- •Apothecary
- •History
- •Other Mentions In Creative Literature
- •Noted Apothecaries
- •See also
- •References
- •Overview
- •Etymology
- •Function
- •Examples
- •See also
- •References
- •Clinical pharmacy
- •[Edit] See also
- •[Edit] References
- •[Edit] External links
- •Compounding
- •History
- •New England Compounding Center incident
- •Roles During research and development
- •Patients with unique or unusual medication needs
- •Personalized medicine and polypharmacy
- •Recent trends
- •Regulation in the United States
- •Analogy to "off-label" use
- •Drug testing and reporting of incidents
- •Criticism
- •Regulation in Australia
- •See also
- •References
- •External links
- •Consultant pharmacist
- •United States
- •United Kingdom
- •See also
- •External links
- •Etymology
- •Medication
- •Spiritual and religious use
- •Self-improvement
- •Recreational drug use
- •Administering drugs
- •See also
- •References
- •Health care
- •Health care delivery
- •Primary care
- •Secondary Care
- •Tertiary care
- •Quaternary care
- •Home and community care
- •Related sectors
- •Health system
- •Health care industry
- •Health care research
- •Health care financing
- •Health care administration and regulation
- •Health information technology
- •See also
- •Herbalism
- •History
- •Ancient times
- •Middle Ages
- •Early modern era
- •Modern herbal medicine
- •Biological background
- •Clinical tests
- •Prevalence of use
- •Herbal preparations
- •Practitioners
- •Government regulations
- •Traditional herbal medicine systems
- •Herbal philosophy and spiritual practices
- •Uses of herbal medicines by animals
- •Extinction of medicinal plant species
- •See also
- •References
- •Further reading
- •History of pharmacy
- •Prehistoric pharmacy
- •Antiquity
- •Middle Ages
- •See also
- •References
- •Hospice
- •History Early development
- •Rise of the modern hospice movement
- •Hospice care
- •North America Canada
- •United States
- •United Kingdom
- •Other nations
- •See also
- •Further reading
- •External links
- •Hospital pharmacy
- •Sterile production
- •See also
- •External links
- •Hospital
- •Etymology
- •General
- •District
- •Specialized
- •Teaching
- •Clinics
- •Departments
- •History Early examples
- •Roman Empire
- •Medieval Islamic world
- •Medieval Europe
- •Colonial America
- •Modern era
- •Criticism
- •Funding
- •Buildings Architecture
- •See also
- •References
- •Bibliography
- •External links
- •Medical education
- •Entry-level education
- •Postgraduate education
- •Continuing medical education
- •Online learning
- •Example of medical education systems
- •Medical Education Journals
- •See also
- •References
- •External links
- •Medical ethics
- •History
- •Values in medical ethics
- •Autonomy
- •Beneficence
- •Non-Maleficence
- •Double effect
- •Conflicts between autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence
- •Euthanasia
- •Informed consent
- •Confidentiality
- •Criticisms of orthodox medical ethics
- •Importance of communication
- •Control and resolution
- •Guidelines
- •Ethics committees
- •Medical ethics in an online world
- •Cultural concerns
- •Truth-telling
- •Online business practices
- •Conflicts of interest
- •Referral
- •Vendor relationships
- •Treatment of family members
- •Sexual relationships
- •Futility
- •Sources and references
- •External links
- •Medical psychology
- •Behavioral medicine
- •Certifications
- •References
- •See also
- •External links
- •Institutions
- •Branches
- •Basic sciences
- •'Medicine' as a specialty
- •Diagnostic specialties
- •Other major specialties
- •Interdisciplinary fields
- •Education
- •Medical ethics
- •Legal controls
- •Criticism of modern medicine
- •Honors and awards
- •History
- •Ancient world
- •Middle ages
- •Patron saints
- •Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine
- •Background
- •Nomination and selection
- •Diplomas
- •Award money
- •Ceremony and banquet
- •Laureates
- •Time factor and death
- •Controversial inclusions and exclusions
- •Limits on number of awardees
- •Years without awards
- •References
- •Bibliography
- •[Edit] External links
