Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Talecris Biotherapeutics announced that it will add 259 jobs as part of a $269 million expansion of its manufacturing facility in Clayton, NC. The RTP-based biotech company already employs more than 3,000 people world wide (2000 in the Raleigh-Durham area and 1,500 in Clayton) and plans to use the 259 new hires to staff its newly expanded manufacturing facility at the Clayton site. The jobs being added will have an average annual salary of $51,066, excluding benefit substantially higher than the salaries of other non-biotech employees in the area.

The company manufactures and sells Prolastin an FDA-approved protein therapy, delivered via a plasma infusion, for patients who have alpha1-antitrypsin (AAT) deficiency, which can lead to emphysema. Talecris, was formed in 2005 when private equity firms Cerberus Capital Management and Ampersand Ventures purchased Bayer AG’s plasma division for $300 million. The company was sold last year to Australia’s CSL, Ltd last year for $3.1 billion and raised $950 million in an initial public offering of stock on this past October.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I suspect that many of you (after reading the title of this post) might be expecting another rant about the need for new antibiotics to treat infections caused by multiple drug resistant strains of bacteria. Sorry to disappoint you because that isn’t what this post is about. After reading and listening to several seemingly disparate radio and newspaper stories this morning, I decided to combine three different stories into a single post that touches on several common themes.

First, I heard a story on NPR this morning (while driving my daughter to middle school) about FDA’s initiative to require that oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico be pretreated before they can be served in restaurants and eaten raw. The reason for this initiative is that a majority of live oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico are usually contaminated with the opportunistic bacterial pathogen Vibrio vulnificus and other Vibrio species. Approximately, 15 or more immunocompromised patents die each year and many more get ill after ingesting raw Louisiana oysters infected with V. vulnificus. FDA, (which for those of you who don’t know also regulates the food and cosmetic industries in addition to the drug and devices industries), spent the past few years crafting regulatory guidelines that called for mandatory  treatment (irradiation or pasteurization) of oysters from the Gulf of Mexico before they are served “raw” at restaurants and other commercial food operations. The regulations were to be implemented sometime in 2011. While many of the larger commercial Louisiana-based raw oyster producers already pre-treat their oysters before they are sold to restaurants, the pretreatment requirement would be economically onerous and challenging to “mom and pop” oyster business throughout Louisiana. Not surprisingly, given the economic devastation caused by hurricane Katrina several years ago, FDA was assaulted by oyster manufacturing trade groups and Louisiana politicians and lobbyists asking the agency to delay implementation of the new rules. Unfortunately, FDA officials caved and yielded to the onslaught and agreed to conduct a pilot study designed to assess the effectiveness of the program before forcing the new rules on the Gulf Coast oyster industry.  For the record, I love eating raw oysters and the thought of eating a so-called “raw oysters” that have previously been pasteurized or irradiated seems unseemly and unappealing to me. However, FDA’s mission is to provide Americans with a safe food supply and to minimize the incidence of any public health risks associated with or caused by it. The fact that FDA was cajoled and yielded to calls that that the agency placed economic concerns ahead of known public health risks is lamentable and truly regrettable. Rather than spending excessive amounts of money on lobbying efforts to delay appropriate public health initiatives, the Gulf Coast oyster industry and its trade groups and lobbyist ought to consider investing in efforts to combat global warming and Gulf of Mexico water pollution, which in turn, would reduce the bacterial load of live oysters harvested from the Gulf of Mexico and serve to raw oyster enthusiasts. 

On a more upbeat note about infectious diseases (sort of), there was an article in today’s Science Times which reported the results of a study that linked exposure to five so-called common pathogens, Chalmydia pneumoniae, Helicobacter pylori, cytomegalovirus and Herpes simplex types 1 and 2 to increased risk of stroke. According to the article, each of these pathogens may persist after acute infections and contribute to an ongoing chronic low level infection. These low level infections coupled with chronic inflammation of blood vessels induced by the infections may contribute to the increased likelihood of stroke. While intriguing, authors of the study warn that their results don’t establish a cause-and-effect relationship between these infections and stroke. More research will be required to determine whether or not there is a definitive link between these infections and the incidence of stroke..

