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

The New York Times reported today that AstraZeneca has agreed to pay $520 million to settle two federal investigations and two whistle blower lawsuits over the sale, marketing and off-label promotion of its blockbuster antipsychotic drug Seroquel. Despite this settlement, UK-based AstraZeneca still must contend with 14,444 civil lawsuits filed by many patients who developed diabetes and other health related conditions because of misleading marketing that failed to adequately disclose that the drug caused abnormal weight gain.                     

AstraZeneca joins a growing list of pharmaceutical companies that have been penalized for off label promotion and misleading advertising. Earlier this year Eli Lilly & Co paid $1.4 billion over its marketing of another antipsychotic drug Zyprexa and Pfizer announced that it would pay $2.3 billion including a record-breaking criminal fine of $1.195 billion mostly for its painkiller Bextra which was withdrawn from the market.

Despite the size of the fines and settlement figures for these recent cases, they are a drop in the bucket when compared with the amount of money generated by illicit marketing and advertising. For example, the $520 million that AstraZeneca has agreed to pay to settle the Seroquel case pales in comparison to the $17 billion that the drug has generated in US sales since 2004. The same was true for Zyprexa and Bextra.

While these settlements cannot repair much of the damage that has been done to unknowing patients, it signals that the US government is beginning to live up to its pledge to provide safe and efficacious medicines to the American public.

Until next time...

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

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

I received a call today from GDS International, a UK-based b2b publishing company, alerting me to its annual, event called the Next Generation Pharmaceutical Summit (NGP) currently taking place at the Ritz Carlton on Amelia Island in FL. This invitation only event is supposed to bring pharmaceutical and life sciences executives to discuss problems facing the industry and what thing ought to be implemented to insure continued progress and growth.   This is the news coming out of the conference attended by over 50 pharmaceutical and biotechnology executives

Big Pharma concludes that M&A is not the New R&D

With large firms seeking synergies to drive down R&D costs, M&A deals can aid in the transfer of technical knowledge, scalability and reduce time to market. However, previous M&A periods have not alleviated the productivity crisis. “While short term gains emerge from these deals, in the mid to long term, R&D innovation, organic growth, and internal drivers are still key facet’s behind creating a successful company and providing an organization with sustainability.” So says, an executive committee composed of  50 pharmaceutical executives including Jeffery Nye, Chief Medical Officer at Johnson & Johnson, Reinilde Heyrman—VP of Clinical  Development at Daiichi Sankyo, Oscar Laskin—VP of Early Development at Celgene are leading the debate, joined by Ann Wang—VP of Clinical Operations at Human Genome Sciences. These sentiments confirm the notion that the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are in transition and suggest that life sciences companies still face many serious challenges in the not too distant future.

While increasing mergers and acquisitions isn’t likely to reinvigorate R&D, newly emerging economic pressures have recently triggered another wave of M&A activity in both sectors. But is this the solution for long-term sustainable growth?  “The willingness for the industry to unite in such a way clearly demonstrates long-term strategies for improved business processes so long-term investment in R&D can be secured” said Drew Contessa the NPG director.

The NPG will reconvene in April 2010 to review recommendations and actionable items.

The realization that M&A is not a solution to correct waning productivity in R&D was a long time coming. It cost about 150,000 pharmaceutical employees their jobs over the past three years. The idea that companies are beginning to recognize that buying or merging with another company is not a panacea or long term fix is a good thing. 

Hopefully, the life sciences industry can learn from its past mistakes.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!! 

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

Advances made in DNA sequencing technology and genomic analysis has lowered the cost of sequencing a genome from millions of dollars a decade ago to less than $500 today. And, because of this, there are a growing number of companies that are willing to quickly and cheaply sequence and analyze your DNA. While this may be medically beneficial and appealing to some, it may not be for everyone. Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, who will control access to and insure the privacy of your genetic information if you choose to have your genome sequenced and analyzed. 