- •Online pharmacy
- •Home delivery
- •Risks and concerns
- •Discussion
- •International consumers
- •U.S. Consumers
- •Overseas online pharmacies and u.S. Law
- •Enforcement
- •Mail fraud
- •Uk consumers
- •See also
- •References
- •External links
- •Pharmacist
- •Nature of the work
- •Education and credentialing
- •Practice specialization
- •Training and practice by country
- •Australia
- •Japan History
- •Contemporary
- •Tanzania
- •United Kingdom
- •Education and registration
- •Vietnam
- •United States
- •Pharmacy School Accreditation
- •Education
- •Specialization and credentialing
- •Earnings and wages
- •Noted people who were pharmacists
- •See also
- •References
- •Further reading
- •External links
- •Pharmacognosy
- •Introduction
- •Issues in phytotherapy
- •Constituents and drug synergysm
- •Herb and drug interactions
- •Natural products chemistry
- •Loss of biodiversity
- •Sustainable sources of plant and animal drugs
- •Acceptance in the United States
- •External links
- •References
- •Pharmacology
- •Divisions
- •Environmental pharmacology
- •Scientific background
- •Medicine development and safety testing
- •Drug legislation and safety
- •Education
- •See also
- •Footnotes
- •[Edit] External links
- •Pharmacopoeia
- •Etymology
- •History
- •City pharmacopoeia
- •National pharmacopoeia
- •International pharmacopoeia
- •Medical preparations, uses and dosages
- •See also
- •References
- •External links
- •Pharmacy automation
- •History
- •Chronology
- •Global variations
- •Current state of the industry
- •Technological changes and design improvements
- •Other pharmacy-dispensing concerns besides counting
- •Future development
- •Liquid Oral doses (Childs, aging, oncology...)
- •Repackaging process and stability data
- •See also
- •References
- •External links
- •Videos of robots in action
- •Pharmacy technician
- •See also
- •References
- •External links
- •Pharmacy
- •Disciplines
- •Professionals
- •Pharmacists
- •Pharmacy technicians
- •History
- •Types of pharmacy practice areas
- •Community pharmacy
- •Hospital pharmacy
- •Clinical pharmacy
- •Ambulatory care pharmacy
- •Compounding pharmacy
- •Consultant pharmacy
- •Internet pharmacy
- •Veterinary pharmacy
- •Nuclear pharmacy
- •Military pharmacy
- •Pharmacy informatics
- •Issues in pharmacy Separation of prescribing from dispensing
- •The future of pharmacy
- •Pharmacy journals
- •See also
- •Symbols
- •References
- •External links
- •Philosophy of healthcare
- •Ethics of healthcare
- •Medical ethics
- •Nursing ethics
- •Business ethics
- •Political philosophy of healthcare
- •Patients' Bill of Rights
- •Health insurance
- •Research and scholarship
- •Clinical trials
- •Quality assurance
- •Birth and death Reproductive rights
- •Birth and living
- •Death and dying
- •Role development
- •See also
- •References
- •External links
Time factor and death
Because of the length of time that may pass before the significance of a discovery becomes apparent, some prizes are awarded many years after the initial discovery. Barbara McClintock made her discoveries in 1944, before the structure of the DNA molecule was known; she was not awarded the prize until 1983. Similarly, in 1916 Peyton Rous discovered the role of tumor viruses in chickens, but was not awarded the prize until 50 years later, in 1966.[51] Nobel laureate Carol Greider's research leading to the prize was conducted over 20 years before. She noted that the passage of time is an advantage in the medical sciences, as it may take many years for the significance of a discovery to become apparent.[52] The 2009 award in medicine was the first in the Nobel Prize's history that more than one woman has been the recipient of the Nobel Prize in a single year.[53] It is also the first time two women have been awarded the Physiology or Medicine prize.[54]
In 2011, Canadian immunologist Ralph M. Steinman was awarded the prize; however, unknown to the committee, he had died three days before the announcement. The committee decided that since the prize was awarded "in good faith," it would be allowed to stand.
