I assume you mean this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2304445/ http://www.slate.com/id/2304445/ Before installing the robot, UCSF needed about half of its more

I assume you mean this one: http://www.slate.com/id/2304445/ http://www.slate.com/id/2304445/ Before installing the robot, UCSF needed about half of its more than 100 on-staff pharmacists to administer and check the drugs going out to patients on the floor; now nearly all have been reassigned to different parts of the hospital, where they make IVs, help adjust patients' drug regimens, and perform other tasks that had been neglected when they were simply filling prescriptions As mentioned there, and later in the article, the pharmacists (and I'm not entirely convinced that they were all pharmacists, as opposed to pharmacist technicians) were freed from their mundane, pill-counting tasks and put out on the floor of the hospital to monitor and "fine-tune" patients' drug regimens. The article basically lays out how pharmacists had jobs which were largely filled with extremely repetitive tasks -- billing, prescription input, pill counting -- and less of what they're important for, which is counseling patients. A computer isn't going to be able to replace a human in patient interaction, medical demand is rising, and I don't see that he made a case for future pharmacist demand not meeting the projected 17% (if I recall correctly) growth. It just sounds like being a pharmacist sucks a lot less now.