In rating yourself at an IQ of 120 you give yourself way too much credit.

Well, the journals in which I publish (ACS, JMB) seem to be ok with me...

Physicians are scientists. No one can conduct research on humans in the US without physician oversight.

Yes, and any "experiments" done on human must be tested on animal models first (there are strict rules about animal research as well, of course). I guess we are getting into an argument over what "real" science is, with the chemists says biology is not, the physicists saying chemistry is not, and the mathematicians laughing at us all. I'm inclined toward the viewpoint that physicians should be focused on patient care- which is an important service. Keeping updated about the latest discoveries is important, and of course requires being literate in science in order to determine if the results are to believed. But the (modern!) drugs they perscribe are for the most part discovered by biochemists working with organic chemists and cell biologists, which are then tested on animal models, and only then may proceed to the clinical trials in humans which are indeed overseen by an MD.

Also, your reference to Dr. Koch is interesting (I used to work in a TB drug discovery lab), however back when he was working (the late 1800s) MDs had a bit more leeway to work with (many feilds like microbiology were still in their infancy), and were indeed expected to branch out. Now it seems like everyone must overspecialize. I would hope that the MD perscibing me something knows the chemical structure, mechanism of action on the target, and solubilty/pharmacokinetics of the drug but I have found this to not always be the case. However, they are usually well versed in the side effects and interactions with other drugs, with is quite a bit to know in and of itself.