Pathologist vs. Microbiologist

Both. You needs skills in both to discover how things work and operate. A microbiologist is a knowledgeable in how micro-organisms interact and grow, while a pathologist is knowledgeable in how micro-organisms act pathogenically. Therefore, you can't learn one without the other. If you want to get into the mechanism of action of these drugs, you'll also need to touch up on your biochemistry, because all drugs react chemically at the sub-cellular level, and if you want a future drug approved, you'll need to do research and know exactly how it works, what proteins it reacts with, etc.

Hi Micro,

Microbiologists generally study microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi, and viruses, sometimes in the context of a disease and sometimes not. A clinical pathologist attempts to diagnose a disease, and, as the previous poster said, can sometimes be considered a microbiologist. A clinical biochemist does much the same thing as a clinical pathologist, in the sense that they work to diagnose clinical patients, but biochemists tend to focus on chemical tests, whereas pathologists tend to look at the spread of a disease in the body using other methods.

Microbiologists are by no means found only in the food industry; they work at research universities, government research facilities, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Clinical pathologists and biochemists tend to work at health care facilities, since their work focuses on diagnosis (hence the "clinical" part of the job title).

In order to be a microbiologist, you don't necessarily need a PhD or a medical degree, though one of these would be quite helpful for certain research positions. You can do research with a medical degree, though you can't practice medicine with a doctorate.

Since both are needed, what would be best to do a masters in? Microbiol or pathology & immunity?