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

BioJobBlog will be three years old in January, 2010. It has been a fun and eventful ride for the past three years. It took me a while to get the hang of being a blogger but I think I have finally found my niche and hope to continue blogging as long as I can.  

The original intent of BioJobBlog was to provide career development and job seeking skills to life sciences professionals. While the blog still focuses on those topics, I tend to stray into new areas—mainly because I find them interesting and usually have something to say about most things as many of my readers have learned over the past three years.

I want to thank everyone who reads BioJobBlog and for making the blog a success. At present, approximately, 60,000 unique viewers visit BioJobBlog each month and I have posted over 990 entries since it began. 

Please continue to read and comment! Feedback is important and it helps me to better understand what my readers want me to blog about.  Also, it feels good to hear that the blog is helping people find their way in the sometimes difficult-to-navigate life sciences business!        

Here’s to a happy, healthy and prosperous New Year!

Until next time....

Cheers!!!!!!!!!!

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

Officials for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced on Wednesday that the agency plans on distributing billions in stimulus monies to upgrade the nation’s paper medical records to electronic ones. Under the proposal, doctors and hospitals that keep UPDATED electronic medical records (EMR) of their patients could receive bonus payments for using EMR-based software systems. While the proposal that was floated is not definite, it was posted to the agency’s website and is open for public comment for 60 days before the final guidelines are issued. 

According to agency spokespersons, healthcare professionals (HCPs) who use EMR for 80 per cent of their medical instructions could receive bonus payments. This means that HCPs would have to provide patients with printouts of their medical history and use computers for potential drug-drug interactions. Further, hospitals would be required to complete 10 per cent of medical orders electronically. Separately, the agency laid out technology standards that EMR software should meet to qualify for the program.

Although technology standards for government-based EMR systems have now been delineated, similar standards for private sector EMR keeping systems have yet to be clearly enunciated by the government. Many hospitals and HCP organizations hastily threw together EMR plans to qualify for stimulus monies that were disbursed early last year. Unfortunately, at present, there is still no general consensus on the software platforms and middleware programs that will need to be developed so that different EMR systems can communicate with one another! Consequently, the national drive to digitize paper medical records is occurring in a haphazard and piecemeal fashion. To realize improved efficiencies and cost savings, I contend that general guidelines ought to be issued before too much private sector work goes on. Allowing the private sector to dictate technology standards may not be in the best interest of a national EMR effort. Nevertheless, as I mentioned an earlier post this week, healthcare informatics is one of the fasted growing industries in the US!

Until next time...

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

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

Johnson & Johnson today announced it received a Complete Response letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for ceftobiprole. The agency requested additional information and recommended additional clinical studies be conducted in order to consider a future approval of ceftobiprole in this indication. J&J’s New Drug Application (NDA) for ceftobiprole was originally submitted to the FDA in May 2007 for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI), including diabetic foot infections.  The company received an approvable letter in March 2008 and submitted what it thought to be the necessary information necessary to garner approval of the new antibiotic

Ceftobiprole is a novel, broad-spectrum, anti-MRSA cephalosporin with activity against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumonia and many clinically important Gram-negative bacteria, including Pseudomonas. The antibiotic was licensed from Swiss-based Basilea Pharmaceutica Ltd. in February 2005. 

The regulatory review process is ongoing in Europe and other countries for the use of ceftobiprole in adults for the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Ceftobiprole is approved in Canada, Switzerland, Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and Hong Kong.

J&J intends to discuss the best path forward with the FDA as soon as possible. New antibiotics are necessary to combat the growing trend of multiple drug resistant strains of bacteria that are responsible for an increasing amount of bacterial infections.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Healthcare informatics (HCI) is one of the fastest growing professions in the US. This is because the Obama administration has allocated billions of stimulus dollars to create electronic healthcare records (EHR) in an attempt to reduce healthcare costs. 

To qualify for EHR stimulus monies organizations must develop a plan and then take steps to implement it! Not surprisingly, because of the short ramp up phase for EHR, the number of available jobs far outstrips the numbers of qualified and skilled employees to fill them. The acute shortage of qualified HCI employees resulted in a cover story in the December 2009 issue of Health Informatics entitled “Got People?” It is a great read and provides insights into the types of employees that HCI companies are looking to hire.  The EHR Initiative will likely create over 500,000 new jobs in the next few years. For those of you, who may be interested in pursuing a career in HCI, check out this list of the top 100 HCI companies to work for.

Finally, a group of bioinformatics and genomics PhD students and postdoctoral fellows approached me to help them find sponsors for a Health Informatics Career Development symposium that they are trying to develop for the 2010 Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology (ISMB) conference that will be held in Boston, MA from July 9-13, 2010.  

If you are interested in sponsoring the HCI symposium please contact me.

Until next time...

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

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

Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts Life Sciences Center announced today that the Center’s Board of Directors has awarded $25 million in Tax Incentives to twenty-eight life sciences companies. The companies receiving tax incentive awards have committed to creating a combined 918 new jobs in the Commonwealth over the coming year. The companies that received awards include many of state’s largest biotechnology companies e.g. Biogen, Genzyme, Sepracor and Cubist, as well as some smaller private and public ones (see below) 

1. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cambridge) — $300,000
2. Biogen Idec MA, Inc. (Cambridge) — $1,500,000
3. Constellation Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cambridge) — $513,252
4. Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Lexington) — $1,740,000
5. Dyax Corporation (Cambridge) — $100,000
6. Facet Solutions (Hopkinton) — $300,000
7. FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cambridge) — $510,000
8. Genzyme Corporation (Cambridge/Framingham) — $6,000,000
9. GTC Biotherapeutics, Inc. (Framingham) — $300,000
10. Hologic, Inc. (Bedford) — $220,000
11. Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cambridge) — $540,000
12. InfraReDx, Inc. (Burlington) — $630,000
13. Interlace Medical, Inc. (Framingham) — $300,000
14. Lightlab Imaging, Inc. (Westford) — $188,951
15. Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cambridge) — $1,500,000
16. Morgan Advanced Ceramics, Inc. (New Bedford) — $570,000
17. NeuroMetrix, Inc. (Waltham) — $300,000
18. Nova Biomedical Corporation (Waltham) — $300,000
19. OmniGuide, Inc. (Cambridge) — $540,000
20. Organogenesis (Canton) — $245,240
21. Pharmasphere, LLC (Worcester) — $360,000
22. Sepracor, Inc. (Marlboro) — $750,000
23. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc. (Lexington) — $6,277,057
24. STD Med, Inc. (Stoughton) — $121,000
25. Still River Systems, Inc. (Littleton) — $300,000
26. TEI Biosciences, Inc. (South Boston) — $27,000
27. Tolerx, Inc. (Cambridge) — $300,000
28. Zoll Medical Corporation (Chelmsford) — $267,500

