologies, and their previous and current uses.




                                                                            3
The definition of “pharmacology” is non-controversial, but includes a surprising
obsolete usage. The first citation in the list of quotations illustrating the
uses of the word is the earliest known instance in English.




                                                                                   4
The time line (1700-1850) of the first recorded instances of various ologies
shows that, after anatomy, pathology, physiology, and therapeutics,
pharmacology is the oldest medical science. Materia medica and
toxicology also precede all other ologies.




                                                                               5
Most later ologies first appeared in the English language between 1850 and
1950. Since neonatology (1960) we have had omics, not ologies.




                                                                             6
Of course, the word “pharmacology” dates back much earlier than its use in
English—in fact, it existed in Greek. As did the term “materia medica”,
in its Greek equivalent.




                                                                             7
Pedakios Dioscorides, from the island of Anasarbos, published his
five-volume treatise on herbal medicine “Peri hules iatrikes” (literally
“about medical stuff”) in the first century AD. The Codex Vindobonensis
(512 AD) is the earliest version still extant.




                                                                           8
In this parallel text version (Greek on the left, Latin on the right) the title
is translated into Latin as “De medica materia”, a direct translation of
the original Greek.




                                                                                  9
The term “materia medica” first entered English in the 17th century,
but not in its current meaning.




                                                                       10
In the 18th century “materia medica” came to mean the study of therapeutic
medications. Tobias Smollett, himself a doctor (MD Aberdeen 1750),
referred to it in his medical novel “The Expedition of Humphry Clinker”,
mentioning its theoretical and practical connections.




                                                                             11
After that, the term “materia medica” was used in the titles of many textbooks
of therapeutics, a small selection of which is shown here. John Mitchell
Bruce’s text, first published in 1884, later became “Dilling’s Clinical
Pharmacology”.




                                                                                 12
This is the 11th edition of 1918. Dilling went on to become Professor of
Materia Medica and Therapeutics in Edinburgh.




                                                                           13
This is Louis Lewin, whom some have called the father of toxicology
(see Aronson JK. Louis Lewin—Meyler's predecessor. In: Side Effects
of Drugs, Annual 27. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005: xxv-xxix).




                                                                      14
In 1881 Lewin published his textbook on the adverse effects of drugs,
subtitled “Pharmakologisch-klinisches Handbuch”, the first time, to my
knowledge, that the words “clinical” and “pharmacological” had been
juxtaposed. [This is a later edition (1899).]




                                                                         15
The German physician Paul Martini also used the adjectival term
“pharmakologisch klinisches” (see Shelley & Baur. Lancet 1999; 353:
1870-3), but the US physician Harry Gold was the first to bear the title
“Professor of Clinical Pharmacology”.




                                                                           16
In 1953, John Gaddum, Professor of Materia Medica and Pharmacology
in Edingburgh, gave his Dixon Memorial Lecture to the Section of
Experimental Medicine and Therapeutics. The physician and pharmacologist
Gladwin Buttle was President of the Section at the time.




                                                                           17
Gaddum explained how he had to come to call his lecture “Clinical pharmacology”.
His paper contained a wealth of dose-response curves based on human studies.




                                                                                   18
In 1958 a symposium was held in London on the topic of quantitative
methods in human pharmacology and therapeutics. In 1959 the proceedings
were published, edited by Desmond Laurence, of the Department of
Applied Pharmacology, in University College, London.




                                                                          19
Gold contributed and it seems that at that time the terms “clinical
pharmacology”, “human pharmacology”, and “applied pharmacology”
were vying for supremacy.




                                                                      20
The term “clinical pharmacology” prevailed, when Stanley Alstead published
“Dilling’s Clinical Pharmacology” in 1960. This is the edition that I used as a
medical student in Glasgow University in the 1960s, when I studied what at
that time was still called “materia medica”.




                                                                                  21
In the same year (1960) Desmond Laurence published the first edition of
his textbook “Clinical Pharmacology”. Here we see Desmond during the
1970s, carrying the papers for a meeting of the Committee on Safety of
Medicines, packed in four large green bags.




                                                                          22
So much for the terms. Now for the bridges.




                                              23
Vannevar Bush was a US engineer turned science administrator. In late
1944, President Roosevelt wrote to Bush, asking him to give his
recommendations on four areas of scientific research.




                                                                        24
The second point about which the President was concerned was how to
organize a program of research in medicine and related sciences following
the Second World War.




                                                                            25
Bush wrote a forty-page report, which included several appendices from
committees that he had marshalled to discuss and answer the President’s
points. In his report he stressed the importance of basic science.