Speaking of stroke and heart attacks, I want to turn my attention to the clinical trial results reported yesterday by Merck & Co about its cholesterol-lowering drugs Zetia and Vytorin. As you may recall, a brouhaha erupted about a year ago about whether or not the cholesterol-lowering effects of  Merck’s  blockbuster drugs Zetia and Vytorin (which is a combination of Zetia and the statin Zocor) actually protected patients from increased risk of heart attack and stroke. The results of the long awaited study which were presented at an American Heart Association meeting on Monday support previous findings of two earlier clinical studies which showed that despite lowering LDL cholesterol levels, Zetia and Vytorin don’t reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke in at-risk patients. 

In the study patients who were at risk for cardiovascular disease were treated with statins in combination with either Zetia or Niaspan (a prescription, controlled-release formulation of over-the-counter niacin supplements that exhibits cholesterol-lowering properties). Patients who received statins plus Niaspan had decreased thickening of the walls (caused by atherosclerosis) of the carotid artery whereas those treated with Zetia failed to inhibit arterial plaque buildup. In other words, Zetia (and Vytorin) which are expensive prescription drugs don’t provide any health benefits beyond those offered by statins, many of which (including Merck’s Zocor) are available as low-cost generics.

Despite the lack of any clear medical or health benefits, sales of Zetia and Vytorin generated about $4.8 billion in sales last year. You would think that Merck and its stakeholders would be devastated by the results of the new study. However, they were actually happy about the news—they were fearful (based on data from the earlier studies) that Zetia may actually increase the risk of heart attack and stroke! What is particularly revealing (and disturbing) about the whole Zetia/Vytorin story is that Merck is relieved that an expensive drug that it heavily promoted as being beneficial and safe is in reality not beneficial. When did it become acceptable that the only requirement for FDA approval of prescription drugs is safety? Doesn’t a drug have to also show a positive therapeutic and clinical effect (over previously approved drugs for the same indication) before it wins regulatory approval? The fact that physicians continue to prescribe ineffective, multi-billion dollar drugs like Zetia instead of cheaper and effective generic versions of cholesterol-lowering drugs another troubling sign of  our current economic situation and the need for healthcare reform in the US.

Finally, for you patent aficionados, there was an illuminating and incisive op-ed piece in today’s NY Times that shed light on the problems with the current US patent approval process. While I have substantial experience in this area, I learned more from reading this article than I did from the many years that I worked closely with patent and intellectual property attorneys. This article is a must read for those persons considering careers in intellectual property and patent law and entrepreneurial individuals who are interested in starting up life sciences companies.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Live and Learn!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Much has been written about how supportive the pharmaceutical industry has been about US healthcare reform. Prior to the debate, the Obama administration gleefully announced that pharma will give $80 billion in drug discounts in exchange for certain assurances that weren’t publicly disclosed. As most of us know, the US House of Representatives passed historic healthcare reform legislation last week and in addition to a public option it stipulates that pharma will be required to give $140 billion in drug discounts. According to Ed Silverman over at the newly reinstated Pharmalot blog, AstraZeneca CEO David Brennan, who is also this year’s chair of the industry trade group PhRMA, vowed that pharma would fight the house healthcare reform legislation. 

While Brennan’s statement isn’t surprising nor particularly noteworthy, his comments explaining pharma’s position on healthcare reform are revealing and important to understand. He told the Huffington Post “We said there were principles we didn’t want to see violated. And if those principles - price controls, Medicare rebates, moving dual eligibles back from Medicare and back into the Medicaid discount program - if those things happen, I can’t see how we could be supportive of the program.” In other words, we will support anything you propose— and may even be willing to kick in another $60 billion or so to support healthcare reform— but any discussion about government regulation of drug prices is a deal breaker! 

