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

Talk about a rough week. First, on Monday, Pfizer announced that it was acquiring Wyeth, a move that is expected to result in the loss of 8,000 to 10,000 jobs if the deal is approved. This was followed on Wednesday by an announcement from Abbott Laboratories indicating hat it was laying off about 200 sales representatives because of regulatory delays for its12 hour-formulation of its pain drug Vicodin. Finally, on Thursday, AstraZeneca announced that it will cut another 7,400 jobs worldwide by 2013 (bringing the total number of expected layoffs to 15,000). Also on Thursday, Sepracor, the maker of the sleeping pill Lunesta, announced that it will cut 20% of its permanent work force (530 jobs) and 410 contract sales representatives (even though the company announced a profit).

Suffice it to say it has been a tough week for pharmaceutical company employees. I hope that next week is better.

Until next time…

Good Luck and errrrrr Good Job Hunting????????

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

Convincing students and adults that science can be fun and even cool at times can be a very challenging proposition. This is mostly because science is perceived as “being hard” and in many cases, the people who teach science are not appropriately trained. Consequently sciences classes are frequently boring and unimaginative. Nevertheless, creative scientists can sometimes figure out ways to overcome these negative perceptions of science. One of the best examples of this is the use of the Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) in some so-called consumer products.  While this application of GFP may pose ethical dilemmas for some, I haven’t met many children or adults who don’t think that transgenic mice, fish or flowers that glow green, red, blue or yellow (or a combination of these colors) in dark aren’t cool! While this wasn’t GFP’s intended use—the scientists who first demonstrated GFP’s utility as a genetic engineering application won a Noble prize last year—it certainly exposed the lay public to wonders and powers of modern day scientists.

With this in mind, researchers at the University of Tokyo’s Institute of Industrial Science (IIS) announced that they had created a 5-millimeter tall doll composed of living cells to demonstrate a new method for fabricating three-dimensional living biological structures. The researchers created the tiny figurine by cultivating 100,000 cell capsules — 0.1-millimeter balls of collagen, each coated with dozens of skin cells — together inside a doll-shaped mold for one day. After the cells had fused to form the doll-shaped structure, it was placed in a culture solution and survived for more than 24 hours. The researchers hope to use the method to create tissues and organs with complex cellular structures, which may prove useful in the fields of regenerative medicine and drug development.

While this new technology may never rival GFP and its multitude of applications, it shows that scientists like to have fun from time-to-time and can introduce complex scientific ideas to the lay public.  In my opinion, many kids get turned off to science at an early age because we scientists take ourselves too seriously and rarely explore ways to inject fun into sometimes tedious and boring material. After all, nobody made it fun for us and we became scientists anyway! We live in a different world now and I can see from watching my own children grow, that today’s  kids today are inquisitive, creative, comfortable with sophisticated technologies and open to new ideas—requisite traits for all scientists!

Unlike the past eight years, a new window of opportunity exists to challenge and convince young people that science is fun and can be very cool at times. To accomplish this, we science educators must step outside of our comfort zones and begin to inject some fun and wonderment into science. The kids will love it and I suspect so will we!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Teaching!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

The ink hasn’t had time to try on the deal sheet and Pfizer already has announced what the impact of its acquisition of Wyeth will have on the combined company. Here’s what to expect: Pfizer will shed at least 19,000 jobs from it newly combined work force of 128,000 employees; it will slash its stock dividend by 50%; and it will take a $2.3 billion charge to settle a federal investigation over off label promotion of its former pain drug Bextra. 

The combined company will be run by Pfizer’s CEO, Jeff Kindler, who joined Pfizer in 2006 after serving as legal counsel for McDonald’s. Bernard Poussot who became Wyeth’s CEO a little over a year ago will depart the company. As I mentioned in a post yesterday, Pfizer and Wyeth had been in talks for over a year before the deal was consummated. If the deal had closed last year, Mr. Poussot would have garnered a $38 million dollar severance package that included cash, pension, health benefits and other entitlements. But, because Wyeth’s board changed its compensation package for its CEO on January 1, he will only be entitled to a severance package of only $18.3 million. Not bad for a guy who ran the company for little over a year!

Other fallout from the deal includes: increased consolidation or purchase of cash-poor biotechnology companies—that will result in more layoffs and continue to reduce the life sciences workforce in the US— and the loss of a potential biotech dealmaker (Wyeth) that was aggressively pursuing M&A strategies and licensing opportunities with smaller, struggling biopharmaceutical companies. Most Wall Street analysts agree that the debt taken on by Pfizer to purchase Wyeth will prevent the company from participating in any new major acquisitions in the foreseeable future.