While the tax breaks are a great way to insure that the 28 companies that received them will remain and continue to do business in Massachusetts, creation of only 918 new jobs in exchange for $25 million in tax incentives doesn’t seem fair to me! I guess beggars (state governments) can be chooser in the current economic climate.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try MA, there may be one or two opportunities there)

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

William Shakespeare wrote: "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." While Shakespeare apparently believed that names aren’t important, David Anderegg, a professor of psychology at Bennington College in Vermont feels otherwise. He contends that the mere mention of the words geek or nerd tend to perpetuate a stereotype. “The words are damaging, much like racial epithets and should be avoided” he said in a recent New York Times interview. He suggests that while the words are often used interchangeably, the connotations are a bit different. In today’s lexicon, the word geek usually suggests a person with special expertise, e.g., a computer geek, whereas the word nerd suggests social ineptness. Nevertheless, he contends that neither is perceived as a “cool” moniker.

Anderegg further asserts that in the US, math, science and computer science are courses that younger people too often associates with nerds and geeks. He adds that the negative connotations of these words are taking a toll on the US workforce. And, he may be right! Fewer college-aged Americans are majoring in science and engineering and US competitiveness in math and science has been steadily declining for the past 20 years or more. According to Dr. Anderegg the best way to combat these trends is to attempt to eliminate the words geeks and nerds from the American lexicon and “banish them to the linguistic dustbin.” To that end his most recent book, “Nerds: Who They Are and Why We need More of Them” may be a step in the right direction to convince young Americans that more engineers and scientists will be required for the US to remain competitive in today’s rapidly changing global economy. 

Not surprisingly, I think that science, engineering and technology are pretty cool and mistakenly get a bad rap because of the way in which science and math are taught at the primary and secondary educational levels. Put simply, many of the teachers’ currently teaching math and science don’t have sufficient breadth or depth to teach the subjects that they are asked to teach! One way to begin to change this is to convince some very hip, newly minted PhDs (you know who you are) that pursuing careers as high school biology and biotechnology teachers is—despite assertions to the contrary—a pretty cool thing to do! Call me crazy but I think this is what it is going to take to reinvigorate America’s competitiveness in science and technology! After all, nerds will be nerds, geeks will be geeks and scientists will be scientists....not that there is anything wrong with that!

Hat tip to David Anderegg!

Until next time....

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

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

Alan Alda, a well known actor and science enthusiast, is doing his share to improve the science literacy of Americans. His was the host of the Science Frontiers (which ran for 15 seasons on PBS until it was cancelled in 2005) and more recently the host of Wired Science which failed to catch on and was also canceled. Alda’s approach to science education is asking questions that nonscientists could understand while throwing in a bit of humor as well. In a recent interview he stressed that he always tries to “keep it a conversation.” Sometimes, he added, scientists and researchers would “lapse into lecture mode, and I’d have to bring them back into a conversation. This isn’t surprising because many scientists are unfamiliar or lack the necessary training to engage in conversational science. For the most part, scientists are trained didactically and exchange information via formal traditional channels which include: seminars, oral and written presentations at scientific meetings and congresses and publication of research findings in peer reviewed journals. In other words, science education has historically resembled a one way conversation rather than a dialog. Unfortunately, web 2.0 and social media is all about conversations and one way conversations are becoming less acceptable, even in science circles! To that end, Alda just finished teaching a six-week course of workshops at Stony Brook University on Long Island instructing scientists how to use improvisational acting techniques to express themselves more clearly. “The idea is you can’t really communicate ideas unless you know what’s going on in the other person’s mind,” he said. 

Despite many incredible scientific advances in the past decade, the science gap in America continues to widen. Science is becoming increasingly complex and fewer Americans are capable of understanding it. Therefore, it is incumbent upon scientists to begin to understand that they have a critical role to play in improving the public understanding of science. This responsibility can no longer be relegated to primary and secondary school teachers nor should nonscientists like Alda,Ira Flato of NPR’s Science Friday, Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad of RadioLab (a great show), be expected to carry the banner and lead the charge! 

Interestingly, while listening to this week’s Science Friday, I learned of educational initiatives being sponsored by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundations that are aimed at bringing more science into the entertainment fields. The computer systems institute also offers flexible programs as well.  While this is an important first step, it may be too little; too late. Throwing money at the problem won’t solve it: scientists need to step out of their comfort zones and learn how to better communicate and interact with the lay public. To that end, by way of a sport’s analogy “we scientists control our own destiny” We can choose to collectively learn how to better inform the American public about what we do and how we do it or allow the science literacy gap to ultimately become a chasm in the 21^st century.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Learning and Listening!!!!!!

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

It has been a long time coming, but legislation reforming the US healthcare system will likely be realized in 2010. While the law will likely be passed in 2010, many of its provisions and actionable items won’t be enacted until 2014 (at least in the current bill). I hope that negotiations between the House and Senate change the start date and that the law takes effect in 2010.

I refrained from commenting on healthcare reform until now because, as a progressive who vehemently supports a public option (at the very least), I was very angry and frankly, let down by the unfulfilled promises made by President Obama during his presidential campaign. However, after seeing the despicable and repugnant exhibited by both Republican and Democratic senators (most notably Lieberman and Hogan) during the debate on healthcare reform, it finally dawned on me that Obama had little choice but to chart the course that he ultimately chose to follow to insure that healthcare reform became a reality. Put simply, it is obvious to me, that congressional not presidential reform will be necessary to right a broken system and put the US back on a track to prosperity. It has become increasingly obvious that lobbying by special interest groups has corrupted the system and our congressional representatives are no longer voting their conscience but voting on behalf of the powers at be who finance their re-election campaigns. While seasoned politicos will argue that I am naive and that this is the way that business has always be done, there comes a time when a system is so broken that it simply needs to be changed in the best interests of ALL Americans.

