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

For the past month or so I have been working on a piece about chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) that is common among patients being treated for cancer. While not a pleasant topic, it is a reality for many patients who undergo cancer chemotherapy treatment.  Although CINV is less common with some of the newly-developed anti-cancer monoclonal antibody treatments, it is still a troublesome and debilitating problem that must be managed during conventional cancer chemotherapy treatment regimens. 

There is a growing body of evidence that marijuana (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol is the active ingredient) and related cannabinoid-like agents may help to effectively manage and control CINV in certain patients who are undergoing cancer chemotherapy. Recognizing this, 14 states have already legalized marijuana for medicinal purposes. Interestingly, according to Newsweek Magazine (November 2, 2009), the US government could save as much as $13.5 billion annually if it stopped enforcing laws against marijuana. To that end, the Justice Department says it will no longer prosecute people who use if for medicinal purposes in the 14 states where that's legal.

While I am not advocating illegal drug use, it seems silly to me that the inherent, medically-beneficial properties of  marijuana haven't been fully utilized to treat patients who are suffering from potentially life-threatening illnesses like cancer.  Further, there are legal and medical precedents for the use of illegal drugs that offer medical benefits. For example, while opium use is illegal in the US but morphine and related products (which are derived from opium and poppy plants) are legal prescription drugs that are regularly used to control acute and chronic pain in millions of Americans. Unfortunately, research on development of cannabinoid-like drugs to treat CINV has been stifled because of the illegality of marijuana.

The number of patients being treated for cancer rises each year. Isn't it time to start offering patients the best and most effective medical treatments available to them rather than continuing to adhere to out dated and unevenly enforced US drug laws?

Until next time...

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was an interesting article in the New York Times this past week entitled“Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shot.” The gist of the article was that we would have more doses of influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine if we accounted for the biological differences between the immune responses in men and women follow influenza vaccination (the article cites a study that contends that less vaccine is need to elicit an protective response in women as compared with men.

I was going to write a post about the article but I got distracted and thought I would revisit it when I had more time. Much to my surprise, Vincent Racaniello, a Bio-Crowd founder, virologist extraordinaire and host of the popular TWiV podcast series, had already “scooped” me. Professor Racaniello graciously allowed me to crib his entire post and let BioJobBlog readers decide for themselves whether or not there are real differences in the male and female immune responses to influenza vaccines or the results obtained by the scientists who conducted the study may be explain by strain to strain variation among influenza A isolates? Read Professor Racaniello’s post below and let me know what YOU think!

Do women need the same amount of influenza vaccine as men?

by Vincent Racaniello

“Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shots?” suggests that we would have more doses of influenza 2009 H1N1 vaccine if we accounted for the biological differences between men and women. The idea is that women generate a stronger antibody response than men, and therefore require less vaccine. Does this idea have scientific support?

The opinion is based in part on a study carried out in 2004-05, in which adults were immunized with full (15 micrograms) or half-doses of trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine. This vaccine, made by Aventis Pasteur, contains influenza H3N2, H1N1, and B strains. Serum samples obtained before immunization and 21 days later were assayed for antibody response to each strain of influenza by hemagglutination-inhibtion. I’ve taken the data on geometric mean serum HI titers according to age, sex, and dose and plotted them on a graph:

Based on the results the authors conclude that “Significantly higher geometric mean titer responses in women were identified for all ages, regardless of dose or influenza strain. Half-dose vaccination may be an effective strategy for healthy adults younger than 50 years in the setting of an influenza vaccine shortage.” But are these immune responses protective?

HI titers of 1:40 or more (which would be reported as 40 or higher in the graph) are believed to indicate levels of antibody that would protect against infection with influenza virus. By this criteria, the full and half dose of vaccine would provide protection agains the influenza H3N2 and B viruses in both men and women. The results confirm that females respond more strongly to the same dose of vaccine than men. But look at the results with the H1N1 strain – in all subjects, no matter the dose of vaccine or gender, the antibody response would not be sufficient to protect against infection. Furthermore, the response is only slightly better than in women.

In interpret these observations to mean that the antibody response to inactivated influenza virus vaccine is not universally more robust in women compared with men – it appears to depend on the virus strain. Clearly clinical studies are required to address this question. Even after spending millions of dollars to decide whether to give women less influenza vaccine, a new strain of influenza virus might come along that induces no better antibody response in women than in men.

My conclusion is that it would not be possible to determine conclusively that women could receive half the amount of inactivated influenza virus vaccine as men. I would rather spend money on developing new ways to produce as much influenza vaccine as needed as quickly as possible – such as by making virus-like particles in plants.

Engler RJ, Nelson MR, Klote MM, VanRaden MJ, Huang CY, Cox NJ, Klimov A, Keitel WA, Nichol KL, Carr WW, Treanor JJ, & Walter Reed Health Care System Influenza Vaccine Consortium (2008). Half- vs full-dose trivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (2004-2005): age, dose, and sex effects on immune responses. Archives of internal medicine, 168 (22), 2405-14 PMID: 19064822

 Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Reading!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GlaxoSmithKline’s cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix for use in girls and women ages 10 to 25 and also approved Gardasil —Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine previously approved in 2006 for use in girls and women—for boys and men ages 9 to 26. For those of you who may not know, over 99% of human cervical cancers are caused by infections with cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) which also causes venereal warts. Vaccination with Cervarix protects against cervical cancer by inducing immunity against HPV 16 and 18 (which cause most cervical cancers in developed nations) whereas Gardasil affords protection against HPV 16 and 18 as well as HPV 6 and 11, strains that cause venereal warts (which don’t lead to cancer).

Despite FDA’s approval to vaccinate boys with Gardasil to prevent HPV infections, the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— which guides national policy on use of vaccines—decided yesterday to recommend the use of the vaccine in girls and women but didn’t fully endorse its use in males. Typically, ACIP recommendations are adopted by professional medical associations and set the standards of practice for physicians. Also, its recommendations play a major role in determining whether or not insurers and third party payors will reimburse patients who are vaccinated. The new recommendations mean, in effect, that physicians and clinics may now administer the vaccine at their discretion to boys and men ages 9 to 26, but they are not expected to offer it. In contrast, vaccination of girls and women ages 10 to 25 will be strongly recommended, readily available and reimbursable. This means that parents may consider the vaccine as an option for their sons, but some health insurers may choose not to cover the shots—an option which is sure to severely limit the numbers of boys and men who are vaccinated with Gardasil.

The ACIP committee decided not to include Gardasil immunization for boys and men on its recommended list because several members, most notably a medical economist, questioned whether vaccinating boys would be cost effective in the long run. At the heart of the debate was whether or not it was appropriate and cost-effective to vaccinate boys for a problem (venereal warts) that can be embarrassing and uncomfortable but is not life-threatening. For those of you who may not know, Gardasil immunization is expensive and requires a series of three injections that cost $130 each ($390 total).  Cervarix, which also requires a series of three injections, is planned to be offered for $385.

Last year in the United States, about 37 percent of girls ages 13 to 17 started the Gardasil vaccine series, a national immunization survey showed, and about half of them completed it. Not a great track record for a vaccine demonstrated to prevent cervical cancer and dramatically reduce the transmission of venereal warts. Nevertheless, yesterday’s decision to recommend vaccination for girls and women but not boys and men makes no sense to me from a public health perspective and it almost smacks of gender bias. Let me explain.

Like all other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HPV is transmitted from men to women and visa versa. Based on years of epidemiological studies, the only effective way to reduce the overall incidence of STDs is to implement strategies that prevent infections in both females and males. While boys and men can’t develop cervical cancer, they do contract venereal warts and perhaps, more importantly, can serve as carriers or reservoirs of HPV infection in the population. In other words, infected males (who may or may not show symptoms of HPV infection) still possess the potential to transmit it to sexually-active, unvaccinated girls and women. Consequently, while the incidence of HPV infections may begin to decrease among women after immunization, it will never be completely eliminated and the possibility of developing cervical cancer will continue to be a public health concern.

While the ACIP’s understanding of the transmission of STDs is tragically flawed, its willingness to publicly disclose cost effectiveness as a reason to not endorse HPV vaccination for males is even more egregious! The agency’s decision begs the question: Which is more costly; 10,000 American women developing cervical cancer each year (and countless others going for unnecessary cervical biopsies because of “bad” Pap smears) or a heads up to insurance companies that they ought to cover the costs of male HPV immunizations? 

The ACIP’s reluctance to recommend male HPV vaccination based on economic and health care cost concerns rather than on public health implications is yet another example of how broken the US healthcare system is and how drastically it needs to be reformed. Allowing 3,700 women to die each year in the US from cervical cancer when there is a safe and effective way to prevent these deaths is, in my opinion, unconscionable!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have refrained from commenting on healthcare reform until now because there wasn’t much I could add to the debate. That said, while reading an article in a local paper on bacterial antibiotic resistance and how to minimize it, the author—an infectious disease doc—offered a telling statistic that identified the root problem with our current healthcare system. According to the article, 65% of the time, physicians will prescribe antibiotics to patients suffering from upper respiratory tract infections who demand them, whether or not they are warranted. In marked contrast, 12% of patients with upper respiratory tract infections who don’t ask for antibiotics receive antibiotic prescriptions. The bottom line: physicians give patients the drugs and treatment they demand because they are afraid of losing them as customers knowing full well the patients will go to another physician who will give them what they want! After all, physicians are in business and to stay in business they need to make enough money to cover their overhead and make a profit. However, over prescribing antibiotics is one of the main reasons why we are in the midst of an epidemic of infections caused by multiple drug resistant bacteria. In my opinion, business outcomes should never supersede or trump medical or public health outcomes.

Don’t get me wrong, I am an entrepreneur and believe that people with good ideas ought to be rewarded for their efforts and make as much money as they can. However, in my opinion, for profit business practices and healthcare haven’t historically worked well for the American healthcare system. Removing profit incentives from healthcare would be an important first step to begin to repair our broken healthcare system. Can anybody say public option?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Support the Public Option!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The New York Times that W. Scott Harkonen, MD the former chief executive of InterMune, a Brisbane, CA biopharmaceutical company, was convicted yesterday for issuing what federal prosecutors called a misleading press release that contributed to off-label sales of the company’s drug Actimmune.

Actimmune is bioengineered form of interferon gamma approved in 2000 to treat children and adults with chronic granulomatous disease (CGD) and severe, malignant osteopetrosis—two relatively rare genetic diseases. But the main sales of the drug, which peaked at $141million in 2003, came from an unapproved use: treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, a scarring of the lungs that can be fatal. While licensed physicians in the US can prescribe approved drugs for off label, it is illegal for drug makers to promote the use of prescription drugs to treat indications for which the drug didn’t receive approval.

According to the Times article, InterMune conducted a large clinical trial testing Actimmune as a treatment for the lung disease. The drug did not achieve the clinical endpoints of the trial, which was to improve lung function of patients receiving Actimmune as compared with patients receiving a placebo. However, a review of the statistical analyses of the trial revealed that if only the patients in the trial with mild or moderate disease were considered, those who got the drug lived longer than those who received the placebo .The company highlighted the “survival benefit” of patients treated with Actimmune in a news release, issued in August 2002.  Following the press release, sales of Actimmune (which costs about $50,000 per year) peak at $141 million in 2003—the drug was mainly being used to treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis an indication for which the drug hadn’t received regulatory approval. Because of this, federal prosecutors contended that the news release was part of a scheme to induce off-label sales of Actimmune. Interestingly, in 2007, a second large clinical trial of Actimmune found that the drug didn’t prolong the lives of patients with pulmonary fibrosis.

The InterMune case isn’t unique in the life sciences industry. Time and time again companies are charged with off-label promotional activities and typically these cases are settled before they go to trial. To that end, the InterMune case is an exception but Harkonen’s conviction sends a warn drug company executives that the US government takes off label promotion seriously and it will no longer be tolerated.

While it can be argued that off label drug use can benefit patients and ought to be allowed, off label promotion of previously approved drugs allows drug companies to benefit financially without investing in expensive clinical trials to win regulatory approval for the off label indication. In other words, off label promotion of prescription drugs can be a financial windfall for companies and induce them to place profits ahead of patient safety and drug efficacy. This is why promotion of off label use of prescription drugs is illegal and a prosecutable crime. 

It is important to remember that prescription drugs are required to undergo a rigorous regulatory review to insure that they are safe and efficacious. While the use of approved drugs to treat off label indications may benefit some patients, the drugs in question must be rigorously tested for safety and efficacy to treat the indication before they are used to in large numbers of patients. And, as we have seen in recent years, even drugs that have gone through clinical testing and garnered regulatory approval may not be as effective or safe when used to treat billions of patients!

Until next time...

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There has been a growing reliance on the use of online tools to teach science to primary, secondary and college students. This makes sense because anybody who has pursued a science career will tell you that using web-based programs, applications and searches is absolutely essential when conducting scientific research. To that end, Amber Johnson at onlinecourses.org sent me an article that details some really cool educational add-on tools that are available for the Firefox browser.

I highly recommend that science educators at all levels check out the post and evaluate some of these interesting tools!

Until next time...

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It should come as no surprise to most BioJobBlog readers that scientists are not known for their writing or literary skills. And, for the most part, graduate students in the life sciences receive little or no instruction or training in scientific writing. This wasn’t always the case. When I entered graduate school at the University Of Wisconsin way back in 1974, Joe Wilson, Chairman of the Department of Bacteriology at the time, insisted that all incoming graduate students take a semester-long course in scientific writing. Most of my peers thought it was a colossal waste of time but by the end of the semester we all knew how, in theory, to write a scientific paper, understood the peer review process and if nothing else could write something that resembled a scientific manuscript when asked to do so. I personally learned a lot during the course and thought it was extremely useful. 

I currently work as a freelance science/medical writer and I think the course has served me well throughout my career. In fact, while a tenure-track Assistant Professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine, many of my colleagues would give me their RO1 applications to review for content, grammar and editing before submitting them to NIH. As the former Chairman of my department said to me after I asked him what he thought after reading my first grant application, “It is extremely well written from a literary standpoint”. Not exactly what I wanted to hear but maybe that explains why I am a science writer and no longer an academic. So it goes....!

The reason that I am rambling on about scientists and their poor writing skills is that things haven’t gotten much better over the 35 year since I took that mandatory writing course as first semester graduate student at UW. Based on my observations, graduate students are only asked to do original writing when preparing their theses and in some instances when writing manuscripts (which are usually re-written by their mentors).  What is even more troubling is that science undergraduate students do virtually no writing at all! How then do we expect graduate students and postdocs to successfully write grant application and manuscripts if they receive no formal training in science writing?

To that end, I came across an interesting, albeit humorous, post from Dr. Isis, who according to her bio is “a physiologist at a major research university working on some terribly impressive stuff. She blogs about balancing her research career with the demands of raising small children, how to succeed as a woman in academia, and anything else she finds interesting.” Like me, Dr. Isis, doesn’t think that scientists spend enough time teaching other scientists how to write. In the post she offers some ideas, tips and solution to this increasingly vexing problem! 

Basic Writing Resources for Basic Scientists

Dr. Isis does hot science. Hot, hot, caliente science. I feel like we have already established that, though.

Learning to do hot science has not been a trivial thing, but learning to write in the scientific arena was orders of magnitude harder. It's still something that does not come easy for me and that I have had to practice to improve. I learned the first time I received my first crapvalanche of papers from a group of students that I am not the only one who has had trouble translating the suckquake of writing I learned in high school and as an undergraduate into successful scientific writing.

I wonder if scientific writing is something that we don't spend enough time teaching pre-graduate school level students.  I know that in science courses I've taught that have required papers, the most formal instruction time I have been able to devote to writing is showing them this: 

Video 1: Strong Bad teaches us how to write a successful paper. Strong Bad is full of wisdom and has taught me about 90% of the awesome stuff I know. I'd encourage you to check him out here.

But, I digress. This long, overly drawn-out, unnecessary introduction had tweo purposes -- 1) to give me an excuse to use Strong Bad in a blog. I <3 Strong Bad. 2) to point the following resource out to you.

This weekend someone showed me "Ask Betty: Grammar in College Writing." Ask Betty is run by the Department of English at the University of Washington and has all sorts of great information. It has a list of common editing symbols for those of us who edits papers and a lesson on common grammatical mistakes for those of us who are writing papers. I think this site could potentially be a fantastic resource for those of use who speak English as a second language. There's a Q&A page with examples of phrases and discussion of whether they are well-written. There is also a resource page with links to external writing resources.

Addendum: While Dr. Isis offers a good self-help solution to the problem, perhaps it might be more useful if graduate students and postdocs are required to take formal science writing courses as part of their graduate training. Technology has advanced considerably since 1974 and students no longer have to take time out from their busy schedules to attend a bricks and mortar class like I did. The course could be offered online and students could complete it at their own speed. The growing number of foreign graduate students and postdoctoral fellows, whose primary language isn’t English, suggests that a course like this may be in the best interests of American science.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

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

Amber Johnson of Accredited College Online thought that BioJobBlog readers might be interested in an article that she authored entitled “10 Big Ways that the Recession is Hitting Higher Ed.”  It is an informative piece that might be of interest to high school and undergraduate students and parents who have kids in college.

10 Big Ways the Recession is Hitting Higher Ed

From elementary to college, schools around the nation have felt the recession in many different ways. As the economy sinks, the educational demands rise. Teachers are holding on to dear life for their jobs, students are struggling to pay for college and the states are running out of school funding. But even with all of these economic woes, there are still people eager to teach and happy to learn.

1. Budget Cuts. Since the beginning of the fiscal year, the U.S. has suffered a 5 percent drop (about $4 billion) from the amount of money state governments apportioned for higher education, according to a U.S. News & World Report article. This is directly affecting universities across the country, who’ve seen larger class sizes, less professors and counselors, as well as canceled courses, which experts say could "threaten the quality of education."
2. Spike in Tuition. College tuition has been an inevitable hurdle for many students and families for years, but in this recession, it stings that much more. Since 1982, college tuition and fees have increased 439 percent, which is about three times higher than the increase in family incomes, according to an ABC news report. In some cases, tuition increases are the school’s response to more financial aid requests, but these scholarships may not be enough to cover soaring prices.
3. Decline in Aid. Many states are cutting college financial aid programs when students need it most. An increase in unemployment and financial losses has caused 620,000 more students to apply for federal aid in the first quarter compared to last year. An Associated Press article reports that without financial assistance, students may be forced to drop out, transfer or be laden with debt.
4. Decline in Endowments. A major factor in these educational downturns is the decline in college endowments. Big and small donors simply aren’t giving back right now, which has caused hiring freezes, cutbacks on financial aid and halted construction projects, according to a Wall Street Journal article.
5. Graduate in Three Years.Graduating in three years is a surefire way to slash college costs. American colleges are now starting to offer three-year college degrees, which is the normal time frame for many British and Canadian students. It’s an upcoming trend, according to CBS MoneyWatch, that could make "elite education" more affordable.
6. More Kids Are Going Public. According to a CBS News report, private school enrollments have declined as many students make the switch from private to public schools. While some continue to pay top dollar for private school tuition payments, others have had to transfer to less prestigious schools to save money.
7. Arts Programs Suffer. With devastating budget cuts on the agenda, college art departments are the first area to be altered. According to a New York Times article, students can expect to see fewer teachers, programs and courses in the arts when they return to campus in the fall. While some colleges are phasing out programs altogether, others, like Louisiana State University, are holding off on new computers, production technology and traveling for conferences to lessen their demand for funding.
8. Growth and Decline of Majors. For college students, choosing the right major during the recession may secure a stable career in the future. Certain industries, such as journalism, entertainment and finance should be avoided, according to a report by College Finance 101, because they have seen the most turmoil during the recession.
9. Higher Community College Enrollment. With the recession at its peak, many college students have opted for the more affordable institutions — community colleges, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. However, this influx of students has caused some community colleges to turn them away, claiming there’s not enough room, teachers and accommodations at these campuses.
10. Distance Learning is More Desirable. A big thing hitting the economy is online education. Whether people have lost a job, are fearful of losing one or want a degree, online colleges have open seats. A CNN report, titled "Riding out the recession in a virtual classroom," touches on the idea of investing in education during troubled times to have a back-up plan and find the right career path for you.