Controversial inclusions and exclusions
Main article: Nobel Prize controversies
Some of the awards have been controversial. Who was deserving of the 1923 prize for the discovery of insulin as a central hormone for controlling diabetes (awarded only a year after its discovery)[55][56] has been heatedly debated. It was shared between Frederick Banting and John Macleod; this infuriated Banting who regarded Macleod's involvement as minimal. Macleod was the department head at the University of Toronto but otherwise was not directly involved in the findings. Banting thought his laboratory partner Charles Best, who had shared in the laboratory work of discovery, should have shared the prize with him as well. In fairness, he decided to give half of his prize money to Best. Macleod on his part felt the biochemist James Collip, who joined the laboratory team later, deserved to be included in the award and shared his prize money with him.[55] Some maintain that Nicolae Paulescu, a Romanian professor of physiology at the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Bucharest, was the first to isolate insulin, in 1916, although his pancrein was an impure aqueous extract unfit for human treatment similar to the one used previously by Israel Kleiner.[57][58][59] in the paper that brought him the Nobel,[60] Paulescu already held a patent for his discovery (10 April 1922, patent no. 6254 (8322) "Pancreina şi procedeul fabricaţiei ei"/"Pancrein and the process of making it", from the Romanian Ministry of Industry and Trade).[61][62][63]
Scandal and controversy resulted from the 2008 award to Harald zur Hausen for the discovery of HPV, and to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier for discovering HIV.
In 1949, despite protests from the medical establishment, the Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz received the Physiology or Medicine Prize for his development of the prefrontal leucotomy, which he promoted by declaring the procedure's success just 10 days postoperative. Due largely to the publicity surrounding the award, it was prescribed without regard for modern medical ethics. Favorable results were reported by such publications as The New York Times. It is estimated that around 40,000 lobotomies were performed in the United States before the procedure's popularity faded.[64] Joseph Kennedy, the father of John Kennedy, subjected his daughter, Rosemary, to the procedure which incapacitated her to the degree that she needed to be institutionalized for the rest of her life.[65][66]
The 1952 prize, awarded solely to Selman Waksman for his discovery of streptomycin, omitted the recognition some felt due to his co-discoverer Albert Schatz.[67][68] There was litigation brought by Schatz against Waksman over the details and credit of the streptomycin discovery; Schatz was awarded a substantial settlement, and, together with Waksman, Schatz was to be officially recognized as a co-discoverer of streptomycin as concerned patent rights. However, he is not recognized as a Nobel Prize winner.[67]
The 1962 Prize awarded to James D. Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins—for their work on DNA structure and properties—did not recognize contributing work from others, such as Alec Stokes and Herbert Wilson. In addition, Erwin Chargaff, Oswald Avery and Rosalind Franklin (whose key DNA x-ray crystallography work was the most detailed yet least acknowledged among the three)[69] contributed directly to the ability of Watson and Crick to solve the structure of the DNA molecule—but Avery died in 1955, and Franklin in 1958 and posthumous nominations for the Nobel Prize are not permitted. However, recently unsealed files of the Nobel Prize nominations reveal that no one ever nominated Franklin for the prize when she was alive.[70] Wilkins' only contribution was to show Rosa Franklin's key x-ray photos to Watson.[71] As a result of Watson's misrepresentations of Franklin and her role in the discovery of the double helix in his controversial book The Double Helix, Franklin has come to be portrayed as a classic victim of sexism in science.[72][73] Chargaff, for his part, was not quiet about his exclusion from the prize, bitterly writing to other scientists about his disillusionment regarding the field of molecular biology.[71]
The 2008 award went to Harald zur Hausen in recognition of his discovery that human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause cervical cancer, and to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier for discovering the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[74] Whether Robert Gallo or Luc Montagnier deserved more credit for the discovery of the virus that causes AIDS has been a matter of considerable controversy. As it was, Gallo was left out and not awarded a prize.[75][76] Additionally, there was scandal when it was learned that Harald zur Hausen was being investigated for having a financial interest in vaccines for the cervical cancer that HPV can cause. AstraZeneca, who with a stake in two lucrative HPV vaccines could benefit financially from the prize, had agreed to sponsor Nobel Media and Nobel Web. According to Times Online, two senior figures in the selection process that chose zur Hausen also had strong links with AstraZeneca.[77]