Alan McHughen, PhD, a molecular biologist and Professor of Botany and Plant Sciences at the University of California-Riverside, who has previously written about privacy and access to personal genomic data, wrote an article for BioJobBlog that explores the ramifications and possibility of DNA identity theft in the future. Also, he has written a book 'Pandora's Picnic Basket; The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods' to refute the myths and explore the genuine risks of genetic modification technology

Genetic Privacy

By Alan McHughen

For just $399 (plus shipping and handling), the scientists at 23and me.com will scan your complete genome. The DNA analysis reports on 118 different medical and health dispositions, your maternal and paternal ethnic ancestry, and a curious bunch of genetic trivia concerning your persona (is your earwax sticky or flaky?). All you do is pay the money and spit into a collection tube; they extract your DNA from the spit and look for half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) scattered throughout your genome, including many in or near genes associated with particular traits. Other companies offer similar services. For example, Decodeme.com charges $985, but catalogs twice as many SNPs, and you collect your DNA with a cheek swab.

Alternatively, if you don’t need the complete genome scan but are curious about specific medical conditions or family lineage, you can get less expensive gene tests from an increasing number of companies willing to take your money and DNA sample in exchange for the genetic information their scientists reveal. If heart disease runs in your family, you may either relieve or exacerbate your anxieties by shelling out $200 to have a cardio scan for relevant genetic predispositions. Or, for as little as $99, a man can have his Y chromosome probed to confirm his place in the family patrilineage, and possibly connect to ancient and famous princes or pirates.

These genetic information services, with prices now well into recreational and hobby budget range, provide the most personal, private — and unchangeable— information possible about you. The sinister side of this fascinating field is all too often overlooked—it can reveal your most intimate genetic details to strangers and nosy neighbors. While the various testing labs assure confidentiality, there is little to no control over personal genetic information. In the US, anything you discard is salvageable by anyone else, and your trash can become another’s treasure if it carries blood, saliva, hair, semen or any other DNA-laden bodily secretions.

While we worry about identity theft, personal financial or other private information, our uniquely personal information is up for grabs. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 offers some protection, but it is limited to employment and medical insurance issues. GINA does not protect your genetic information from being abused by life insurers. Or nosey neighbors. 

Genetic privacy raises a whole spectrum of social, ethical, legal and medical issues. Suppose your neighbor salvages your trash and has your DNA analyzed. This local gossip then shares the juicy news that you have a “higher than average predisposition” to, say, alcoholism. Soon, everyone in the community shuns you as a latent alcoholic, and you have no idea why. The community knows more about your genetic makeup than you do. And, because they don’t know how to interpret statistical language such as “a higher than average predisposition”, those conditions may easily be exaggerated into probabilities, if not certainties.

If people have a right to know their own genetic information, they have the obverse right to NOT know. People can choose to remain ignorant about their genetic makeup. Consider, for example, Huntington’s disease (HD). This death sentence is one of the few health conditions almost due to genetics, and the DNA assay has been available for years. Curiously, most people at risk, i.e., those with HD in their direct lineage, choose NOT to take the test; they prefer not to know until (or if) symptoms appear. What happens when the local busybody lets the cat out of the bag on HD? Word will get around and the at-risk person will inevitably find out, if only by the ‘different’ treatment by neighbors, thus obliterating the exercise of their right to remain ignorant. Whether the test result is positive or negative on HD is immaterial at this point, the rights will have been violated. The DNA test for HD is currently more elaborate than the simple SNP analysis, but because SNPs associated with HD are being reported, it’s only a matter of time before they come generally available.

Perhaps you’ve suspected the woman down the street had a child from an adulterous one night stand a few years ago, and the cuckold husband remains a doting, if clueless, dad. Now, with just $89 (including overnight FedEx delivery!) and a little misdemeanor creativity, well within the standard ethical bounds of busybodies, you can satisfy your suspicions with a surreptitious and discrete paternity test. And, to provoke some real excitement in your sleepy small town, show the results to the husband.

A few minutes of thought and discussion generates many other issues and examples of the precarious security of personal genetic information and identity, and the potentially dire consequences of genetic information getting out. Society is yet to discuss the privacy issues surrounding genetic identity as vigorously as we have with personal financial or medical records. It’s getting late. Do you know where your DNA is?

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

Without fanfare, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) quietly announced today that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for CERVARIX® [Human papillomavirus bivalent (types 16 and 18) vaccine, recombinant] for the prevention of cervical pre-cancers and cervical cancer associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 for use in girls and young women (aged 10-25).