 

 

 

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

Professor Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist who studies the pathogenesis of polio and influenza viruses commented that there will likely be two influenza vaccines offered this fall: a trivalent vaccine consisting of seasonal H3N2 and H1N1 strains and an influenza B strain; and a monovalent one consisting of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain.

He posited an interesting question to BioCrowd members earlier today: "Will you be receiving a flu vaccine this fall, and if so, which one?"

To weigh in on the topic and find out which vaccines makes sense for you, check out Professor Racaniello’s influenza vaccine survey and discussion at BioCrowd!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking @ BioCrowd!

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Public Library of Science (PLOS) announced that it has launched a new website called PLOS Currents that is intended to serve as a vehicle for the rapid publication of scientific research and new ideas and themes. Not surprisingly, the first theme for PLOS Currents is influenza. On his Virology blog, Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd cofounder and prominent virologist, discusses why PLOS Currents is important and timely for scientist actively engaged in influenza research and vaccine development.  

The opening of PLoS Currents: Influenza was announced by Harold Varmus, Chairman and Co-Founder of PLoS. He wrote about the reasons for starting this website at The Official Google Blog:

The key goal of PLoS Currents is to accelerate scientific discovery by allowing researchers to share their latest findings and ideas immediately with the world’s scientific and medical communities. Google Knol’s features for community interaction, comment and discussion will enable commentary and conversations to develop around these findings. Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

Contributions that will be welcome at PLoS Currents: Influenza include research into influenza virology, genetics, immunity, structural biology, genomics, epidemiology, modeling, evolution, policy and control. The manuscripts will not be subject to peer-review, but unsuitable submissions will be screened out by a board of expert moderators. This policy will enable rapid publication of research.

The path to publishing original scientific research is often long and tortuous.  A manuscript describing the findings is prepared and submitted to a scientific journal (such as Nature, Cell, Journal of Virology). The manuscript is assigned to two or three expert reviewers, generally scientists involved in the same area of research. If their reviews are favorable, the paper is published. Usually additional experiments are called for, which may require additional time to complete. Many months to a year may pass before the paper is published, although some manuscripts (e.g. those on 2009 pandemic influenza) may be expedited. The point is that PLoS Currents: Influenza will allow everyone – including non-scientists – to read about research soon after the authors have prepared the paper.

PLoS Currents: Influenza is a terrific idea, and I welcome this venture with great enthusiasm. I hope that PLoS Currents will grow to include other areas of science. But Varmus warns:

Given that the contributions to PLoS Currents are not peer-reviewed in detail, however, the results and conclusions must be regarded as preliminary. In time, it is therefore likely that PLoS Currents contributors will submit their work for publication in a formal journal, and the PLoS Journals will welcome these submissions.

During peer review of submitted manuscripts, new experiments may be suggested that change some of the conclusions of the research. Hence, the papers that appear in PLoS Currents: Influenza may be different from final versions that are published elsewhere.

I wonder how other scientific journals will react to submissions of manuscripts that have appeared in PLoS Currents. Many journals do not accept manuscripts that have already appeared elsewhere. For example, the instructions to authors for the Journal of Virology state:

By submission of a manuscript to the journal, the authors guarantee that they have the authority to publish the work and that the manuscript, or one with substantially the same content, was not published previously, is not being considered or published elsewhere, and was not rejected on scientific grounds by another ASM journal.

It’s time for scientific journals to change this policy, and allow for preliminary publication at sites such as PLoS Currents.

Rapid and open-access publication will drive research forward and help inform and educate the public about science.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The appearance of the Swine Flu aka H1N1 last spring not only created a worldwide panic, it demonstrated to Albert Osterhaus, head of virology at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands how uninformed the lay public was about viral outbreaks, epidemiology and public health. This prompted Dr. Osterhaus and his colleagues to create a free, online video game called the “The Great Flu” which challenges players to control a new viral pandemic.

As the virus has spread worldwide, countries have tried different methods to slow it down and pharmaceutical companies are now racing to produce a swine flu vaccine (sound familiar?). To fight the emerging outbreak, players use public health measures including setting up surveillance systems, stockpiling antivirals and vaccines, and closing schools and airports. Players also have a limited budget and are warned that "your actions to control the virus cost money, so keep an eye on it." In other words, while the goal is to control the pandemic, there may not be sufficient funds and resources to accomplish those goals!

A running tally of the numbers of people infected and those who have died are displayed above the budget. Newspaper stories about the deadly virus and the global response to it — like riots breaking out worldwide — pop up to help players monitor the outbreak and plan their next moves. Messages from governments mirror the difficulties faced by international agencies like WHO that are responsible for containing worldwide epidemics. For example, when players set up costly surveillance systems, sometimes participating governments will send a message "we will comply with your directions...but we must inform you that the political support for this action is low in this region. Therefore, the effectiveness of the system to control the outbreak may differ from your expectations."

The goal of the game is make the lay public aware of the difficulties that public health officials encounter during pandemics and the tight rope they sometimes must walk to insure that the virus is contained and doesn’t continue to spread. To test your skill level at controlling pandemics, you can choose different viruses (which range from easy to difficult to manage) at the beginning of the game.

I think “The Great Flu” is a great way to educate the public about infectious diseases and epidemiology and have fun at the same time. If you are interested in more sinister online swine flu games check this out.  Who said learning science has to be tedious and dull?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Virus Hunting!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, Sanofi-aventis (S-A) agreed to acquire a controlling stake in Indian vaccine maker, Shantha Biotechnics, for an undisclosed amount. And, recently, Abbott announced a definitive agreement to acquire the nutrition businesses of Wockhardt Limited, Carol Info Services Limited, and certain Wockhardt subsidiaries and group companies for consideration totaling approximately US$130 million in cash.

While these two recent acquisitions don’t appear to be particularly noteworthy, they speak volumes about growing Indian influence in biologics and, perhaps more importantly, in biosimilars. India, long known for its expertise in generic drug development and its ability to work with US-based companies, has expanded beyond generic pharmaceuticals into generic biologics aka biosimilars. Biosimilars have been on the Indian market for over a decade and by all accounts several Indian companies, most notably BioCon, might be able to steal biosimilar market share in Asia from the likes of Sandoz, Merck and Teva—companies expected to be major players in the emerging biosimilar market.

Both Shantha and Wockhardt possess substantial experience in biosimilar development and commercialization. To that end, Sanofi-aventis has publicly announced its desire to get into biotechnology and Abbot must expand its biotechnology pipeline beyond Humira to remain competitive. These acquisitions likely represent Sanofi’s and Abbott’s attempt to gain a foothold in the emerging Asian markets. Also, it gives both companies access to lower cost biologics R&D and manufacturing capabilities.

It will be interesting to see how things unfold over the next year or so!

Until next time...

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I started BioJobBlog in early 2008 for a variety of reasons. First, I had envisioned a lifelong career as a tenured professor at a medical school. And when that didn’t happen for me—after seven years as tenure track Assistant Professor at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine—I was lost. It literally took me about 10 years (and five or six different jobs) to realize what I wanted to do with the “rest of my life.” Because I had learned an enormous amount along the way, I thought it may be helpful to offer young scientists some career advice and guidance to avoid some of the painful mistakes that I made during my oft times circuitous and eclectic journey. 

Second, the life sciences industry isn’t that “easy to understand” and I felt that my experiences as an industrial scientist, professional recruiter and management consultant would help to shed some light on it. I hope that I have.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I am extremely opinionated, have a lot to say and love to write!

Thanks to all of you for reading BioJobBlog. I hope that you continue to find the blog informative, incisive and “fun to read.”

Until next time...

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

 

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

A survey involving 2000 members of the public and 2500 scientists conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) revealed that almost two-thirds of Americans hold scientists and engineers (and their contributions to society) in high regard. However, in marked contrast, 85% of the scientists surveyed said that public ignorance of science was a major problem. And, not surprisingly a majority of the scientists surveyed feel that American media coverage of science is “fair or poor.”

While the reasons for this disconnect in opinions aren’t readily apparent, perhaps some insights into the public’s understanding of scientific concepts like evolution and climate might be informative. For example, almost 35% of Americans believe that “humans existed in their current form since the beginning of time” whereas only 2% of scientists hold this belief. Further, only about 50 percent of Americans agree that humans are behind climate change and a whopping11 percent believe that there isn’t global warming at all. These beliefs trouble many scientists because there is no credible scientific evidence to refute the theory of evolution and there is incontrovertible data which shows that humans are a major contributor to global warming. So, what’s the deal with Americans?

There is little doubt that American science education is lacking. For the most part, this deficiency has been blamed on poorly trained and uninformed primary and secondary school science teachers. While this may be partly true, scientists and engineers also bear much of the responsibility.  According to the report, only 3 percent of the scientists surveyed said that they “often” spoke to reporters and the media. In other words, a majority of scientists don’t feel that it’s important to engage the public in fundamental discussion about evolution and climate change.  A facile and convenient way for scientists to eschew any responsibility for the problem is to label the American public as “ignorant about science” and not do anything about it. If scientists truly want to improve the public understanding of science, it will be necessary to roll up our sleeves and do some work to better inform and educate them!  New social media tools like blogs, videos, podcasts and social networking sites like BioCrowd represent ideal vehicles to begin to make headway against this vexing problem! 

Until next time...

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

 

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

There is a growing worldwide shortage of nurses and other typically female-dominated medical professionals. The acute shortage of nurses in Europe has induced at least one Czechoslovakian clinic to develop a novel—albeit somewhat controversial— approach to retain and recruit hospital personnel. According to an article in today’s New York Times (which was also reported on NPR several weeks ago) “When Petra Kalivodova, a 31-year-old Czechoslovakian nurse, was considering whether to renew her contract at a private health clinic special perks helped clinch the deal: free German lessons, five weeks of vacation, and a range of plastic-surgery options, including complimentary silicone-enhanced breasts.” She opted for cosmetic breast surgery (which normally cost about $3,500) and also had liposuction on her thighs and stomach citing that she her appearance is important to her and her patients.  Perhaps, more importantly, she could never have afforded to have the procedures done on her current salary which is lower than most bus drivers. Of the 50 nurses working at the clinic, 10 opted for plastic surgery, while several more were considering it. And, at least one male employee is seriously considering liposuction.

While offering plastic surgery as an inducement to recruit and retain hospital employees is somewhat controversial, it highlights the need to improve the salaries and benefits of nursing and other medical care professionals. In many places in Europe, nurses and other hospital employees make considerably less than bus, truck drivers and other non-technical workers. The same is true in the US which has also been experiencing ongoing nursing shortages. But, hospitals and clinics here have yet to offer plastic surgery options to recruit or retain medical and support staff personnel. Unlike Europe, where cosmetic surgery is booming, plastic surgery procedures have dropped about 9 per cent this year as compared with years past.

Like it or not, cosmetic surgery is an option in today’s world and, accordingly, people ought to have the right to choose whether or not it is right for them. However, it is important to remember that cosmetic surgery is invasive and potentially serious medical complications including infection, disfiguration and death can occur. The fact that 20 per cent of the Czech nurses chose cosmetic surgery over more vacation time or free German lessons may be indicative of the growing pressure placed on both women and men to look young, vibrant and remain sexy. Further, there are marketing and employment studies which suggest that younger more attractive people get hired more easily and advance their careers more rapidly than average, older-looking ones.

When Petra Kalivodova, the 31-year-old Czechoslovakian nurse who opted for breast augmentation and liposuction was asked about her choice she said “People of my mother’s generation look down on me for getting the surgery—“I see it in their eyes. But I don’t care. I did this because I wanted to and I didn’t ask anyone’s permission, including my boyfriend.” I think her comments reflect a changing and growing attitude among women 35 and under who believe that personal choice, feminine beauty and pursuing professional careers are no longer mutually exclusive.

Until next time.

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A much-anticipated Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report was released on Wednesday that will likely help House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman bolster support for his fledgling follow-on biologics (FOB) bill. For those of you who haven’t been closely following the debate over proposed legislation to create a regulatory framework for approval of FOBs in the US, I provide a brief synopsis.

The Promoting Innovation and Access to Life-Saving Medicines Act (H.R.1427) introduced by US Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Nathan Deal (R-GA) calls for an abbreviated development pathway (at the discretion of the agency), the possibility of substitution or interchangeability (if the follow-on biologics manufacturer can prove a high degree of structurally similarity and an identical mode of action) and five years of data exclusivity. In contrast, The Pathways for Biosimilar Act (H.R. 1548) introduced by US Representatives Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Jay Inslee (D-WA) and Joe Barton(R-TX) requires clinical data, rigorous immunogenicity testing and limits on interchangeability and substitution provisions for follow-on biologics. Further, it calls for a minimum of 12 or up to 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator companies—a period during which FDA can’t rely on innovator data to approve follow-on biologics. For example, if a biotechnology drug was approved in 2009, the earliest that FDA could consider and approve an application for a competing follow-on product is 2021.

The FTC report concluded that a 12- to 14-year wait is unnecessary because follow-on biologics will not be offered at the same steep discounts as traditional generic drugs. It also pointed out that no evidence exists that biologic patents will not hold up. The agency estimates follow-on biologics would be sold at discounts ranging from 10 percent to 30 percent. Not surprisingly, the FTC did not recommend a specific number of exclusivity years. This allows legislators to continue to squabble and debate the point ad nauseum, until concessions are made by both innovator and follow-on biologics proponents.

The measure by Eshoo and Barton has garnered 88 co-sponsors, while Waxman and Deal's bill has 11. In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee reached a bipartisan compromise on follow-on biologics in 2007 that allowed for 12 years of exclusivity, but that deal seems unlikely. Democrats are trying to address generic firms' concerns that brand companies could make slight changes to their products and start the exclusivity period over again. Some senators introduced a more generic-friendly bill like Waxman's earlier this year.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the data exclusivity provisions in the final legislation will be five years—a period identical to that provided stipulated in the 1984 Hatch Waxman Act, which created the US generic pharmaceutical industry. 

Stay tuned for new updates on this unfolding drama!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Pfizer, the world’s largest drug maker, announced on Thursday that it is unveiling a new program that will let people who have lost their jobs and health insurance to keep taking Pfizer medications — for free, and for up to a year. The company will provide more than 70 of its prescription drugs ranging from Viagra to Lipitor at no costs to unemployed and uninsured Americans who lost their jobs since Jan. 1 and have been taking Pfizer drugs for me than three months. It is not clear how much Pfizer will spend on the program and whether or not costs will be capped.

The announcement comes amid massive job losses caused by the recession and a campaign in Washington to rein in health care costs and extend coverage. The move could earn Pfizer some goodwill in that debate after long being a target of critics of drug industry prices and sales practices. The program also likely will help keep those patients loyal to Pfizer brands. Don't be surprised if other pharmaceutical companies announce similar program over the next few weeks.

Pfizer and the rest of the drug industry wants is trying to have a voice in the debate over how to overhaul the U.S. health care system, partly by joining in a pledge this week to help hold down inflation of health costs. In the mean time, drug companies have been raising prices on their drugs, partly to offset declines in revenue as the global recession reduces the number of prescriptions people can afford to fill.

Pfizer ought to be commended on the program and its concern for the health and well being of unemployed and uninsured Americans. However, it is important to point out that this is little more than a high profile, marketing campaign designed to improve the image of drug makers. More important, it is the first public acknowledgement that drug makers are willing to engage legislators in discussions about how to reform healthcare to reduce costs and cut expenditures. 

What really is at stake here is whether or not the US government will begin regulating drug prices as part of a comprehensive healthcare reform package. As many of you may know, the US government, unlike most other governments in the world, cannot negotiate or set prescription drugs prices. Not surprisingly, the US prescription drug market is the largest and most profitable in the world. It will be interesting to see how the US healthcare reform discussion unfolds—clearly a lot is at stake for the American prescription drug industry.

Until next time...

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A team of scientists from the UK report in this week’s edition of Nature that they were able to induce the formation of ribonucleotides using ribose, phosphate and the bases adenine, uracil, guanine and cytosine and environmental conditions that may have been present in the early history of the Earth. This had been a fundamental but elusive step in the early evolution of life on Earth.

The results of the study entitled “Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions” provide evidence that self-assembling RNA molecules were likely the first to be formed and were likely the first step in the evolution of life on Earth. According to John Sutherland of the University of Manchester a co-author of the study, “Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated. It’s like molecular choreography, where the molecules choreograph their own behavior. In other words, the origins of life may be much simpler than previously imagined—so much for intelligent design! 

Evolution rocks! Hat tip to Steve Munro.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Experimenting!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A quick perusal of the media coverage of the swine flu outbreak of 2009 would lead many to conclude that this outbreak has the potential to rival or surpass the 1918 flu pandemic—widely regarded as the worst influenza outbreak in history. While the emergence of a new H1N1 swine flu variant is significant note worthy— and has possible public health implications— the unrelenting, often scientifically-inaccurate media coverage did little to quell the fear and anxiety of many Americans.  Once again, the media—rather than physicians, public health officials and influenza experts—“got out in front of the story” and managed to create enough panic, fear and anxiety, the likes of which haven't been seen since the 2003 SARS pandemic. It wasn't until last Friday, when the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Dr. Peter Palese—a leading scientific expert on influenza A infections— did a clearer picture emerge about the severity and public health implications of the current swine flu pandemic.