Earlier in the year, I had a discussion with a friend who, despite his undying support for a public opinion, suggested to me that any legislation passed to reform healthcare wouldn’t contain one. In response, I quipped, “then I hope that there isn’t any healthcare reform at all!” Since that declaration, my opinion (and that of some other progressives) has changed—mostly because I and others have come to realize that from a historical perspective, fundamental change in America doesn’t usually come neatly packaged in a single bill or law. Instead, change occurs incrementally and evolves over time. Realizing this, and the likelihood that the Democrats may lose their 60 vote majority in the senate in midterm elections, President Obama divined a healthcare reform strategy that he knew he could deliver by 2010. His informed and pragmatic approach to healthcare may not be what progressives like me envisioned but he will be the first US President to accomplish healthcare reform in almost 80 years! And, at the very least, 30 million Americans who previously didn’t have any health insurance will now be covered under the new law. This will be an important first step in the process to begin to overhaul the US healthcare system.

Hat tip to President Obama!

Until next time....

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

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

The generic drug industry didn’t exist until the passage of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Hatch-Waxman Amendments). This piece of legislation, better known in the pharmaceutical industry as the Hatch-Waxman Act, was proposed and adopted by the US Congress because of the escalating costs of brand name drugs manufactured by large pharmaceutical companies (sound familiar?). The act provided the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with a regulatory pathway to approve and bring to market “generic” versions of branded drugs that lost patent protection. During the debate over the amendment, and for many years thereafter, branded pharmaceutical manufacturers tried to stifle the growth of the generic drug industry by suggesting that generic versions of their branded medications were unreliable and unsafe. This tactic was partly responsible for the stinted growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry until the mid 1990s when the price of branded pharmaceutical drugs began to skyrocket and insurance companies began to realize that something had to be done to manage rising drug reimbursement costs. To that end, insurers and third party payors began requiring patients to use generics (when available) instead of branded products to cap rising prescription drug costs. Because of this, the generic industry has grown by leaps and bound over the past decade and now threatens the stability of the branded pharmaceutical industry! 

Unfortunately, while increased generic drug use may be good for generic drug manufacturers and insurance companies, it isn’t always in the best interests of patients who use prescription medications. For example, there are a growing number of stories and complaints from patients who were forced to switch from a brand name drug to a generic one and had side effects, or found that their symptoms returned or may have been worse than before. In fact, this happened to my mother who was switched from a brand name pain reliever that worked to a generic version that no longer controlled her symptoms and induced some untoward side effects. Scientifically, there ought to be little difference in the efficacy, safety or tolerability profiles of a branded drug and its generic equivalent. This is because both medications contain the same active pharmaceutical ingredient. However, differences in the formulation of the branded and generic versions of the drugs may be responsible for reduced efficacy or safety and tolerability issues.

While clinical studies conducted by the insurance industry suggest there are no safety or tolerability differences between brand name and generic drugs and the American Medical Association’s assertion that, as a whole, generic drugs do work as well as branded drug, there is some evidence to suggest that some generic drugs may not be interchangeable or substitutable for certain branded medications. This appears to be the case for certain drugs that are used to treat neurological conditions and mental health diseases like seizures, depression and bipolar disease. Lesley Alderman, in an article she wrote in today’s New York Time business sections provides excellent examples of this.   

The problems with some generic drugs may arise as a result of the approval process for this class of drugs. According to provisions outlined in the Hatch Waxman Act which stipulate that a generic version must have the same active ingredient, strength and dosage form as the brand name drug or reference product. The generic version must also be demonstrated to be “bioequivalent” to the brand name drug. This means that the generic product must be shown to reach blood levels (drug concentration) that are very similar to the brand name product. This is usually determined by administering the generic and brand name drugs to a relatively small number (24 to 36) of healthy human volunteers. Generally speaking, once bioequivalence is established it paves the way for regulatory approval of the product. Typically, once approved, many generics receive what is known as an AB rating. Generics that are AB-rated can freely be substituted (by a licensed pharmacist) for a brand name product even though the physician may have written the prescription for the branded product.

In the past, patients were usually given a choice between a generic and a brand name drug —a decision that was largely based on the percentage of the cost of drug that would be covered by insurance. These days, patients no longer have a choice and are generally forced to use generic drugs rather than brand name products based on formulary lists compiled by insurance companies. While I am not practically or philosophically opposed to using generic drugs, there is a growing body of evidence which suggests that not all patients respond the same way to branded and for that matter generic drugs. Therefore, I contend that allowances ought to be made for these differences and patients who don’t respond to (or experience side effects) after taking generics shouldn't’t be denied access to the branded product that, in most cases, was originally prescribed by that patient’s physician. It is one thing to cut costs; it is another to increase a patients suffering or anxiety. If you are concerned about switching from a branded medication to a generic, please read this for some helpful tips and guidance.

Until next time...

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

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

Mark Senak, author of the EyeonFDA blog and “all around good guy,” has created a Twitter list that follows the tweets of all of the pharmaceutical companies that use Twitter. Because the list of companies that are currently using Twitter is so small, it is a convenient aggregation tool to monitor the musings and tweets of companies that participate! 

 Hat tip and shout out to Mark!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Happy Holidays!!!!

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

Jonathan Richman, author of the Dose of Digital Blog, got it exactly right in today’s post  entitled “Patients WILL Have the Final Say on Pharma Social Media” He was spot on with his conclusion that while social media pundits and patient advocacy groups can push FDA to attempt to provide guidance on the use of social media, in the end, it will be patients (customers) not regulators who determine whether or not pharma will incorporate social media into future business models. Recently, it has been pointed out (on Twitter of course) that patient advocacy groups were under represented at the recent public FDA hearings on social media. While this is true, it likely will have little bearing on the regulatory guidance ultimately issued by the agency. This is because public input is generally not used to fundamentally shape regulatory guidance or policies but to fine tune them! The agency generally has a regulatory framework in mind before it conducts public hearing to collect stakeholder input and comments.