                                                                          26
This led to the view that medical research is linear. In the “scientific push”
model curiosity drives basic research, which in turns leads to practical
developments. In the “market pull” model basic research may be necessary
or may already be available.




                                                                                 27
The development of the atom bomb in the USA during the Second World War
is a good example of linear research. It started with basic, curiosity-driven
(“blues skies”) research, but led to a practical outcome.




                                                                                28
But in 1958, Jewkes et al. published their thorough study of 61 important
scientific discoveries or inventions, analysing how they had come about.
They concluded that linear models did not fully explain the genesis of
scientific innovations. [This is a later edition (1965).]




                                                                            29
Since then there have been several studies of the role of linear models
in scientific innovations and of the supposed relative contributions of
basic and applied science.




                                                                          30
This is the biggest and most impressive study, although it has been subjected
to some criticism (See, for example, Smith R. Comroe and Dripps revisited.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987; 295: 1404-7).




                                                                                31
Previous studies had gone back only 20-50 years; Comroe and Dripps
looked back much further. This is illustrated here, in part of one of the
tables that they prepared on the history of ten important advances in
cardiorespiratory medicine that they chose to study.




                                                                            32
With the help of many colleagues they identified key papers in the
development of those advances and classified them as basic or not,
clinically oriented or not. The basic studies were more frequent.
This work was later used as evidence in favour of funding basic science.




                                                                           33
What can we learn from the conflicting results of all these studies?
Two lessons emerge. First, there is no one model that fits all types of
scientific developments. Secondly, asking whether basic or applied science
is more important is a non-question; there is no dichotomy.




                                                                             34
This is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).




                                                            35
In his “Lectures on Logic” Kant reminded us of the importance of
polytomy (considerering a problem in all its aspects) and decried
dichotomy (analysing a problem into two opposing parts, e.g. Type
A/Type B or on-target/off-target effects), seductive though it may be.




                                                                         36
Let’s start with a linear model of pharmacology, from principles to practice,
from molecules to medicines, from human pharmacology to applied
pharmacology, from bench to bedside. This reminds us of the
components of the subject, but does not show their interactions.




                                                                                37
To develop the model further, we turn to the US political analyst,
Donald Stokes, who considered more complex models of scientific
development in his book “Pasteur’s Quadrant” (1997).




                                                                     38
He described three models: the quest for fundamental understanding
(pure basic research, as practised by Niels Bohr); utility only (pure
applied research, as practised by Thomas Edison); a combination
of the two (use-inspired basic research, as practised by Louis Pasteur).




                                                                           39
The empty fourth quadrant is unsatisfactory, so we can discard it and
rearrange the other three quadrants, as shown. Now we can see how
existing understanding and technology can be translated into improved
understanding and improved technology.




                                                                        40
This model takes an analogous approach to pharmacology. The top two
ovals show the major core topics in human pharmacology (left) and applied
pharmacology (right), and the bottom two show the practical applications
in individuals (left) and populations (right).




                                                                            41
We can now add in the essential bridges that interconnect the different
sections in different ways. Only some of the bridges and the topics that
form them are shown. Others can be imagined. The components of
preclinical pharmacology (top) need to be expanded.




                                                                           42
There is no dichotomy between basic pharmacology and clinical pharmacology.
All aspects of basic pharmacology, whether in animal or human cells, tissues,
or organs, are relevant to and inform clinical practice.




                                                                                43

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Powerpointpresentasjon 011010
Powerpointpresentasjon 011010Powerpointpresentasjon 011010
Powerpointpresentasjon 011010silverjohn99
 
CircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research Update
CircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research UpdateCircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research Update
CircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research UpdateCircle Audi
 
Wheregigaom
WheregigaomWheregigaom
WheregigaomWhere10
 
Presentazione booking2
Presentazione booking2Presentazione booking2
Presentazione booking2Valerio Valori
 
CircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety Index
CircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety IndexCircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety Index
CircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety IndexCircle Audi
 
Mec 113 chapter 5
Mec 113 chapter 5Mec 113 chapter 5
Mec 113 chapter 5juliesypoq
 
Ppt spm --
Ppt spm  --Ppt spm  --
Ppt spm --puzpa
 
Stress vs. Strain Curve
Stress vs. Strain CurveStress vs. Strain Curve
Stress vs. Strain Curvejuliesypoq
 
Organ transplant ppt
Organ transplant pptOrgan transplant ppt
Organ transplant pptRichard Frank
 