It has taken GSK over three years to garner US regulatory approval for CERVARIX® which has been approved and used in over 100 other countries in the world. Early "unspecified concerns" delayed approval and, as recently as two weeks, FDA delayed a decision despite recommendations from an advisory panel to approve the vaccine. Coincidentally, a week before the agency was expected to announce approval for the vaccine, a British girl died after she was vaccinated with Cervarix. While FDA spokespersons claimed that the girl’s death following vaccination had nothing to do with the delaying a decision on Cervarix, many industry pundits believe that the FDA was reluctant to approve the vaccine in light of the sensational media coverage in the UK surrounding the incident. After an autopsy was performed on the girl, British authorities announced that a massive cardiac tumor that had infiltrated one of her lungs, not Cervarix was responsible for her death.

Today’s approval of Cervarix provides American consumers with an alterative to Gardasil, Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine that was approved about two years ago. That said, the ability to protect girls and young women from the possibility of developing cervical cancer is more important than which of the two vaccines is used to induce immunity. I plan on immunizing my daughter when she is old enough!

Until next time...

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

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

There was an interesting post today at the Seattle, WA-based  Xconomy.com website about the salaries of people who work in the biotechnology industry. The post mainly focused on the salaries of biotech workers in the Pacific Northwest and based on results of a local survey the median salary is roughly around $60,000 per year. While this pales in comparison to the $81,499 reported earlier this spring from a group sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), it is important to note that “real salary” data are difficult to obtain and much of what is released is based on salary figures that don’t include bonuses and other benefits. Further differences survey methodologies may also account for the seemingly disparate results. Nevertheless, salaries in biotech are generally better than those offered in other science-related industries and, not surprisingly, are highly dependent on degree requirements and job duties and responsibilities.

The bottom line: in my opinion, a job in biotech is a good career choice because of the projected upward growth for the industry. More importantly, pharma is continuing to abandon its reliance on small molecules and increasingly embracing biotechnology and its products as the future of the life sciences and healthcare industries. If I was undergraduate life sciences major today, I would be looking to the biotech and medical devices/devices industry, not pharma, for future long term employment!!! And, contrary to popular belief, a PhD degree is no longer a requirement for many biotechnology jobs.

Until next time...

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

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

Allergan, the maker of Botox and Latisse sued the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in federal court yesterday because it believes that regulations banning off label promotion of prescription drugs violates the company’s right to freedom of speech and impedes its ability to provide physicians with information regarding patient safety.

The company contends in a lawsuit filed Thursday that it should be able to educate doctors about the risks and benefits of using treatments for unapproved uses. Botox is approved for several uses by the Food and Drug Administration. In addition to its use as a wrinkle treatment, it is approved for eye muscle disorders and excessive underarm sweating. But physicians often use it for unapproved, or off-label, indications including muscle-spasm conditions.

The impetus for the lawsuit is an FDA requirement that the company provide new risk information education to physicians on Botox as a therapeutic treatment. According to an Allergan spokesperson, "Our reason for seeking action now relates to the fact that we have recently been required by FDA to initiate a REMS (Risk and Mitigation) program for Botox to ensure that physicians are equipped to evaluate the risks and benefits of treatment." In April, health officials warned doctors and patients about potentially deadly risks of using Botox and similar drugs for unapproved uses to treat certain types of muscle spasms. The drugs carried risks of rare botulism symptoms, particularly when given to children to help relax uncontrollable muscle movements.

Allergan estimates that 20% of Botox usage is off-label for unapproved indications. Because of this, the company believes that it is important to “proactively provide comprehensive information to physicians about these off-label uses, such as dosing guidelines, patient selection criteria and proper injection technique to ensure that physicians are equipped to treat patients as safely and successfully as possible. And, “without judicial relief, Allergan is unable to engage in a truthful and relevant information exchange with the medical community for fear of prosecution." 

It sounds to me like the lawsuit is more about increasing the annual sales of Botox for a growing number of unapproved indications rather than ensuring patient safety. These types of lawsuits have becoming increasingly popular because of previous legal precedent that extends an individual’s right to freedom of speech to corporations and other entities. However, more importantly, if Allergan is successful, it could signal the end of the regulations and ban on off label promotion of prescription drugs and devices. Is eliminating a few wrinkles from aging baby boomers (like me) worth all the trouble?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (hmm...maybe if I look younger I might be able to find a job?)