As I mentioned in previous posts, FDA intentionally crafts regulations and guidelines that are subject to interpretation because they are meant to serve as the minimum regulatory requirements and standards that must be met to insure drug and device safety and efficacy. While this is not ideal for many corporate regulatory affairs professionals, it is necessary because the agency simply cannot provide specific or custom-designed guidance to the plethora of drug and device manufactures that it oversees.  In other words, the regulations that FDA crafts are meant to serve as general regulatory frameworks not clearly defined, company-specific rules and regulations. Companies that struggle with interpretation of FDA regulations are encouraged to meet with FDA regulators for guidance and clarification. More importantly, while FDA is charged with insuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and devices, the agency has very little control over how companies choose to interact with patients, customers and stakeholders. For example, companies ARE NOT required to submit direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads, marketing and advertising campaigns or other promotional materials for FDA review. This means that drug and device manufacturers have enormous flexibility in choosing how to market, advertise and promote approved products. FDA regulators only get involved when the agency is alerted to the possibility that certain ads or promotional materials may contain inappropriate, misleading or inaccurate medical information or claims. When a company is “snagged” by FDA for suspect marketing practices, the agency generally imposes mandatory regulatory review (for a defined period of time) of all subsequent DTC and promotional campaigns developed by the transgressor. To that end, the lack of patient advocacy testimony at the recent FDA hearings on social media should have little or no impact on the guidance that FDA ultimately issues.

While the much anticipated guidance ought to provide a regulatory framework for companies that choose to use social media, it can not “force” drug and device manufacturers to adopt or use it. This will be a corporate decision that will likely be made by legal, regulatory and marketing pharmaceutical executives. Finally, as Jonathan rightly points out, the needs and demands of patients will ultimately determine whether or not a drug or device manufacturer implements a social media strategy. And, not surprisingly, this decision will likely be based on drug sales and business outcomes rather than a need for patient education or public safety. Because—at the end of the day—business is business!

Hat tip to Jonathan!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!!!!!!

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

Merck & Co. Inc., and Avecia Investments Limited today announced that they have entered into a definitive agreement by which Merck will acquire the biologics business of UK-based Avecia; a contract manufacturing organization with specific expertise in microbial-derived biologics. A Merck executive commented on the deal:

"At Merck we continue to execute on our strategy of expanding our biopharmaceutical expertise and manufacturing capacity, This transaction follows an initial strategic development and supply relationship with Avecia Biologics and will provide us with an operational facility staffed by an experienced workforce that is highly skilled in a broad portfolio of bioprocess systems."

The Avecia acquisition follows Merck’s announcement late last year that the company will enter the global follow-on biologics (aka biosimilar) market. Merck’s decision was likely based on strategic acquisitions several years ago of a small biotech company, Glycofi, which developed a humanized yeast protein production platform, and Insmed, a Richmond, VA-based, follow-on biologics company, which was acquired last summer. Avecia provides Merck with the biomanufacturing capacity and expertise that it will need for clinical development and commercial manufacturing of its follow-on biologics. The company expects to bring its biosimilar products to market by 2017 or earlier.

Until next time...

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

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

Over the past two years, I have been blogging about the progress of sequencing the giant panda genome. Well, for those of you who have been following the unfolding story, I want to let you know that the giant panda genome was published in the December 13, 2009 edition of the journal Nature. The sequence is now immortalized in the scientific literature (see the story below)

An international consortium, headed by the Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI), published its first report on the sequencing and analysis of the giant panda genome. Researchers at BGI sequenced a draft of the Ailuropoda melanoleura genome in Oct. 2008, but the new report is the first publication of their sequencing efforts and initial analyses. The panda is the first bear to have been sequenced.

Using the Illumina Genome Analyzer and a whole genome shotgun approach, the team examined the 2.4 billion kb of a three-year-old female panda, Jingjing, from the Chengdu breeding center. To verify sequence assembly, the researchers used Sanger sequencing of nine artificial bacterial chromosomes. To date, the team has analyzed 2.25 billion base pairs, representing 94% of the bear’s entire genome. The observed sequence gaps are likely a result of the tandem repeats and transposable elements.

The panda genome had more than 2500 species-specific genes, and according to the report, 36% of the genome is composed of transposable elements similar to the dog genome. The researchers said that the giant panda genome consists of 21,001 genes, including 18,643 orthologous to those in dogs, mice, and humans.
The team discovered 26 of the 27 giant panda genes catalogued in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) GenBank. The gene they did not detect is present only on the Y chromosome and was expectedly absent in the female panda.

The team’s initial analysis of the giant panda genome has provided insights in the giant panda’s diet preferences and genetic diversity. The researchers hope their study may aid in conservation efforts of the giant panda.

Until next time...

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

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

Earlier this week, Mark Senak who writes the EyeonFDA blog, offered his insights and analysis of pharma’s relationship with Twitter. Today, he tackled YouTube and Pharma. While YouTube has been around a lot longer than Twitter, pharma’s use (with the exception of Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis and Tibotec) of the popular video-sharing site has been extremely limited despite the ability of the entity that posts the video to eliminate or regulate the ability of users to leave and share comments after viewing it. 

I suspect that the industry’s reluctance to use YouTube may be related to the lack of regulatory guidance for this medium. Nevertheless, I don’t completely understand why drug makers have chosen not to use the widely popular video site to increase patient awareness about certain medical conditions or to promote patient wellness. These types of videos would likely be appreciated by the public and quite possibly help to repair tarnished image of the pharmaceutical industry held by many consumers and stakeholders.

Hat tip to Mark!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Viewing!!!!!

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

I was chatting with a fellow medical writing colleague the other day and the topic of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising came up. I suggested that DTC advertising is largely ineffectual but my colleague suggested otherwise. To prove his point, he sent me a fascinating article entitled “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising: An Attitude Survey of Psychiatric Physicians (Bhanji et al. Primary Psychiatry. 2008; 15(11):67-71). The conclusion of the paper was somewhat surprising (to me anyway):

......pilot survey of psychiatrists revealed that DTC advertising has the potential to improve awareness of medical conditions and decrease the stigma of mental illness. Surveyed psychiatrists believed that DTC had little significant effect on their personal prescribing practices. However, >80% of respondents reported they had prescribed medications specifically requested by their patients. Most respondents failed to endorse that DTC had a positive effect on the doctor-patient relationship, or on improved patients’ medication compliance.

