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

e-Patients Connections 2009 (#epatcon) was held this past Monday and Tuesday at the Park Hyatt hotel in Philadelphia, PA. BioCrowd was one of several co-sponsors of the event. The theme of the conference, organized by Kevin Kruse a veteran medical communication and training expert, who now runs Kru Research, was to “reach, engage and educate empowered digital health consumers.” And, boy, did it deliver! While this was Kru Research’s first official conference, it was well organized, extremely interactive and the quality of the speakers was second to none! Topics that were featured included social media and the life sciences industry, technological advances in e-based healthcare delivery, the relationship between the news media and healthcare information and the continuing evolution of online and e-based healthcare communities.

Conference attendees included representatives from the life sciences industry, medical communications experts, advertising and marketing professionals and a multitude of social media enthusiasts and consultants who kept the Twitter screen humming throughout the meeting (a big shout out to the “troublemaking table”). And, surprisingly, there was a representative from the Division of Drug Marketing and Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) at the US Food and Drug Administration, who I believe, was one of the most sought after individuals at the meeting. CNN reporter Elizabeth Cohen who writes the Empowered Patient and racecar driver Charles Kimball, a type I diabetic and company spokesperson for Novo Nordisk also gave talks.

My favorite talks were those presented by online patient community organizers including Tricia Geoghegan of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals who created the Facebook ADHD Allies community, Lisa Tate of WomenHeart and Robert Schumm of Bayer Consumer Care who created Facebook Strong@ Heart and Rachel Lewinson of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Organization and Susan Harrow Rago of Novo Nordisk who created Juvenation.org a website dedicated to those with Type I diabetes. These communities are outstanding examples of how partnerships between pharmaceutical companies and advocacy groups can help to better educate the public and heighten awareness about potentially life-altering diseases. Another example of a great online community and healthcare portal is Insomnia 123.com. This website was conceived and constructed by Christine Macadams and her partners’ one of whom is a practicing physician. Unlike the other online communities, which are sponsored and mainly supported by consumer healthcare division of large pharmaceutical companies, Insomnia 123.com was exclusively created by a group of concerned individuals who wanted to better educate and improve the lives of people with insomnia—a largely unreported and self-medicated condition.

On the technical side, the talks presented by Lee Segal of Klick, Kevin Durr of Avantera , Ian Kelly of Red Nucleus and Scott Ballenger of ListenLogic were illuminating and extremely informative. Some of the innovations taking place in digital media are exciting and almost overwhelming at times (even for a social media enthusiast like me). I think the company to watch is ListenLogic which uses semantic search engines to collect real time data and “chatter” on the web. This technology may provide a cost-effective solution to assuage the concerns of many life sciences companies that claim that collecting and analyzing overwhelming amounts of data is one of the main reasons why they are reluctant to entry the social media space.

Marc Monseau of Johnson and Johnson gave an illuminating talk on his experiences as a corporate blogger and Twitter user and described some of the challenges that had to be overcome before his company was able to break the “social media barrier.” Janice McCallum, an economist by training and a healthcare communications and media expert gave an informative talk about the growing role and impact of patient-generated healthcare content on patient awareness and education.

Finally, the novel and innovative Pecha Kucha sessions were outstanding and extremely well done! While all were expertly crafted, Dr. Val’s and Jonathan Richman’s Pecha Kucha were memorable. Dr. Val’s, which was extremely powerful and moving, was performed entirely in verse and Jonathan’s was—well, one of Jonathan’s always entertaining and informative presentations.

In summary, the “e-Patient Connections 2009” was a resounding success and in my opinion reached its goal to “reach engage and educate empowered digital health consumers.” That said, I can’t wait for “e-Patient Connections 2010” meeting!!!

Hat tip to @ellenhoenig and @eileenobrien for inviting me to my first tweetup (great fun) and finally meeting @janice McCallum, @christianeTrue, @stevewoodruff and Silja aka @whydotpharma! 

Until next time...

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

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

An annual survey conducted by Science magazine and the American Association has identified the 2008 top twenty life sciences employers in the world. The rankings were based on a company’s leadership, stability, social responsibility and treatment of its employees. Six of the top 10— Genentech, Gilead Sciences, Genzyme Corp., Schering-Plough Corp., Gilead Sciences are based in the US whereas the remaining four—Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, and Millennium are headquartered outside of the US. For the first time, eight of the top 20 are located outside the United States.

In case you were wondering, Genentech was ranked number 1. This is the fifth time out of the past 6 years that the San-Francisco based company made it to the number one slot (it fell to second last year). Another notable is Massachusetts-based Genzyme which made it to the number 3 spot (out of 575 companies) for the second consecutive year. Surprisingly, Monsanto, the company that makes genetically modified seed crops, was number 2—this despite all of the negative press about genetically modified foods. Let see whether or not Genentech can retain its number 1 ranking after the Roche takeover of the company is completed.