To my knowledge, this is the first public mention of price controls by any pharmaceutical executive during the almost year long debate on healthcare reform. The reason that I find Brennan’s statement interesting is that I have long contended that pharma will give the Obama administration and Congress anything it wants in exchange for assurances that the government will not attempt to control drug prices. For those of you who don’t know, the US is one of the only countries in the world where the government is prohibited from setting drug prices. This means that US drug makers in concert with insurance companies and third party payors can set drug prices based on what the American pharmaceutical market can bear. Not surprisingly, the profit margins on drugs sold in the US are the highest in the world. Obviously, pharma doesn’t want the US government hindering or limiting their profits by setting or capping drug prices. 

I am glad that pharma has finally decided to publicly “come clean” on the price control issue. The public option and issues surrounding data exclusivity for follow-on biologics pale in comparison to the financial havoc that price controls would wreak on the pharmaceutical industry. And, I suspect that pharma and its lobbyists will do whatever it takes to insure that price controls never become a reality in the US. However, at the end of the day, government regulation of drug and device prices will ultimately be required for any meaningful changes to take place to the US healthcare system.

Hat tip to Ed!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

Addendum: After writing this post this weekend, an article appeared in Monday's New York Times that revealed that the drug industry has quietly been raising its wholesale prices on prescription drugs over the past year.  This, of course, was done in anticipation of possible federal legislation that might impose some government controls on drug pricing.  According to the Times article: "In the last year, the industry has raised the wholesale prices of brand-name prescription drugs by about 9 percent, according to industry analysts. That will add more than $10 billion to the nation’s drug bill, which is on track to exceed $300 billion this year. By at least one analysis, it is the highest annual rate of inflation for drug prices since 1992. The drug trend is distinctly at odds with the direction of the Consumer Price Index, which has fallen by 1.3 percent in the last year.  Not surprisingly, the US pharmaceutical industry justifies the practice because as an industry spokesperson put it  "they are having to raise prices to maintain the profits necessary to invest in research and development of new drugs as the patents on many of their most popular drugs are set to expire over the next few years."  Hmmmm, interesting comment considering the US pharmaceutical industry has layed off over 180,000 employees over the past three years, a majority of whom are R&D scientists...go figure!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Flu season is upon us and, not surprisingly, there is no dearth of information available to the public about the seasonal and H1N1 flu vaccines. Mostly there are stories about the lack of availability of the vaccines, underreporting of deaths associated from H1N1 infections and perhaps, most importantly concerns about flu vaccine safety. Despite attempts by the CDC and a few dedicated virologists like BioCrowd co-founder Vincent Racaniello, flu vaccine manufacturing is an enigma to the lay public.

While I am a card-carrying microbiologist, my knowledge of the manufacturing of flu vaccine is admittedly lacking. With this in mind, I came across an outstanding tutorial about flu vaccine manufacturing published by the College of Agriculture at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (my alma mater). The UW tutorial is easy to understand and will shed light on and help to demystify flu vaccine production for lay people (and a few scientists like me).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Unlike many of my social media colleagues, I’m not attending the FDA public hearing taking place in Washington, D.C today (Friday the 13^th oh my). I wanted to attend and actually testify but I didn’t understand how the process works and blew my opportunity. However, I will be prepared for rounds 2 and 3 and beyond. I can assure you that this will not be the last public meeting organized by the agency to develop guidance for the use of social media in pharmaceutical marketing and advertising. 

The brouhaha over social media and its use in the life sciences industry is purportedly taking place because of the lack of regulatory guidance on the topic. While I agree that FDA needs to craft a reasonable regulatory policy for the use of social media for promotional purposes, the discussion taking place has little to do with the medium and everything to do with the fair balance of ads that are used to promote drug sales. For those of you who may not know, fair balance (in regulatory parlance) means that drug manufacturers are required to fully disclose in print, television, radio and internet ads the benefits as well as the side effects and risks associated with a specific product. Unfortunately, too often, drug makers tend to promote the therapeutic benefits of a drug but downplay its side effects and risks. This isn’t surprising because drug makers, like other for-profit companies, must sell as much product as possible to generate sufficient revenues to remain profitable.  And, as we all know, consumers and physicians are more likely to use or prescribe drugs that have therapeutic benefits without many side effects or risks.