This suggests that people (at least those suffering from mental illness) listen to and likely learn about their illnesses from DTC ads. Further, it explains why drug makers continue to spend large sums of money on DTC advertising despite diminishing ROI on traditional print and television advertising revenues —it works!  While the effectiveness of DTC advertising was interesting, the real eye opener was the authors’ historical account of the evolution of DTC advertising in the US. 

Although currently a hot topic, DTC advertising in the US has been around for nearly 300 years. In 1708, Nicholas Boone placed the first advertisement for a patent medication

in a Boston newspaper. For the next 230 years, advertisements for patented medications claiming to treat everything from dandruff to infidelity could be found in magazines, newspapers, and traveling medicine shows. In 1938, Congress passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which gave the FDA authority over the labeling of pharmaceuticals and the Federal Trade Commission control over their advertising.

No new legislation was introduced until 1962 when the Kefauver-Harris amendments proposed the concept of consumer protectionism when dealing with pharmaceuticals.

Under these amendments, authority for drug promotional advertising review was reassigned to the FDA. The FDA established requirements similar to those in existence today, i.e., specifications of contraindications, effectiveness, side effect profiles, and a cost-benefit discussion. Virtually all of the advertisements were targeted to physicians.

In 1981, the pharmaceutical industry proposed shifting marketing to include the consumer. At issue was the requirement to include extensive clinical information on the product, making it problematic to use television media to reach potential customers. That same year the Commissioner of the FDA, Arthur Hayes, requested the pharmaceutical industry put a voluntary moratorium on DTC advertising to allow the FDA to study their request to reduce the required disclaimers.

In 1985, the FDA concluded that the existing regulations to safeguard the public interest were adequate. This ruling had the effect of postponing the growth of DTC for the next 12 years. However, 1997 marked the beginning of rapid growth in DTC advertising. This change in marketing was attributed to the new FDA guidelines on broadcast DTC marketing. For the first time, drug manufacturers could present the name of the product and the condition it was intended to treat, and not report all of the contraindications.

The financial implications of this change in policy were enormous. In 1985, $17 million was spent on DTC marketing. By 2000, that figure rose to $2.5 billion, and $4.2 billion in 2005. In 2008, the estimated DTC marketing budget will be in the sum of $8 billion. Real spending on DTC advertising increased by 330% from 1996–2005.

As of 2007, only the US and New Zealand permit DTC advertising of prescription medications. In countries outside the US, the pharmaceutical industry has applied pressure to relax regulations regarding DTC marketing with little success. Despite DTC advertising being banned in most non-US countries, there is growing international concern that drug companies are circumventing legislation through the use of internet advertising and “spam” E-mail. Pharmaceutical companies also provide “awareness campaigns” or infomercials with vague references to prescription treatments in order to improve their sales abroad.

As previously mentioned on BioJobBlog, DTC advertising is big business. And, eliminating DTC advertising would likely help to reduce the cost associated with new drug development. This is because most drug makers don’t tell you that marketing and advertising costs are factored into the $1.0 billion that is generally believed to be the price associated with bringing a new drug to market. Who knew?

Until next time...

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

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

Mark Senak who writes the EyeonFDA blog has compiled a list of the life sciences companies that presently have a Twitter account and use it. While there are only 12 companies on the list, he provides a nice commentary on their use and makes some recommendations for improvement.

Although I am a staunch supporter of the use of social media in the life sciences, it appears to me that the discussion about its use has been somewhat muted since the FDA convened a public hearing on the topic last month. I suspect that many of the companies and stakeholders who participated in the discussion prior to the FDA meeting are presently in “wait and see” mode. However, don’t be surprised if the social media guidance issued by FDA is lacking and excruciatingly wanting!!!! For those of you who may not be familiar with the ways in which the agency operates, its regulators tend to craft guidance and regulation that are broad, loosely defined and open to interpretation. The agency intentionally crafts its guidance and regulations this way because it doesn’t want its rules and regulations to be “literally interpreted” by companies and other stakeholders. Generally speaking, its regulations represent the “minimum” requirements that must be met in order to insure regulatory compliance. In other words, there is no upper limit on what companies can do to insure compliance but there certainly is a minimum requirement that must be met to avoid regulatory sanctions and penalties. As one lawyer who used to work for the agency shared with me recently, “FDA crafts the regulations but it is left to the companies and courts to interpret them.”

Most of the current discussions about social media and the life sciences industry primarily focus on its use as marketing and promotional vehicle. And, as many of you may already know, FDA isn’t exactly keen or pleased with the current marketing and advertising strategies and practices utilized by a sizeable number of life sciences companies. Perhaps a shift away from marketing and advertising discussions to more regulatory-friendly and practical applications like clinical trials recruitment and public outreach may lead to a more rapid uptake of social media by FDA and life sciences companies? Just sayin’

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!

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

Pfizer was the first to bring us ED (erectile dysfunction) and now two companies—one large (Johnson and Johnson) and one small (Sciele Pharma)—are daring to boldly go where no MAN has gone before: to conquer PE aka premature ejaculation!

According to a brilliantly-crafted story by Natasha Singer published in this Sunday’s New York Times business section, JnJ developed a pill called Priligy which is intended for men who ejaculate before intercourse or within a few seconds after beginning. Priligy which is intended to help to prolong latency before orgasm is approved and sold in nine countries but hasn’t been approved for sale in the US. On the other hand (so to speak), little known, Atlanta, GA-based Sciele Pharma is planning to seek regulatory approval for a prescription aerosol-based product that is sprayed on the skin (in this case the penis) to prolong latency and forestall ejaculation. While the true incidence of PE is uncertain, the manufacturers of these medications want men (and women) to believe that the condition is more pervasive and prevalent than reported. 