Until next time....

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

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

NextLevel Pharma has organized several life sciences meetings that may be of interest to BioJobBlog readers. These include: a webinar entitled “Safety Biomarkers in Drug Development” on October 14 and 21, 2009; a conference, “Best Practices in Phase IV Clinical and Observational Research” December 3-4, 2009 in Prague, Czech Republic and “Advancing Biologics from the Lab to the Clinic", January 11-12, 2010 in Brussels, Belgium.

Each of these offerings offers ideas and insights into important issues that are emerging in the life sciences industry. Check it out!

Until next time....

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

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

Eli Lilly & Co announced today that it is eliminating another 5,500 jobs or roughly 14% of its global workforce over the next two years. This would reduce to size of Lilly’s worldwide workforce from 40,500 to 35,000 by 2011. In addition to the job cuts, the company is reorganizing itself into 5 business units and hopes to save about $1.0 billion in annual costs.

These newly announced job cuts come after the company eliminated 4,000 sales representative jobs this past August and restructured its sale force. Also, prior to the recent cuts, Lilly launched the Lilly Phenotypic Drug Discovery Initiative or PD² a new program to ostensibly strengthen relationships with academic institutions to speed drug discovery and thereby reduce its reliance on internal drug discovery efforts to keep its pipeline full.

Unlike other major pharmaceutical companies that conducted massive layoffs over the past two years, Lilly was content, until the past few months, to lay off small numbers of employees and offer others retirement packages. Unfortunately, the loss of patent protection on several of its blockbuster drugs coupled with generic encroachment on several brands and impending health care reform, forced Lilly to take more draconian action.

Layoffs have been something of rarity in the life sciences sector over the past eight months or so, but this is usually the time that marks the beginning of the corporate “layoff season.” Don’t be surprised if other large life sciences companies announce similar layoffs in the coming months. Luckily, the economy seems to be improving and there are signs that hiring is beginning to ramp up in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology and devices industries.

Speaking of pink slips, those of you who have been downsized or find yourself out of a life sciences job may be interested in a new organization called Pink Slip mixers. According to a description on the group’s website:

“Our Pink Slip Mixers are about hundreds of professional, mid- to upper-level executives who are (might be) victims of the "economic downturn" of 2008. Our parties are about banding together, networking and bonding with the recently "Pinked". We will share our experiences of why we were let off, what companies are hiring, and the "buzz words" that specific hiring managers want to hear. Aside from the usual imbibing, commiseration and fun that every pink slip party brings, headhunters, direct-hire companies, and recruiting firms will also on-hand to learn a little bit more about what you do. Maybe you'll meet a new contact, or find a new job!” 

Sounds like these mixers might be good networking opportunities and a place to kick back and commiserate with others who are no longer gainfully employed. I am planning to attend a Pink Slip Mixer when one is organized in the NYC metropolitan area. Like many of you, I lost my full time contract copywriting job over a year ago!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Losing a job is a BIG deal whether you were layed off, fired or right-sized out of it. Not only do you have to worry about health insurance, bills and paying rent or making a mortgage payment, you must also deal with a myriad of self esteem and emotional issues that frequently arise after losing a job. While there are many articles and books that describe how to functionally conduct a job search after being layed off, there are only a handful that discuss how to cope with the stress and negative emotions that frequently accompany job loss.

Many people who lose their jobs frequently experience emotions like anger, desperation, hopelessness and even depression. These feelings must be acknowledged and then addressed and managed because they not particularly useful when looking for a new job. Further, when left unattended, these feelings can exact both a financial and an emotional toll on the unemployed.

In this Sunday’s New York Times, Phyllis Korkki, who writes “The Search” column describes how to manage the negative emotions and financial problems commonly associated with losing a job. She also provides tips on how to minimize “the pain” and accentuate the positive after experiencing a job loss.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Lisa Roner, blogger and editor for EyeforPharma, recommends a podcast on social media that was created by Dr. Andree Bates, CEO at Eularis, a company that applies analytics to determine the sales impact of specific marketing programs.

Dr. Bates says it is an important area for pharmas to become engaged in social media.  In the podcast, she offers some ideas about how pharma marketers might apply these channels effectively. Also, she offers some tips and hints for intrepid pharma employees who are interested in getting started.

To listen to the podcast click here.

Until next time...

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

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

BioCrowd co-founder, Vincent Racaniello, and I were chatting the other day with Crowdvine’s Tony Stubblebine (the guy who created the BioCrowd software platform) about the reluctance of scientists to embrace social media. Both Vincent and I, both scientists ourselves, posited that scientists are simply asocial or at the very least not comfortable engaging in social activities whether they be online or IRL. Tony, a self-anointed software geek, wasn’t buying into to our argument and noted that even software geeks are social!