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

A spokesperson at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced today that it decided to delay its decision whether or not to approve GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) anti-cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix. The agency was scheduled to announce its ruling Tuesday on whether to approve Cervarix, but a GSK spokeswoman said the review will continue. An agency spokesperson failed to disclose any reasons for the delay because FDA doesn’t comment on ongoing product reviews. This is the second regulatory delay for Cervarix in the past two years.

The delay comes as something of a surprise because earlier this Earlier this month, an outside panel of health experts voted that Cervarix appears safe and effective for girls and women ages 10 to 25. The FDA is not required to follow the group's advice, though it usually does. Cervarix already is approved in nearly 100 other countries, but has been delayed in the U.S. since 2007, when the FDA said it needed additional safety data.

An approval from FDA would allow London-based GSK to compete against Merck's blockbuster vaccine Gardasil, which has been on the US market following its approval in 2006. Based on all available published reports, Cervarix has a similar safety profile and efficacy profile as compared with Gardasil.

One of the issues with Cervarix may be the adjuvant use to formulate the vaccine to bolster anti-HPV immunity. While Merck's Gardasil uses an aluminum salt adjuvant, Cervarix uses a novel adjuvant known as AS04. The agency’s lack of familiarity with AS04 and possible concerns about its safety may be what is delaying the Cervarix decision. 

Stay tuned for further details!

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

Fierce biotech reported today that word on the street is that the Swiss drug maker Novartis may tender an offer to acquire London-based AstraZeneca.

On the surface, the deal doesn’t make much business sense. However, Astra Zeneca’s purchase of the Maryland-based vaccine manufacturer MedImmune two years ago might make the company more attractive to Novartis which has a strong biotechnology pipeline and is looking to improve the competitiveness of its vaccine division.

AstraZeneca stock share price is soaring as a result of the rumors.

Stay tuned for the latest developments!

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

I previously posted an article on BioJobBlog about biomedical and scientific search engines. One of them called Novoseek, which is mainly geared for life scientists, has recently launched a new set of features known as  My Novoseek

My Novoseek allows users to create a personal account to store and manage indiviudal Novoseek searches. Its functionalities include:

• Search history
• Saved searches
• Search labeling and indexing
• New publication alerts
• Account filtering and management

These newly introduced features improve Novoseek’s search capabilities, content management and convenience. For example, saving searches and creating alerts offers users a facile and convenient way to be alerted when new papers are published in your areas of interest. Also, Novoseek’s indexing and content management features makes creating and labeling collections of papers really easy. Finally, the ability to customize and manage account settings and view search histories makes searching for new information easier, less time consuming and prevents search redundancy.

While I haven’t spent much time evaluating other biomedical search engines, my experience with Novoseek has positive and I recommend that you check it out. Also, unlike other biomedical search engines, Novoseek has a distinctive social media bent and is using it to constantly add new features to meet new and exisitng user demands. To that end, Novoseek maintains its own blog to keep user abreast of happenings in the biomedical search engine world and can be found on Facebook and Twitter.

Signing up for Novoseek is easy, requires only three steps and only takes five minutes or less.

Please visit the Novoseek website and let me know what you think.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Searching!!!!!

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) voted that clinical data support both the efficacy and safety of Cervarix®, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) cervical cancer vaccine.

In a press release, the company announced that “Cervarix was shown to be highly effective and well tolerated in girls and young women for the prevention of cervical pre-cancers and cervical cancer related to human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18, the two most common virus types that cause cervical cancer. The committee also discussed data demonstrating the efficacy of  Cervarix against additional cancer-causing virus types.”

The Committee’s favorable recommendation, although not binding, will be considered by the FDA in its final review of the Biologics License Application (BLA) for the candidate vaccine.

In March 2009, GSK submitted final data from its Phase III pivotal study (HPV-008), the single largest efficacy trial of a cervical cancer vaccine to date. The file included data from clinical trials in more than 30 countries involving nearly 30,000 participants receiving Cervarix, which reflect an ethnically and racially diverse population and a broad range of women. It also included a thorough safety assessment relevant to 10-25 year old girls and young women.

