Monday, April 9, 2007

Adapting to Change: Globalization and USC Pharmacy

When one reads about change and modernization in academia, the word globalization inevitably appears as one of the principle elements of change. Unfortunately, globalization has been a relevant term for over 25 years, yet it is more commonly referred to as a new phenomenon rather than the underlying force in our political and economic theory. It is for this reason that I propose the USC Pharmacy School adapt changes in their program that go beyond adapting to the minor changes of globalization has brought, and instead employ some for principle aspect of globalization. The first principle may seem self evident but more often than not is forgotten in academia; a useful integration into the global pharmaceutical market. The industry today is widespread, with many drugs being produced in Europe and Africa, and research is conducted in Asia and the U.S. The USC Pharmacy program can adjust their curriculum to integrate these elements of the industry by teaching students how and where their products come from, allowing them decide whether they would be interested in entering one of these markets overseas. Additionally, the USC Pharmacy School should consider opening a research facility overseas or perhaps in Canada. Although studying overseas is appealing for any student, pharmacy school graduates from USC would have a distinct advantage for any job if they can claim to have treated patients or conducted primary research in a foreign country. The second element of globalization that should be utilized by the school is integration with foreign pharmaceutical companies, allowing for students to work overseas, which is again a huge advantage USC pharmacy students will have over other competitive students. Other than globalization, a key change that should be implemented is the shortening of the entire curriculum. Currently, the pharmacy school is a four year program, which is on average a year longer than most other courses. Shortening the program to three years will draw more students to the program, allowing for the pharmacy school to choose the most qualified students. Additionally, the feasibility of a joint degree program will increase, for example, if a student pursued a joint degree program in which he would graduate with a Pharm D. degree and a MBA degree, that student would be in school for five years, although this isn’t a drastically long time period, it does not offer a competitively short time frame. Thus it is reasonable to assume that some students who wish to have a MBA would not pursue pharmacy become of the length of the program, and would pursue programs with shorter time frames. On the other hand, USC may be losing students to other pharmacy schools because of this same issue; for example, the only other pharmacy school in Los Angeles is Western University, which has a three year program. Additionally, the pharmacy school should also allow for more rotation time for students. This would give the students more experience under the guidance of USC while allowing them to discover what fields within pharmacy they would like to pursue once they graduate. Now if the USC Pharmacy School adopted all of these changes the experience of getting a degree in pharmacy would be significantly different; students would work and study overseas, while finishing in a shorter time period, allowing them to get a foothold in the industry sooner. However, one may argue that students cannot receive proper instructions outside of the U.S. due to language issues, but this brings us back to the problem of academia we addressed earlier, which is that reluctance to accept the ways in which globalization has changed the political, economic, and ultimately academic environment.

Monday, April 2, 2007

Dr. Raymond Damadian; A Great yet Unknown Inventor

With graduation approaching, the search for a candidate to be awarded with an honorary degree from USC is underway. My Candidate is Dr. Damadian. In picking a nominee for this essay I found it difficult to decide exactly to what degree an individual must embody the qualities that form the foundation of an honorary degree. My problems were soon over when I read about the achievements of Raymond Vahan Damadian, the inventor of the MRI machine. Born in 1936 in Melville New York, Dr. Damadian attended the University of Wisconsin and the Albert Einstein School of Medicine. Dr. Damadian faced great adversity in his life, while at the same time always advocating that people should strive to help individuals. Dr. Damadian should be awarded an honorary doctoral degree in science due to his outstanding achievements in science, chiefly in creating the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machine which is used worldwide to detect certain cancers in the human body. Dr. Damadian contribution to society cannot be overstated; however, he has faced much controversy in his life.
The most obvious issue is the fact that although Dr. Damadian invented the MRI machine, he does not have a patent on the production of MRI machines, instead, large overseas companies produce MRI machines while paying no royalties to the original inventor, whose prototype still remains on permanent display in the Smithsonian Institution’s Hall of Medical Sciences. The injustice Dr. Damadian faced was the result of a belligerent and dishonest interpretation of the relevant facts by the presiding judge in the 1982 trial disputing the patent rights of the MRI machine. Despite the fact that a grand jury found Dr. Damadian deserving of the patent, the trial judge overturned the decision of the jury six weeks later and denied Dr. Damadian his rightful patent. Another equally insulting injustice Dr. Damadian had to face was the denial of the Nobel Prize. The simple fact is that the MRI machine has helped countless people live longer and healthier lives, yet the inventor of the MRI has been this award ever since its invention in 1977, and to add insult to injury, the 2003 recipients of the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Paul C. Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield, were awarded the Nobel “for their discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging.” The blatant denial of the Nobel to Dr. Damadian is preposterous, but to award the Nobel for same machine to two people did not invent it is unforgivable and casts a long and disgraceful shadow on the entire Nobel Foundation. It is partly for this reason that USC should without recitation award Dr. Damadian an honorary doctoral degree in science.
The MRI machine is without a doubt one of the most important breakthroughs in medical science and its applications have grown far and wide, helping physicians in order fields diagnose and treat myriad diseases. Additionally, throughout all the insults and hardships Dr. Damadian has had to face he has maintained his composure and dignity, upholding the virtues that USC hold dear, he has been faithful to his work, and was courageous and ambitions to attempt to create the MRI machine, which at the time was said to be impossible to make. Dr. Damadian’s contribution to society is without a doubt far beyond what most of us can hope to achieve, and it would be to USC’s benefit to have his name written in our halls. Hopefully, one day Dr. Damadian’s achievements will be properly recognized, however, if they are not in our lifetime, at least USC could be have the honor of recognizing it before most others. Dr. Damadian would encourage all graduates to persue theirs goals without resitation and to ignore their critics.