Since the inception of direct-to-consumer advertising, FDA and drug makers have been playing a cat-and mouse-game with the fair balance issue. Most drug makers understand the “balance” that FDA requires for traditional promotional ads, but rather than abide by the rules, many choose to determine how far they can bend the rules before they appear on FDA’s radar. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that drug companies have adopted the same strategy when it comes to Internet advertising and search result ads. To be fair, FDA hasn’t crafted any definitive guidance on Internet advertising or search ad fair balance requirements. However, rather than apply what they have learned over the years about fair balance in print and television advertising, many drug makers chose to ignore fair balance requirements for Internet advertising simply because there are no written regulations or rules. To that end, 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies recently received warning letters about their misuse of promotional drug ads that appeared with Google search results. FDA cited the lack of fair balance in the search ads as reasons for the warning letters. By issuing identical warning letters to 14 different drug companies, the agency was essentially saying “c’mon guys, who are you trying to kid—you ought to know better by now!”

Unfortunately, even when there are regulations, many companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars to look for deficiencies and loopholes that can be exploited to increase and improve drug sales. Therefore, I contend, that regardless of the social media guidance that FDA ultimately issues, drug and device manufacturers will continue to look for work arounds to regulations that they perceive hinder product sales.  

Social media is all about transparency, accessibility and communications between participants. The guidance that FDA issues about the use of social media in the life sciences industry will likely be circumspect and open to interpretation as it usually is. As one FDA legal expert explained to me, “FDA crafts the laws but it is up to the judiciary  to interpret how they ought to be applied.”

I suspect little will change until drug manufacturers realize that full disclosure and transparency, not half-truths and opaqueness, will ultimately lead to improved drug sales in the future.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the past 10 years or so, I have been providing career counseling and development seminars and workshops for life scientists. In the early years, students, postdocs and a smattering of faculty members would attend to learn about the industry trends, the job market and more recently alternate careers for PhDs and postdoctoral fellows. However, over the last few years, a disturbing trend has emerged—the lack of faculty participation at these events. 

Yesterday, I was invited to participate as a panel member to moderate a career development event sponsored by the graduate student and postdoctoral associations at the University Of Rochester School Of Medicine. The event was well attended (over 85 participants) and the discussion lasted for more than 2 hours. Joining me on the panel was a PhD-trained scientist/manager from Bristol Myers Squibb and a healthcare company executive who received his PhD degree from the university about 16 years ago. Many of the questions asked by the participants were spot on and revealed that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are extremely anxious about their futures. The panel did its best to describe what it takes to get a job in the life sciences, the process and steps required to successfully win jobs and some ideas for alternate career options for PhD-trained scientists. Unfortunately, not a single University of Rochester medical school faculty member attended the event. In fact, I met the PI of one of the postdocs who sponsored my visit and he said with all sincerity (I think) “Thanks for coming...the students are really looking forward to your talk.” Obviously, I don’t it ever crossed his mind that he, like his students and postdocs might learn and benefit from a discussion about career options and hear (probably for the first time) how anxious and fearful his and other students are about future job prospects.