Cervarix® has been approved in nearly 100 countries around the world, including the 27 member states of the European Union (EU), Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Taiwan. Licensing applications have been submitted in more than 20 additional countries, including Japan and the United States. GSK also received World Health Organization (WHO) prequalification in July 2009.

The likely approval will provide girls and women with an alternative to Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil which has been on the market for almost two years. Gardasil has recently come under fire by religious and anti-vaccine groups and sales have been lackluster lately. It will be interesting what effect if any Cervarix will have on the US anti-HPV/cervical cancer market. That said, I doubt whether Merck executives will be sleeping as well as they have been prior to today’s advisory panel recommendation!

For a great comparison of the two vaccines check out an article in today's New York Time business section.

Until next time...

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

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

Sepracor shareholders may be able to sleep better at night without the aid of the company’s top selling insomnia drug Lunesta after agreeing to be purchased on Thursday by Dainippon Sunmitomo Pharma of Japan. Dainippon will pay $2.6 billion for the rights to Lunesta and other drugs in Sepracor’s pipeline. 

This is the third deal in the last two year involving the purchase of American pharmaceutical companies by Japanese drug makers seeking to aggressively expand their reach into the US drug markets. Last year, Takeda Pharmaceutical purchased Cambridge, MA-based Millenium Pharmaceuticals for $8.8 billion and Eisai brought MGI Pharma of Minnesota for $3.9 billion. 

Sepracor, a specialty pharmaceutical company founded in 1984 focused on strategy of developing single isomers or chiral drugs and active metabolites of top selling drugs with the goal of developing a pipeline of proprietary pharmaceutical products. The company’s most successful product is Lunesta, a prescription sleep aid that had sales of almost $500 million in 2008.

Last January, the company layed off 20% of its workforce (350 sales reps, plus 410 contract sales reps) as Lunesta sales slumped because of competition from generic versions of Ambien and branded Ambien CR and revenue losses from its Xopenex COPD franchise. It isn’t clear whether or not more Sepracor will shed more jobs after the Dainippon deal closes sometime next year. 

Stay tuned for updates!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

The increasing costs of conducting human clinical trials and the requirement for more stringent safety data for new molecular entities is forcing a growing number of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to outsource clinical development of new drugs to Central and Eastern Europe and Asia, most notably India. If your company is considering this option, you may be interested in attending an upcoming conference and workshop sponsored by Next Level Pharma. 

 “Clinical Outsourcing Alliances in Central & Eastern Europe” is a one day conference that will be held on October 8, 2009 in Boston, MA. Company representatives from American and European life science companies and clinical research organization will present talks on the “nuts and bolts” of setting up and conducting human clinical trials in Europe.

A half-day workshop entitled “Clinical Outsource Alliances in India” is being offered on day 2 of the conference. The workshop is intended to introduce American clinical trial sponsors interested in conducting human clinical trials in India to prospective Indian CROs. Presentations from American pharmaceutical executives and Indian CRO representatives will describe the realities of running clinical trials in India and allow attendees to identify potential clinical development partners.

Don’t miss this opportunity to learn the “ins” and “outs of outsourcing foreign clinical drug development.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Until today, direct-to-consumer advertising (DTC) has received very little attention during the recent spate of debates over healthcare reform. The NY Times reports that several members of Congress are introducing legislation that would curb the reach of DTC advertising. While reasons for introduction of new legislation vary—ranging from moral indignation over the mention of four hour erections during prime time to tax deductions for pharma companies that engage in DTC advertising—it appears that no stone will be unturned during the ongoing debate over US healthcare reform.

For those of you who may not know, DTC advertising is allowed in only two countries—New Zealand and the US. According to a Nielson Media Research report, in 2008 drug makers spent about $4.8 billion on DTC advertising for television, radio and print ads in magazines and newspapers. Not surprisingly, supporters of DTC point out that the amount of money spent by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies on DTC advertising is negligible as percentage of total health care spending. Nevertheless, data convincingly show that DTC advertising can increase the number of prescriptions written for newly approved drugs. Of the $235 billion spent on prescription drugs last year, approximately $8 billion was attributed to DTC advertising.