While the deal may ultimately benefit Pfizer, it certainly won’t help to improve the overall, short term health of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (I hear that they are hiring on the West Coast)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I believe in free enterprise and that publicly-traded companies ought to be able to buy one another if a deal makes sense. In any other financial market, Pfizer’s impending acquisition of Wyeth would be a noteworthy event but not extraordinary. However, we are living in unprecedented and uncertain financial times and Pfizer’s possible purchase of Wyeth has serious implications for American taxpayers.

As you may recall, the US government has pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into American banks so that they remain “solvent.” This was done to unfreeze credit markets and to purportedly provide relief, albeit indirectly, to American taxpayers many of whom are in financial trouble. However, the government’s infusion of TARP money didn’t unfreeze the credit markets and banks are still reluctant to lend to one another or to small business owners and consumers who need financing to keep their business and homes.

The Pfizer-Wyeth deal began about a year ago when Pfizer’s CEO floated the idea of a merger or acquisition. Negotiations between the two companies were on and off over the past year mostly because Pfizer and Wyeth couldn’t agree on an acceptable purchase price. The financial meltdown of last October changed all that and it became economically feasible for Pfizer to purchase Wyeth at a sharply discounted price.  However, one of the missing variables in the equation (that might kill the deal) was the availability of credit to complete the transaction. Because US banks are currently flush with TARP cash (because they stopped lending) and the Pfizer-Wyeth deal represents a safe deal with a substantial financial upside, it was not surprising that four of the largest US banks were willing to finance the deal.

According to the NY Times, “Pfizer’s bid is being financed by four banks that received bailout money: Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup and Bank of America.” Ironically, last week the US government agreed to give Citigroup and Bank of America an additional TARP infusion to prevent them from “failing.” Amazingly, these very same banks (that have been teetering on the brink of insolvency for the past several months) can find the cash (taxpayer money) to finance Pfizer’s purchase of Wyeth. And, what can the American taxpayers expect to receive in return for investing in the deal—massive job layoffs— if Pfizer’s past purchases of Warner Lambert and Pharmacia are used as harbingers of things to come.

In better financial times, these layoffs would be noteworthy but not insurmountable jobs—there were always jobs at rival pharmaceutical companies and smaller biotechnology companies. However, over the past three years, the pharmaceutical industry has shed over 160,000 jobs and the biotechnology industry, the usual refuge for former pharma employees, has also layed off tens of thousands employees. Put simply, there is no longer a place for these highly skilled and experienced pharmaceutical employees to go to seek employment.

Wyeth shareholders and the banks will undoubtedly benefit financially from the impending deal. On the other hand, while Pfizer may garner some short term benefits from the Wyeth purchase, I think the ROI from the deal will be nominal over the long haul. Ironically, the people who stand to lose the most from the deal are the very same people who made the deal possible—the American taxpayers!  Imagine how you might feel if a deal made on your behalf using your hard-earned money resulted in your eventual unemployment!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Pfizer's board of directors voted on Sunday evening  to acquire Wyeth for $65 billion.  While this may help to assuage some of Pfizer's short term financial problems, like the loss of  Lipitor in 2011,the deal will not help the combined company in the long run. 

The deal will undoubtedly lead to massive layoffs at both Pfizer and Wyeth--a time when our economy cannot afford much more job loss.  Further, it will diminish competition, reduce the need for more scientists and ultimately diminish America's standing in the life sciences. 

If I were a Pfizer or Wyeth employee the first thing that I would do on Monday morning would be: update my resume, contact as many  recruiters as I can and find a new job before the layoffs begin. I think the era of severance packages is over!

Until next time... 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. It was able to garner that distinction by going on a decade-long buying spree that began in the mid 1990s. To date, Pfizer has acquired Warner Lambert, Pharmacia and a host of smaller specialty pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Despite these acquisitions, which yielded top selling blockbuster drugs like Lipitor and Celebrex, Pfizer’s stock has never performed up to analyst’s expectations. In fact, while it’s smaller and more nimble pharmaceutical competitor’s stock prices were soaring, Pfizer’s stock price was either flat or falling. While conventional wisdoms suggest that “bigger is always better” this has proven not to be the case when companies, like Pfizer, attempt to win greater market share through mergers and acquisition and also loss sight of their core business.

In my opinion, Pfizer’s acquisition of Warner Lambert in the mid 1990s was a well executed, strategic move—the transaction gave Pfizer rights to Lipitor, currently the world’s top selling prescription drug. At that time, Pfizer’s internal drug discovery pipeline was essentially running on empty and it needed a blockbuster to insure its future growth. Despite the benefits of the Warner Lambert deal, it took Pfizer many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to fully integrate the two companies into a fully functional one.