The fact that faculty members are routinely eschewing career development seminars and forums is troubling and extremely disturbing for a variety of reasons. First, as I have said many times before, I believe that PIs have moral and ethical obligations to help their students determine what careers they are best suited for. I don’t think it is too much to ask or labor-intensive for PIs to learn about what is going on with the job market outside of academia. Despite an ongoing lack of tenured track faculty positions and the extremely fierce competition to win them, academicians continue to exclusively train and prepare students for academic careers. This makes absolutely no sense from a “supply and demand” perspective. Second, the lack of faculty support and participation sends a clear message to graduate students and postdocs that their anxieties, fears and concerns about job prospects simply isn’t that important to their PIs.  The mantra of most academicians —“just continue to do good science and everything will be okay”— is outdated, anachronistic and self serving (for PIs) at best.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the failure of  tenured faculty members to actively engage and participate in discussions about career options reveals the unbridled contempt that most academicians have for scientists who work outside of academia. Most academics choose to not concern themselves with non-academic and mundane issues like jobs and careers. And why should they? Once they win tenure, their lives are set because they are guaranteed jobs and benefits for life!

We are living in very challenging and troubling times. In the past three years, over 180,000 pharmaceutical workers lost their jobs and national unemployment will likely hit 15%.  Academic and government jobs are hard to come by and the competition for these jobs is ferocious and extremely competitive. And, sadly, current academic training programs are woefully inadequate to prepare graduate students and postdocs for alternate career opportunities in the life sciences. 

As I have stated numerous times before, life science graduate training programs are in dire need of systemic change and be overhauled to remain relevant. Unfortunately, systemic changes are unlikely because tenured faculty members can’t be forced or induced to change their practices, attitudes or beliefs. While a minority of life sciences faculty members realizes that the system is broken, the majority doesn’t.  To that end, if graduate students and postdoctoral fellows want change to occur than they must band together and collectively send a message to their PIs and mentors that “We are mad as hell and we aren’t going to take it anymore!” Anything short of a widespread massive protest will be ineffectual!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After announcing yesterday that it will be reorganizing and closing 6 of 20 R&D sites worldwide, Pfizer/Wyeth announced today that as many as 2000 R&D scientists will lose their jobs. I suspect that others will lose their jobs in the next few months or so.

The Pfizer/Wyeth and Merck Schering Plough mergers signal the beginning of the end of the traditional vertically integrated pharmaceutical business model. It is evident that pharma is shifting away from its almost 100 year focus on R&D and manufacturing to less labor intensive and costly activities like advertising, marketing, sales and distribution—things that drug makers have excelled in the past decade or so. Innovation will likely no longer come from within but from external sources including academia, biotechnology companies and third party vendors including CROs and CMOs.   

While the loss of thousands of R&D scientists will have little impact on the productivity and operations of life sciences companies themselves, it has serious implications for academic institutions that train life sciences graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. In the past, PhD scientists who were unable to find academic jobs too refuge and found gainful employment in the life sciences industry. However, American industrial R&D jobs are becoming harder and harder to find as larger companies continue to outsource those activities, to Asia, South America and Eastern Europe. And, the competition for the remaining jobs is becoming increasingly fierce. Put simply, academic institutions have to begin to realize that we no longer need as many PhD-trained life scientists as we have in the past. At present, there is a glut of PhD life scientists in the US, many of whom can’t find jobs. Perhaps, this should be taken into account before graduate school admissions committees determine the number of new graduate students they will admit next year.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In today’s edition of the incisive EyeonFDA blog, Mark Senak, provides a historical perspective on events leading to the US Food and Drug Administration public hearing on the use of social media and medical promotion that will be held on Thursday and Friday, November 12 and 13, 2009. As Mark points out, registration for the meeting was closed because of an overwhelming response and the number of people who wanted to offer testimony on the topic. Many social media enthusiasts view the public hearing as something of a “game changer” that may influence the future direction of social media in the life sciences industry. But, as Mark, astutely points out, only four pharmaceutical companies and one or two trade organizations will be participating at the hearing. 