According to Dr. Palese, there are several reasons why people and public health officials ought to be optimistic about the current pandemic:

• In 1976 there was a an outbreak of an H1N1 swine virus in Fort Dix, New Jersey, which showed human to human transmission but did not go on to become a highly virulent pandemic strain
• The presently circulating swine virus is most likely not more virulent than the other seasonal strains we have experienced over the last several years
• The current swine virus lacks an important molecular signature (the protein PB1-F2) which was present in the 1918 virus and in the highly lethal H5N1 chicken viruses.  If this virulence marker is necessary for an influenza virus to become highly pathogenic in humans or in chickens, then the current swine virus doesn’t have what it takes to become a major killer
• Since people have been exposed to H1N1 viruses over many decades, we likely have some cross-reactive immunity against the swine H1N1 virus. While it may not be sufficient to prevent becoming ill, it may very well dampen the impact of the virus on mortality.  I would postulate that by virtue of this “herd immunity” even a 1918-like H1N1 virus could never have the horrific effect it had in the past.  The most likely outcome is that the current swine virus will become another (fourth) strain of regular seasonal influenza

The landscape of vaccines and anti-influenza drugs has dramatically improved over what it was just a few years ago. Based on what we know of the structure and sequence of the swine virus, these FDA-approved drugs and FDA-licensed vaccines (modified to include the swine strain) would be highly effective against this new virus.  Also, present technologies as well as manufacturing capacities will allow us to make sufficient quantities of a swine virus vaccine for the winter 2009-10 influenza season in the US.

In other words, there is reason for concern but no need to panic beyond typical public health precautions that are taken during “normal” influenza outbreaks.

Dr. Vincent Racaniello, a viral disease expert who writes the Virology Blog, reported that as of Monday there have been laboratory confirmed cases of H1N1 infections in 30 US states with a total of 226 cases and one death in Texas. Globally, 20 countries had reported 985 cases of infection. The highest numbers are in Mexico, with 590 cases and 25 deaths. While there have been 26 deaths to date, the severity of the infection appears to be waning and person-to-person transmission appears to be low.

Unfortunately, there has been some fallout from the news media’s oft times “over the top” coverage of the pandemic. Many US hospital emergency rooms (most notably in Texas and California) have been overwhelmed and overburdened by visits from people who think they may have swine flu. Also, while some schools and daycare center closures were warranted, others may not have been. Finally, and perhaps most important, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the lay public's understanding of infectious agents and the outbreaks that they cause is grossly deficient and must be improved. 

We live in a world where viral pandemics, food poisoning outbreaks and infections caused by multiple-antibiotic resistant bacteria are becoming commonplace. While vaccines, antivirals and antibiotics can afford some protection against many viral and bacterial disease, the best way to fight infectious diseases is to understand what causes them, how they are spread and what public health measures can be implemented to prevent or control their transmission. Until the world becomes better educated about infectious diseases, we will continue to be overly-dependent on the news media during future outbreaks and epidemics.

Until next time....

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Do you lie awake a night overwhelmed by the possibility of another infectious disease outbreak? Well, if you want to get a good night’s sleep, I highly recommend that you take a look at a brief history of American epidemics that was published in this past Sunday’s New York Times. According to the article, history shows that the number of American epidemics has been relatively small. In fact, the author suggests that there were only nine major epidemics in the US since 1892. 

While there were several major outbreaks in the early to mid 1900s (Spanish flu, 1918; smallpox, 1947 and polio, 1952), the US has been relatively unscathed in recent years—with the possible exception of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and possibly the herpes and HPV epidemics. This is because of America’s outstanding infectious diseases surveillance networks, its comprehensive vaccination programs and modern medical and hospital infrastructures.

However, no matter how vigilant we are, there is no way to prevent infectious disease outbreaks unless the pathogens that cause the diseases are eradicated from the planet as was the case for the smallpox virus. That said, the best way to manage infectious disease epidemics is to be prepared for all contingencies.  In my opinion, the recent swine flu outbreak—this was its second appearance, the first taking place in 1976—was a practice run. And I think the world did “pretty, pretty good” as Larry David, my former NYC softball teammate and co-creator of Seinfeld would say!

Until next time...

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

 

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

When Rupert Murdoch, the owner of New Corporation (Fox News), bought MySpace for $580 million in 2005 it was viewed by many as one of his savviest acquisitions ever. At that time, MySpace was arguably the most successful social networking site on the Web and its financial future was extremely bright. Shortly after the acquisition, a young, upstart college social networking site called Facebook began operations without much fanfare. Back in 2005, MySpace had 14 million monthly users and Facebook was still raising capital. Now, MySpace has 126 million users whereas Facebook’s user base has grown to over 200 million. Facebook continues to expand while MySpace’s growth appears to be stagnant. This led to the dismissal last week of one of MySpace’s co-founders and the appointment of a former Facebook executive as CEO.

Since 2005, MySpace has generated about $1.6 billion in revenues and earned 200 million last year alone. However, it is important to note that a major portion of its operating capital comes from $900 million that Google guarantees every year. That agreement comes up for renewal next year and the likelihood of Google agreeing to the original terms is questionable. This is probably why Murdoch is shaking things up at MySpace. While it is likely that Google will attempt to renegotiate the terms of the original agreement, I seriously doubt that it will severe all financial ties with MySpace. That would be a bad business decision and Google doesn’t make many of those!

While many social networking pundits attribute Facebook’s ongoing success to its connectivity rather than its content, I still contend that “content is king” and social networking sites built around user-generated content are great investment opportunities. After all, status updates, pithy wall comments and photo tagging tend to “get old” quickly after a few months.

While the possible loss of Google’s annual cash infusion will hurt MySpace, I don’t think that MySpace is on its “deathbed” yet and rumors of its demise are premature. The social networking universe is vast and niche networks—not large unfocused ones—will ultimately prosper because of targeted advertising and other business opportunities. That said, I believe there will always be a place for MySpace in the social networking world.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking!!!!!!!!!! 

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

National DNA Day is a unique day when students, teachers and the public can learn more about genetics and genomics! The day commemorates the completion of the Human Genome Project in April 2003, and the discovery of DNA's double helix by Watson, Crick and Rosalind Franklin.

National DNA Day is usually observed on April 25 (it was created by the US Congress seven years ago), but this year the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) will hold most of its activities on Friday, April 24 to accommodate classroom schedules. Building upon the popularity of the online chatroom and ambassador programs, NHGRI and its DNA Day partners this year have expanded their outreach efforts even further by creating National DNA Day social networking pages on Facebook and Twitter.

National DNA Day is much more than a time to honor historical achievements. It's a day filled with opportunities for students, teachers and the public to learn how the exciting field of genome research affects our lives. NHGRI researchers, called DNA Day Ambassadors, are visiting dozens of high schools throughout the nation during April to give presentations and field questions from students. This year, NHGRI is particularly focusing on the southwest region of the United States, sending DNA Day ambassadors to high schools in Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

No matter where they live, students and teachers can participate in National DNA Day through a live, moderated online chat with NHGRI researchers, which will be open for questions Friday, April 24, from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Eastern. NHGRI experts will be available to answer questions on a wide range of topics, including basic science, clinical research, genomics careers and the ethical, legal and social implications of genome research. For those unable to participate in the live event, a transcript of the chat will be available on the DNA Day Web site at National DNA Day Online Chatroom.

You can also participate online on Facebook and @dnaday on Twitter

Happy Birthday DNA!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Emily Rachel Silverstein, a sophomore anthropology major and peace activist at Gettysburg College, was brutally murdered early last Thursday morning, allegedly by her ex-boyfriend, a fellow student and senior at the school. She went to visit him around 3:00 AM to console him because he called her and “he was not acting right” a family friend told me. While I didn’t know Emily well, I knew of her, and by all accounts, her response to her ex-boyfriend’s cry for help was consistent with who she was—a bright, compassionate, peace-loving, social activist who believed that the world could be a better place.   

I attended Emily’s memorial yesterday that was held in Roosevelt, NJ, a town founded by artists and social activists in the late 1940s. My wife, 15 year old son and I were there because Zach is good friends with Jaime, Emily’s younger brother and we know his parents Linda and Bob. Also, one of our best friends’ son dated Emily when she was a senior at Hightstown High School, our local high school. Everybody in the tightly-knit, surrounding communities of East Windsor and Hightstown, NJ has been grieving and affected in some way by Emily’s death.

There were hundreds of people at the memorial, many of whom who spoke and shared their stories about this beautiful and extraordinary young woman. At Gettysburg College she lived at the “Peace House,” founded a new chapter of the resurgent Students for a Democratic Society (SDS for those you who can remember) and was studying Arabic to spend a year abroad in Morocco helping battered women. As one of Emily’s best friends said “she was a vegan, but unlike some vegetarians, she didn’t chide her meat-eating friends because she believed that vegetarianism is a personal choice. That was Emily!” 

Many of the men and boys who spoke sported pony tails and beards and the women and girls who shared childhood and college stories about Emily had flowers in their hair. All of them, regardless of age, race, religion or ethnicity, spoke of Emily’s dreams and plans for peace and social change—the things that mattered most to this vibrant, smart, compassionate young woman who truly believed that she could help change the world by one act of kindness at a time.  

I hadn’t thought much about social activism since the early 1970s and found myself fondly thinking about those days and what they meant to me as young man trying to find his way in the world. And, as more people shared their stories about Emily, I remembered what it felt like to be 19 again and I began to recall my own dreams and plans to make the world a better place. Despite my profound grief and sadness, I began to experience feelings of joy and hope—because unlike some of us who have lost sight of the importance of social activism—many GenYers and Millenials have embraced it, believe in its power and plan to use it to change the world into a safer and more peaceful place.

Emily’s senseless murder was tragic, but the tragedy would be if we don’t try to keep her principles and ideals alive even though she is no longer with us. Please visit a Better World dot net a fund dedicated to the memory of Emily Rachel Silverstein. 

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

Earlier this week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent warning letters to 14 different pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to advise them that their approach to Internet advertising is violating federal pharmaceutical advertising and marketing guidelines and regulations. While the agency’s attempt to regulate Internet-based drug advertising is laudable, the fact that warning letters were sent to 14 different life sciences companies means that there is a poor understanding of the regulations regarding use of Internet—and more recently, social media—to market and advertise drugs, medical devices and diagnostics. This isn’t surprising because FDA has yet to issue any meaningful guidance on the use of the Internet and social media to market life sciences industry products. The reluctance of the agency to issue guidance is very puzzling—the use of web based-advertising and social media by life sciences companies has exploded in the past few years.

In a post today on the EyeOnFDA blog, Mark Sendak pointed out that Twitter is fast becoming the medium of choice for life sciences messaging, branding and product promotion. Despite FDA’s lack of guidance on the use of social media, an increasing number of life sciences companies and organizations are using it to stay in touch with their stakeholders and constituents. For example, the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, the Lancet, the New Scientist, Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Boehringer, Cell Therapeutics and Novartis and others have Twitter accounts. Many of these companies also have fan pages or accounts on Facebook. 

It is becoming increasingly evident that the agency will have to issue guidance on social media sooner rather than later. The wide reach, immediacy and highly interactive nature of social media suggest that the current wait-and-see attitude of FDA is no longer feasible. To jump start the discussion, Social Pharmer, a group of life sciences social media enthusiasts are holding an “unconference” in Boston on April 21, 2009. I hope that FDA sends representatives to this grassroots meeting!!!

Until next time....

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

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

Tainted pistachio nuts are the culprit for this week’s Salmonella outbreak.  Fortunately, Kraft Foods’ quality unit was doing its job and was able to alert consumers about the problem before the outbreak reached epidemic proportions. At present, there are only two suspected cases of Salmonella gastroenteritis that may be linked to tainted pistachios. The contamination has been traced back to a California company which, according to reports, is the second leading producer of pistachios in the US.

As I have mentioned several times before, Salmonella outbreaks are nothing new and not out of the ordinary in the food industry. However, what is new is the growing lack of regulatory compliance that seems to be pervasive at American food manufactures. Many blame declining food safety on the US FDA’s lack of trained inspectors. While this may play a role, I believe that the real problem lies with the failure of many food industry executives to make a commitment to quality outlined in FDA’s Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPs). 

I have been teaching cGMP to biotechnology students for the past six years or so.  I always tell them that the regulations are meaningless unless management makes a commitment to quality. And, the only way to accomplish this is by insisting that all manufacturing taking place at a company stringently adheres to all GMP regulations and guidelines. For those you who may not be familiar with cGMPs, they are the minimum regulatory standards that must be met to insure US product (food, drugs and cosmetics) quality and safety.

Over the past decade or so, Americans have grown accustomed to a wide variety of choices when it comes to raw and processed foods. To meet demand, US food manufacturers must source and import fruits, vegetables, spices and other foodstuffs from all over the world. Regardless of the origin of a food source, cGMPs clearly state the onus is on the manufacturer (not the supplier) to perform the necessary tests to insure food safety and quality. The recent spate of Salmonella outbreaks suggests that some food manufacturers are either cutting corners or don’t fully understand what testing is necessary to guarantee food safety. Unless something changes, Americans confidence in the safety of US food supply will continue to wane.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Easting (avoid pistachios)

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It has been a long standing practice of mine to avoid co-mingling science and religious issues in any of the materials that I post online. I have refrained from doing this because I believe that enough tension already exists between religious advocates and scientists.   However, I was unable to control myself today after my wife pointed out two interesting articles in Wednesday’s New York Times.

The first article dealt with Pope Benedict XVI’s views on condom use and HIV transmission in Africa. Yesterday in Cameroon, he publicly said, for the first time, that condoms are not the answer to Africa’s fight against AIDS. Not only did this statement send a collective shiver down the spines of many HIV health workers, clergy working with AIDS patients are divided on the issue. The pope told reporters that “You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.” Apparently, church dogma suggests that fidelity in marriage and abstinence from premarital sex are crucial weapons in the fight against AIDS. There are currently 22 million people in sub-Saharan Africa infected with HIV and three-quarters of all HIV/AIDS deaths occur in the region. Apparently, attempting to be faithful and just saying no doesn’t seem to work in Africa—or anywhere else! The pope’s statement prompted a representative from the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa to say “Instead, his opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans.” Ironically, Africa is the fastest-growing region for the Roman Catholic Church.

The second article reported the results of a study which showed that terminally ill cancer patients who drew comfort from religion were almost three-times as likely to seek aggressive, life-prolonging treatments as compared with less religious patents. Also, the most religious patients were much more likely to ask doctors to do ‘everything possible to keep them alive.’  Study results showed that patients who were devout were three times as likely as less religious patients to be put on a mechanical ventilator to maintain breathing during the last week of life, and they were less likely to do any advance care planning, like signing a do-not-resuscitate order or preparing a living will. The findings prompted one of the study’s authors—it will appear in Wednesday’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)—to say “People think that spiritual patients are more likely to say their lives are in God’s hands — ’Let what happens happen’ — but in fact we know they want more aggressive care.” To explain this apparent paradox, the author speculated “To religious people, life is sacred and sanctified and there’s a sense they feel it’s their duty and obligation to stay alive as long as possible.” Alternately, in my opinion it may be that religious people haven’t adequately dealt with the possibility of their demise and are hoping for miracles—medical or religious— to keep them alive because they are deathly (pun intended) afraid of dying? Regardless, aggressive life-prolonging care is expensive, Medicare spends about one-third of its budget on people who are in their last year of life and much of that is spent on patients at the very end of their lives. Moreover, researchers have found that aggressive end-of-live care for terminal patients frequently can lead to a more painful process of dying and greater shock and grief for family members.

One of the few places in the world where the nexus of religion and science is difficult to fathom is the US—one of the most scientifically advanced and religious nations in the world. Several years ago, I met a scientist at a FASBEB Career meeting who, for the first time, was able to successfully articulate to me how science and religion can co-exist in American society (she taught in the South). While I can’t recall her exact words, she said something like “Both science and religion have their purpose and place in society. However, they are belief systems that are not interchangeable. That is why I can believe in God and still fully endorse and embrace evolution. They serve different purposes for me and help me to live my life.” With this in mind, I don’t think that religious dogma should be invoked when it comes to treating patients or inhibiting advances in public health, science and medicine.

Until next time...

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

 

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

As many of you know, the life sciences industry, one of the most highly regulated industries of the economy has been hesitant and reluctant to embrace social media to reach out to patients, physicians and the lay public. This is because the US Food and Drug Administration, specifically Division for Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC), has been mute on the subject and hasn’t issue one iota of guidance on the use of social media in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology or medical devices/diagnostic industries.

Mark Senak, a regulatory affairs lawyer and owner of the blog eyeonfda.com, invited Dr. Jean Ah Kang, Special Assistant at DDMAC in charge of Web 2.0 policy development to talk about FDA’s views and ideas about social media and its use in the life sciences industry. Listening to the 15 min podcast would be, according to Mark, “time well spent” for social media advocates in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices/diagnostics sectors.

Hat tip and much “love” to Mark who wrote “BTW, I absolutely expect waves of love for this (the podcast)."

Until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Some of you may have been wondering why the$41.1 billion Merck-Schering Plough merger announced yesterday was designed as a reverse merger. For those of you who are not familiar with the reverse merger strategy, this is how it works. Generally speaking, a failing or failed publicly traded company that is listed on one stock exchange or another merges with a privately held company. The privately held company takes over the public stock listing and manages the day-to-day operations of the new business. Private companies that engage in reverse mergers are usually looking for cash infusions for product development or a stock listing (without going through an initial public offering) which offers it shareholders immediate cash value.  Investors who previously held stock in the public company are either compensated for their shares in cash or given shares (at a negotiated price) in the new entity. Any cash (or assets) left in the public company can be used to develop the formerly private company’s product(s) and if successful, shareholders in the old public company can eventually benefit. 

If reverse mergers are designed to bolster the prospects of private companies in need of cash why was the Merck-Schering Plough deal structured as a reverse merger? As I mentioned in a post yesterday, Schering-Plough markets Remicade outside of the US under an agreement with Johnson and Johnson which sells the drug in America. A termination clause in the original marketing agreement stipulates that the ex-US rights to Remicade (and another drug being developed) would revert to Johnson and Johnson if control or ownership of Schering Plough changes. Remicade, a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis, developed by Johnson and Johnson’s subsidiary Centocor, represented $2.1 billion in sales for Schering in 2008. Further, about 70% of Schering Plough’s revenue comes from outside the US. That said, the success or failure of the deal really hinges on whether or not Johnson and Johnson will challenge the change-in-control clause for Remicade. To obviate that possibility, Merck devised an unusual reverse merger strategy in which ownership of Schering Plough will not change hands—at least on paper anyway. Instead, even though Merck is putting up the money to purchase Schering, and Richard Clark, Merck’s Chairman and CEO, will run the newly combined company, Merck would technically become a subsidiary of Schering Plough and consequently there would be no change in Schering Plough management! Recall that Fred Hassan, Schering Plough’s CEO will remain with the newly formed entity during the transition. After the deal closes, Fred would step down as CEO, Merck’s current CEO—Richard Clark—would assume leadership and quietly change the name of the company from Schering Plough to Merck.

Of course, Johnson and Johnson could challenge the deal anyway, and if Merck was to lose in arbitration, it could possibly jeopardize the entire financial upside of the deal. Merck contends that even if it loses the rights to Remicade, the deal still makes sense.  Not so, said one Wall St analyst, “I think that is a lot of malarkey. You don’t take out 20 percent of a company’s revenue and their core international growth driver and say it is not worth anything,” he said. Other analysts think that the uncertainty over Remicade puts Schering Plough shareholders at a disadvantage and one response may be for Johnson and Johnson to make a higher bid for the company.  Still others believe that, while sale of Schering Plough makes sense, the $41.4 billion price offered by Merck is too low. Johnson and Johnson didn’t comment on the deal.