Destacado (15)

Powerpointpresentasjon 011010
Powerpointpresentasjon 011010Powerpointpresentasjon 011010
Powerpointpresentasjon 011010
 
PAV algemeen
PAV algemeenPAV algemeen
PAV algemeen
 
CircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research Update
CircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research UpdateCircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research Update
CircleAudi.net_AAA Aggressive Driving Research Update
 
Household budget
Household budgetHousehold budget
Household budget
 
Wheregigaom
WheregigaomWheregigaom
Wheregigaom
 
Household budget
Household budgetHousehold budget
Household budget
 
Presentazione booking2
Presentazione booking2Presentazione booking2
Presentazione booking2
 
CircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety Index
CircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety IndexCircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety Index
CircleAudi.net_AAA Traffic Safety Index
 
Horror movies
Horror moviesHorror movies
Horror movies
 
Mec 113 chapter 5
Mec 113 chapter 5Mec 113 chapter 5
Mec 113 chapter 5
 
Personal financial statement
Personal financial statementPersonal financial statement
Personal financial statement
 
Horror movies
Horror moviesHorror movies
Horror movies
 
Ppt spm --
Ppt spm  --Ppt spm  --
Ppt spm --
 
Stress vs. Strain Curve
Stress vs. Strain CurveStress vs. Strain Curve
Stress vs. Strain Curve
 
Organ transplant ppt
Organ transplant pptOrgan transplant ppt
Organ transplant ppt
 

Similar a Found in Translation - Dr Jeff Aronson WorldPharma 2010

Pioneer of microbes
Pioneer of microbesPioneer of microbes
Pioneer of microbesSibte Ali
 
History of microbiology
History of microbiologyHistory of microbiology
History of microbiologysamsoncruz
 
div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...
div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...
div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...samir231
 
HISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know no
HISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know noHISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know no
HISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know noChandraR22
 
History of modern medicine
History of modern medicineHistory of modern medicine
History of modern medicinerobert robert
 
Clinical trials history
Clinical trials historyClinical trials history
Clinical trials historyPradeep H
 
Famous biologist scientists (foreign)
Famous biologist   scientists (foreign)Famous biologist   scientists (foreign)
Famous biologist scientists (foreign)R Borres
 
History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology
History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology
History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology Govt Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32
 
Brief history of pharmacology
Brief history of pharmacologyBrief history of pharmacology
Brief history of pharmacologysaeedanwar78
 
The Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History Lesson
The Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History LessonThe Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History Lesson
The Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History LessonPradeep H
 
Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.
Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.
Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.Antonia Cornejo
 
A brief history of pharmacology
A brief history of pharmacologyA brief history of pharmacology
A brief history of pharmacologyM R S
 
History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)
History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)
History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)Yjnuuuhhh
 

Similar a Found in Translation - Dr Jeff Aronson WorldPharma 2010 (20)

Pioneer of microbes
Pioneer of microbesPioneer of microbes
Pioneer of microbes
 
History of microbiology
History of microbiologyHistory of microbiology
History of microbiology
 
div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...
div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...
div-class-title-germ-theory-hysteria-and-freud-s-early-work-in-psychopatholog...
 
Pages from 667970.pdf
Pages from 667970.pdfPages from 667970.pdf
Pages from 667970.pdf
 
HISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know no
HISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know noHISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know no
HISTORY OF SCIENCE By TEACHER You Know no
 
History of microbiology
History of microbiologyHistory of microbiology
History of microbiology
 
Origins kent's philosophy
Origins kent's philosophyOrigins kent's philosophy
Origins kent's philosophy
 
Biological history
Biological historyBiological history
Biological history
 
History of modern medicine
History of modern medicineHistory of modern medicine
History of modern medicine
 
Clinical trials history
Clinical trials historyClinical trials history
Clinical trials history
 
2014 herbsbybotanicalname-140206153740-phpapp02 (1)
2014   herbsbybotanicalname-140206153740-phpapp02 (1)2014   herbsbybotanicalname-140206153740-phpapp02 (1)
2014 herbsbybotanicalname-140206153740-phpapp02 (1)
 
Common Herbal Plants, Dr. L.T.M. Muungo
Common Herbal Plants, Dr. L.T.M. MuungoCommon Herbal Plants, Dr. L.T.M. Muungo
Common Herbal Plants, Dr. L.T.M. Muungo
 
Famous biologist scientists (foreign)
Famous biologist   scientists (foreign)Famous biologist   scientists (foreign)
Famous biologist scientists (foreign)
 
Famous Doctors
Famous DoctorsFamous Doctors
Famous Doctors
 
History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology
History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology
History of pharmacology & contributions of various scientists in pharmacology
 
Brief history of pharmacology
Brief history of pharmacologyBrief history of pharmacology
Brief history of pharmacology
 
The Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History Lesson
The Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History LessonThe Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History Lesson
The Evolution of the Clinical Trials Process – A Brief History Lesson
 
Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.
Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.
Nicolae paulescu - The discoverer of Insulin.
 