Several years later, Pfizer acquired Pharmacia to gain access to Celebrex, a Cox-2 inhibitor that had the potential of becoming a blockbuster drug to treat inflammation and chronic pain. Unfortunately, Pfizer’s ROI on Celebrex hit a sales-stopping road block when the safety of Cox-2 inhibitors was called into question after Merck withdraw its Cox-2 inhibitor, Vioxx from the market in 2005. While Pfizer directly benefited from Celebrex sales, it again took the company many years, at great expense, to fully integrate Pharmacia into Pfizer’s day-to-day operations.

During its decade long expansion, Pfizer’s internal drug discovery programs were largely ignored and had begun to fail largely because of management’s inexorable focus on acquiring blockbuster drugs rather than developing them internally. In the early 2000s, recognizing that blockbuster drugs were becoming harder to purchase, the company bet its financial future on a new cholesterol-lowering drug called torcetrapib (which, by the way, was developed by Pfizer scientists). The buzz surrounding torcetrapib—a potential blockbuster drug that was expected to replace Lipitor—reached a fever pitch in 2006 as Pfizer’s stock price soared. Unfortunately, Pfizer was forced to abandoned clinical development of torcetrapib in late 2006 because it exhibited potential life-threatening side effects in pivotal Phase 3 clinical trials This failure, coupled with the impending loss of  patent protection for several of its top selling drugs, most notably Lipitor, has placed Pfizer in its current precarious financial situation.

Like many of its competitors, Pfizer believes that biotechnology is the “next big thing” and its executives have publicly disclosed their intentions to get into “protein-based therapeutics.” While this strategy may represent a way for Pfizer to correct its current downward trajectory, the company, as a whole, lacks the requisite biopharmaceutical experience and expertise to commercially compete in this space. To obviate this, Pfizer has hinted that it would consider purchasing a large biotechnology company or a pharmaceutical company that has biotechnology products on the market.  Enter Wyeth—another pharmaceutical company that is trying to reinvent itself as a biopharmaceutical company. However, unlike Pfizer, Wyeth markets and sells two successful biotechnology products—Enbrel, a treatment for rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis and Prevnar a blockbuster anti-pneumococcal vaccine. However, it is important to note that neither Enbrel nor Prevnar were developed at Wyeth. Further, while Wyeth has achieved commercial success with both Enbrel and Prevnar, several of its non-biotechnology drugs have recently hit regulatory snags and their future approval is uncertain.

On the surface, a Pfizer-Wyeth merger may make sense—both companies are struggling, Pfizer needs an entrée into biotech and Wyeth has marketed biotechnology products and biomanufacturing capability. However, a closer examination of the deal reveals some major flaws. First, Wyeth’s internal biotechnology discovery pipeline is sparse (although it does have a few, niche protein-based products in early stage clinical development). While Enbrel sales are increasing and consistently have topped $1 billion in annual sales in recent years, Wyeth only owns the non-US rights to Enbrel (Amgen owns the US rights). Second, Prevnar is coming off patent soon and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has developed a competing vaccine that is expected perform as well or better than Wyeth’s next generation version of Prevnar. Finally, Prevnar has been a huge money maker for Wyeth because there are currently no other approved pneumococcal vaccines on the market. The introduction of GSK’s competing vaccine will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the sale of Prevnar and its successor. If neither company has strong internal drug discovery pipelines and both lack sufficient expertise in biopharmaceutical product development, why are Pfizer and Wyeth actively engaged in M&A discussions?

For the past several months, rumors have been circulating that Pfizer might acquire Amgen. While a Pfizer-Amgen deal makes more sense to me that a Pfizer-Wyeth one, I don’t think that acquiring another large pharmaceutical company is in the best interests of Pfizer shareholders (they are still paying for the past two mergers!). That said, if Pfizer does acquire Wyeth, the combined entity will still hold the distinction of being the world’s largest pharmaceutical company—at least there is that!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (hope that a merger doesn’t take place—there will be layoffs!)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I watched the Obama inauguration today and like many other Americans I was moved to tears during his speech. A new day is truly dawning in America!  The one line that resonated the most for me is when he said he was going to restore American science to its rightful place.  My colleague Vincent Racaniello also heard that line and he offer this take on what the implications that one statement may have for American science over the next 4 years.

The Audacity of Hope

I just heard President Obama, in his inaugural address, say the words “We will restore science to its rightful place”. What does he mean by this?