Schering Plough employees who I talked with yesterday after the deal was announced are not pleased with it either. They feel that Johnson and Johnson would be a more suitable partner and that Fred Hassan, who was under enormous shareholder pressure, had no choice but to sell the company as quickly as possible. It is not surprising that many Schering Plough employees would rather have the company sold to Johnson and Johnson rather than Merck. Unlike most pharmaceutical companies, Johnson and Johnson tends to leave the companies it purchases alone and runs them as wholly-owned after it purchases them.  Another reason why a merger with Johnson and Johnson makes more sense than one with Merck is that Johnson and Johnson has a very profitable consumer products division. This would be a better fit for Schering which has several highly visible and profitable consumer products like Coppertone and Dr. Scholl’s. In contrast, Merck sold its consumer products division years ago and will almost certainly divest itself of Schering’s consumer products division after the deal closes.

Now that Schering Plough is no longer in play, all eyes are on Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS). BMS is about the same size as Schering Plough, has plenty of cash on hand and is thought to have a robust biotechnology pipeline. And, like Schering Plough,  it has been rumored to be a takeover target for the past 20 years!

Until next time...

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

 

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

A panel of eight judges at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania was asked to identify the top 20 life-altering technologies that were developed over the last 30 years. The survey was sponsored by Knowledge@ Wharton, U Penn’s business publication and the PBS’s “Nightly Business Report.” 

Not surprisingly, the Internet was voted the top innovation followed by computers, mobile phones and e-mail. Interestingly, DNA sequencing and testing was listed as number 5—one of five technologies from the life sciences and medical sectors—the others being MRI, laparoscopy, genetically-modified plants, biofuels and anti-retroviral (HIV) drugs. Finally, Internet social networking, a recent innovation, made a surprise appearance on the list at number 20!. The entire list is as follows:

1. Internet, broadband, WWW (browser and html)
2. PC/laptop computers
3. Mobile phones
4. E-mail
5. DNA testing and sequencing/Human genome mapping
6. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
7. Microprocessors
8. Fiber optics
9. Office software (spreadsheets, word processors)
10. Non-invasive laser/robotic surgery (laparoscopy)
11. Open source software and services (e.g., Linux, Wikipedia)
12. Light emitting diodes
13. Liquid crystal display (LCD)
14. GPS systems
15. Online shopping/ecommerce/auctions (e.g., eBay)
16. Media file compression (jpeg, mpeg, mp3)
17. Microfinance
18. Photovoltaic Solar Energy
19. Large scale wind turbines
20. Social networking via the Internet
21. Graphic user interface (GUI)
22. Digital photography/videography
23. RFID and applications (e.g., EZ Pass)
24. Genetically modified plants
25. Bio fuels
26. Bar codes and scanners
27. ATMs
28. Stents
29. SRAM flash memory
30. Anti retroviral treatment for AIDS

If your favorite technology wasn’t listed in the Top 30, please let me know and we can add it to the list!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try social networks)!!!!!!!

  

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you are not convinced that vaccines are safe, please listen to a conversation between Dr. Ginger Campbell of the Brain Science Podcast and Dr. Paul Offit.

Dr. Offit is a pediatrician who is also Chief of Infectious Diseases and Director of Vaccine Education at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He is co-developer of the rotavirus vaccine and author of the book Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. This book should be read to obtain a complete appreciation of the vaccine-autism controversy. However, I found the podcast also highly compelling, because Dr. Offit is extremely knowledgeable and an excellent speaker.

The furor surrounding childhood vaccines began when Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, published a Lancet article in 1998 claiming to show a link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) and development of autism in children. Although the study was flawed, it established a clear question: does MMR cause autism? This question has been addressed in 12 different epidemiological studies involving millions of children who either did or did not receive the vaccine. The answer is quite clear: that vaccine never caused autism. Here are Dr. Offit’s thoughts on this:

…science is enormously self-correcting. Andrew Wakefield stands up in 1998 and says, ‘I believe MMR causes autism.’ Well, he raises a hypothesis. It’s a testable hypothesis. It’s been tested. He was wrong. And that’s what I love about science. It’s just enormously self-correcting, and I just think people don’t see it that way¹

The original Wakefield paper has been retracted by 10 of the 13 authors. However, the damage has been done: immunization rates with MMR have dropped in the UK, Europe, and the US. The incidence of measles is increasing and there have been deaths of children from the disease. Deaths that could have been prevented had parents chosen to have their children immunized with MMR. The controversy over MMR has lead the public to distrust all viral and bacterial vaccines, and consequently the incidence of other preventable diseases is rising.

The notion that MMR causes autism was accompanied by safety concerns about thimerosal - a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines to prevent microbial contamination. The results of several large epidemiological studies found no connection between autism and thimerosal. Nevertheless, the preservative was removed from most childhood vaccines - probably an error, according to Dr. Offit, which simply made parents more suspicious. Autism rates have not dropped since the use of thimerosal was discontinued.

Many parents still do not believe the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. Part of the problem is that the etiology of autism is not understood. To a parent, the temporal association of immunization with onset of autism is difficult to ignore. Dr. Offit recalls a story which addresses this issue:

…it’s hard to make a statistical argument, or an epidemiological argument, to a parent who’s seen something that’s very emotional. There’s a story that I tell, because I think it’s a powerful one. My wife is a privately practicing pediatrician in the suburbs. And she was in the office one day and there was a four-month-old sitting on her mother’s lap. And my wife was drawing a vaccine into a syringe that she was about to give this child. Well, while she was drawing the vaccine into a syringe the child had a seizure, and actually went on to have a permanent seizure disorder—epilepsy. And there had been a family history of epilepsy, so she was certainly at risk for that. If my wife had given that vaccine five minutes earlier, I think there’s no amount of statistical data in the world that would have convinced that mother that anything other than the vaccine caused the seizure, because I think those sort of emotional events are very hard to argue against.

Some have accused Dr. Offit of pandering to the pharmaceutical establishment and enriching himself by publishing Autism’s False Prophets. I don’t think these arguments contain a shred of truth. Dr. Offit is donating all the royalties from the boook to autism research. More compelling are his words from the interview:

I worked on that (rotavirus) vaccine because I thought that it could do a tremendous amount of good for children. It’s the same reason that I stand up for the science of vaccines and the science of vaccine safety. I care about children. That’s my motivation.

¹Quotations by Dr. Offit are taken from a transcript of his conversation with Dr. Ginger Campbell.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How many of you read the printed ingredients and nutrition fact boxes found on packaged foods to help you decide which of two similar products you ought to buy? What if the same concept was applied to direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads? Do you think that it would be easier to determine which of two similar medications may be best for you? Well, researchers at Dartmouth Medical School think so! And, they are urging the US Food and Drug administration to adopt a similar concept for all DTC advertising.

Based on results from two randomized, clinical studies, the Dartmouth team proposed that numerical tables that quantify the benefits of a drug (compared with placebo) and also the odds of developing certain side effects should be included on DTC advertisements including television, print and web-based ads. In those studies, patients were shown drug ads that did and did not include a fact box. Participants looked at ads (with and without fact boxes) for two similar prescription heartburn medications and two widely prescribed cardiovascular drugs. The trial using the heartburn medications was designed to evaluate consumer decision-making about drugs that are used to treat symptoms whereas the cardiovascular medications trial was used to evaluate decision-making about the use of preventative medications that reduce the risk of future events, e.g., heartache or stroke.

Overall, the researchers said, the addition of facts boxes to prescription drug ads allowed consumers to make better decisions about the choices of drugs for their symptoms and were better informed about the benefits of drugs that could be used for prevention. For example, when asked which drug they would choose for heartburn 68 percent of those who had seen ads with facts boxes picked what the researchers referred to as "the superior drug," as compared with 31 percent of those who had seen ads without facts boxes. Also, about 80 percent of the facts-box group, as compared with 38 percent from the non-fact-box group, knew that both drugs had similar side effects. After looking at cardiovascular drug ads with or without fact-boxes, 72 percent of those who saw ads with facts boxes correctly described the risk reduction associated with both drugs whereas only 9% of non-fact-box participants were able to do this.

DTC advertising is big business—last year the pharmaceutical industry spent approximately $4.8 billion on television and print ads alone. While DTC advertising is known to influence prescription drug sales, it is also somewhat controversial suggested Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Prevention Research Center at Yale University School of Medicine "Direct-to-consumer drug advertising is controversial in medical circles, largely out of concern that drug companies will talk patients into preferences not in their best interest, "But I often encounter the opposite problem in my patients. After hearing the litany of potential side effects of a drug, they absolutely refuse to take it," Katz said. Nevertheless, he and the Dartmouth researchers agree that better-informed patients make better drug choices.

Drs. Woloshin and Schwartz, leaders of the Dartmouth team, are scheduled to present their findings tomorrow to an FDA advisory panel on “risk communication.” The panel is tasked with examining how best to provide consumers with data about prescription drugs using printed matter. 

Adding fact-boxes to print, television or web-based ads won’t substantially increase the cost of creating and producing them. Also, rather than hurt prescription drug sales—what most pharmaceutical companies are worried about—the new approach may be good for the industry. According to Robert Ehrlich, who heads DTC Perspectives, a company that specializes in pharmaceutical marketing, “If there is high benefit and low risk, doctors will prescribe more of the drugs. If there is low benefit and high risks than the drug should probably not be on the market,” said Ehrlich.

Stay tuned for updates.

Until next time...

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over the past ten years or so, pundits have been warning that the US is losing its competitive edge and that it is no longer the world’s leading nation when it comes to innovation in science and technology. Measuring national competitiveness and innovation is very tricky business and until now, most of evidence to support these claims has been anecdotal. According to an article in today’s New York Times, a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation suggests that the US ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions based on 16 indicators that measure innovation and competitiveness including venture capital investment, numbers of per capita researchers, research spending and educational achievement. 

While the results of Foundation study may be troubling (if you are a US citizen), another recent study conducted by the World Economic Forum found that America ranked first in innovation and global competition. However the forum’s report was based entirely on opinion survey data.  Like the forum report, a study conducted by the Rand Corporation last year, also found that “the US was not in any imminent danger of losing its competitive advantage in science and technology.” The use of the word “imminent” is perhaps the most telling aspect of the Rand Corporation’s conclusion about American competitiveness.

The US lost ground to much smaller countries like Sweden, Finland, Taiwan, Singapore and also to one of it's main competitors, China.  Unlike the US, all of these countries are pursuing government-sponsored initiatives designed to promote innovation and global competitiveness. Some of the elements of these initiatives include education, workforce development training, intellectual property protection and immigration. Surprisingly, results from the foundation report (adjusted for population and size of each economy) showed that the US ranked sixth in venture capital investment (Sweden was first); fifth in corporate research and development spending (Japan was number one) and fourth in the number of science and technology researchers (again Sweden was first). Over all, Singapore ranked first in innovation and competitiveness. As some of you may know, Singapore--for the past 10 years--has heavily invested in the life sciences and has managed to induce some of world’s leading bioscientists to immigrate.

One of the main recommendations of the report suggests that the federal government ought to follow the lead of the individual states, many of which developed state government-sponsored programs designed to attract investment, talent and improve the work force skills of  local would be employees. Further, the report specifically recommends that the federal government offers tax breaks and incentives to induce American companies to innovate at home rather than outsource R&D activities abroad. Some of these incentives could include tax research tax credits  and increased federal funding or corporate tax breaks for workforce development programs.

Finally, one of the most shocking statistics that I heard in President Obama’s speech to Congress last evening was that 50% of American students drop out of high school and over 50% of college students never complete their education. This begs the question: How can America expect to remain competitive when a majority of its population is less educated than the rest of the developed world? 

A past commitment to education is what propelled the US to become a world leader in innovation and competitiveness.  To regain its past status as an innovator, the US must overhaul and vastly improve is primary, secondary and post secondary education system. This is something that cannot wait—the future of American depends on it!

Until next time...

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting ( give teaching a shot)

 

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

The sequence of all known rhinovirus genomes reported in Science last week is an important advance for the field. Analyses of the sequences have revealed new relationships among the viruses, evidence for recombination, a new viral species, and conserved regions of the genome. These findings will be extremely valuable for those studying the biology, pathogenesis, and epidemiology of the common cold. But the press has over reacted to this work -  it was reported on the front page of the New York Times with the headline “Cure for the Common Cold? Not Yet, but Possible“.  Does the work deserve such fanfare?

The Times quoted Stephen Liggett, an asthma expert, as saying “We are now quite certain that we see the Achilles’ heel, and that a very effective treatment for the common cold is at hand.” He was apparently referring to the observation that a sequence within the 5′-noncoding region of the viral genome is highly conserved among the 99 rhinovirus sequences, in comparison with other regions of the viral RNA. He suggested that all 99 rhinovirus serotypes would therefore be susceptible to the same drug. But what kind of drug, and what function would it inhibit? The very 5′-end of the genome of enteroviruses and rhinoviruses binds viral and cellular proteins, and these interactions are essential for viral replication. So it might be possible to identify small molecules that block these protein-RNA interactions. But such drugs are very difficult to identify. Furthermore, if such a drug were identified, its efficacy would have to be tested against all rhinovirus serotypes. Therefore it is not clear that knowing that this sequence of the genome is conserved helps to identify drug targets and more readily than did the observations made years ago about the importance of RNA-protein interactions in this region. Clearly, many years of research are needed before such drugs are developed - not consistent with Dr. Liggett’s a treatment is ‘at hand’.

An even more crucial aspect of the problem was omitted from the Times article. Even if an antiviral drug could be identified that blocks essential RNA-protein interactions, it probably would not be useful in treating the common cold. As we discussed last week, rhinoviruses cause acute infections - characterized by rapid onset of disease, a relatively brief period of symptoms, and resolution within days. Most are complete by the time the patient feels ill, and the virus has already spread to another host. Antiviral therapy  must be given early in infection to be effective. There is little hope of treating most acute viral infections with antiviral drugs until rapid diagnostic tests are become available.

 

 

Continue Reading...

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

In the February issue of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, J. Leslie Glick a former CEO of Genex and veteran of the biotechnology industry put forward a novel solution to financial crisis that is currently gripping the life sciences industry and the rest of the US economy. Dr. Glick proposed that the US government ought to consider injecting taxpayer monies into venture capital firms (VC) which, he believes, would foster creation of new companies, create more jobs, stimulate the ailing economy and also provide the government with an outstanding return on its investment.

According to Dr. Glick, “historical results reported by the National Venture Capital Association for the 20 year period ending December 31, 2007, show an annualized return of 16.7% to investors in some 1,860 U.S. venture capital and private equity partnerships. If the U.S. government had made annual investments of $10 billion in VC firms throughout the U.S. during that 20year period, the $200 billion total investment would have yielded a total return of almost $1.5 trillion.” Further, he asserts that according to the  International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce, from 1970 to 2000, U.S. VC firms invested over $270 billion in more than 16,000 companies. In 2000, the surviving VC-backed companies employed 7.6 million people, representing 5.9% of all U.S. jobs, and generated sales of $1.3 trillion, accounting for 13.1% of the U.S. GDP.

This financial upside sound enticing but who is going to keep track of the money and keep an eye on how and what the VCs are investing in? Dr. Glick proposes creation of a non-partisan funding mechanism, possibly overseen by an independent panel of business people that would disburse $10 to $25 billion annually of taxpayer’s dollars to vetted and certified VC firms. Because of its investment, the US government would become a limited partner in these firms and could direct them to invest in technologies that would help to reduce health care costs, develop energy alternatives or improve food production capacity. While this proposal is unprecedented and controversial, we are living in extremely uncertain financial times that may necessitate innovative and out-of-the-box solutions to restore normalcy to the US economy. That said, all proposals—no mater how unconventional or outrageous—ought to be carefully evaluated and vetted to determine whether or not they have merit to help overcome our deepening recession.

Kudos to Dr. Glick!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Investing!!!!!!

 

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

While I have never been layed off, I understand how awful and painful it must be. After all, unlike people who were fired for cause or otherwise, most people who are layed off are performing well but they simply became too expensive or expendable to remain with a company facing financial exigency.

Most of us feel for employees who have been layed off—anyone who has experienced a layoff will tell you that it can be a life altering or changing event. But, what about the people who are charged with delivering the bad news to the employees who will be layed off? How do you think they feel and what impact does it have on their lives? 

There was a poignant and heartfelt piece in this past Sunday’s New York Times that was written by a company executive who made the decision to layoff workers and then delivered the news to them himself. While his plight doesn’t compare with that of the employees who lost their jobs, it shows how difficult and disruptive layoffs can for companies that are forced to downsize.

Until next time…

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

 

 

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

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

 

Science and the Social Web

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time.

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For those of you virology junkies out there, This Week in Virology (TWiV) has just released a podcast on the top 10 virology stories of 2008. BioCrowd founder, Vincent Racaniello and Alan Dove, a professional science writer (and one of Vincent's former students), discuss their top picks for 2008 and make some predictions for 2009.

For those of you with no plans for this evening’s festivities, open a bottle of champagne, kick back and have a listen—it's good stuff!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Like it or not, the best way to land a new job whether or not there is a recession is to network. While career counselors and recruiters trumpet the virtues of networking to job seekers, many people really don't understand what it is or how to do it correctly. I found an outstanding article that demystifies networking and offers tips on how to excel at it. 

For many scientists, online networking is ideal because they frequently lack the requisite skills to effectively network in real life situations. Until recently, face-to-face networking at conferences or "professional social events" was the only way to effectively network. However, the advent of web-based social networks allows job seekers to eschew the awkwardness and time requirements for  one-on-one networking in favor of a more convenient and less-threatening online experience. BioCrowd, a new online social network for scientists and other bioprofessionals, was created to help scientists advance their careers and find new jobs. While BioCrowd and similar online networking sites can help scientists make connections, it is still the face-to-face networking experience that will ultimately  help them land new jobs!

Because networking is not taught or emphasized in graduate school, it is not surprising that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows are notoriously poor “networkers.” That said, for those of you who recognize the importance of networking and want hone your networking skills, Contacts Count a Maryland-based network training company may be worth a visit. I have no doubt that there other organizations and companies out there that specialize in network training. If you find any, let me know and I will gladly post them!

Until next time…

 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

 

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

I had little to do last night, so I decided to download Stumble Upon for Firefox.  While I was stumbling, I came across an outstanding video that teaches and reinforces the underlying principles of chemical reactions. If I had this type of tutorial when I was an undergraduate, I might very well have become a chemist rather than a biologist!

 

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Reactions!!!!!!!

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

For the past five years, I have been giving career development seminars that offer graduate students and postdoctoral fellows alternate careers choices (instead of research) for life scientists. The intent of these seminars is to get students who may not be enamored with a possible life long career at the bench (I know that there a lot of you out there) to think about what they really want to do after they complete their graduate or postdoctoral training.