Although some academic studies suggest that DTC advertising can help people who need to start taking drugs and others to remain compliant with existing treatment regimens, the lack of fair balance in many DTC ads that promote drug benefits and downplay risks is what is driving legislation to curb its use. The recent brouhahas over Pfizer’s Lipitor commercials, Bayer Pharmaceuticals’ ad that deceptively promoted its popular birth control drug Yaz and Merck and Schering Plough’s Vytorin ads that overstated the health benefits of the cholesterol lowering drug have convinced legislators that DTC must be fixed.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Division of Drug Advertising Marketing and Communications (DDMAC) oversees and has full responsibility for DTC advertising. However, it is important to note, that under current regulations, companies aren’t required to get approval from the agency before they appear. Sharing DTC ads with FDA is completely voluntary. However, if FDA receives enough complaints about particular ads, DDMAC will review them and notify the company if regulators believe that they contain information that is misleading, unbalanced or unsubstantiated. Companies that violate DDMAC policies and guidelines are typically required to show run all future DTC ads by FDA regulators before they can shown to the public.

Because of the small numbers of patients that are typically used during clinical evaluation of new drugs, it may take as long as five years before side effects and problems with certain drugs begin to emerge. With this in mind, DTC critics argue that there ought to be a five year waiting period or moratorium on DTC advertising after a drug is approved. Interestingly, about ten years ago, a friend who works for a major pharmaceutical company told me that she always waits five years before using a newly approved drug.  At the time, I thought it was an odd thing for her to say since she had been in the business for over 15 years. However over the past five years or so, several high profile drugs that were heavily promoted by DTC advertising had to be withdrawn from the market. To that end, while DTC advertising may be “great for business,” it may not always be in the best interest of American consumers who use prescription drugs!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) announced late yesterday that it intends to purchase Princeton, NJ-based Medarex for $2.1 billion. BMS and Medarex were working collaboratively to develop a monoclonal antibody called Ipilimumab as a treatment for late stage melanoma.

The acquisition represents BMS’s public commitment to transform itself into a “next generation pharmaceutical company” with both pharmaceutical and biotechnology products in its arsenal. Last year, BMS bought Kosan Biosciences, Inc a California-based biotechnology company developing novel cancer treatments. Also, as you may recall, BMS lost ImClone to Lilly in a bidding war over Erbitux—a monoclonal antibody-based colorectal cancer treatment that was co-marketed by BMS. 

Medarex was one of the last independent, public, late stage monoclonal antibody development companies in the biotechnology industry. Many of its competitors, like ImClone and Cambridge Antibody Technologies, had already been acquired by big pharma and I was wondering when Medarex would be acquired. I have always held Medarex in high regard and it is a solid and well position company. To that end, I recommended that my mother purchase Medarex stock several years ago telling her that I thought it had a huge upside. Not surprisingly, the stock has been soaring since the announcement; so much so that my mother called me today to tell me how smart I was—go figure.

It is not clear, at present, what effect, if any, the Medarex acquisition will have on the employment situation in New Jersey. Although BMS is headquartered in NYC, it has two large sites in New Jersey, one in Lawrenceville and the other in Plainsboro. As mentioned above Medarex is based in Princeton, NJ. BMS has been steadily downsizing over the past three years and I suspect that there may be more layoffs after the Medarex deal closes.  If there are layoffs, more are likely to occur on the Medarex side of the business.

While I have been critical of some of BMS’ strategic moves in the past, I think the Medarex acquisition is an outstanding one and BMS will likely benefit from it!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

It’s no secret that major pharmaceutical companies are no longer investing in internal drug discovery initiatives as much as they have in the past. However, I was unaware how drastic the decline in R&D spending was until I read an article entitled “Significant Change Predicted for Bioindustry” by Benjamin J. Conway in the July issue of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. 

Mr. Conway notes that in 1989 more than 50% of the pharmaceutical industry’s budget was spent on preclinical drug discovery and development. During the 1990s, the percentage slowly declined and was approximately 44% by 1999. He asserts that beginning in 2000, “the drop became precipitous” as pharmaceutical companies spent increasing amounts of their R&D budgets on downstream activities including expanded clinical trials. By 2006, big pharma was spending about 25% of its budget on R&D. Strikingly, Mr. Conway contends that “when measured in terms of constant absolute dollars, spending on pre-clinical R&D activities actually declined 0.4% annually over the period, despite annual increases of nearly 7% in total R&D spending.” 