A brief history of pharmacology
A brief history of pharmacologyA brief history of pharmacology
A brief history of pharmacology
 
History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)
History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)
History of Pharmacology (Renaissance to Early Modern Medicine)
 

Found in Translation - Dr Jeff Aronson WorldPharma 2010

  • 1. I shall trace the history of the terms “human pharmacology” and “applied pharmacology” and discuss how they are related to each other. In doing so I shall develop a model of pharmacology showing the inter-relations of human and applied pharmacology. 1
  • 2. There is no dichotomy between basic pharmacology and clinical pharmacology. They form a seamless scientific weave, and numerous bridges link their various aspects. However, some of those bridges need to be strengthened. 2
  • 3. The Oxford English Dictionary allows you to trace the histories of words, their etymologies, and their previous and current uses. 3
  • 4. The definition of “pharmacology” is non-controversial, but includes a surprising obsolete usage. The first citation in the list of quotations illustrating the uses of the word is the earliest known instance in English. 4
  • 5. The time line (1700-1850) of the first recorded instances of various ologies shows that, after anatomy, pathology, physiology, and therapeutics, pharmacology is the oldest medical science. Materia medica and toxicology also precede all other ologies. 5
  • 6. Most later ologies first appeared in the English language between 1850 and 1950. Since neonatology (1960) we have had omics, not ologies. 6
  • 7. Of course, the word “pharmacology” dates back much earlier than its use in English—in fact, it existed in Greek. As did the term “materia medica”, in its Greek equivalent. 7
  • 8. Pedakios Dioscorides, from the island of Anasarbos, published his five-volume treatise on herbal medicine “Peri hules iatrikes” (literally “about medical stuff”) in the first century AD. The Codex Vindobonensis (512 AD) is the earliest version still extant. 8
  • 9. In this parallel text version (Greek on the left, Latin on the right) the title is translated into Latin as “De medica materia”, a direct translation of the original Greek. 9
  • 10. The term “materia medica” first entered English in the 17th century, but not in its current meaning. 10
  • 11. In the 18th century “materia medica” came to mean the study of therapeutic medications. Tobias Smollett, himself a doctor (MD Aberdeen 1750), referred to it in his medical novel “The Expedition of Humphry Clinker”, mentioning its theoretical and practical connections. 11
  • 12. After that, the term “materia medica” was used in the titles of many textbooks of therapeutics, a small selection of which is shown here. John Mitchell Bruce’s text, first published in 1884, later became “Dilling’s Clinical Pharmacology”. 12
  • 13. This is the 11th edition of 1918. Dilling went on to become Professor of Materia Medica and Therapeutics in Edinburgh. 13
  • 14. This is Louis Lewin, whom some have called the father of toxicology (see Aronson JK. Louis Lewin—Meyler's predecessor. In: Side Effects of Drugs, Annual 27. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2005: xxv-xxix). 14
  • 15. In 1881 Lewin published his textbook on the adverse effects of drugs, subtitled “Pharmakologisch-klinisches Handbuch”, the first time, to my knowledge, that the words “clinical” and “pharmacological” had been juxtaposed. [This is a later edition (1899).] 15
  • 16. The German physician Paul Martini also used the adjectival term “pharmakologisch klinisches” (see Shelley & Baur. Lancet 1999; 353: 1870-3), but the US physician Harry Gold was the first to bear the title “Professor of Clinical Pharmacology”. 16
  • 17. In 1953, John Gaddum, Professor of Materia Medica and Pharmacology in Edingburgh, gave his Dixon Memorial Lecture to the Section of Experimental Medicine and Therapeutics. The physician and pharmacologist Gladwin Buttle was President of the Section at the time. 17
  • 18. Gaddum explained how he had to come to call his lecture “Clinical pharmacology”. His paper contained a wealth of dose-response curves based on human studies. 18
  • 19. In 1958 a symposium was held in London on the topic of quantitative methods in human pharmacology and therapeutics. In 1959 the proceedings were published, edited by Desmond Laurence, of the Department of Applied Pharmacology, in University College, London. 19
  • 20. Gold contributed and it seems that at that time the terms “clinical pharmacology”, “human pharmacology”, and “applied pharmacology” were vying for supremacy. 20
  • 21. The term “clinical pharmacology” prevailed, when Stanley Alstead published “Dilling’s Clinical Pharmacology” in 1960. This is the edition that I used as a medical student in Glasgow University in the 1960s, when I studied what at that time was still called “materia medica”. 21