I recently met Jane Chin (on Twitter) who, like me, has had an unorthodox career trajectory for a life scientist. After exchanging several tweets, I learned that we both are microbiologists, Cornell University graduates, entrepreneurs and social media enthusiasts. But, the main reason I am telling you about Jane is that she crafted a fascinating PowerPoint presentation entitled “3 Lessons About Career Life From a Career Nomad” that provides insights into the decisions and choices that she made to shape her current career path. I highly recommend that you take a peek at the presentation—it may help to reduce some future career stress and angst!

Until next time…

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Vincent Racaniello, my partner at BioCrowd, and I were chatting the other day about how cool it would be to develop a web-based map that was able to track infectious diseases outbreaks in real time. After a spirited chat, we both thought that we were on to something REALLY big. And, as is frequently the case, somebody else also had the very same idea.

For those infectious disease aficionados out there, you must check out the Health Map: A Global Disease Alert Map. The map was developed by Clark Freifeld and John Brownstein and is based on an algorithm that is beyond my comprehension. It is not as robust as the map that Vincent and I envisioned, but it is pretty cool and it works very nicely.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Disease Hunting!!!!!!!

 

 

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

Recently, I have come across posts on blogs and websites reporting on lay offs and cost-cutting measures that are taking place at some biotechnology companies. A good example of this is a post that appeared yesterday on the Fierce Biotech Web Site. The headline read: “New round of layoffs, cost-cutting at biotechs.”  I thought “OMG this can’t be happening—not the biotechnology industry too!”

However, I am happy to report that many  of my concerns were assuaged after I read the post and realized that the reported downsizing was taking place at small companies, most of which were on shaky ground before the recession even began. Some of the companies that were mentioned included: Titan Pharmaceuticals, Pressure BioSciences, Insite Vision, WuXi PharmaTech Cayman and Targeted Genetics—not exactly titans (pardon the wordplay) of the biotechnology industry. 

There is no question that the current economic downturn will hurt some biotechnology companies (mostly because debt financing is so difficult to secure these days). That said, I think that the biotech industry may struggle a bit over the next couple of years but it will survive because it is in much better financial shape than most other American industries. 

It is important to note that the downsizing and cost-cutting taking place at many pharmaceutical companies is based almost exclusively on projected lost revenues that may occur 2-5 years two years from now—when many blockbusters drugs begin to lose patent protection— not on immediate cash concerns (most pharma companies have plenty of cash on hand). Pharma companies began downsizing in earnest about two years ago because they realized that they had gotten too big and their empty pipelines could no longer justify employing large numbers of unproductive employees. In my opinion, the current economic downturn provided pharmaceutical companies with a good excuse to continue to lay off employees, slash costs and maintain their stock prices. 

Many of the companies mentioned in the Fierce Biotech post have been around for 5-10 years and haven’t been profitable since their inception. As a former business partner once said to me “You don’t really have a business unless you have a product to sell and are profitable.” I suspect that many of these so-called biotechnology “companies” will go out of business—not because of the recession—but because they were unable to develop financially-viable products or services.

 Until next time…  

 

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post was originally written by Vincent Racaniello, a long time friend and colleague, who runs the Virology Blog. 

Here is what Vincent had to say:

My colleagues (generally the older ones) often ask me why I blog or podcast. They believe that I am wasting my time. After all, I am a scientist, and it is my job to carry out research. In order to do this I must publish papers and obtain grants. The grant funds are used to pay salaries (mine and those in my laboratory) and purchase the supplies needed for research. In my institution, nothing matters except raising money for research. Teaching, mentoring, and other community services mean very little. Blogging and podcasting do nothing to help fund my laboratory.

Here are my answers. Why did I go into science? Because my parents (physician and teacher) and my teachers inspired me. But for many other children, the only inspiration they have is their teachers. They need input from other sources. I believe I can help provide that input over the internet.

Most people - kids, teens, adults - don’t understand science. Their teachers can provide only a very rudimentary, often flawed view of some of the fundamental concepts. While I cannot cover all of science, I can do a good job of teaching what I know. I have been studying and thinking about viruses for over 30 years, so I understand them quite well. I am also able to talk and write about them clearly and concisely, a gift I probably received in part from my teacher parent. These qualities put me in a unique position to educate the public about viruses. 

Early in my career, I didn’t think much about teaching. I focused on research. Later I realized I had a reasonable ability to communicate what I knew, which turned into a love of teaching. My blogging and podcasting about viruses represent part of the effort to impart some of my knowledge to the public. 

As I have read and heard many times on the web, if you want to blog or podcast, do it about something you are passionate about. And that is what I am doing.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Bruce Charlton, a professor of theoretical medicine at the University of Buckingham and Editor in Chief of the journal Medical Hypotheses recently published in Oxford magazine and his blog a provocative and controversial article entitled “Why Scientists Are So Dull”

The article, which caused a firestorm in the UK was crafted to get the scientific establishment to rethink its parochial approach to scientific training and career development for young scientists. Because of the blunt nature and in-your-face tone of the article, Dr. Charlton may have alienated some would-be supporters who unfortunately failed to see the intended humor and call-to-action of the article. Unfortunately, in my experience, the public perception of scientists is consistent with Dr. Charlton’s claim—that, we as a group, are dull.

Throughout my career, I have routinely been asked by non-scientists (after meeting them in social situations) “You’re not really a scientist—are you?” Invariably, they say something like “You are too funny and too much of a character to really be a scientist.”

I know that stereotyping is inherently dangerous and wrong, but stereotypes usually originate from commonly observed, shared characteristics (traits) exhibited by members of a particular group of people. That said, maybe it is time for us to let the lay public know that not all scientists are dull, “eggheads” types and that many of us are very insightful, creative people. In my opinion, the only way for us to lose the ‘dull’ moniker is to publicly promote the importance and creative aspects of science whenever we can. To that end, it is time for us to log off of our computers, leave our laboratories and let the world know that—contrary to public opinion—we aren’t DULL people!!!!

Until next time…

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

 

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

For those of you who want an answer to this age old question, check out this post at the What’s New In Science Research blog.

Personally, I only feel tired after eating turkey on Thanksgiving….maybe my sleepiness has more to do with overeating and excessive drinking rather than anything to do with turkeys?

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!

 Until next time.....

Good Eating and Good Napping!!!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The other day I was chatting with Tony Stubblebine of CrowdVine (the social networking company building BioCrowd for us) and I was lamenting the possible burst of the social networking bubble before BioCrowd is launched. Tony reassured me and said that “Everyone thinks that after the dot-com bubble burst that almost all Internet-based businesses failed. However, when you look more closely, you will find that this simply isn’t true—there were many survivors who were able to build robust business as the Internet matured.”  While I felt a bit better after hearing that (Tony generally knows what he is talking about) I wasn’t totally convinced that he was right. After all, I am one of his customers who are building a new social network. That said, the very next day after my chat with Tony, I found an unusually. insightful article in the New York Times entitled “Lessons of Survival, From the Dot-Com Attic.”

The authors of the article suggest that based on their analysis of existing data that 48% of dot-com companies founded in 1996 were still in business in 2004 (more than four years after the Nasdaq’s peak in March 2000 and the so called dot-com bubble burst). According to the authors, “most people are stunned by this figure: they tend to guess that about 90% of the companies failed.” Further they suggest that “the dot-com survival rate is as good as or better than that for technologies like automobiles, tires and televisions during their formative years.”

How did the dot-com survivors do it? Instead of trying to a make a big splash in high profile market sectors, they identified niche markets that didn’t offer ROIs of hundreds of millions of dollars returns but represented viable Internet-based, business opportunities that could flourish if nurtured correctly. This largely assuaged most of my concerns about a possible impending social network bubble bust and proved to me that Tony knows his stuff! So, whether or not the social network bubble is going to burst, BioCrowd will be launched and we hope that like any new member of a species that it will be strong and fit enough to survive! 

Until next time.

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

 

 

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

I never truly understood the power and reach of Twitter until I caved in and started using it about a month ago. Over the past couple of weeks, I realized that Twitter is an ideal tool for networking and job hunting. Apparently, I am not alone. Miriam Salpeter from Keppie Careers has graciously agreed to shares some tips on using Twitter to help you search for a Job. Follow Miriam on Twitter @Keppie_careers. 

Tweeting Your Way to a Job

Would you believe that you can tweet yourself to a job opportunity 140 characters at a time? It’s been done! Statistics show that job search networking is much more effective when you make “loose” connections - touching base with people beyond your immediate circle whose networks and contacts are much different from your own. With over 3 million users, Twitter offers an unparalleled opportunity to create an extended network.

Not convinced that Twitter is actually a high-powered job search tool? Read on to learn how Twitter can uniquely position you for job-hunting success!

What Can Twitter Do For You?

1. Afford access to other professionals in your field. When you follow industry leaders, you’ll know who spends time with them, what conferences they attend (and what they think of the speakers!), what they’re reading and what is on their minds. This is great information to leverage for your search.
2. Provide exposure and credibility as well as personal and professional relationships when you connect to others in your industry.
3. Offer you a venue to demonstrate your expertise and share information in quick, pithy bursts of wisdom. This is perfect if you don’t have the time or energy to create a blog.

Unique Aspects of Twitter

1. It is casual and immediate and a great place to “meet” informally.
2. You’ll find an array of people on Twitter, including CEOs, top-level executives, hiring managers, recruiters and everyone in-between! It’s one-stop shopping for your networking needs. You’ll be surprised to find that stars in your field (mentors) may follow you if you reach out to them!
3. Unlike Facebook, where it is kind of creepy if you start trying to “friend” people who are connected to your contacts, it is acceptable (and expected) to follow people on Twitter because another friend or colleague does.
4. It forces you to be brief. Coming up with your “Twit-Pitch” - what you have to offer in 140 characters or less - will help you clarify your value proposition. Remember: less is more!

 

Continue Reading...

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

I had many discussions with undergraduate students at the ABRCMS in Orlando last week who were interested in pursuing PhD degrees in the biomedical sciences. I felt that I had an ethical and moral responsibility as a former academic and career development professional to tell them that the job market for PhDs is not good and that it is likely to get worse over the next few years. These discussions prompted me to revisit the role and contributions of tenure to the lack of academic jobs in the US today.

As I stated in a previous post, systemic changes must be made to the current academic paradigm to increase the likelihood that PhDs will be able to find jobs at the end of their training. In that post, I suggested that abolishing tenure and replacing it with renewable, performance-based five year contracts may help to reduce the glut of jobless PhDs by freeing up a small percentage of new faculty positions every five years. While this approach has been tried at several academic institutions, it has been largely been deemed unsuccessful. That said, I came across a provocative article in today’s New York Times about a bold new tenure proposal put forth by Michelle Rhee, the new, 38-year old Chancellor of the Washington, DC school system.

Ms Rhee’s revolutionary proposal offers tenured teachers salaries raises of up to $40,000 per year to give up tenure. It is important to note she has not proposed to completely abolish tenure. Under her proposal, teachers would choose between two compensation options—the green or red plans. Salaries for teachers in the green plan would rise meteorically, nearly doubling by 2010, but they would have to give up tenure for one year, after which they would need a principal’s recommendation to keep their job or face dismissal. Teachers who choose the red plan would also get big pay raises but would lose seniority rights that allow them to bump more junior teachers if their school closes or is overhauled. Red plan teachers who are not hired by other schools would either have to take early retirement, a buyout or face eventual dismissal. I like her plan because poorly- or under performing teachers can opt to take the cash and then either drastically improve to keep their higher paying jobs or do nothing, get paid well for a year or two and then get fired.

While Ms. Rhee’s proposal may work at the primary and secondary school levels, it likely would not be effective at the college and postgraduate levels, where salaries vary widely and are largely grant driven. Instead, I propose that tenure-for-life should remain intact at these institutions but be replaced with a “for cause” tenure review system. This system is tried and true and similar models have been successfully used for over 100 years by employers and labor unions. In this model, management and its unions agree upon the job responsibilities and performance metrics for individual that must be met each year, e.g. an annual performance review.  If a person is under performing or fails to meet his/her performance metrics, an employer can attempt to dismiss the employee “for cause” reasons.  However, before a dismissal for cause can occur, the employer must convince a judge or arbitrator in a hearing that the employee in question has violated the “dismissal for cause” provisions.  Because an employer must prove that an employee has violated the provisions that constitute for cause dismissal, the “for cause” claims against individual employees must be fastidiously documented and vigorously substantiated. This prevents employers from arbitrarily firing employees who are either outspoken troublesome or disruptive. According to my wife, who has been a union-side labor lawyer and union representative for 20 year, this system works well because the players (management and unions) all understand, abide by and play according to the rules of the game.

So what are some of the performance-based “for cause” metrics that I think ought to be considered for yearly evaluations of tenured professors? They are not much different than those currently used to adjudicate tenure decisions. That said, I propose the following five categories: 1) teaching, 2) publication record, 3) grant support, 4) institutional service and 5) commitment to innovation. In my opinion, adoption of the “for cause” tenure review model would help to do two things: improve the overall performance of tenured faculty members and provide newly minted PhDs and postdoctoral fellows with regularly occurring new job opportunities.

Until next time…

 

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

 

 

 

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

No matter what you may think of Google, you gotta love the brilliance and innovative moxy of the guys who run that company. In today’s New York Times, there was a story about a new web tool called Google Flu Trends. This tool is being evaluated as a new early warning system for fast-spreading flu outbreaks in the US.

Tests of Google Flu Trends, suggest that it may be able to detect regional outbreaks of the flu a week to 10 days before they are reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It works by tracking and quantifying number of Americans who enter search phrases like “flu symptoms” into Google and other search engines. By analyzing these searches as they come in, Google Flu Trends creates graphs and maps of the country that show where the flu is spreading.  For example, in early February the CDC reported that the flu cases had recently spiked in the Mid-Atlantic States. But Google says its search data showed a spike in queries about flu symptoms two weeks before the CDC report was released.

According to public health experts “The CDC reports are slower because they rely on data collected and compiled from thousands of health care providers, labs and other sources. The Google data could help accelerate the response of doctors, hospitals and public health officials to a nasty flu season, reducing the spread of the disease and, potentially, saving lives.” Researchers have long contended that information published on the Web amounts to a form of “collective intelligence” that can be used to spot trends and make predictions.

Google Flu Trends appears to be the first public project that uses the powerful database of a search engine to track a disease. This could be the beginning of a new trend in epidemiology. Google hopes to publish the results of its study in Nature.

Until next time…

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A friend sent me a link to the video shown below.  It is called the Sarah Palin Song and it rocks!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said about 25% of teenage girls received at least one dose of Merck & Co.'s Gardasil vaccine in 2007, providing the first national estimate of usage of the company’s controversial anti- HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine.

A 25% usage rate for a a new vaccine during its first year on the market is outstanding. That said, Merck’s Gardasil is the only approved anti-HPV vaccine in the US. Approval of GlaxoSmithKline’s competing product, Cervarix, by FDA has been delayed for so-called “regulatory issues.” Also, Merck has been heavily promoting Gardasil use via well-crafted DTC ads and a variety of clever promotional campaigns aimed at adolescent girls and their mothers.

Despite all the negative press and Merck’s questionable marketing practices, Gardasil appears to be doing very well—something that Merck desperately needs.

Until next time…

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just when the medical device industry is gaining steam and poised to challenge pharma and biotech companies for market share and profits, some lawmakers have begun to question the medical devices industry’s direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising practices. Last year, the medical device industry spent about $193 million for DTC advertising on television and the Internet—a mere fraction of what was spent on DTC consumer advertising for prescription drugs sold by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

One reason given by lawmakers to justify its current scrutiny of medical devices DTC advertising practices is that “medical devices can have more of an impact on a patient’s well-being than a drug because devices often require surgery to implant and may remain inside the body for years.” However, in response, a representative from the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a medical devices trade group said, “While an advertisement may stimulate a patient to ask a doctor about device, the process of receiving one involves a discussion of its benefits and risks.” He went on to say “You may take a pill because it doesn’t involve very much. But you don’t undergo surgery unless you think you have a serious need for it.” 

Another reason cited by Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin is “The medical device industry is just beginning to get into the game.” Yes, Mr Kohl’s assertion is absolutely correct. Unlike most pharma and biotechnology companies, which have engaged in unregulated DTC advertising for the past 10 years or so—and literally made billions— the medical devices industry was slow to recognize that DTC advertising could be used to effectively hawk its products. I guess the thought here is: “to head ‘em off at the pass!”

The current call for an investigation into the DTC practices of some medical devices companies raises several interesting questions. First, is the investigation simply a red herring to distract FDA from crafting new regulations to rein in and more tightly control DTC advertising by pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies? (While FDA has recently revised some of its DTC advertising guidelines, the changes are still not rigorous enough). Second, could the call for increased scrutiny of the medical devices industry simply be an attempt (by pharma and biotech lobbyists) to stifle the recent, explosive growth of the medical devices industry?  Finally, why are lawmakers rather than the agency (which oversees the device industry) investigating the DTC advertising practices of medical devices companies?

On a personal note, I support tighter regulations and increased scrutiny of the DTC advertising practices for all  life sciences companies. Although DTC ads are directly aimed at consumers, their real purpose is to influence prescribing practices of physicians by inducing patients to ask questions about whether or not the drugs or devices that they “saw on TV” are appropriate for them. That said, I believe that it is up to FDA to insure that all DTC ads are fairly balanced (risks vs. benefits) and medically accurate before they are viewed by the American public.

Until next time…

 

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Pharmalot blog reported today that Merck received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to use Gardasil to prevent vaginal and vulval cancer in addition to cervical cancer.

Of late, Gardasil has been a lightening rod for controversy—mostly because of Merck’s unrelenting marketing campaigns (and the behind-the-scenes lobbying for the vaccine to be placed on the US mandatory vaccination list)  coupled with the Christian right’s moral machinations about premarital sex and sexually transmitted diseases in general. Also, let’s not forget the brouhaha surrounding FDA’s decision to delay approval of GlaxoSmithKline’s competing cervical cancer vaccine called Cervarix. Finally, about a month ago, there was study published in the New England Journal of Medicine questioning the cost effectiveness of Gardasil vaccination of women after the age of 18.

Regardless of your moral, ethical or business concerns about Gardasil, the bottom line is this: girls/women vaccinated with Gardasil are much less likely to develop cervical cancer as compared with those who are not vaccinated.

As I have mentioned before, all approved and marketed drugs have side effects and possible safety/tolerability issues. More importantly, the decision to approve a particular drug is always based on a careful risks/benefits assessment by government healthcare regulators. Whether or not a person uses a drug or vaccine is ultimately a personal choice. With the exception of mandatory childhood vaccines (children can be exempted for moral or religious reasons), every American has the right to decide whether or not to use a medication or undergo a treatment recommend by a healthcare professional. Based on everything that I have read about Gardasil, it appears to be a safe and effective vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. When FDA finally approves Cervarix (probably sometime in late 2009), it will offer women who may have concerns about Gardasil with an alternate vaccine to protect them against developing cervical cancer.