Not surprisingly, the almost decade-long decrease in pharmaceutical R&D spending is best reflected in the lack of new drug approvals over the past five years or so. According to Mr. Conway, throughout the 1990s more than 50% of all new drug approvals originated at big pharma companies. By 2001, these companies were responsible for approximately 60% of new drug approvals. However, since then, pharma’s new drug approvals have plunged to 25% to 30% of annual totals. Some analysts suggest that the figure has been as low as 15%. The decline in new drug approvals almost parallels the decrease in R&D spending at most major pharmaceutical companies. Many industry analysts and thought leaders contend that big pharma companies have gotten too big and unwieldy and can no longer innovate. The unprecedented drops in pharma’s new drug approval rates tend to support that assertion. Mr. Conway points out that the so-called “innovation gap” has been filled by biopharmaceutical companies that “today account for 75% or more of new therapeutics developed each year.”

These changing market dynamics suggests that big pharma must reconfigure the business model that it has clung to for the past 50 years to remain competitive. Not surprisingly, almost all of the major pharmaceutical companies have begun to do just that! For example, over the past three years more than 60,000 R&D scientists have lost their jobs with little likelihood that the vacated jobs will ever be resurrected. Further, big pharmaceutical companies have increasingly begun to outsource many R&D activities to Asia, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Finally, most big pharma companies have publicly demonstrated—through mergers and acquisitions—that biotechnology products as well as small molecules are in their future.

While big pharma may be retrenching and evolving, don’t expect the pharmaceutical industry on internal drug discovery initiatives —or small molecules for that matter— to disappear any time soon. The industry is going through a transitional period and the companies of the future will look only slightly different than they do today. These companies will still be large and well capitalized, but likely more diversified in their product portfolios (which will surely contain biotechnology drugs). Also, they will continue to excel in new product development, marketing and distribution. However, unlike the past, much less emphasis will be placed on internal R&D programs to discover new molecular entities. This means that pharmaceutical R&D operations will remain lean and companies will increasingly rely on M &A and licensing deals (with smaller specialty pharma and biotechnology companies) to keep their pipelines full.

Until next time...

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

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

In his book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine, asserts that the cost of DNA sequencing falls 50% each year. To that end, in February, a company called Complete Genomics based in Mountain View, California, announced it will read entire human genomes at $5000 a shot, starting in June this year. This will cost less than one-tenth of what companies charge today for genome sequencing. 

If you believe Anderson, in five years sequencing a human genome will be under $100. Based on these calculations, the window of opportunity for companies that sequence genomic DNA to make a profit is closing rapidly. So, if you were considering getting into the DNA sequencing biz, the right time may be now—before it is no longer a profitable biz model.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Sequencing!!!!!!!!!!!
 

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

Many readers have contacted me about advertising on BioJobBlog. To accommodate those requests, I will be offering side bar ads no wider than 196 pixels to interested parties. Please contact me regarding the ad rates.

When I first started BioJobBlog I had no intention of advertising to generate revenue. Unfortunately, blog maintenance costs and the economy have taken its toll on me. I will try to continue to deliver interesting, relevant and uncompromising content to you despite the modest advertising revenue I hope to capture.

Thanks for reading my blog!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting sic Advertising???

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

Over the past few years, a number of search engines designed for the life sciences have appeared. I thought it might be informative for BioJobBlog readers to list some of the more popular ones and how they are used. I want to warn you in advance that this is not a comprehensive list. That said, if I’ve inadvertently omitted your favorite search engine, please feel free contact me or simply list it in the comments section for this post.

Scirus

Searches over 450 million scientific items, and allows researchers to search for not only journal content but also scientists’ homepages, courseware, pre-print server material, patents and institutional repository and website information. This site is owned and managed by Elsevier.

Novoseek

Search engine for biomedical literature in medline, grants and full text publications that will help you to: 1) retrieve meaningful documents related to your search, 2) narrow your search to find results in the relevant scientific journals and 3) identify the most relevant biomedical concepts for your query.