Interestingly, the worldwide sales of Pfizer’s Viagra were approximately $1.93 billion last year. As previously noted on BioJobBlog, Viagra celebrated its 10th anniversary of marketing approval last March. If you do the math, almost $20 billion dollars worth of Viagra prescriptions were written over the past decade. This suggests that many millions of men must suffer from ED worldwide. However, for those of you who may not know, Viagra also works quite well for healthy, sexually active males who don’t suffer from ED. It is generally acknowledged that it is this segment of the male population that is responsible for the annual blockbuster sales of Viagra and related medications. Also, it is important to note that prior to the introduction of Viagra, ED wasn’t a recognized clinical indication (it was known as impotence) and there were very effective treatments for it. And while ED is a legitimate quality-of-life issue, it occurs in only a small percentage of sexually active males; mostly in older men with hypertension, cardiovascular conditions or those who have had their prostates removed.

Viagra, like Botox, Latisse and others, is classified as a so-called “lifestyle” drugs. Generally speaking, lifestyle drugs are developed to improve the quality of life of patients not treat potentially life threatening diseases or conditions. In her article, Ms. Singer takes the pharmaceutical industry to task about the development of  blockbuster lifestyle drugs.

“But creating a blockbuster quality-of-life drug like Viagra involves more than just being innovative or being first. Sometimes it requires a drug maker to create and market a whole new category of disease.

The template goes something like this: Start with a legitimate quality-of-life issue — like fitful sleep or shyness — that does not yet have its own prescription medication and is debilitating to a few people a lot of the time. Next, position the quality-of-life issue as a medical condition with symptoms so common it covers vast numbers of people who had previously not identified themselves as having a health problem, or who thought they were just experiencing an occasional and normal annoyance.

Articles in medical journals with high estimates on the prevalence of the issue help convince doctors and journalists of its scope. F.D.A. approval of the new drug legitimizes the condition as a problem with a medical solution.

While there is no doubt that some men are distressed about their inability to control their orgasms, there is little concrete evidence to suggest that there is an epidemic of premature ejaculation”

Although I have never used Viagra, I have a few “older male friends” who swear by it! And, while I have no doubt that Viagra and the new medications being developed to treat PE may benefit a few men, is it appropriate to elevate premature ejaculation to a bona fide clinical indication and spend billions to develop and market treatments for it? Don’t get me wrong; I am not trying to minimize the emotional distress and discomfort associated with PE. But, the last time I checked, PE didn’t make the top ten lists of the world’s most devastating and debilitating clinical indications or unmet medical needs!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

I think the economy must be improving because I am beginning to receive e-mail blasts from big pharma companies like Roche and AstraZeneca that they are hiring again (Please see the e-mail message below).  This may be a good sign for R&D scientists who have been struggling to find gainful employment.

In the spirit of full disclosure I have never worked nor am I am employed by AstraZeneca and I am not being compensated for this advertisement. I am simply a nice guy trying to help out my fellow scientists (hmm, I recall hearing something about nice guys.....)  However, I must warn you that just because companies advertise that they are hiring doesn't always mean that they really are.  Please keep that in mind when you apply for positions that AZ is advertising.

New R&D career opportunities at AstraZeneca. At AstraZeneca, your research and development experience can make a world of difference. That's because you'll be a part of a leading global pharmaceutical company with one of the most influential portfolios of innovative pharmaceutical brands. We continuously challenge, discover and develop new medicines in order to improve the quality of people's lives. It's an ongoing quest that involves the talent, ideas and growth of all our professionals, as we strive to advance the future of healthcare. Today, we're seeking qualified candidates to join our passionate culture in our Research and Development area. It's your opportunity to utilize your expertise for a greater purpose, while you're supported every step of the way. We encourage knowledge, respect growth and believe that there's always more to learn. It's one of the reasons why you'll become colleagues with some of the most talented and experienced professionals in the industry. As part of the Monster research and development professionals network, we invite you to learn more and apply for one of our research and development opportunities today. Sincerely, The AstraZeneca Human Resources team Learn More & Apply If you would like to stay current on AstraZeneca, you can sign up to receive more information here: www.IWantToAdvanceMyCareer.com AstraZeneca is an equal opportunity employer.

Good Luck!!!!!

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

I realize that I have been blogging about adverse events for the past couple of day but, let’s face it; the pharmaceutical industry lives or dies by the number of adverse events (AEs) that are reported for approved and marketed drugs. In any event, I came upon an interesting post in a Pharmaceutical Processing e-blast about the results of a survey  (conducted by Pfizer) which revealed that physicians are more likely to report side effects and adverse events through an electronic health records (EHR) system as compared with traditional paper methods. Nearly 60 percent of the 300 physicians who responded to the survey also agreed that AE reporting through an EHR would improve patient care.

While the results of the survey are not surprising (to me anyway), they suggest that the use of electronic methods for adverse events reporting may be a boon to drug manufacturers that are required (by FDA and other regulatory agencies) to collect information regarding the safety and tolerability of approved and marketed drugs.

In a previous post, I opined that social media would be an ideal platform for AE reporting. The results of the Pfizer survey tend to support this supposition. While EHR aren’t exactly social media, they are electronic and, it appears to me (based on Pfizer survey results), that healthcare providers and consumers may be more likely to report potential AEs using electronic as compared with conventional methods. Put simply, electronic reporting is much simpler, quicker and more facile than the current pen and paper model for AE reporting. And, in today’s rapidly paced and hectic world, time savings can translate into cost savings and improved efficiencies.

Paradoxically, the Pfizer survey results tend to contradict the notion that social media would be a bane to AE reporting for most drug makers. As I mentioned yesterday, many drug makers who have almost universally shunned social media, contend that the use of social media would overburden their AE reporting systems and possibly put them at enormous legal and regulatory risk. However, as I pointed out many times in the past, AEs are an expected reality in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices industries. And, while drug makers are deathly afraid of AEs and reluctant to learn of them, the more information this is available about potential safety and tolerability issues, the better off most drug manufacturers may be. For example, if Merck was alerted earlier about the cardiovascular problems that Vioxx patients were experiencing, then possibly fewer patients may have been affected and harmed and perhaps, an improved version of Vioxx, an effective pain medication, might still be availability to patients who benefit from it.

To that end, providing physicians, healthcare workers and consumers with an accessible e-based AE reporting system built around social media would allow drug makers to quickly determine whether or not one of their drugs exhibits tolerability or safety issues that might warrant further investigation.  And, I believe that putting the appropriate social media AE reporting systems in place would allow drug and device manufacturers to monitor the performance of their products in real time and more accurately monitor, collect and analyze safety and tolerability data for certain drugs. This, in turn, would likely lead to the development of improved safer and more effective medications and devices, lower drug development and manufacturing costs and ultimately reduce drug makers’ exposure to legal and regulatory actions.