The funny thing about the Gardasil firestorm is that cervical cancer isn’t a major healthcare problem in the US. This is because a majority of American women undergo annual routine gynecological examinations (that include pap smears, the current gold standard for cervical cancer detection). In contrast, cervical cancer is a major healthcare problem and economic concern in Asia, most notably in China and India. This begs the question—why are Merck and GSK so intent on selling their cervical cancer vaccines in the US? Put simply, there is still much more money to be made in the US than in Asia. Look for approval of Gardasil and Cervarix in China and India when the middle class of both countries reach a critical mass.

Until next time…

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

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

I previously posted a piece on BioJobBlog about direct-to-consumer advertising that is used by many pharma and biotech companies to induce people who see the ads to ask their physicians about a “ drug that they heard about on TV.” John Heubusch who runs Writing Frontier.com, read the post and pointed me in the direction of a piece that he wrote on the same topic. His slant on the topic is different than mine but we both reach similar conclusions—DTC advertising needs to be better regulated by FDA.

Until next time… 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just when I thought the absurdities surrounding the American follow-on biologics debate couldn’t get any sillier, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced today that it would sponsor public workshops and round table discussion to learn more about the impact of follow-on biologics on American competitiveness, regulatory policies and healthcare costs.

I am not certain what role the FTC has in the follow-on biologics debate (as far as I am concerned, it shouldn’t have much of one) but what new information does the FTC think that it is going to get that other more relevant government agencies like FDA or the US Congress don’t already have about follow-on biologics? After all, the debate to formulate an approval pathway for follow-on biologics in the US has gone on for almost 10 years now. How ineffectual and ineffective can the US government and its agencies be (rhetorical question)?

 

As far as I can ascertain, the main reason why follow-on biologics are not already being sold in the US are the never-ending efforts of power, well-funded lobby organizations like BIO and PhRMA. The data are incontrovertible: 1) the cost of branded drugs is out of reach for many Americans, 2) access to potentially life-saving drugs and treatments is hindered by restrictive drug formularies and onerous insurance co-pays and 3) many local and state governments and large, multi-national corporations can no longer provide adequate healthcare coverage for their employees because of out-of-control medical costs and expenditures.

 

In my opinion, the irony of the US follow-on biologics brouhaha is that it is putting American companies at a competitive disadvantage in the biosimilar/follow-on biologics space. Selling profitable, cheaper generic versions of blockbuster drugs is no longer a dream but a reality in countries like China and India whose middle class has finally come of age. True, the American pharmaceutical/biotech market is still the largest in the world—but will it still be the largest 10 years from now? Only time (and Asia) will tell.

 

Until next time….

 

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I previously wrote a piece which suggested that being perceived as smart is typically what separates the great scientists from the mediocre ones. To that end, whenever a former postdoctoral mentor (who I think is really smart) wanted to “motivate me” he would invariably say “C’mon Cliff, you’re a smart guy…..” Of course, the implication was that I wasn’t being smart enough or —as I heard it — “if you want to be as smart as me you better think harder and better”. According to a post by Karen Ventii at the Science to Life Blog, I wasn’t the only fledging scientist who was treated this way.

Does making a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow feel stupid motivate or hurt them? To learn more, read this provocative article by Martin Schwartz, PhD a professor at the University of Virginia that appeared in the April 28, 2008 issue of the Journal of Cell Science.

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Earlier this week, Roche announced that it wanted to buy the remaining portion of Genentech that it doesn’t already own. On Friday, one of Europe’s largest pharmaceutical companies, Sanofi-Aventis, announced that it was buying the UK-based vaccine manufacturer Acambis for $547 billion.

Like Roche and Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis was already partnered with Acambis and by purchasing Acambis, Sanofi gains a smallpox vaccine that was contracted by the US government for $425 million. Sanofi is the world’s largest manufacturer of influenza vaccines and last month announced plans to open a $157 million manufacturing facility in France, citing projections that demand for vaccines will double by 2016. In case you didn’t know, vaccines, once the scourge of the pharmaceutical industry, are now the hottest”pharmaceutical” products on the market!

Because of growing demand and lucrative margins for biologics and biotechnology products, many big pharma companies are attempting (through acquisitions and mergers) to quickly enter the biologics and biotechnology markets. These days, small molecules are passé and biotech is the next big thing (where have all the pharma execs been for the past 20 years).  

Europe has long wanted to dominate the biotechnology market. This has not been possible because of the US’s large lead in the space. However, all this can change because of a weak dollar and a surging Euro! Rather than attempt to create their own biotechnology companies, large cash-rich, European pharma companies can simply buy profitable US biotechnology companies with strong product pipelines.

I suspect that the weak dollar and failing US economy contributed to Roche’s decision to buy Genentech and Teva to buy Barr Pharmaceuticals last week. I would not be surprised if there are more acquisitions of American biotechnology and pharma companies in the very near future. I think that it may be time for Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb employees to begin to brush up on their French or German.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (in Europe)!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At lunch the other day, I was telling a bunch of people about how brilliant Roche’s biotechnology strategy has been for the past 20 years or so. All of this changed for me on Monday, when Roche announced that it wanted to buy the remaining shares of Genentech that it already doesn’t own for $ 43.7 billion —Roche currently owns 56% of Genentech’s stock. More importantly, Roche doesn’t have control of Genentech’s board of directors nor does it influence corporate strategy or product development.

Unlike many other pharma companies who have historically purchased  biotechnology companies and then integrated them into existing corporate structures, Roche previously opted to buy controlling interests in companies and then allowed them to continue to operate independently with little corporate input or guidance. Unlike pharma culture, which is very structured and inherently conservative, the most successful biotechnology companies have been built on cultures that promote creativity and “thinking outside the box”.   If Roche buys Genentech and attempts to integrate it into the existing Roche family of companies, I suspect that all of this will change dramatically.

For the past 30 years or so, Genentech has been one of the brightest stars in the biotechnology universe.  Genentech’s management team worked long and hard to implement and maintain a vision that was formulated way back in the late 1970s when the company was first formed. Even though it is the world’s largest and most financially successful biotechnology company, Genentech has steadfastly resisted the temptation to go “corporate” and has worked diligently to maintain its “biotechnology identity” —symbolized by innovation, creativity and employee-centric policies.

I have no doubt that if the Roche-Genentech deal is approved, there will be a mass exodus of talent from the company. Based on my experience, a publicly-treaded biotechnology employee’s greatest fear is the dreaded corporate takeover! I have yet to meet a biotechnology company employee who is willing to sacrifice freedom and creativity (despite a possible financial upside) for more structure, discipline and an endless plethora of rules! 

In my opinion, the deal makes sense for Roche—competition in the cancer space is intense and they want to hedge their future success on Genentech’s oncology franchise. In the best case scenario, Roche will buy Genentech but allow it to operate as a wholly owned subsidiary with an independent management team that spends as little time in Basel as possible. I think the old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is particularly apt here!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Richmond Va-based INSMED, a US-based follow-on biologics manufacturer, posted a press release on its website entitled: “Insmed Announces First Human Bioequivalence Data for a Follow-on Biologic by a U.S. Company” that reports on the results from a Phase I clinical trial that demonstrated that it lead product INS-19 was bioequivalent to Amgen’s Neupogen^(R) (recombinant G-CSF) in stimulating human white blood cell production. 

, Dr. Geoffrey Allan, President and CEO of Insmed said  "These results are very exciting, as they represent Insmed's ability to replicate a protein product, to bring that product rapidly through the clinic and to demonstrate clear bioequivalence to the innovator drug," said "To our knowledge, we are the first U.S. company to report human bioequivalence data for a follow-on biologic product, validating the idea that follow-on biologics can be a scientific reality in the U.S. and that Insmed is well positioned to be a leader in the field. “ The company has requested a meeting with FDA to discuss the design of a Phase III human clinical trial for INS-19.

I am not sure why INSMED is so excited about its results. Sandoz essentially accomplished the same feat with Omnitrope, its biosimilar version of recombinant human growth hormone (HGH)and it took a law suit and a loophole in the approval process for growth hormones for FDA to allow it to be sold in the US. In my opinion, until legislation is passed that provides a clearly defined legal pathway for approval of follow-on biologics I suspect that INS-19 will suffer the same fate (or perhaps worse) than Omnitrope. Bioequivalence is only legal defined for and relevant for approval of small molecule NOT BIOLOGICS when seeking expedited approval for generic versions of branded products. That said, I want to tip my hat to INSMED for its willingness to take a lead role in the fight to get follow-on biologics approved in the US. Finally, there is nothing like an edgy press release and a few bloggers to bring an issue that is rapidly losing momentum back to the forefront.

Kudos to INSMED!!!!!!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The old adage “When it rains, it pours” is particular apt for the bad news that has plagued the once venerable Merck & Co for the past five years. First, there was the Vioxx scandal, followed in short order by the Vytorin and Singulair messes and now it appears that the company’s new anti-cervical cancer vaccine, Gardasil, may have —pardon the expression — a few “warts” on it. 

Last night on my local nightly news, there was a brief report about emerging safety issues with Gardasil. According to the report, adverse events ranging from “massive wart outbreaks to seizures and paralysis” have been reported for the anti-HPV vaccine. Since its approval in 2006, over 8,000 adverse event reports (the total number of people vaccinated was not disclosed) and 18 alleged deaths have been reported for Gardasil (although none of the deaths has been directly linked to Gardasil vaccination). This news comes on the heels of a recent Wall Street analyst’s report indicating that sales of Gardasil are much lower than expected. It appears that the vaccine, once considered by Merck insiders as the new blockbuster that could save the flagging drug maker, may, after all, be relegated to specialty drug status.

As many of you may know, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is seeking US approval for its anti-cervical cancer vaccine called Cervarix. Although Merck beat GSK to market, Cervarix has undergone more clinical testing and allegedly may have a better safety and tolerability profile than Gardasil (only the regulatory agencies know for sure). Nevertheless, it is not clear whether GSK will benefit or be injured by the negative publicity that Gardasil is receiving. As I mentioned in a previous post, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently delayed Cervarix’s approval pending submission of additional data that the agency requested from GSK.

Continue Reading...

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

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) directed against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors on cancer cells, have been found to slow the growth of a variety of cancers including colorectal, breast and lung.  While a number of blockbuster biotechnology products( based on these MAbs (Avastin by Genentech/Roche and Eribitux by Bristol-Myers Squibb/ImClone/Merck KGA) have been approved to treat a variety of different cancers their effectiveness as cancer treatments has been the subject of intense debate since their approvals.

Although numerous human clinical trials have shown that VEGF inhibitors slow the growth and development of tumors, they, as a class, don’t seem to significantly increase the survival time for most cancer patients. Further, Avastin and Erbitux are generally not used as stand alone treatments but are used in combination with more tradition anti-cancer chemotherapies. The high costs of these drugs, (Avastin’s worldwide sales hit $ 3.5 billion last year) and their variable effectiveness have caused many to question the usefulness of this class of drugs to treat cancer patients.

The well-publicized use of these drugs as cancer treatments coupled with anecdotal evidence about their effectiveness has put practicing oncologists between a rock and a hard place when it comes to treating patietns with cancer. In an article in Sunday’s New York Times one prominent oncologist said that depsite the controversy,  “I still use Avastin routinely. It’s not a slam dunk and, in fact, the incremental benefit may be more modest than we want to admit.” Others are more sanguine about VEGF inhibitors as cancer treatments “Even when these drugs ‘work,’ what kind of impact are you talking about?” said Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition. But we market them and give them to everybody.”  

Nevertheless, most oncologists find it difficult to withhold Avastin or Erbitux from cancer patients seeking hope. As one oncologist put it “ When I am not sitting in front of a patient, I think about whether drugs like Avastin are worth it to society. But when facing a seriously ill patient, who, based on clinical trial results, might benefit — even if only a little — from Avastin, I think about the patient’s needs.” 

Regardless of their therapeutic value, the main issue with this class of anti-cancer drugs is cost. Avastin treatment costs patients about $4000-$9000 per month— Eribitux treatment is even more costly! While Medicare and most private insurers cover 80% of the cost, patients can be responsible for 20% or more of treatmetn costs.  As posited in the Times article “If Avastin were inexpensive or if it cured cancer or even held it at bay, as the drug Gleevec does for blood cancer, few might care.”

Are anti-VEGF drugs real cancer treatments or expensive red herrings? Clearly, the jury is still out on that one. That said, I think that only cancer patients can truly provide an accurate response to that question!

Until next time…

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to a survey of 1,800 American professors in the life sciences conducted by economists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, 90% of life sicentiest hold only one or no patents.  This means that  remaining 10% hold more than one (and are probably weathier than the other guys). 

The results of the study led its authors to surmise that despite the recent explosion in patenting in the life sciences, a majority of academics still do research the "old-fashioned way"--by winning federal research grants, publishing in scientific journals and training PhD and postdoctoral students.  Yeah right--I bet many of the old-fashioned folks wish they had patents and were able to start biotechnology companies!!!!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Patenting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A friend of mine accidentally gashed his leg on an open dishwasher door and thought nothing of it for several weeks until he noticed that the wound wasn’t healing and it hurt really badly. He eventually went to the emergency room at a local, where the ER docs cultured the wound and sent him home with a prescription for oral antibiotics. The antibiotics stopped working several days later and he wound up in another local hospital–this time he was admitted and the spent the next 5 days on a variety of intravenous antibiotics. Despite the treatment (they could not find the right antibiotic combination at first because  they never recultured the wound) his leg turned black from his ankle to his knee and they almost had to amputate. He is back at home now and will be treated with a regimen of iv antibiotics for the next 6 weeks or so. I talked with him last week and I learned that his leg wound is still not completely healed and the infectious disease docs are worried!

My friend almost lost his leg because of a lack of understanding about bacterial infections and antibiotic resistant bacteria and— unfortunately— because of substandard wound care treatment. With this in mind, I am posting what I think are useful tips (from the June issue of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health Source) about how to prevent, manage and treat wound infections to minimize the emergence and spread of multiple, antibiotic- resistant bacteria.

• Wash your hands: This simple procedure, done properly, remains the best defense. Carry alcohol-based hand sanitizers for times when hand washing isn’t possible.
• Keep personal items personal: Don’t share towels, soap, sheets, razors, clothing or athletic equipment.
• Sanitize linens: If you have a cut or abrasion, wash towels and sheets with hot water and added bleach. Wash gym and athletic clothes after each use.
• Get infections tested: If an infection requires treatment, ask your care provider to take a culture to confirm what bacteria are present before you are given an antibiotic. (Editor’s note: Unfortunately, this is no longer standard practice—most infections are treated empirically which is partly responsible for the increasing frequency of antibiotic resistant bacteria.) If you test positive for a Staphylococcus (Staph) infection, ask that a culture be tested specifically for MRSA in case you need a special antibiotic.
• Use antibiotics appropriately: When you take antibiotics, take all doses even when you start feeling better. Don’t demand antibiotics for viral illnesses; antibiotics don’t work with viruses. Taking too many antibiotics over time could become a detriment because the medication’s effectiveness can be compromised by overuse.
• Use antibacterial products sparingly: Antibacterial soaps and cleaning products probably don’t prevent infections at home and may make these products less effective in hospitals.
• Take precautions in the hospital: Ask all hospital staff and visitors to wash their hands or use an alcohol-based hand sanitizer before touching you. Ask care providers to wipe stethoscopes and other equipment with alcohol. Don’t set food or utensils directly on tables or beds. Make sure that intravenous tubes and catheters are inserted under sterile conditions.

I hope that these tips will help to keep you out of the hospital with potentially life-threatening, antibiotic resistant bacterial wound infections!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After a failed attempt at getting elected to the East Windsor Town Council last Fall, I thought my days in politics were over.  But, then I received an e-mail from a friend that is causing me to reconsider a life as a politician.

Please look at this video and tell me whether you think I ought  to resurrect my political career.

 I want to thank Jack Goldenberg for his political advice and support!

until next time....

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As many of you may know, Ranbaxy was involved in a bitter patent dispute with Pfizer over Lipitor, Pfizer’s blockbuster multibillion, dollar anti LDL-cholesterol drug. Ranbaxy was challenging the validity of Pfizer’s intellectual property estate for Lipitor which would have extended patent protection for the drug until 2013 or longer. The patent dispute began after Ranbaxy filled an ANDA with the US Food and Drug Administration to sell generic Lipitor after uncontested Lipitor patents expire in early 2010.

Conventional wisdom suggested that Pfizer would ultimately lose the patent dispute and that Ranbaxy would be able to immediately flood the market with a much cheaper generic version of Lipitor. This would have an enormous negative impact on Pfizer’s financial stability and its future (Lipitor had $12.8 billion in sales in 2007). Nevertheless, untilDaiicho-Sankyo announced its intention to acquire Ranbaxy last week, Pfizer was willing to gamble and run the risk of losing the lawsuit. Apparently, Ranbaxy impending sale was enough of an impetus for Pfizer to settle the patent dispute which has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past year or so.

According to agreement (which needs to be approved by the US Federal Trade Commission), Pfizer was able to get Ranbaxy  to agree to delay the release of generic Lipitor until November 2011 — up to 20 months later than many analysts had been expecting (some insiders believed that generic Lipitor could reach the market as early as March 2010). Further, as part of the agreement, Pfizer will allow Ranbaxy to sell its version of Lipitor in Australia, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden two to four months before Liptor’s patents expire. This is likely the sweet part of the deal for Ranbaxy because all of the above mentioned markets are top sellers for anti-cholesterol drugs. Finally, because Ranbaxy was the first to file an ANDA for generic Lipitor with the FDA, it will get 6 months of market exclusivity guaranteed (in the Hatch Waxman Act) to a generic manufacturer that is first to file for generic production of a brand name drug nearing patent expiry.   However, after quickly perusing the terms of the deal, I think that it more closely resembles an authorized generics deal rather than a “true” competitive generics launch.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Just when you thought things couldn’t get any stranger, a new pharmaceutical assessment tool called the Access to Medicine Index (ATMI) was unveiled earlier this week. The ATMI is the brainchild of Wim Leereveld, a former pharmaceutical marketing entrepreneur who is CEO of the  based in the Netherlands. 

According to Leereveld, the ATMI can be used to evaluate, rate and rank a pharmaceutical company’s commitment and ability to deliver, drugs, vaccines and other medicines to patients in poor countries. In other words, the ATMI helps analysts and interested parties determine whether or not a company is doing its share to be a good corporate citizen.

The rankings are based on eight, sometimes difficult-to- interpret variables that include; 1) management; 2) influence (huh?); 3) patents (access to?) 4) R& D, 5) pricing, 6) drug donations, 7) philanthropy (isn’t this what the index is really measuring?) and 8) capacity (for what?). At present, GSK has the highest ranking and Schering Plough is dead last.

Whether or not you believe the analysis or think that the ATMI has any socially-redeeming value (remember it was developed by a former marketing executive), it is still a pretty fun tool to monkey around with. Check it out….

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try non-profits) !!!!!!!