  • 22. In the same year (1960) Desmond Laurence published the first edition of his textbook “Clinical Pharmacology”. Here we see Desmond during the 1970s, carrying the papers for a meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, packed in four large green bags. 22
  • 23. So much for the terms. Now for the bridges. 23
  • 24. Vannevar Bush was a US engineer turned science administrator. In late 1944, President Roosevelt wrote to Bush, asking him to give his recommendations on four areas of scientific research. 24
  • 25. The second point about which the President was concerned was how to organize a program of research in medicine and related sciences following the Second World War. 25
  • 26. Bush wrote a forty-page report, which included several appendices from committees that he had marshalled to discuss and answer the President’s points. In his report he stressed the importance of basic science. 26
  • 27. This led to the view that medical research is linear. In the “scientific push” model curiosity drives basic research, which in turns leads to practical developments. In the “market pull” model basic research may be necessary or may already be available. 27
  • 28. The development of the atom bomb in the USA during the Second World War is a good example of linear research. It started with basic, curiosity-driven (“blues skies”) research, but led to a practical outcome. 28
  • 29. But in 1958, Jewkes et al. published their thorough study of 61 important scientific discoveries or inventions, analysing how they had come about. They concluded that linear models did not fully explain the genesis of scientific innovations. [This is a later edition (1965).] 29
  • 30. Since then there have been several studies of the role of linear models in scientific innovations and of the supposed relative contributions of basic and applied science. 30
  • 31. This is the biggest and most impressive study, although it has been subjected to some criticism (See, for example, Smith R. Comroe and Dripps revisited. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1987; 295: 1404-7). 31
  • 32. Previous studies had gone back only 20-50 years; Comroe and Dripps looked back much further. This is illustrated here, in part of one of the tables that they prepared on the history of ten important advances in cardiorespiratory medicine that they chose to study. 32
  • 33. With the help of many colleagues they identified key papers in the development of those advances and classified them as basic or not, clinically oriented or not. The basic studies were more frequent. This work was later used as evidence in favour of funding basic science. 33
  • 34. What can we learn from the conflicting results of all these studies? Two lessons emerge. First, there is no one model that fits all types of scientific developments. Secondly, asking whether basic or applied science is more important is a non-question; there is no dichotomy. 34
  • 35. This is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). 35
  • 36. In his “Lectures on Logic” Kant reminded us of the importance of polytomy (considerering a problem in all its aspects) and decried dichotomy (analysing a problem into two opposing parts, e.g. Type A/Type B or on-target/off-target effects), seductive though it may be. 36
  • 37. Let’s start with a linear model of pharmacology, from principles to practice, from molecules to medicines, from human pharmacology to applied pharmacology, from bench to bedside. This reminds us of the components of the subject, but does not show their interactions. 37
  • 38. To develop the model further, we turn to the US political analyst, Donald Stokes, who considered more complex models of scientific development in his book “Pasteur’s Quadrant” (1997). 38
  • 39. He described three models: the quest for fundamental understanding (pure basic research, as practised by Niels Bohr); utility only (pure applied research, as practised by Thomas Edison); a combination of the two (use-inspired basic research, as practised by Louis Pasteur). 39
  • 40. The empty fourth quadrant is unsatisfactory, so we can discard it and rearrange the other three quadrants, as shown. Now we can see how existing understanding and technology can be translated into improved understanding and improved technology. 40
  • 41. This model takes an analogous approach to pharmacology. The top two ovals show the major core topics in human pharmacology (left) and applied pharmacology (right), and the bottom two show the practical applications in individuals (left) and populations (right). 41
  • 42. We can now add in the essential bridges that interconnect the different sections in different ways. Only some of the bridges and the topics that form them are shown. Others can be imagined. The components of preclinical pharmacology (top) need to be expanded. 42
  • 43. There is no dichotomy between basic pharmacology and clinical pharmacology. All aspects of basic pharmacology, whether in animal or human cells, tissues, or organs, are relevant to and inform clinical practice. 43