In “The Audacity of Hope”, the book President Obama wrote in 2006 to set forth his thoughts on “reclaiming the American dream”, he suggests that we will need to invest in education, science and technology, and energy independence to make America more competitive. With respect to science, he has specific plans:

…fifteen years ago, 20 t0 30 percent of all research proposals received significant federal support. That level is now closer to 10 percent. For scientists and researchers, this means more time spent raising money and less time spent on research. It also means that each year, more and more promising avenues of research are cut off - especially the high-risk research that may ultimately yield the biggest rewards.

…our declining support for basic research has a direct impact on the number of young people going into math, science, and engineering - which helps explain why China is graduating eight times more engineers as the United States every year.

If we want an innovation economy, one that generates more Googles each year, then we have to invest in our future innovators - by doubling federal funding of basic research over the next five years, training one hundred thousand more engineers and scientists over the next four years, or providing new research grants to the most outstanding early-career researchers in the country. The total price tag for maintaining our scientific and technological edge comes out to approximately $42 billion over five years - real money, to be sure, but just 15 percent of the most recent federal highway bill.

In less than a page, Obama crystallizes today’s problems with science. I could not have said it better myself. And his solution is concrete and reachable.

His words were written in 2006, well before our current financial crisis. But I am convinced that President Obama knows that supporting science and technology is one of the keys to the future of this country. I know he will find ways to follow through with his promises.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As the old adage goes, “We are human and we all make mistakes.” Tell that to a person who believes that they have made a terrible workplace mistake and it will do little to assuage their fears and anxiety about what may happen if the error is revealed. In these troubled financial times, nobody wants to give a boss or manager a reason to let them go. That said, you may want to consider your options the next time that you make a mistake at work.

It is natural for a person who has made an error to try and cover it up. The main reason why people don’t want to admit their mistakes is because they erroneously feel that it is a reflection of their native abilities and overall intelligence—nobody wants to be perceived as incompetent or stupid. Unfortunately, attempts to cover up mistake can sometimes lead to more—and bigger mistakes—which may have graver consequences or cause more harm than the original mistake. However, once you have successfully objectified the mistake —and separated the error from you as a person—it is much easier to correct the error and simply move on.  

Contrary to popular belief, managers and bosses tend to have far greater respect for people who have the courage to readily admit their mistakes. This is because they know from experience that little mistakes can sometimes have serious implications or negative consequences for a company or business. Further, it signals to a manager or boss that the employee (who made the mistake) is honest and a team player —someone who is willing to sacrifice his/her own personal standing for the good of the organization or company. Finally, despite assertions to the contrary, managers and bosses are human too. And, as we have repeatedly been told, all humans make mistakes—it is part and parcel of the human condition.

My own experiences with workplace errors are somewhat mixed—at various times I have utilized both the cover up and full disclosure options. Invariably, I have had far better and more personally-satisfying and positive outcomes when I chose the full disclosure route over the cover up option.

To learn more about managing workplace errors and mistakes, please read “Making the Most of Your Mistakes” by Phyllis Korrki—it is a great read!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Fess up!!!!!!!

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

About a year ago, I was eating lunch and bunch of pharma executives were at the table next to me. I inadvertently overhead bits of their conversation and I heard the words, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube mentioned. This suggested to me that pharma was more aware of social media (and its business implications) than pharma publicly cared to admit. Pharma has been reluctant to embrace social media because of possible legal and regulatory ramifications. Nevertheless, a few companies have decided to boldly go where no pharma company has gone before—to YouTube.

The Eye on FDA blog, which is very bullish on social media, has been keeping aof pharma companies that have created channels on YouTube, the video site owned by Google. To date, Sanofi Pasteur, GSK, Abbot and JNJ have taken the YouTube plunge (see SanofiPasteurTV , GSKVision, AbbottChannel, andJNJHealth).  I suspect that pharma companies are willing to take a risk on YouTube, because unlike other social media platforms, they can disable the functionality that allows viewer to leave comments, kudos or kvetches after viewing videos. This shields the companies from unwarranted claims, misinformation about its products and negative publicity.

At present, the US Food and Drug Administration, has issued little or no guidance on the use of social media by drug makers. This means that drug makers are in uncharted territory and can experiment with social media without fear of much regulatory oversight or scrutiny.  Now that pharma has broken the social media barrier, I wonder whether MySpace, Facebook and Twitter (the hottest new social media tool at the moment) will be next. Interestingly, I learned yesterday that Novartis uses twitter and can be followed @Novartis.

Off the record conversations with MySpace representatives suggest that a number of pharmaceuticals have quietly created branded product pages on MySpace for years.  As the MySpace rep put it, how can you ignore an audience of 60 million people?  Further, Facebook’s fan pages are growing in popularity and don’t be surprise to see pharma pages begin to appear there. It will be interesting to see how pharma will incorporate social media into its business and marketing models in the future.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Video Watching!!!!!!!!