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

Does the smell of a fresh pot of coffee brewing get you going in the morning? Do you experience a rush of energy simply by getting a whiff of freshly-brewed joe? If you do, there may be a genetic explanation for it.

A group of scientists at Seoul National University in Korea exposed sleep-deprived rats to coffee bean aroma and then assessed the effects by performing genetic and protein analysis on their brain tissue. These results were compared with those obtained from sleep-deprived rats that were not exposed to coffee. Unstressed, non-coffee exposed and unstressed - coffee exposed rats served as controls in these experiments.

According to results published in The Journal of Agriculture and Food Science, the Korean scientists found that mRNA levels of 11 of 13 genes were elevated in the coffee-exposed rats: the levels of 2 others were decreased. They also found differential expression of proteins (using mass spectroscopy) in the two groups of rats. For example, a protein known to have an antioxidant effect was expressed at higher levels in the coffee-treated group.

So what does this all mean? According to the authors “the roasted coffee bean aroma changes the mRNA and protein expression levels of the rat brain, providing for the first time clues to the potential antioxidant or stress relaxation activities of the coffee bean aroma.” Will these observations hold true for humans? Only time will tell. That said, remember that the best laid plans of mice (rats?) and men often go astray.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Starbucks) !!!!!

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

I returned from my trip to China on Monday evening and I think that I am finally functioning on US time again (actually it took me less time to adjust than I expected).

China is an amazing country filled with its fair share of contrasts, paradoxes and breathtaking scenery.  From the donkey-drawn carts and traditional hutongs of Beijing to the modern skyline and hustle and bustle of Shanghai, my travel companions and I never had a dull moment in China.

The thing that struck me the most was that the Chinese people appear to be very happy and comfortable with their lives. This was shocking to me because I came of age when the People’s Republic of China was referred to as “Red China”! I expected everybody to be downtrodden and depressed. Don’t get me wrong, it is very clear that the Chinese government has complete control over its people. That said, you can basically do what you like in China as long as you understand and abide by the “rules”.  Put simply, you are free to do whatever you like in China as long as you don’t hurt anybody or openly criticize the central government. Not surprisingly, most Chinese people understand the “game” and have learned how to live their lives to the fullest despite the obvious limitations on their individual liberties. However, it is important to note that although you can visit MySpace, Facebook and other websites in China, you cannot upload blog posts (I learned that the hard way) or visit certain “sensitive” sites–they are blocked!

One of the most curious China paradoxes is the unbridled entrepreneurial and capitalistic behavior of the Chinese people that you meet on the streets or in the shops. Haggling and price negotiations are required before buying anything in China (nobody pays retail in China!). We learned very quickly that “Nothing in China is for free. But, everything is for sale!” Is China really a communist country?  That is something to ponder.

Despite its natural beauty and interesting culture, China is an environmentally-challenged country. During our 10 day visit, we saw blue skies only once. Most of the time, the air is heavy and thick and the sky is filled with dust and smog. My Chinese friends assured me that there are blue skies but mostly in winter.  

Because I am a businessman at heart, I did do a little business in China. There are still enormous opportunities in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. However, the window of opportunity is beginning to close (China is beginning to outsource some of its manufacturing to Vietnam and Malaysia).  So, if you are considering starting or doing business in China, now is the time to do it!  One industry that has enormous growth potential is refrigeration and air conditioning. If you want cold anything in China, you have to ask for it—we quickly learned this after repeatedly drinking warm beers!  I don’t think this opportunity has gone unnoticed—Haier, the Chinese air conditioning and refrigeration company ( previously called it a German company until a reader corrected me)— is one of the main sponsors of the 2008 China Olympic Games!

All in all, I had a great time during my trip to China.  I loved the food, the people and the enormity of the place.  I hope that I get a chance to visit again!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try China)!!!!!!!!!!

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

Well, I am off to China for a 10 day visit. Turns out that I will be visiting a Chinese pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Shanghi.  Should be very interesting....If I am lucky I may be able to blog from China!

I hope too much doesn't change while I am away. 

Until next time....

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

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

In 2004, the European Commission adopted a new directive that paved the way for legal approval of biosimilars in the European Union (EU). To date, five (5) biosimilars have garnered marketing approval in the EU. Of the five, two are generic versions of recombinant growth hormone (rHGH)–Omnitrope (Sandoz) and Valtropin (Biopartners). The remaining three are “knock off” versions of erythropoietin alpha–Binocrit (Sandoz), Epoetin alpha Hexal (Hexal) and Abseamed (Medice Arneimittel Putter).

There is no doubt, at this point, that Europe is leading the way in the biosimilar space. However, it is important to point out that a variety of biosimilars, developed by Indian generic manufacturers and others, are already being sold in less- regulated Asian markets (see Table 1). Unfortunately, political issues and the fierce struggle between innovator

Table 1. Biosimilar Manufacturers and Their Products

Company	Launched Biosimilars	In the Pipeline
Barr                                                          (www.barr.com)	EPO scheduled for launch in Eastern Europe	G-CSF (Filgastrim), Insulin, and HGH
Biocon                                          (www.bioconinc.com)	Insugen (Insulin in India and China), Erypro (EPO) G-CSF, Nimotruzmab, BIOMAb EGFR (cancer)	Insulin, glargine and HGH
Biopartners                             (www.biopartners.ch)	Valtropin (rHGH)	Alpheon (INF-α) and EPO
Cipla                                                   (www.cipla.com)	None	Autoimmune, cancer and cardiovascular
Dr. Reddy’s Labs                       (www.drreddys.com)	G-CSF (Filgastrim)	Nine (9) development programs
Glenmark                  (www.glenmarkpharma.com)	None	GBR 500 (mAb for MS), GBR600 (antithrombotic) and mAbs for adhesion molecular inhibitors
Intas Biopharma (www.intasbiopharma.com)	Neukine (G-CSF), Erykine (EPO) and Intalfa (INF-alpha2b)	Six (6) development programs
Prolong Pharmaceuticals (www.prolongpharmaceuticals.com)	None	PEG-EPO and other PEGylated proteins
Ranbaxy (www.ranbaxy.com)	Nugraf (Filgrastim), Macrogen (Molgramostim from Zenotech)	mAbs in oncology and neurology
Sandoz (www.sandoz.com)	Omnitrope (HGH), Binocrit (EPO)	Six (6) development programs including G-CSF (Filgrastim)
Shanta Biotechnics                              (www.shantabio.com)	Shaferon (INF-alpha2b, Shankinase (streptokinase) and Shanpoietin (EPO)	mAbs and PEGylated therapeutic proteins
Stada                                               (www.stada.de)	EPO-Zeta (approved)	Filgrastim
Teva                                           (www.tevapharma.com)	G-CSF (Filagstrim),Teva-Tropin (HGH), INF-alpha2b	Insulin, EPO and interleukins
Wockhardt                             (www.wockhardt.com)	Wepo (EPO), Wosulin (insulin) INF-alpha2b, G-CSF	Insulin Glargine

Continue Reading...

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

I just finished reading a  wonderful article entitled "My Son the Number" that was written by Dulcie Leimbach in  last Sunday's Education section  of the New York Times.  in it, she describes how high school students are now defined by the scores that they receive on standardized tests like the SAT and ACT and by their grade point averages and class rank.  Thankfully, by the end of the article, she posits that numbers are simply numbers and that they are not predicative of how students will perform in college or in life, for that matter.  What is most important, she says, is a student's sense of purpose and his/her ability to get along with others and finish a task at hand. Numbers, she asserts, don't measure creativity and wit and they certainly don't predict the future (something that I have learned along the way too!)

I think that if we want to improve our competitiveness in science than we ought to focus less on the numbers and more on developing a sense of purpose in student who have an interest in science. This means drastically changing the way we teach and promote science at both the primary and secondary school levels. 

I still believe that there is wonder in science and that there is also wonder in being a kid.  So, let's forget about the numbers and allow our kids be kids again! And, we just might be able to regain our edge in science!

Until next time.....

 

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I mentioned in a post about a month or so ago, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) floated a proposal to ease the rules regarding promotion of off-label use of previously approved drugs. According to the newly proposed rules, FDA would allow drug makers to provide physicians with reprints of journal articles that conspicuously promote off-label uses for previously approved products. At present, drug companies are strictly forbidden to promote off-label use of their products.  A major proviso of the proposed rule changes is that the articles/reprints must be published in peer reviewed medical journals before they can be disseminated to physicians and other healthcare professionals. Apparently, FDA officials believe that peer review can take the place of the rigorous regulations and requirements that are currently in place for US approval of drugs, biologics and medical devices!

For those of you who don’t know, an editorial appeared in last week’sJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that took drug maker Merck to task for using alleged ghostwriters and ghost authors on clinical studies that were published about it painkiller Vioxx. As you all know, Merck voluntarily took Vioxx off the market in 2004 after it was revealed that the drug could lead to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.

The incendiary firestorm that has ensued since the appearance of the  Although I believe that the practices of ghostwriting and ghost authoring are not as widespread as the JAMA authors would like you to believe, I think that it is a good thing that FDA may scuttle its proposed new off-label drug promotion rules.

In my opinion (humble or otherwise), drug makers MUST be required to prove that off-label uses of previously approved products  don’t pose any serious safety or health risks before companies are allowed to promote them for new indications. As we have seen time and again in recent years, safety issues and serious health risks can arise for drugs even though they received FDA approval. With this in mind I ask: “Why would FDA allow drug makers to provide less rigorous proof for an off-label indication than that required for approval of the intended use of the original product?”  It makes little sense to me. However, looking more closely at the proposed rule changes,  it would obviate the need for companies to spend additional monies (possibly hundreds of millions) to garner FDA approval for a new product indication.  Hmmm….maybe I am beginning to see a pattern here!!!!!!!

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

People who become scientists spend many years learning how to design, conduct, collect and analyze data from the experiments that they conduct. The ultimate goal of this seemingly endless exercise is to craft peer-reviewed publications that either support or refute the underlying hypotheses used to initiate the experiments in the first place. As part of our training, we are repeatedly reminded that it is our obligation to fastidiously and accurately report the results of our experiments and to assume “full ownership of the manuscripts and publications" that we author. The idea of allowing a person who didn’t participate in the design or execution of the research, to craft a manuscript for peer review is something that is virtually unheard of in the scientific community and, in the minds of some scientists, tantamount to scientific misconduct or fraud.

Physicians, on the other hand, who don’t learn how to conduct research or write scientific papers during their medical training, are frequently poor writers and have a little or no time to spend on writing scientific or medical manuscripts. Because of this, it is not uncommon for physicians who conduct medical research on behalf of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices companies to hire medical writers to write manuscripts for them. In fact, many physicians who work with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies prefer and expect this arrangement. So, why the recent commotion over medical “ghostwriting”?

Drug companies typically hire medical communication agencies to develop and craft manuscripts that showcase the results of clinical or research studies that they have conducted. These companies will usually provide an agency with background information about a study, a research summary, clinical study reports, ideas or titles for proposed manuscript and a list of prospective authors (usually physicians who performed the studies on behalf of the company).  Medical writers, who are either employed by the agency or work as freelancers use these materials to craft a detailed outline for the proposed manuscript. After the outline is completed, the agency usually shares the outline with physicians who were named on the list to determine who may be interested in authoring the publication. After an author is identified, the medical writer works closely with the author to develop a first draft of the manuscript. After the draft is reviewed by the author, changes are made to the draft, a revised version is circulated and the process is repeated until all stakeholders are satisfied with the manuscript. Once the publication has been copyedited and undergone legal and regulatory review it is submitted for peer review.

For the record, in my five years as a medical writer, I have never encountered a situation where the primary author doesn’t have final say over what will and won’t appear in a manuscript. When scientific, medical or business disagreements do arise, the author(s), medical writer and company representatives usually negotiate mutually-agreed upon solutions. Rarely, have I seen a company remove an author from a publication because his/her views or interpretations of the data were not consistent with those of the company that sponsored the research. The reason why drug companies and medical communication agencies have recently come under fire for their “ghostwriting” practices is because they have repeatedly failed to disclose that many of their publications were written by medical writers —whose names didn’t appear anywhere on the publications. Although this practice still exists, it is no longer as widespread or commonplace as it once was. These days, the names of medical writers who author manuscripts routinely appear in the acknowledgement sections of many scientific and medical publications. Moreover, in some instances, a medical writer may be able to garner co-author status on a publication —depending upon his/her level of involvement in the project. 

In my opinion, there is little difference between graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and medical writers when it comes to preparing manuscripts for publication. It is not uncommon for the names of PIs, supervisors and others to appear as authors on publications even though their contribution to a project (or preparation of a manuscript) has been limited or nominal at best. Consequently, I fail to see any credible legal or ethical arguments against hiring a medical writer to write manuscript on behalf of an “author” as long as the “author” can demonstrate that he/she actively participated or was intimately associated with study design, conduct or analysis. Finally, to maintain the integrity and transparency of the medical writing process, it is imperative that medical writers who prepare manuscripts on behalf of study authors should be acknowledged or credited with “authorship” somewhere in a publication.

Until next time….

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

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

There is mounting evidence that RNAi, once hailed as a panacea for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, may not be all that it was claimed to be. Yes, there are several new RNAi drug candidates in late stage clinical development but it isn’t clear, at this point, whether any of these products will ever make it to market. Companies like Allergan, Alnylam, Opko Health and Merck, which recently bought the RNAi company Sirna Therapeutics for $1.1 billion, have invested hundreds of millions of dollars and literally “bet the farm” on RNAi therapeutics.

The use of DNA and RNA as therapeutics is not a new or novel idea. Isis Pharmaceuticals, a pioneer and champion of oligonucleotide therapeutics, has only be able to bring a single, oligonucleotide-based product to market in the past 20 years. Ask any Isis executive and they will tell you that turning DNA or RNA into drugs is a challenging process that is fraught with many difficulties. Most notably, there are bioavailability, delivery and target specificity hurdles that most be over come before the utility of these drugs as therapeutic agents can be realized. That said the attractiveness of these molecules as therapeutics (and perhaps their real danger) is the simplicity and elegance of their mechanism(s) of action. Most scientists tend to “fall in love” with elegant and parsimonious solutions to complex processes—why would we not, they are type of discoveries that we all train and live for! And, as many of us know, when people “fall in love”, there is a tendency to overlook or not notice warning signs that things may not be as they seem.

The scientific community fell quickly and deeply in love with RNAi soon after the first papers appeared touting its benefits and possible therapeutic applications. Scientists were so convinced and confident about RNAi that they induced the financial community to invest billions of dollars into the emerging technology. The love and affection for RNAi reached its pinnacle in 2006 when two scientists, who played a crucial role in discovering its mechanism of action, won the Nobel Prize. Since then, the harsh realities of RNAi drug development have begun to be realized by companies that invested in the technology.

I have been around long enough to understand that there are fads in science. In the mid 1990s it was combinatorial chemistry, in the late 1990s it was genomics, proteomics and computational chemistry and in the 2000s it is RNAi. Don’t get me wrong–all of these technologies have helped to advance science and  provide researchers with sophisticated tools that have helped to expedite the drug discovery and development process. That said, none of these technologies, by themselves, yielded the plethora of new medications or therapeutics that their advocates promised. Industry veterans know that there are no easy solutions or panaceas in drug discovery and development. The process is inherently time-intensive, painstaking and tedious. And, despite what we scientists want to believe in our “heart of hearts,” there are no guarantees that simplicity and elegance will translate into safe and effective medications.

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After weathering the Vioxx storm for the past three years, Merck again finds itself in choppy and unchartered waters. Still reeling from the Vytorin flap that erupted two months ago, there are new allegations that its blockbuster allergy and asthma medicine, Singulair, may be linked to suicide. The US Food and Drug administration (FDA) was quick (this time) to announce that it is launching an investigation into reports that suggest that Singulair may cause patients taking the medication to commit suicide. Merck received approval for Singulair in 1998 and it had sales of $4.3 billion in 2007.

There are several reasons why FDA quickly alerted the American public to its investigation into Singulair. First, FDA has been relentlessly chastised in recent months by Congress for not notifying Americans early enough in drug safety investigations. Historically, FDA has waited until the end of an investigation (rather than the beginning) before alerting the public about possible drug safety issues. Second, the agency was well aware of emerging and ongoing safety issues with Singulair. For example, over the last year, FDA regulators asked Merck to update Singulair’s label four times. These changes included information on side effects such as tremors, anxiousness, depression and suicidal ideation.

As part of its current investigation, FDA requested that  Merck “dig deeper into its clinical data on Singulair for any evidence of possible links to suicide.” Merck quickly responded and noted that none of the 11,000 patients enrolled in 40 Singular clinical trials had committed suicide. Of course this doesn’t mean that people taking Singulair didn’t think about committing suicide. In Merck’s defense, the company may not have thought to include a question about suicidal thoughts as part of Singulair’s clinical development program. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the safety profiles for many approved drugs are not fully realized until the drug has been on the market for several years. This is because the small numbers of patient used in the clinical trials for approval of a new medication are usually not sufficient to identify all  potential safety problems. Unforeseen  or unanticipated side effects typically begin to emerge only after a drug is used by larger numbers of people in the general population.  

For this reason, the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act requires that all companies that win approval for new medications are required to set up post marketing surveillance programs. The purpose of these programs is to report any and all side effects of approved drugs to the agency. The post marketing surveillance regulation stipulates that physicians, patients and drug manufacturers must report any side effects or adverse events to the agency. Based on the number of adverse events reports that it receives, FDA can launch an investigation to determine what regulatory actions, if any, should be taken by the drug’s manufacturer to deal with the safety problems. Possible regulatory actions include label changes, black box warnings, physician notification letters, Phase IV clinical trials and possible suspension or revocation of a drug license.

Luckily for Merck, the jury is still out (no pun intended) on Singulair. That said, the good news is that the drug safety and post marketing surveillance programs outlined in the FD&C act are working exactly the way they were designed to!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid Whitehouse Station NJ)!!!!!!!!

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

I spent the entire morning reading various articles, blog posts and comments about what is wrong with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Not surprisingly, phrases like “drug lag”, the large size and costs of clinical trials, political and corporate influence, reduced numbers of NME approvals etc appeared ad nauseum. These are the same old, tired complaints with the agency that have been bandied about for the past 10 years or so. 

In my opinion, the bottom line is this: the agency is egregiously under staffed and under funded despite the fact that companies pay steep user fees for regulatory reviews. I can understand why corporate America is dissatisfied with the service that it receives from FDA. It is natural to expect good customer service after paying large sums of money to a service provider.  However, it is important to note, that the words “customer service” don’t appear any where in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (although it can possibly be implied fromPDUFA in 1992 and FDAMA in 1997).  Nevertheless, what is mentioned in the FD&C is SAFE and EFFICACIOUS pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices. Put simply, safe and efficacious products, not customer service, is REAL the mission of FDA.  With this in mind, the agency is legally required to do everything in its power to provide Americans with carefully scrutinized and safe medical devices, pharmaceutical and biotechnology products.