Until next time...

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

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

Professor Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder, blogger and host of the increasingly popular This Week in Virology (TWIV) podcast series made an anguished plea in a recent post on his Virology Blog to help promote American science literacy. “If you are writing a book, article, toy label, or anything having to do with viruses, and you are not sure of the science, feel free to contact me for advice. I will check the facts for free, because my goal is for everyone to get the science right” said Professor Racaniello.

Vincent expressed his sentiments in a post entitled “Even Toy Makers Should Get it Right” which takes a company to task (Giant Microbes) for manufacturing  “an influenza virus toy” (yes you heard it correctly) and mistakenly presented incorrect information about the influenza virus in the toy’s promotional materials and on its label (an image of the incorrect materials is displayed in the upper left hand corner of this post) . 

While only a toy, I agree with Vincent that it is imperative that all relevant facts about an infectious agent ought to be correct to insure that lay people, many of whom will never read another thing about viruses in their lives, get scientifically correct information. That is the essence of science literacy!

I have known Vincent for over 35 years and I think he is one of the brightest and most unassuming world class scientists that I know (yeah I know a few). One of the things I like most about Vincent is that he is a stickler for detail and (for as long as I have known him), never draws a scientific conclusion unless it there is incontrovertible proof that it is the correct conclusion.  While I routinely rail against self-focused and uncaring academics, Vincent is exactly the opposite. His unwavering commitment to teaching and increasing the public awareness of viruses, and science in general, is second to none. And when he says, please feel free to contact him for help he truly means it and will do everything possible to help you find what you need. Having said that (yes, I know you hate that phrase Vincent; btw so does Larry David), if any of you aspiring young scientists out there need a role model, I highly recommend that you keep Vincent in mind. And, if you need virology help or want to chat with him you can find him on twitter @profvrr or of course, at the BioCrowd!

Until next time....

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

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

In a previous blog post, I raised the possibility that the life sciences industry may be using adverse event (AE) reporting to explain why it has been slow to adopt social media as a means of communicating and interacting with its customers and stakeholders. The industry argument against social media goes something like this: by engaging physicians, consumers and other stakeholders in social media conversations, there will be a massive and unmanageable explosion of AEs posted to social networking sites, company websites and health and science blogs. Because of this, companies will be obliged to report them to FDA. Company executives’ fear that this will be inordinately expensive, egregiously time-consuming, technologically-daunting and most importantly, expose companies to possible legal and regulatory actions. While some of these claims may have some validity, they are not as expensive, technologically-challenging or insurmountable as anti-social media advocate would have you believe. For example, while conducting an interview for Life Science Leader magazine for an article on social media and pharma, several pharma employees exploring the social media space confided that most companies already have assiduously-crafted AE reporting policies in place to easily manage and accommodate AE reporting from  websites, cell phones and even text messages! For those of you who may be wondering, before potential AEs are required to be reported to FDA it must meet the following criteria: (i) there is an identifiable patient; (ii) there is an identifiable reporter or observer; (iii) there is a specific drug or biologic involved in the event; and (iv) there is an adverse event or fatal outcome.

Jonathan Richman (social media guru and pharmaceutical marketing expert) and I have previously weighed in on the so-called “adverse event reporting myth” that has been circulating in life sciences social media circles. In fact, I posited in my previous post that adverse event reporting may actually be something of a “red herring” being used by the industry. For those of you who may not be familiar with the term, it means focusing on an obvious and easily identifiable issue or object to draw attention away from a more important central issue.  To that end, I was pleased to read a post today on Jonathan’s Dose of Digital Blog entitled 166 Reportable Adverse Events Equals One Red Herring.

In today’s post, Jonathan does some basic mathematical calculations and arrives at the conclusion (based on the occurrence and frequency of Internet-based adverse events disclosed in a recent Nielsen survey) that the likely number of adverse events posted on social media sites per day would be around 166 (for the entire industry). Doing some of my own high-level mathematical calculations; this translates into a likely total annual number of about 60,590 AEs. And, as Jonathan rightly points out, if this number is divided by the number of life sciences companies with approved drugs and devices on the market, you quickly realize that shouldn’t be that onerous, labor intensive or expensive for companies to manage AE reporting resulting from social media sources. It would be interesting and informative to compare this annual rate with the actual number of reportable annual adverse events being handled by life sciences companies today. 

Like Jonathan, I believe that the “adverse event reporting issue” is a classic example of a “red herring” being employed by the life sciences industry to explain its reluctance to jump on the social media bandwagon. Personally, what I believe is really at stake, is the systemic changes that would be required to transform a historically, opaque and unresponsive industry into a transparent, accountable and responsive one that would be required if it embraces social media as an integral part of its business model.  

Addendum:  Shortly after posting this article, a new post appeared on the Dose of Digital blog that provided an indepth analysis of the Nielsen survey and its implications.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

A post on the Pharmalot blog today reports that spending on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising came bounding back in the third quarter —rising 15 percent to $1.16 billion, according to DTC Perspectives (which cited data from TNS Media Intelligence).

The increased spending marks the first quarterly gain in nearly two years after slumping 6.4 percent earlier this year from January to June. According to the Pharmalot post, “Internet spending increased the most—more than tripling between January and September to $221 million (display ads only). And, more ads were placed in newspapers, which showed a 25 percent gain to $104 million during the same period.

During the first nine months of 2009 the leading advertisers by brand (each of which spent more than $125 million each) were:

1. Lipitor (Pfizer)
2. Abilify (Bristol-Myers Squibb/Otsuka America)
3. Cymbalta (Eli Lilly) and
4. Advair (GlaxoSmithKline)

Could this be a sign that the pharmaceutical industry thinks that the economy is improving? Alternatively, maybe pharma marketers think that people might become increasingly stressed by the economy and drugs like Abilify and Cymbalta (a variety of psychiatric indications) and Lipitor (high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease ands stroke) may be in greater demand. And finally, from a completely cynical perspective, maybe drug makers want to sell as many drugs as possible before healthcare reform and possible price controls kick in?