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

While the domino theory was incorrect when it came to the spread of communism during the Cold War, there may be a kernel of truth to it when it is applied to today’s pharmaceutical industry. On Tuesday, Pfizer announced that it would lay off 800 researchers. Not to be outdone by Pfizer, Roche announced today that it plans to lay off about 780 workers over the next two to three years because of “worsening economic conditions.”

After spending the last decade or so associated with the pharmaceutical industry, one thing that I have learned is that there isn’t a single company that I can think of that wants to be the first to do anything. However, when a pharma company makes a bold move, the others are very quick to follow because they “don’t want to be perceived as not being “cutting edge” or keeping pace with their competitors. To that end, the domino theory may warrant some further investigation when it comes to day-to-day operations of big pharma.

Until next time,

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vincent Racaniello, a pioneer in RNA virology and world class researcher on the pathogenesis of polio, believes that social media can be used to enhance scientific research and improve science education. Vincent recently blogged about this on his virology blog and graciously allowed me to repost it to BioJobBlog. It is an interesting perspective from an innovative and creative scientist.

Science and the Social Web

In a previous post about why I blog and podcast, I discussed how these activities allow me to think more about virology and to teach far more people than I ever could in a laboratory or classroom. Is there even more value in the web for scientists?

There are three different web activities, besides blogging and podcasting that enhance science in new ways. The first is the ability to post comments on blogs and podcasts. In so doing, people can interact in ways that were not previously possible. Scientists who have never met, or students hoping to learn, all can connect and create an instructive and creative dialog. Don’t understand something in a post? Just ask. Have something different to contribute? Post it. Science can only benefit from interactions not limited by geography or time.

The second powerful web tool for science is the social networks. We know how MySpace and Facebook made it easy to meet and interact with new people. These networks also allow scientists to connect and talk about their profession. There are various groups on Facebook that enable focused, productive discussions among scientists. Even more useful are the social networks that have been developed specifically for scientists - well over 20 according to this  blog post. These networks exist to foster interactions - meeting other scientists, looking for jobs, troubleshooting experiments, finding answers to thorny questions. The value of scientific social networks is that they enable dialogue far beyond what you could achieve on your floor, in your building, by telephone or email. The result is scientific interactions at unprecedented levels.

The third web tool for scientists is Twitter. This microblogging platform restricts users to posts of 140 characters or less - the end result is concentrated information. For scientists, Twitter can be either a distraction or a gold mine. If you choose to follow individuals who are interested in science, you will, in the course of a day, find tweets with links to interesting science - news or journal articles; comments on science; questions about science or science methods - in brief, the kind of exchange originally facilitated by email but far more immediate and pithy. Follow the right people on Twitter, and receive useful information. I keep an eye on Twitter to find tips on how scientists use the web, the latest science news, and comments on science in general. In turn, when I learn of an interesting science news event or article, I tweet it. Mr. Tweet’s discussion of  the evolution of a twitter user crystallizes this concept.

There is also great value for scientists at FriendFeed. No, it’s not a fourth category - it’s an aggregator of the three activities described above, one-stop for all your blogging, podcasting, social networking, and twittering.

These three aspects of the social web are revolutionizing science. By using them, I am learning more about my field than I ever have before. Those who choose not to take advantage of the social web will miss the opportunity to become more creative and productive scientists.

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

Job Title: Island caretaker
Location: Hamilton Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia
Duration: 6 months
Description: Write a weekly blog from an ocean side villa (with pool). Snorkel, swim, walk the sandy white beaches and take photographs and videos and post them to your blog.
Salary: $100,000 (including round trip airfare to Australia)

It sounds too good to be true but it is a real position being offered by the Australian government. The job, billed as the ‘Best Job in the World’ was posted at islandreefjob.com and within 24 hours Australian tourism officials said that they had received over 200,000 applicants from all over the world. Not a bad gig considering that your main responsibility would be to promote the Great Barrier Reef (specifically the Whitsunday Islands) as a vacation destination.

You gotta love those Aussies!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (maybe you will get lucky with this one)
 

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

I received an e-message from a reader who alerted me about new information and rumors that are swirling about the layoffs announced yesterday by Pfizer.  For more info, check out the post at the Daily Anchor.

Seems like other things may be brewing at Pfizer.

Until next time...

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

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

Allergan, the drug maker that brought us Botox is at it again! The company has a new FDA-approved drug called Latisse that can be used to grow longer, lusher eyelashes. It will be available by prescription at the end of this month.