The lack of industry participation at the meeting is curious given that 14 companies received warning letters several months ago about their misuse of ad associated with the results obtain by Google search. Further, pharmaceutical companies have consistently and publicly stated that their aversion to social media is contingent upon the lack of FDA’s regulatory guidance for its use. By not actively participating in the public hearings later this week, many pharma companies have chosen to remain silent and will likely allow FDA to craft social media policies that guide the promotional activities of drug makers on its own. This begs the question: why would drug makers allow a federal regulatory agency to unilaterally dictate policy, when the policy will likely affect their bottom lines, i.e. sales and profits? The industry’s refusal to actively participate in these hearings is another example of the cat and mouse game that drug makers like to play with FDA. Put simply, drug makers expect and want FDA to commit (in writing) to certain policies and guidelines and once established, company regulators and lawyers are instructed to find loopholes and work-arounds. I liken the drug industry’s refusal to actively participate in the upcoming public hearings to the now infamous rope-ad-dope strategy Mohammed Ali used to knock out George Foreman in the now infamous Rumble in the Jungle in 1974. This is how wikipedia defines the rope-a-dope: “The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance, in Ali's classic pose, lying against the ropes, and allowing his opponent to hit him, in the hope that the opponent will become tired and make mistakes which the boxer can exploit in a counterattack.” I hope that I am wrong about the drug industry’s strategy and motives.

Without active industry participation it isn’t clear how effective the FDA public hearing on social media will be. As Mark adroitly points out in today’s post, “The bulk of the other presentations are tertiary stakeholders perhaps sensing a vehicle for free self-promotion such as advertising and public relations firms and bloggers, but they aren't the real stakeholders in this issue.  The real stakeholders are those who are referred to in the meeting notice - the medical products industry.” I would also add the American public to the stakeholder list who also has considerable “skin in the game.”

Pharma’s active participation at many of the social media conferences that I recently attended indicates that something must be in it for pharma; otherwise they wouldn’t attend. There is no question that social media isn’t a passing fad and is now an integral part of the Web 2.0 experience. That said, for the first time in many years, drug makers have a unique opportunity to actively voice their ideas and concerns and collaboratively work with FDA to craft meaningful social media regulatory guidance. As many of us “outside observers” know, the agency doesn’t have all the answers and we would like to think that drug makers would extend a helping hand to avoid confusion and misunderstandings about the use of social media to promote their products and services. While only 4 companies are scheduled to speak at the hearings, I suspect that there will be many life science company representatives in attendance. Nevertheless, despite what may happen at this week’s hearings, I hope that, going forward, drug makers and device manufacturers will begin to view FDA as a partner rather than an adversary!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employees of Pfizer/Wyeth were notified earlier today of impending changes and consolidation that will be taking place at the newly combined company. According to internal sources, Cambridge, MA, Groton, CT and Pearl River, NY will be the main centers of the combined company’s East Coast operations and San Francisco and La Jolla/San Diego CA will represent West Coast operations. In Europe, the research facility in Sandwich, England will be the main R&D center with a network of smaller sites, in locations such as Montreal, Ottawa, Cambridge UK, Aberdeen UK, and Dusseldorf, Germany providing expertise in vaccine production and biomanufacturing. The company’s China R&D Center in Shanghai will remain the focal point of operations in Asia,

There will be substantial reductions in headcount and the company’s R&D footprint. These include:

• The former Pfizer headquarters in New London, CT, which will be consolidated into the nearby Groton, CT site. Functions currently located at New London will be relocated to Groton
• Elimination of all R&D activities at Princeton, NJ; Sanford and the Research Triangle Park, NC; Chazy, NY; Rouses Point and Plattsburgh, NY; Gosport, Slough and Taplow, UK
• R&D activity will be substantially reduced at the Collegeville, PA and Pearl River, NY sites. Pearl River will remain a center for vaccine and biopharmaceutical development

I suspect that many of the employees who will lose their jobs as a result of the consolidation have already been or will be notified shortly of their fates. It is unfortunate that pharmaceutical companies continue to lay off thousands of employees when the US unemployment rate continues to rise and will likely hit 12 to 13 percent before it is all said and done. As expected, the combined company is reducing its US R&D operations and will likely outsource or purchase these activities from external sources. It is not a good time to be an American R&D scientist.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link