This prompted me to do a little research and I found a blog post written by Nachiket Vartak a blogger and doctoral student at the Max Planck Institute for Molecular Physiology. While the blog post focused mainly on reasons why bioscientists won’t use Twitter, I think that many of his observations can be used to generally describe the chilly relationship between many scientists and social media. Before you read on, I must inform you that I paraphrased and embellished some of Nachiket’s original ideas on the subject. That said, here are some of the reasons why bioscientists may not use social media.

1. The reputation of social networking sites
Many scientists disdain social networks because they believe that social networking sites and microblogging platforms like Twitter are nothing more than places to waste time. Those scientists who use social media usually do it in-between experiments and when planning activities which usually involve copious quantities of alcohol, for after laboratory hours fun. In other words, social media is for fun not for work. Also, many so-called serious scientists contend that “real science discussions” only happen on closed e-mailing lists or forums and not in the “open” on social networking sites.

2. The social activation barrier
According to Nachiket, the stereotype that scientists are asocial is well.....err...true! He asserts that many scientists feel more comfortable focusing on themselves (and their research) rather than interacting with others to learn what they have to say or what they may be thinking. And, many times, unless an individual can demonstrate that they are “smart” they probably aren’t worse listening to anyway. Finally, scientists train for years to become independent investigators. Not surprisingly, there is very little emphasis and importance placed on teamwork or social interactions with others scientists or lay people for that matter. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many scientists aren’t particularly social or inclined to participate in extracurricular social activities.

3. Privacy aka “secrecy”
Science is a highly competitive endeavor and, in many cases, the discoveries that are made represent many years of sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears. With this in mind, nobody wants to be scooped or beat out by their competitors. Consequently, scientists are generally instructed to be very hush-hush when it comes to sharing any information or data that might give the competition a “leg up” in the competition. Any leak, large or small, could mean the difference between fame and failure and, perhaps more importantly, a successful career as a scientist.

In marked contrast, the success of social media is contingent upon its openness, sharing and transparency. Thus, as Nachiket aptly pointed out social media is antithetical to the very nature of science and scientists.

4. Legitimate channels of communication
The only acceptable and legitimate means of scientific communications are presentations at meetings and publications in peer reviewed journals. These forms of communication are the lifeblood of scientific community and critical to the success of all scientists. If you aren’t published, you have no credibility as a scientist. The scientific publishing and communication industry is big business and “the rules of engagement” in the industry have been well established and institutionalized. Unfortunately, social media threatens to destabilize the science publishing world both financially and philosophically and possibly change the way science information is communicated. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is little support for social media in scientific publishing world and the science community in general.

While the number of science blogs and podcasts continue to increase daily, scientific social networking sites continue to struggle. This is because the information flow in blogs and similar forms of social media can be easily monitored and controlled. This is not the case for social networking sites like BioCrowd and microblogging platforms like Twitter.
However, if scientists are truly asocial beings then none of the existing science social networking sites will gain traction and be successful. Call me crazy, but I think social networking is an ideal medium for scientists to exchange information, ideas and develop relationships that can help them jumpstart their careers!

Until next time...

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

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

Berci Meskó author of the Science Roll blog recently compiled a list of sites that keep track of the scientists who use Twitter. He recommends: Science Pond (real time), Sciencebase (compilation) and for those of you with a medical bent the Medical Student Blog (compilation). And, for a list of medical journals that are tweeting check out this site. While the lists aren’t comprehensive you might be able to find friends, colleagues and journal editors who use Twitter.

Hat tip to Berci!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Tweeting

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

Like it or not, writing a carefully-constructed resume or curriculum vitae (as resumes are known in scientific circles) is a vital part of any successful job search. Inexperienced job seekers tend to hastily craft resumes without paying much attention to format, style or content and then wonder why they can’t land job interviews. The best way to approach resume writing is to think of a resume as a work of art–something that requires a lot of thought, creativity and attention to detail. As one well-known professional recruiter and job search expert put it”Trying to find a job without a smart, well-crafted resume is like showing up for dinner at a fancy restaurant in a T-shirt and cutoffs. They won’t let you in.” 

I think that it is important for job seekers to think of a resume as a personal marketing brochure that will either land a job candidate interviews or turn a job search into a long, arduous and frustrating process.

The primary goal of a resume is to show prospective employers how you are different than other applicants and why you and not they ought to get the job! So, what are the salient features of a winning resume?

