How does one pursue a career in nanomedicine?

[GeneG83]

I think many would agree that the next revolution in medicine will be held on the nano scale. One day in the not too distant future you'll go to you doctor with a cold to have him administer a dose of nanocyctes which will seek out and eliminate the virus quickly and efficiently. Cold, cancer, even death could be a thing of the past once we learn how to treat disease at its most basic level.

I want to be one of the prioneers of this technology but none of the career counselors at my college can give me any quality info about how I can pursue it.

Does anyone have any advice regarding how I can make it happen?

I figure Ill go to medical school since it is nanomedicine but what should I do in the meantime? I still have some time until my BA and Ive switched my major about 5 times and have over 120 credits between the different disiplines Ive studied. Right now Im an electrical engineering major since it has an artificial intelligence track which I find really interesting. Does anyone think that there may be a more practical major for me given my goals?

 

Thanks for any advice you can give.

[GradGrrl]

Take a lot of physics.

[scicop]

Um..nanocytes eh? We already have "nanocytes", we just know them as a different names...DRUGS!!! or MEDCINE! Most are small molecules scale where as others are antibodies, or recombinant proteins which can be described on the "nano" scale if you want (though most stick with angstroms).

 

Nano is just a savy term being thrown around these days, we were there a long time ago, we just called in micro then! People like hearing 0.1 "nanometers" instead of 100 "micro"meters these days.

 

Don't know if you've taken a basic biology course yet, but that's how drugs we alerady have work! They do have a specific target (albiet selectivity can be an issue) and depending on how the drug is designed, it can by cell-type (or pathogen) selective (as a function of cell specific target expression). All drugs for infectious diseases and Cancer work on the principle of what us pharmacologist call "selective toxicity". But, seems to me you haven't taken a biology course yet, so if you don't understand it now ...you will eventually.

 

In some cases, drug design tends to favor a magic-bullet path..i.e. single molecular target, as with the case for Cancer; whereas, now being more accepted in the pharmaceutical world, is the concept of "magic shotgun", where a drug may have selectivity for multiple targets, thereby increasing efficasy while reducing propensity for adverse events. This would be the case for anti-psychotics such as the Atypical variety (see a review by Roth in Nature Drug Discovery a couple years ago). Other "magic shotgun" approaches include therapy for HIV where multiple gene products are targeted for effectiveness (however high risks, but in this case the benefits outweight the risks in terms of patient quality of life).

 

I've probably put too many concepts for you to understand, but as time goes on you'll understand. As for what to study, as we already have the so called "nanocytes" (aka regular drugs! ) so if you would like to know how to design them you would have to figure out which class of "nanocytes.(.ha ha..such a funny term...knock it off with the star trek) you want to develop. If its recombinant proteins or antibodies, then you would need a solid biochemistry/molecular-cell biology background. If its small molecule "rational design" (something else you will eventually learn about..like QSAR) then you need a solid organic chemistry background, or chemical engineering back ground.

 

 

You do not need a medical degree to develop these compounds the in lab. However you do need one to test it to the clinic. Most physicians involved in clinical research (trials) are NOT bench scientist. Usually its the basic scientist that hands the drug over to the clinicians once pre-clinical screening with animal models suggest a safe toxicity profile as well as demonstrated efficasy..these people are usually behavioral pharmacologist (ph.d.). After animal studies the next step is delivery formulation, usually done by a PharmD (pharmacist) who then passes it on to the clinical investigors (MDs, DOs, and PhDs who are (statistics experts and/or psychologist)

 

Once you're at the clinical trial level, there is no basic science anymore, its basically measuring/reporting patient outcomes, based on previously established outcome indexes, such as HAM-D for depression, or CDAI for Crohn's disease, and alot of statistical analysis.

 

So you need of figure out at what stage in a drug's life-cycle (or whats called "pipeline" in you want to participate in).

 

I know this is alot of info to absorb! and although your question was simple, I could tell you don't have a biology/pharmaceutical background so hense to big discussion. The pharmaceutical industry is tough and if you want to get into any form of drug discovery you HAVE to be good. Pharma industry does not tolerate mediocracy from its scientist, nor does academic science. So its important to really grow up..forget about star-trek, learn how things are done and learn it fast..cause there are a TON of people how there who are excellent will bid for the same job you want.

 

You're shooting yourself in the foot by not deciding on a major after 120 credits, it will come back to haunt you if you don't act now. Science is very intolerant of indecision and medicine is even worse...and pharmaceutical industry as 10 times worse than science and medicine combined. When money is involved, there is no room for indicision.

[Dak]

Im not sure how the american system works, but in the uk id imagine youd need some kind of biophisical degree, like a BSc in biophisics, biology with phisics, biochemistry (maybe), etc.

 

for a PhD, i'd imagine you could get one in biophisics/nanotech, but bear in mind that you'd specialise in one very narrow area of nanotech.

[GeneG83]

I know this is alot of info to absorb! and although your question was simple, I could tell you don't have a biology/pharmaceutical background so hense to big discussion.

 

Although I appreciate your response, I certainly dont appreciate being patronized! How can you tell what kind of background I have and do not have? By making blind assumptions I would imagine. On the contrary, yes I do have a solid background in biology and chemistry as I have completed courses from general bio to organic chemisty just to scratch the surface and have a 3.97 GPA at over 120 credits to boast. I would be glad to go as far as posting my transcript if you care to see.

I am fully aware of the loose use of the term nano as I am aware of the selectivity of immune cells as well as some pharmacuticals. What I reffered to as nanocytes were artificial "cells" which can be used to replace, supplement, or repair human cells and/or tissues.

 

One example of a what I meant by nanocyte is the respirocyte which would supplement or even replace human red blood cells. A repirocycte would be a bloodborne spherical 1-micron diamondoid 1000-atm pressure vessel with active pumping powered by endogenous serum glucose, able to deliver over 200 times more oxygen to the tissues per unit volume than natural rbc's and to manage carbonic acidity. An onboard nanocomputer and numerous chemical and pressure sensors enable complex device behaviors remotely reprogrammable by the physician via externally applied acoustic signals. Some applications would include transfusable blood substitution, partial treatment for anemia, perinatal/neonatal and lung disorders, enhancement of cardiovascular/neurovascular capabilites, tumor therapies and diagnostics, prevention of asphyxia, and a variety of sports, veterinary, battlefield and other uses.

I hope that gives you a better idea of what I was reffering to and if you still care to help I would like some input about how I can be involved in the realization of concepts such as the respirocycte.