Hat tip to Ed!!!!

Until next time...

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

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

As a blogger I get on average 2-3 press releases per day from publicists who want me to pick up their releases and publish them on BioJobBlog. I usually pass. But, the one that I received from a publicist who represents eco-friendly and politically-correct Red Handed Bags was too good not to share with my readers (see below)

Pharm giant sales force goes green with high fashion handbags

Raleigh NC-based fashion designers Aaron Turney and Tracy Russomano are used to working with fashion conscious women.  But this year, they devoted their special talents efforts to addressing the special needs of a unique group of highly specialized handbag users – pharmaceutical sales reps.

GlaxoSmithKline asked them to design an environmentally friendly work bag specifically for their pharmaceutical sales reps to use on the job.

Redhanded Bags has created a line of beautiful handbags using green technologies, animal free materials, and sweat free manufacturing facilities and workforces. 

“It’s pretty admirable that they’ve set themselves a goal for using handbags that don’t hurt animals, don’t pollute the environment and don’t exploit anyone,” said Tracy Russomano. “We worked directly with the sales people to design the ideal pharm sales rep bag. When we were done, GSKs onsite ergonomist gives the bags an excellent rating for ergonomic design.”  

“Handbags should turn heads, bring out inner beauty, and contribute to a sustainable environment,” said Ms. Russomano. “Pharmaceutical sales reps can look great  and be eco-friendly.”  I am partial to the middle bag; which one is your fav?

I find it admirable that GSK is thinking environmentally. However, are several thousand eco-friendly handbags for sales reps really going to make a difference? I think it would behoove GSK and other drug makers to invest in developing green manufacturing technologies and facilities if they are truly concerned about reducing the size of their carbon foot prints. 

After visiting the Red Handed bags website, I agree with Ms Russomano, that pharma reps (who still have jobs)  will look great and turn some head while sporting the new bags (exactly what GSK wants). That said, it is extremely gratifying to know that the environment is safe, no animals were killed and no workers were exploited to help sales reps sell drugs to their customers!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Shopping (check out the handcuff clutch)

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

Losing a job or getting laid off is without a doubt one of the more emotionally devastating events that most people face. Unfortunately, in these troubling financial times, many more people are likely to face this likelihood than any other time in recent history.

However, if you lose or have lost a job, it is important to keep your situation in perspective and realize that it isn’t the end of the world and that there are things that you can do to find a new job! Having said that, like most other things in life you will have to work hard to achieve that goal! This will require organization, commitment and dedication to the job search. And, the best way to conduct a successful job search is to approach it and treat it like a full time job! To that end, attempt to divide each day into manageable list of tasks and allocate sufficient time to accomplish them—just like you would at a full time job. Also, since time is usually no longer an issue, you can spend some of your time researching new opportunities, networking with others or finding new contacts who might be able to help you get your foot in the door at a prospective employer’s company or organization.

Sitting in front of a computer all day, applying for online jobs on company websites and job boards isn’t going to cut it—mostly because you won’t hear back from most of the places where you submitted online job application. In fact, I think that the online approach to job hunting almost guarantees that you will become dejected, depressed and hopeless. 

In my opinion, the best approach to a job search (after losing a job) is to recognize that anything less than full time commitment to finding a new one likely won’t be successful. Based on my own and other’s experience, a successful job search consists of a mixture of focused and disciplined online and IRL activities. Developing and implementing an ordered and strategic job search provides jobseekers with organization and a “structure” that will likely help to ward off feelings of confusion, dejection and hopelessness experienced by most people who have lost jobs. For more ideas and suggestions on how to transform your job search into a full time job please check out this excellent article by Phyllis Korkki.

Until next time....

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

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

Much has been written about social media but who has time to ponder all the analytical data to come up with trends and cool statistics? 

To that end, I was reading Dec/Jan edition of Forbes Small Business (FSB) magazine and I came upon some random social media tidbits that I thought were worth sharing.  I cannot vouch for the veracity of the information but sources were cited to confirm the facts.

35% of Americans 18 and over used social media of some type in 2008; only 8% were involved with social media in 2005 (source: Pew Internet and American Life Project)

95% of business decision makers worldwide use social networks (source: Forrester Research)

Of 2000 recent tweets that were analyzed by Peer Analytics:

• 4% were spam
• 6% were self promotional
• 9% were “moderately interesting”
• 38% were conversational
• 43% were “babble”

Finally (and not surprisingly):

87% of adults said they prefer dealing with others in person instead of via computers or smart phones (source: Centralvalleybusinesstimes.com)

I am not sure what it all means but I figured the info was worth a shout out.

Hat tip to FSB!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking

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

Sanofi Aventis asked it entire sales force to remain at home the Monday after Thanksgiving to wait for a phone call to see whether or not they still had jobs. Nice way for the affected employees to spend Thanksgiving, eh?

Sanofi-Aventis is laying off an unspecified number of US sales reps, as the firm restructures because of generic exposure on some of its lead products including its blockbuster anti-clotting drug Plavix. The layoffs are part of a transformation that began last year, shortly after new CEO Chris Viehbacher took charge at the company. At the time, Sanofi-Aventis announced plans to cut 10% or less of its 6,500 US reps. According to a post at BNET, the company currently employs about 5,600 reps. Those laid off will get three weeks’ base pay per year of service, up to a maximum of 78 weeks’ base pay.

A company spokesperson said “Sanofi-Aventis U.S. is continuing to evolve in order to deliver greater value to our customers in a rapidly changing business climate. This includes changes to our sales force to better correspond with market dynamics and customer needs. As a part of our continuing transformation, we have identified areas where we will prioritize sales support and others where reductions are necessary.”

Sanofi joins a growing number of pharmaceutical companies that made it something of a tradition to layoff employees immediately before or during the holiday season. I guess company executives believe that the blow may be less devastating if the ex-employees get to spend more time with their families during the holidays. Unlike most corporate executives who are paid millions when they are fired, many laid off pharmaceutical companies will have a tough time finding new employment opportunities in the rapidly shrinking US pharmaceutical job market. At last count, about 59,000 pharmaceutical employees lost their jobs in 2009. Don’t be surprised if more pharmaceutical layoffs are announced in the coming weeks.

Until next time...

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

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