Latisse contains the same prostaglandin analog that is found in Allergan’s Lumigan, an eye drop treatment for glaucoma. A side effect of the analog is to make the eyelashes of many patients who use the eye drops longer and fuller. Other side effects can include red, itchy eyes and changes in eyelid pigmentation.

Allergan conducted a 16 week clinical trial with about 280 volunteers to assess the safety and efficacy of Latisse. In the study, half of the participants used Latisse daily for 16 weeks. Study results showed that the eyelashes of patients treated with Latisse typically grew 25 percent longer, 106 percent thicker and 18 percent darker. While 3.6 percent of patients experienced eye itching and red eyes, none exhibited a change of eye color. These results were reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the drug in late December, 2008.

While some medical experts are concerned about these Latisse’s side effects, the financial upside for the drug is considered by some analysts to be substantial. At present, the annual size of the worldwide mascara market is about $5 billion. Allergan expects sales of Latisse to eventually rival those of Botox —Allergan’s other FDA-approved drug used for therapeutic and cosmetic purposes. Sales for cosmetic use of Botox were $600 million in 2007.

Longer, lusher lashes will come at a price for the people who chose to get a prescription for Latisse. Unlike mascara which is relatively inexpensive (so I am told), a monthly dose of Latisse will cost $120. However, according to my wife, longer, lusher lashes are the equivalent of the Holy Grail for most women. When I mentioned the Latisse’s monthly cost, she said quickly replied “I don’t care. I would still do it”—this from a woman who rarely wears any make up. Although my wife doesn’t constitute a valid statistical sample size, her responses suggests that Latisse just might be the biggest thing to hit cosmetic medicine market since well—uh— Botox!

Until next time…..

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Allergan, they are hiring!)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (5)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Long rumored, Pfizer announced yesterday that it will eliminate another 800 research jobs outside of its six core therapeutic areas: cancer, pain, inflammation, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and schizophrenia. The new cuts represent 5 to 8 percent of Pfizer’s approximately 10,000 researchers worldwide. According to a company spokesperson, the company will continue to evaluate its current staffing to make decisions that are consistent with its future goals. In short, expect more layoffs to occur in the near future.

Industry analysts expect additional cuts to occur in R&D and Pfizer’s dwindling sales force. To date, Pfizer has eliminated about 10,000 jobs, mostly in R&D and sales. Pfizer became the world’s largest pharmaceutical after going on a 12 year buying spree that began in 1996 after its acquisition of Warner Lambert, the company that developed the blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor. The company currently employs about 85,000 people worldwide.

Wall Street rewarded Pfizer’s decision to layoff more scientists by pushing its stock share price up 1.3% yesterday. Rewarding a company for eliminating one of its most important and valuable assets has never made sense to me. But, then again, I am a scientist not an MBA-toting Wall Street analyst—what do I know?

Until next time…

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

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

The Bush administration spent the last eight years trying to weaken and dismantle the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  I thought the carnage at the agency would end in the waning days of one of America’s worst leaders. Sadly, I was mistaken.

As many of you may know, FDA regulations forbid drug companies from promoting off label use of previously approved drugs. Not surprisingly, drug companies were able to find loop holes in the regulations and off-label drug promotion reached unprecedented levels in the early 2000s. In response, the agency embarked on an aggressive, unrelenting campaign to combat off label drug promotion by drug manufacturers. This effectively changed the way in which pharmaceutical sales representatives interacted with physicians in the past few years. No longer would there be unsolicited gifts, lavish pizza lunches for office personnel or tickets to local sporting events. Neither the drug makers nor physicians were happy about the rule changes but the revised guidelines helped to lessen off label promotion of previously approved drugs. That said, it came as something of shock late last year, when FDA officials proposed a new set of guidelines that would ease the restrictions on off label drug promotion.

The new rules would allow drug makers to supply physicians with copies of published research reports describing off label uses of drugs that were previously approved for other therapeutic indication. As you might have guessed, the drug companies are ecstatic with the new guidelines. Who needs pens, mugs or pizza when you can simply hand a physician a reprint of article that show that off label use of an approved drug can treat potentially life threatening medical conditions.  What an ingenious way to boost sales of extant drugs for new indications without having to spend larges of money trying to win regulatory approval for them. While this would be a financial boon to the pharmaceutical industry, I don’t think it would be in the best interest of patients who may be prescribed a drug that hasn’t undergone the rigorous scrutiny of controlled, human clinical trials.

Many congressional democrats and drug industry critics opposed the guidelines when they were first proposed last year. But, like many other times over the past eight years, the Bush administration prevailed. Today, the agency announced (with little fanfare) that the new off label drug use guidelines would go into effect—one week before Barack Obama is inaugurated as President. 