Mednar

Mednar is a free, publicly available medical research run by Deep Web Technologies.

Valdo 

A search engine that caters to all branches of life sciences. VADLO allows users to search within five categories: Protocols, Online Tools, Seminars, Databases and Software.

Life Sciences Search Engine

A customized search engine developed for the benefit of researchers in life science.

ScienceHack

BioPages

Australian web portal and life sciences search engine.

Science Bucket

Specialized search engine that filters biology sites.

GoPubMed

Knowledge-based search engine for biomedical texts. It allows users to identify experts in the biomedical field.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Searching!!!!!!!!

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

As the Congressional debate over follow-on biologics slogs on, the Obama Administration has finally weighed in and backs 7 years of data exclusivity for follow-on biologics. As you may recall, innovator companies want a 12-14 year data exclusivity period whereas follow-on biologics manufacturers are seeking a 5-year period (which is identical to the data exclusivity period for small molecules generic drugs outlined in the Hatch Waxman Act). What this means—based on the Obama Administration's proposal—is that a follow-on biologic manufacturer must wait seven years from the date of approval for the innovator (branded) drug before the US Food and Drug Administration could consider approval of a follow-on version of the molecule.

It is not surprising that the Obama Administration supports a 7 data exclusivity period--it is, after all, a compromise between the 5 year period sought by the follow-on manufacturers and the 12-14 years that the innovator companies are seeking. And, Mr Obama has repeatedly shown a willingness to compromise when it comes to getting important legislation passed. Hopefully, Congress will take the Obama Administration's compromise to heart and pass follow-on biologics legislation as quickly as possible.

 Until next time...

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!

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

The drug maker Eli Lilly and Co quietly launched a new website today for a program dubbed Lilly Phenotypic Drug Discovery Initiative or PD². According to the company, “The PD² initiative is a unique opportunity for investigators from external institutions to submit proprietary compounds for potential screening in Lilly's phenotypic assay panel. This highly collaborative process is enabled by a web-based application that facilitates efficient transfer of information between Lilly and the investigator. The PD² screening panel is currently comprised of five modules which are relevant to therapeutic areas of long-term strategic interest, including oncology, neurological disorders, and metabolic diseases. This panel may change over time to reflect additional research interests.”

Company officials believe that program will allow it to evaluate and possibly license treatments from biotech companies and academic institutions "that are never fully evaluated as potential drug candidates." The launch of the PD² website—perhaps the first of its kind—clearly sends a signal that pharmaceutical companies are reducing their reliance on internal discovery programs to identify prospective new molecular entities and are eager to enter into licensing deals to find and acquire them. 

Membership in the PD² requires that a legal representative from the investigator's academic institution or biotech company executes a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA). Once the MTA is reviewed and approved by Lilly officials, the institution can create an account. Until that time, use of the site is limited to browsing only. I have no doubt that technology transfer offices at most major universities will be signing up for membership in short order.

I think the PD² initiative is an innovative and timely one given the massive reductions in R&D jobs that have taken place at many pharma companies over the past two years. Expect other pharma companies to follow Lilly’s lead.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) inked a deal yesterday with the Indian generics manufacturer Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories giving it access to over 100 future generic drugs and a gateway to Asia’s emerging pharmaceutical markets. The therapeutic areas covered under the agreement include diabetes, cardiovascular, pain management, gastroenterology and oncology. Dr Reddy’s Laboratories is one of India’s largest generic drug manufacturers. Like many of its competitors, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories also have active development programs for new biotechnology drugs and biosimilar products.

UK-based, GSK joins a growing number of pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck and others that have entered into deals with major generic drug manufacturers—or purchased smaller generics companies—to gain access to generics pipelines and an ability to compete in emerging  non-branded pharmaceutical markets. Impending US healthcare reform and downward pricing pressures (resulting from increased global competition) have forced drug makers to reevaluate the role that generic drugs will likely play in future pharmaceutical revenue streams.

While generic drug makers have outstanding manufacturing capabilities, they generally lack the marketing, sales and distribution channels necessary to penetrate foreign markets and quickly ramp up drug sales. I suspect that the number of deals between pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers will continue to increase as many of the patents for multibillion, blockbuster drugs continue to expire in the next few years.

Until next time....

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

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