If we Americans want FDA to accomplish its REAL mission, then the agency must be sufficiently funded, adequately staffed and have strong, non-partisan leadership. Unless this occurs, FDA will continue to struggle and remain dysfunctional well into the 21^st century.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Oh, what a difference a couple of years or results from a pivotal clinical trial can have on a company’s financial outlook. As you may recall in 2005, Merck was in a shambles after the Vioxx scandal broke. Its CEO was ousted, its stock was trading at less than $35 per share and employee morale was at an all time low. After two short years, Richard Clark, a life-long Merck employee, was able to turn the company around. Merck’s stock reached a high of almost $61 last December and many of its employees were dancing in the streets of Rahway because their stock options were now worth more than the paper that they were printed on. But, like many things in life, all good things must come to an end.

Since December Merck’s stock price has plummeted to $40 and appears to be headed downward. What sparked the retreat was the release of results from the now infamous ENHANCE clinical trial which showed that Vytorin, which is co-marketed by Merck and Schering Plough, offered no greater benefit than a cheaper, generic version of Zocor (one of the two active ingredients of Vytorin) to reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke. The fallout from this revelation has been intense and dramatic. Both Merck and Schering Plough are being investigated by Congress for marketing violations and the financial maneuvers’ of several senior executives from both companies are under intense scrutiny. 

Many industry analysts believe that Merck may be on the ropes again and are afraid that the company may slip back into the morass it found itself in after the Vioxx debacle.

I have always held Merck in high regard–no fewer than 15 people who I went to graduate school have worked at Merck at one time or another. Further, the Merck name used to be synonymous with “second to none” science and outstanding pharmaceutical products. Sadly, over the past decade Merck’s leadership has consistently placed profits before good science causing the American public to lose confidence in one of its flagship pharmaceutical companies. Maybe Dick Clark, who was around during Merck’s glory days, can restore Merck’s reputation by insisting that from now on, good science will always come before corporate profits. Time will tell….

Until next time….

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have been following the trials and tribulations of New Jersey-based Enzon Pharmaceuticals for the past decade. My interest in Enzon was kindled because of a friendship with Abe Abuchowski, Enzon’s former Chairman, CEO and Founder.  For those of you who may not know, Abe is sometimes called the “father of protein PEGylation” because he was first to harness the commercial power of the technology (he played a pivotal role in creating the technology as a graduate student in Frank Davis’ lab at Rutgers University).

Abe left Enzon in the early 1990s (after shepherding the US regulatory approval for Adagen®, Oncospar®, and PEG-Intron®) and in 2004, he (along with my help) founded Prolong Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company that specializes in PEGylation of biogenerics. Prolong is also using protein PEGylation to create new antimicrobial and blood replacement products.

Over the years, Enzon has had its share of “ups” and “downs.” Although profitable through much of the 1990s, Enzon is now a company riddled with huge debt– mostly because of bad decisions made company executives in the post-Abuchowski era.  Since 2004, Enzon’s Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Buchalter, has worked diligently to “right” the company. He realigned and focused the company’s strategic objectives and, through some creative financing, reduced some of Enzon/s more onerous debt obligations. To that end, he was able to restore shareholder confidence and stabilize Enzon’s stock price. Unfortunately, Jeff’s efforts may not be enough to save the company from acquisition or merger.

Many industry insiders believe that Buchalter was hired four years ago to prepare the company for sale. Yesterday, Enzon disclosed in a SEC filing, that the self-proclaimed biotech maven, Carl C. Icahn, increased his Enzon stock position from 1,760,001 to 3,072,103 shares. After the purchase, Icahn owns about 6.93% of the company’s outstanding shares and is one of its largest, single shareholders. Not surprisingly, Icahn now wants the company to consider putting itself up for sale. Maybe the insiders were correct in their thinking?

Stay tuned for more details.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget New Jersey)!!!!!!!

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

FDA approvals of biopharmaceutical products have decreased in recent years. This includes recombinant proteins and monoclonal antibodies and cancer therapeutics. In the decade from 1996-2005, an average of 16.6 new drugs were approved each year. In marked contrast, there were only 11 and 12 new medications approved in 2006 and 2007, respectively.

Last year was an unusually unproductive year for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. The combined sales for products approved in 2007 are projected to be less than $1.0 billion dollars–the benchmark for drugs that receives blockbuster status. Further, most or the approved drugs were similar to ones that were previously approved (so called “me too” drugs) and none will significantly improve healthcare for large numbers of patients.  Finally, only two recombinant protein drugs were approved in 2007–a level more representative of the 1980s.

Most analysts agree that it is unclear why FDA approval of new drugs has decreased over the past few years and who, if anybody (FDA and/or industry), deserves the blame for the approval drop-off. Regulatory filings for a number of new products are either expected or currently pending. To that end, it is likely that there will be more new approvals in 2008 and 2009 as compared with previous years. To learn more about the drug approval conundrum please read this article recently written by Ronald A Radar.

The rate of new approvals must increase in order for the biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical industries to remain economically healthy and viable. Industry and the FDA must work more closely with one another to continue to insure that the American public has ready access to innovative, safe and efficacious, new biopharmaceutical and pharmaceutical products. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Erythropoietin (EPO) is a hormone (protein) that regulates red blood cell production in humans. Back in the 1980s, scientists at a fledgling biotechnology company called Amgen determined that recombinant EPO was highly effective for treating anemia. Amgen owned the intellectual property rights to the EPO gene and decided to sell the recombinant protein encoded by EPO (called epoetin) as a treatment for anemia.EPO is known to alleviate fatigue caused by anemia by stimulating red blood cell production.

Amgen’s first EPO product, called Epogen, was approved in 1989 to treat patients suffering from anemia associated with renal failure. Procrit, Johnson and Johnson’s version of EPO (which was licensed from Amgen) was approved four years later in 1993 to treat chemotherapy-induced anemia. Aranesp, a longer acting version of EPO which is also manufactured by Amgen was approved in 2001 for anemia associated with chronic renal failure and in 2002 for chemotherapy-induced anemia in cancer patients.  All of the EPO drugs have gained blockbuster status and, over the past five years or so, the annual revenue generated by these drug is estimated to be $6.0 to $12 .0 billion.

Since their approvals, EPO, Aranesp and Procrit have been administered to tens of millions of kidney dialysis and cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy with minimal safety concerns and generally positive outcomes. However, with the looming specter of generic biologics (EPO lost patent protection in 2004) and competition from companies like Roche developing competing EPO products, Amgen stepped up its efforts to promote and sell EPO and Aranesp. This, in turn, caused EPO drugs to be used by many physicians, which ultimately resulted in additional safety warnings and a label change for all EPO products. The label change coupled with unrelenting negative publicity about Amgen’s promotion of its EPO franchise, caused its stock price to plummet and forced the company late last year to lay off 14% of its workforce.

Like other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, Amgen sought to find ne indications for its EPO products. To that end, there was some compelling evidence several years ago which suggested that EPOmight increase survival of cancer patients, when used with radiation and chemotherapy. The idea was that higher oxygen levels in the blood would make the radiation or chemotherapy being used to treat the patients' cancer more effective. With this in mind, several groups of investigators initiated human clinical trials to determine whether EPO treatment would benefit non-anemic cancer patients. Unfortunately, the New York Times reports that results from no fewer than eight clinical trials suggest that EPO drugs might actually promote rather than slow tumor growth and hasten the death of cancer patients.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I happened upon a Sunday morning talk show yesterday where one of the guests was discussing strategies that employees ought to adopt to keep their jobs in a recessionary economy. For those of you who haven’t been paying attention, the US economy lost 63,000 jobs last month; another bit of evidence that we are sliding into an unavoidable recession. 

The talk show guest posited that only those employees who were able to quickly adapt to rapidly changing corporate/business environments would keep their jobs; the other less adaptable employees would find themselves jobless. Call me crazy, but his analysis sounded eerily similar to Darwin’s principle of natural selection or “survival of the fittest”–only those members of a population who were able to adapt (through mutations in Darwin’s case)  to changing environmental conditions will survive; the other less adaptable members will perish. Imagine that, using a recessionary economy to illustrate one of the fundamental principles of Darwin’s theory of evolution–how cool is that?

Here are some insights into how to keep your job during a recession when many companies are unstable and in flux. First, employees who work at financially-troubled companies must embrace the changes frequently instituted by management whether or not they agree with them. Invariably, there will be a cadre of employees who openly and publicly criticize the “new corporate policies”–these will likely be the employees who are demoted or “right-sized” out of the company.  In Darwinian terms, these employees are unable to adapt to change and they will either be eliminated or their standing in the population (company) will be diminished.  On the other hand, the employees who are able to embrace change will not lose their jobs and will likely be able to maintain or improve their standing in the population (company).  In other words, adaptable employees have a selective, competitive advantage over unadaptable ones which will allow them to survive and flourish in their new environment. Second, it is probably not wise during periods of corporate upheaval, for mid-level managers or employees to tout their past accomplishments or remind management about their worth to the company. In times of change, management embraces individuals with forward-looking ideas (to facilitate change) not those who are rooted in the past and are invested in antiquated corporate policies and practices. Again, only those employees who adapt will be able to survive and compete in their new corporate environment.  Finally, as a science educator, it is always exhilarating and exciting to find new ways to teach Darwin’s Theory (sic) of Evolution so that it makes sense to lay audiences. Maybe watching Sunday morning talk shows isn’t a waste of time after all!!!!

Until next time… 

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (adapt)!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to Terry Leap, a Professor of Management at Clemson University, CEOs that exhibit some or all of the following traits or behaviors are likely to be problems.

• An obsession with acquiring prestige, power and wealth
• A reputation for unwarranted and shameless self promotion
• A tendency to propose “grandiose strategies” and failing to include a detailed plan to carry them out.
• A superb ability to compartmentalize and rationalize things.
• A history of emphasizing activity, like hours worked or meetings attended, over accomplishment.
• A reputation for implementing major strategic changes unilaterally or for forcing programs down the throats of reluctant managers.
• An impulsive, flippant decision–making style.
• A love of monologues coupled with poor listening skills.
• A tendency to display contempt for the ideas of others.
• A penchant for inconsiderate acts

The thing that worries me is that many academicians and most CEOs that I know exhibit five or more of these traits. Oy! 

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By law, drug makers are prohibited from marketing or promoting (in any way) their medicines for uses that have not been approved by FDA. But, somewhat paradoxically, physicians who are licensed to practice in the US can prescribe drugs for uses beyond FDA-approved indications, a practice known as off-label use. The agency is no stranger to the issue of off-label drug use and has vigilantly policed the industry over the last decade to prevent the practice. Drug makers including Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Amgen and others have been targeted by federal prosecutors for off-label marketing practices. Click here to see which types of drug are commonly prescribed for off-label use.

However, in something of a policy reversal, FDA officials proposed last Friday new guidelines that would allow pharmaceutical companies to use peer-reviewed medical journal articles to promote drugs for unapproved uses. The proposed guidelines will replace a law that expired in 2006 law. Under the expired law, companies had to submit copies of the articles to FDA for review before sending them to physicians. Under the new proposal, drug companies don’t have to submit articles to the FDA before distributing them to physicians. The agency says it will not punish companies for distributing literature on off-label use if they adhere to certain practices. Articles should not be false or misleading and should come from a peer-reviewed journal that is not influenced by a company. The proposal also says companies should attach a disclaimer to the materials indicating FDA has not reviewed them.

I, along with Congressional Democrats, most notably Henry Waxman (D-CA), am totally baffled by the proposed new guidelines.According to Mr. Waxman, the new guidelines would create a “large loophole” in laws against off-label promotion. “It’s a conflict of interest for the company to be promoting sales when they haven’t been able to establish that a drug is safe and effective through the rigorous FDA process,” he said. Not to mention that a company could save hundreds of millions of dollars by not conducting clinical trials to gain approval for an off-label indication. Risperdal, a Johnson and Johnson medication that is approved to treat serious mental disorders like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and irritability associated with autism was used off label 66% of the time and brought in $4.2 billion in 2006. If you were the CEO of J & J would you spend any additional monies to win approval for new indications for Risperdal?

I would think that by now the agency would have figured out that drug manufacturer are incapable of policing themselves; there is simply too much money at stake. And, unfortunately, profits will always come before patient safety.  In my opinion, the proposed guidelines are another egregious example of just how much influence the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have at FDA. The Bush administration has done everything in its power to destabilize and emasculate the agency. The American public no longer has confidence in FDA and the products that it approves. Something has got to change to restore a sense of wellness in America!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

I learned on Wednesday that my dear friend and colleague, Carleen Collins, died suddenly and unexpectedly from cancer. I first met Carleen in 1987 in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the University Of Miami School Of Medicine. We had both joined the faculty as Assistant Professors. As fate would have it, we were the only microbiologists in a department of immunologists. Needless to say, both Carleen and I learned more immunology than either of us would care to admit (we both subsequently published immunology-esque papers as Carleen would say).

Carleen was a quintessential Californian. She was easy going, extroverted and never had a negative thing to say about anyone. I, in contrast, was a brash, sarcastic New Yorker who couldn’t stop complaining about everything. Despite our seemingly opposite personalities, Carleen and I became fast friends (later I met Ira, her future husband and quickly understood why she and I hit it off so easily). Because Carleen and I were single back then, we used to hang out together after long hours in the lab. Whenever one or more of her sisters came to Miami, we would go to the Clevelander Bar on South Beach to watch the locals. It was always fun to watch the Collins girls “torture” the “boys” at the Clevelander bar.  

Carleen was one of my closest friends in Miami. Whenever things weren’t going well for me either scientifically or personally I would stop by her office or lab and chat (okay so I complained). Not surprisingly, the world always seemed like a brighter place after talking with her. If it wasn’t for Carleen and her smile, I don’t think I would have survived my first three years in the department.

One of my favorite Carleen stories involves Hurricane Andrew. Carleen, who was living on Miami Beach at the time, was forced to evacuate and decided to stay with my wife Alice and me in Kendall (which is inland). As it turned out, Andrew never made it to Miami Beach but Kendall, which was on the northern rim of the hurricane’s eye, was almost completely destroyed. I will never forget the four hours that Carleen, Alice, our dog AJ and I spent together in our tiny, dark, air condition-less bathroom listening to the sounds of Andrew’s devastation. I guess if you go through a natural disaster with someone, you can’t help but become lifelong friends!

I left Miami in 1994 and moved to New Jersey where I still reside. Carleen married Ira, had two children and left Miami for the University of Washington several years later. We would see each other from time to time at meetings but with kids and hectic careers it became harder to stay in touch. Nevertheless, I heard through the science grapevine that things were great and life was good in Seattle.

When Martin Flajnik, a mutual Miami friend and colleague, called me the other day with the bad news, he told me that he spent an evening Carleen and Ira a couple of years ago. He said that during dinner, Carleen told him how wonderful her life was and how much she loved being a mother and scientist. I was happy that she was able to experience that joy and satisfaction with her life before she passed away.

Carleen touched and enriched many lives. She will be sorely missed.

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

In my post yesterday about Insmed's advocacy role in the Follow-on Biologics fracas, I inadvertantly mentioned that the results of the economic analysis that they commissioned had yet to be published.  One of my intrepid readers (they do exist!), pointed out that the study was recently finished and available at the Insmed website or here.

Mea Culpa!

Until next time...

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

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Insmed a small, Richmond Va-based biotechnology and manufacturing company has upped the ante in the fight to bring follow-on biologics to America.  After spending some time on Capitol Hill, company executives  found that “people in Washington, as well as payors and patients don’t have an understanding at a reasonable level of the debate that is going on and the issues” surrounding that follow-on biologics debate. To reach as wide an audience as possible and frame the debate on the issues” the company decided to use the Internet to take the initiative to the next level–the Internet.

A key to Insmed’s initiative is an economic study on the potential savings follow-on biologics could provide to patients, payors and healthcare providers. The study is still being conducted and its results will be published on the net when available. The campaign also includes advocacy components that like user-generated content (blogs) and social networking sites. Recently, Insmed posted a video clip on YouTube that feature one of its scientists extolling the virtues and cost-saving advantages of follow-on biologics.

As many of you may know, I have long been an advocate of legislation to allow the approval and sale of follow-on biologics in the US.  Unfortunately, until now, only one side of the debate–from big biotech and BIO–has been heard by the American public. This has largely been due to marketing muscle and deep pockets of big biotech coupled with a lack of unity among follow-on biologics advocates. Web 2.0 with its social networks, blogs and video sites allows people with the smallest voices to be heard. And, sometimes those small voices can turn into  roars!

Kudos to Insmed for having the courage to boldly go where no generics manufacturer has gone before–on YouTube! Yeah baby!!!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (see you on Web 2.0)!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Unraveling the Cholesterol Conundrum

By now, I am sure that everyone is sick of hearing about Zetia, Vytorin, cholesterol levels and heart disease. Whether you like it or not, results from the now infamous Enhance study have certainly caused many scientists and physicians to rethink the relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease and stroke. Conventional wisdom (and current medical dogma) holds that low LDL cholesterol levels reduce the risk and incidence of heart disease and stroke. This belief is now so widespread and entrenched in that the medical community that FDA now approves drugs to prevent heart disease, as it did with Zetia and Vytorin, solely on the evidence that they lower LDL cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, Enhance study results indicate that lowering LDL cholesterol levels alone are not sufficient to reduce the incidence of heart disease or stroke. 

Zetia, one of the active ingredients of Vytorin, lowers blood LDL cholesterol levels by reducing absorption of cholesterol in the gut (from foods that we eat). In contrast, the other ingredient in Vytorin, Zocor, is a statin that acts to lower LDL cholesterol by interfering with its production in the body. The results of the Enhance study, which showed that Vytorin doesn’t reduce the risk of heart disease or stroke any better than Zocor itself, suggest that the only way to prevent heart disease and stroke (by lowering LDL cholesterol) is through statin use. This assertion is supported by results from clinical trials involving Lipitor and Zocor (both statins), which showed that lowering LDL cholesterol also resulted in a lower incidence of heart disease and stroke. This suggests that statins may act to reduce heart disease and stroke by mechanisms other than their LDL cholesterol-lowering properties. Indeed, statins have also been found to reduce inflammation, keep artery walls flexible and healthy and help to maintain LDL and HDL cholesterol balance in the blood.

Continue Reading...

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

As many of you know, the pharmaceutical industry has been trending downward for the past year or so. Weak pipelines, uncontrolled corporate expansion and soaring drug prices have been offered to explain the recent down turn. However, the real back story to the downturn is the loss of  future revenues that is expected to occur starting in 2010 when many current blockbuster pharmaceutical products, e.g., Lipitor (Pfizer), Plavix (Sanofi Aventis), Avandia (GlaxoSmithKline), Zyprexa (Lilly), and others lose patent protection.

The loss of patent protection of branded blockbuster products is almost always accompanied by the development and subsequent, regulatory approval of lower cost, generic versions of the drugs. The Hatch Waxman Act permits generic manufacturers to begin to develop generic versions of branded products five years prior to patent expiry. This allows generic manufacturers to develop and gain regulatory approval of their produ