Until next time…

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

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

Did you know that the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the world spent close to $50 billion dollars last year on R&D? That sum could be used to purchase the entire US biotechnology industry except for the five largest companies—Genentech, Amgen, Gilead Genzyme and Celgene. Further, pharma’s R&D budget is about 4 times the R&D budget of all of the US biotechnology companies combined. According to a blurb in breakingviews.com, Pfizer alone spent $8 billion last year which was greater than the sum spent by biotech’s top five companies. What this tells us is that pharmaceutical companies are grossly unproductive when it comes to drug discovery and development. This would explain why nearly three-quarters of all new medicines approved for sale in the US last year originated at biotechnology companies.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that biotechnology companies are much more efficient at R&D than pharmaceutical companies. More importantly this suggests that something must change so that pharma can continue receive adequate ROI on internal discovery programs. Perhaps big pharma ought to spend a greater portion of its R&D budget on biotech mergers and acquisitions rather than continuing to invest in inefficient and failing internal R&D programs. While biotechnologynology companies are exceptional in drug discovery, they are severely lacking when it comes to clinical development of new drugs. This is largely due the high costs of conducting human clinical trials (which are required for regulatory approval of all new medicines). Most biotechnology companies are strapped for cash and don’t have sufficient funds to conduct clinical trials on their own.

Not surprisingly, given the recent financial downturn, there has been a recent spate of deals in which pharma has been willing to pay large sums of money for clinical development rights to promising new biotechnology drugs. Moreover, a majority of the almost 160,000 employees layed off by pharma companies in the past few years have been R&D scientists. This suggests that pharma is beginning to realize that its money may be better spent doing deals or buying biotech companies rather than continuing to invest large sums of money into it’s own unproductive R&D programs. Unfortunately, this paradigm shift doesn’t bode well for doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows who are training in the life sciences. This is because many entry-level biotech positions, traditionally filled by newly-minted PhDs and postdoctoral fellows will likely be filled by experienced, pharmaceutical employees who lost their jobs in the recent rounds of layoffs. As much as I hate to say this, if I were a life sciences graduate student or postdoctoral fellow considering an R&D career in industry, I would begin to explore alternative career options.

Until next time….

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

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

News Day reported today that Wegmans Food Markets, a grocer with 72 locations in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland is giving away “free generic antibiotics” for customers (with a prescription). Wegmans joins a growing list of supermarkets pharmacies including Giant Food and Publix that are giving free generic antibiotics to its customers.

I first learned about the “free generic antibiotic give away offers” several weeks ago after reading a post on the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Health Blog. I took the WSJ health blog to task for posting the story without editorial comment on the potentially dangerous practice of “hawking free antibiotics” to drive business at regional and nationwide grocery store pharmacies. Luckily, in today’s WSJ Health Blog post about the Wegmans program, the author (Sarah Rubenstein) did suggest that the practice may lead to unnecessary promotional  use of antibiotics.

As you all should know by now, we are in the midst of bacterial antibiotic-resistance epidemic. People are beginning to regularly die from bacterial infections that were easily treatable a decade ago. Ironically, we are slowly approaching the morbidity and mortality rates for bacterial infections that previously existed in the pre-penicillin era. Moreover, there are no new, orally bioavailable, broad spectrum antibiotics on the horizon. A lack of new antibiotics coupled with rapidly emerging resistance to extant ones is wreaking havoc on the healthcare system in both community and hospital settings.

The “free generic antibiotics” advertising and marketing programs concocted by Giant, Publix and Wegman’s are egregious examples of how a lack of or unwillingness to understand science poses a serious public health threat to all Americans. I have no doubt that the marketers who devised the give away programs have nary a clue about the relationship between antibiotic use and the emergence of antibiotic resistance strains of bacteria. Further, while physicians may be aware of increasing rates of antibiotic resistance, many are reluctant to not prescribe antibiotics to patients who request them. After all, these physicians are running a business and if they don’t write the script, the patient will take his/her business elsewhere. The potential public health implication of these free antibiotic programs begs the question: Why not give away generic ace inhibitors, generic statins or other generic medications whose profits margins are also negligible but don’t carry any public health risks?

Put simply, the promise of free generic antibiotics is a marketing strategy that is in my opinion, reckless, dangerous and may have serious public health implications in the future. Make no mistake about it, I am a capitalist but not when profits are placed before human lives.

Hat tip to the WSJ Health Blog

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try antibiotic drug discovery—we need new ones)

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

Salmonella enteriditis, an organism dear to my heart (luckily not my posterior small intestine) is a common cause of food poisoning. As some of you may know, I did my PhD thesis work on Salmonella gastroenteritis (aka food poisoning) and I like to think that I am something of an expert on the topic. 

