Employers across the United Kingdom pharmaceutical sector regard recent pharmacology graduates as enthusiastic, positive and generally excellent colleagues, but many of those same graduates arrive with an unexpected weakness: a shaky grasp of the foundational principles of the very discipline they studied. That is the central picture emerging from a small qualitative study in which eight pharmaceutical industry employees were interviewed in depth about what they value in pharmacology graduates, and where university preparation falls short of workplace reality.
The motivation is practical. Pharmacology has historically been a major pipeline into industry employment, yet both current students and graduates report difficulty identifying employment opportunities and pursuing career goals, and graduates themselves describe a disconnect between university education and workplace expectations.
To capture that employer perspective, the researchers used semi-structured interviews, a format that allows individual experiences to be explored in depth and yields a rich account of how industry employees perceive graduates. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling, drawn primarily from the personal network of the research team, with others invited after discussions at conferences or through wider personal connections. Eight employees of the UK pharmaceutical sector agreed to take part. They worked for small, medium and large pharmaceutical companies, a contract research organization, and, in one case, as an independent contractor with experience at a large pharmaceutical company. Both pre-clinical and clinical pharmacology areas were represented, and participants had a median of 12.5 years of industry experience, ranging from 4 to 26 years.
Seven interviews were conducted over Microsoft Teams and one took place in person, lasting between 22 and 58 minutes. All interviews were recorded, transcribed automatically, checked for accuracy and approved by the interviewees before analysis, with participants pseudonymized using a random alphanumeric generator. The transcripts were then coded in NVivo 15, producing 117 codes that the researchers organized into nine subthemes and, ultimately, three main themes. Seven of the eight participants gave permission for their redacted transcripts to be shared through the King’s Open Research Data System.
The first theme concerned how academia should prepare students for the reality of a pharmaceutical industry career. Interviewees highlighted the value of giving students knowledge of exemplars of drug discovery targets or pathways, developing group work skills and nurturing enthusiasm for research. Knowledge of exemplars, mentioned by four interviewees, was seen as a practical way of bridging the gap between the enormous range of targets industry might work on and what students can realistically be expected to know on arrival. Five interviewees identified group work as important, with one participant noting that teamwork is now more emphasized in university education than it was in their own experience. Nurturing a passion for biomedical research was something interviewees felt academics currently do well and should continue.
A striking thread within this theme was the contrast between practical classes and real research. Five interviewees argued that undergraduate practical sessions, which are designed to work every time and have a known outcome, provide insufficient preparation for the uncertainty inherent in working in a real laboratory. Participants also contrasted the slow pace of curriculum change in academia with the rapid pace of change in industry, and six interviewees explicitly drew distinctions between the objectives, professionalism, pragmatism and individuality of academic versus industry research. On the careers side, many interviewees admitted they had been unsure about industry during their own university years, and five highlighted sandwich years or similar placements as an effective way to increase students’ awareness of the pharmaceutical industry. Site visits and industry employees visiting campuses were suggested by two interviewees as further ways to expose students to the sector.
The second theme mapped the graduate attributes desired by industry. Specific knowledge of pharmacology and drug discovery was rated important by all eight participants, but four noted that many graduates employed by the industry have good biomedical science knowledge while lacking some basic understanding of pharmacology itself. In the discussion, the researchers elaborate that interviewees did not expect graduates to know every potential target, but considered it important that graduates know at least one example of a receptor, enzyme or signaling pathway that can be modified for therapeutic benefit. On skills, data analysis and numeracy were mentioned by six participants, communication skills including presentations by seven, and laboratory skills by seven. The ability to work across disciplines, collaborate with colleagues at different levels of experience and build consensus was valued by five interviewees. In a departure from some media portrayals of young workers, three interviewees described graduates as excellent colleagues, and four highlighted the implicit workplace standards and expectations of formality that differ from academia.
The third theme focused on the qualities students should develop to succeed in industry. Professionalism was valued by five interviewees and attention to detail by two, with some participants discussing the different expectations between university and the workplace; one reflected on his own challenges managing that transition. A positive attitude was cited by four participants, and a willingness to try new tasks and the ability to be a respectful, responsible colleague were each valued by one. Encouragingly, graduates largely displayed these features, and the enthusiasm and positivity of graduates were particularly appreciated by four interviewees.
The authors argue these findings carry direct implications for curriculum design, while stressing that amendments to undergraduate curricula should not be made on the basis of this study alone. They suggest the IUPHAR core concepts of pharmacology could help educators decide which core knowledge to include, and note that innovative approaches may be needed to keep supplying practical laboratory experience. Most participants recognized the importance of data analysis skills and numeracy, a finding consistent with other studies, and the authors suggest focused support for students who struggle with numeracy could help address that deficit. Interestingly, the skills employers prize are not always popular with students and academics: students report stage fright as a significant obstacle to delivering presentations, which may lead educators to avoid presentations as an assessment, inadvertently undermining development of a highly valued skill. Similarly, group work can be challenging and free-riding can damage student satisfaction, yet because industry works in groups while academic credit is issued individually, the authors argue such activities should be maintained for their benefit to employability.
The study has clear limits that the authors state plainly. Only UK-based industry employees were interviewed, limiting generalizability, and many pharmacology graduates pursue careers outside industry altogether. Convenience sampling may not represent all industry viewpoints, the number of participants was small, and the codes were generated by a single researcher, a former industry employee and current pharmacology educator, creating potential for bias. Notably, participants did not raise six of the seven top priority areas highlighted in a recent Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry report, with pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling the only exception, and language skills might have emerged had participants been recruited beyond the UK. The authors describe the work as exploratory and propose it as a basis for a larger survey covering the full range of careers undertaken by pharmacology graduates. They also observe that the domains highlighted here overlap with those identified in a separate study of employers of postgraduate students, including breadth and depth of knowledge, communication skills, data analysis, experiential training and adaptability, suggesting that undergraduates and postgraduates need similar attributes to thrive in the industry. Within those constraints, the message for educators is consistent: keep kindling enthusiasm, teach at least one drug discovery exemplar well, protect laboratory and group work, make students present, and be honest about what the workplace will demand.
Subject of Research: A qualitative interview study of UK pharmaceutical industry employees' perceptions of pharmacology graduates and the knowledge, skills and attributes they value.
Article Title: What Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Look for in Pharmacology Graduates? A Thematic Analysis of Semi‐Structured Interviews With Pharmaceutical Industry Employees on Their Perceptions of Pharmacology Graduates
Article References: Broad, J. (2026). What Does the Pharmaceutical Industry Look for in Pharmacology Graduates? A Thematic Analysis of Semi‐Structured Interviews With Pharmaceutical Industry Employees on Their Perceptions of Pharmacology Graduates. Pharmacology Research & Perspectives, 14(6), Article e70335. https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.70335
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1002/prp2.70335
Keywords: pharmacology, pharmaceutical industry, graduate employability, semi-structured interviews, qualitative research, curriculum design, drug discovery, UK, thematic analysis, higher education, transferable skills, Does
News Source: Louis Brooks. (October 27, 2026). What Pharma Employers Really Want From Pharmacology Graduates: Interviews Reveal Skills, Gaps and Surprising Praise. Scienmag.