Typically, Salmonella food poisoning outbreaks are localized and rarely reach epidemic proportions. However, there have recently been two major nationwide Salmonella outbreaks in the US —one in 2007 and now in early 2009.

The current outbreak has afflicted 388 people in 42 states and may be caused by the same strain (Saint Paul) that was responsible for the 2007 outbreak. Ultimately, the 2007 outbreak was linked to contaminated tomatoes. The jury is still out on the cause of the most recent outbreak. Needless to say, CDC scientists are scurrying to quickly identify the source of the current outbreak because it took the agency over 5 months to conclusively identify the culprit in the 2007 epidemic. Not surprisingly, many grocery stores and restaurants suffered financially because of the outbreak.

Many of you may be wondering why Salmonella food poisoning is becoming such a problem in the US. I don’t believe that the strains responsible for the most recent outbreaks are more virulent than the ones that have traditionally caused more localized outbreaks. Instead, the reliance of food manufacturers and grocery store chains on one or two major food distributors (rather than multiple suppliers) is likely responsible for the severity and breadth of these nationwide outbreaks. This suggests that regulatory agencies ought to more closely scrutinize the microbiological quality of the operations of the major distributors. I believe that those efforts would greatly reduce the likelihood of future major outbreaks of food poisoning.

Until next time.

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid raw vegetables, undercooked poultry and raw eggs)
 

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

GlaxoSmithKline announced late last fall that it would acquire California-based Genelabs for $57 million in cash. The deal closed yesterday and the exodus began today.

According to sources at the company, Genelabs employees will be offered a week of severance pay for each year of service. Genelabs executives and employees have been given pink slips.

By purchasing Genelabs, GSK establishes a presence on the West Coast. Also, it will strengthen its effort to develop therapies against the hepatitis C virus. Genelabs will become part of Glaxo’s drug discovery organization and its hepatitis C virus program.

Luckily for former Genelabs employees, California biotechnology companies are still hiring.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!! 

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

Each year, after the holiday season has ended, there is a spate of articles and posts related to weight lost. I typically avoid reading them but a post about weight lost and better sex was too good to ignore. Who doesn’t want to have better sex?  Anyway, as usual, the title was  more titillating than the article itself.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts—I’ll read your comments when I get back from the gym! 

Until next time… 

Good Luck and Have Fun Working Out!!!

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

Today is a sad day in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology blogging world. Pharmalot, a two year old, pioneering blog created by the intrepid Ed Silverman and the Star Ledger News has decided to call it quits. Unfortunately, the Star Ledger is in dire financial straits and it could no longer provide Ed with the support he needed to continue to run the Pharmalot blog. Please read Ed’s last blog post for the full story.

Pharmalot was a well crafted and informative blog. I frequently (more times then I care to admit) used Pharmalot as source material for many of my posts at BioJobBlog. I am not sure how I will fill the void left by Pharmalot’s untimely  demise!

I first met Ed about 8 years ago when he did a story about a biopharmaceutical company that I founded (along with Abe Abuchowski) called Prolong Pharmaceuticals.  His coverage was outstanding and I am pleased to report that Prolong is still in business today. Ed and I reconnected a little over a year ago at a panel discussion about scientific integrity and journalism. Ed shared the podium with the WSJ Health Blog, the New York Times, Advanstar Publications and several well known authors who write about pharma and biotech. I was truly impressed with his understanding of the pharmaceutical industry (he is a journalist not a scientist) and his commitment to telling people the truth regardless of the consequences. I took his message to heart and have attempted to apply the same philosophy to my posts at BioJobBlog.

I want to personally thank Ed for his unwavering commitment to journalistic integrity and his help in ferreting out the truth. I wish him the best for whatever the future may hold for him—he will be sorely missed.

Until next time…

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

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

Making a profit (and a large one at that) is the primary objective and driving principle of capitalism. That said, the for-profit sector is currently in a shambles—mostly due to greed and stupidity of the so-called stewards of the American economy. Maybe it is time for many of us to abandon corporate greed in favor of job opportunities in the more philanthropic and altruistic not-for-profit sector. I was surprised to learn that, despite the current economic downturn, there are growing numbers of jobs at non-for-profit hospitals, clinics, civic organizations and education (pre-school, primary and secondary).

While these jobs typically pay less than for-profit ones, their for-profit equivalents may no longer exist. And, as we all know too well, having any job at all is a big plus in these dismal economic times. Unfortunately, not-for-profit jobs like their for-profit counterparts are not immune to economic realities and layoffs. Nevertheless, there are currently not-for-profit jobs out there and now may be as good of a time as any to check them out!

Until next time…

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

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