Writing tips

Hiring managers, professional recruiters and human resource professionals tend to quickly scan resumes that they receive and make snap judgments. Therefore, your qualifications and personal attributes must “jump off the paper.” This can easily be accomplished by using bold type, headings, underlining, bulleting and varying font sizes–all of which are simple ways to visually call attention to your strengths. Avoid using paragraphs because they are dense and difficult for hiring managers to navigate.

Powerful, action-oriented, emotional words produce a strong, positive impression. Unfortunately, we scientists have been trained to write in the “passive voice.” That said; try to resist using the passive voice as much as possible when crafting your resume–think outside the box!

Job Objective or Summary Statement

I am sure that somebody has told you at one time or another to include an “objective” on your resume. Objectives tend to be boring, vague and passively delivered. Instead, I highly recommend that you craft a vibrant, action-oriented, can-do “Summary of Qualifications” that accurately reflects and highlights why you are a “right fit” candidate for the job. To that end, it may be necessary to craft more than one summary of qualifications if you are applying for several different types of jobs. For example, your summary statement for an R&D job should be markedly different than the one that you would use to land a business development job.

Which of the following examples do you think better positions the job candidate?

Objective: To obtain a research scientist position at a pharmaceutical company

Or

Summary of Qualifications: Experienced scientist with expertise in protein purification and microarray technology. Exceptional leadership abilities and outstanding oral and written communication skills. Able to work independently or as part of a multidisciplinary team.

Professional Experience

Resumes can be constructed either chronologically or functionally. Chronological resumes, which are most common, list content in temporal order and should be used for either lateral job moves or when seeking a promotion or looking for a new job to advance your career. When crafting a chronological resume, jobs or work experience must be listed from most recent to past. In contrast, functional resumes offer content based on skills and are most effective for individuals who are seeking career changes. Functional resumes should present your skills in the order of importance for the new career that you are pursuing. 

It is important to stress that only information relevant to the position should be included in a resume. Unrelated job titles or skills can sometimes confuse hiring managers and may cause them to pass on a qualified candidate. As mentioned above, most hiring managers and employers are simply too busy to read all of the resumes that they receive. Resumes that are chosen for further considerations are typically the ones that contain pertinent, job-specific information that is presented in a straightforward and unambiguous manner.

If you switch jobs frequently or have gaps in your experience put the dates of employment in the far right hand column of the resume (we read from left to right so sometimes dates of employment are overlooked) or hide the job-changing by combining or grouping several jobs together to appear as one. Also, employment dates ought to be listed as years; not the exact start and stop dates of employment, e.g., dates should appear as 2001-2002 not July 10, 2001-January 15, 2002.

Tailoring Your Resume

A resume is not just a list of what you have done and where you have been. It is your opportunity to present and highlight the skills that you possess and how those skills translate into making you the right-fit candidate for a particular job. Quantifying or embellishing achievements and using strong, definitive statements elevate and add authenticity to you as a job candidate.

Which of these examples sounds better?

Designed and directed experiments to study Alzheimer’s disease

                                                            Or

Designed and carried out experiments that identified a key protein in amyloid plaque formation

For each position that you apply, it is critically important to list all relevant experience in the order of perceived importance to the hiring manager or employer. Carefully reviewing job descriptions will allow you to quickly and easily identify those things that are most important to the employer. What is seen first means the most! 

When necessary resumes should be tailored so that as many of your skill sets and accomplishments match what was stated in the job description. This means, that it is highly unlikely that you will be able to use the same resume/CV for all of the jobs that you are interested in. To insure success, I highly recommend that you take the time to customize or tailor each resume/CV that you submit to prospective employers.  When I was looking for a new job several years ago, I crafted no fewer than 20 different resumes!

Odds n Ends

Many of you may have heard that resumes should be no longer than one or two pages in length. While this may be the convention for other fields, it is certainly not applicable to CVs or scientific resumes. That said, it is a good idea to limit the length of your CV/resume because, outside of academic circles, nobody has the time nor the inclination to read a CV that is half an inch thick! When I was working as a professional recruiter, it typically took me a minute or less after scanning a resume/CV to determine whether I had identified a “right-fit” candidate. Candidates whose CVs are too long, overly verbose or difficult to decipher rarely make it to the interview stage. I subscribe to the notion that less is more and simple is elegant!

When listing your educational background, I recommend that present your lowest degree first (associate or bachelor) and end with your most advanced degree or educational experience, e.g. postdoctoral fellowships or professional school. The name and location of the institution that awarded the degree and your major or area of expertise should be listed with each. It is perfectly reasonable to list the names of your graduate or postdoctoral advisor in this section (if you think that a mention will help your candidacy). You may also want to include your thesis title if you wrote a masters or PhD thesis. It is not necessary to list the dates that the degree was awarded. By listing the dates that you received your undergraduate and graduate degrees, an employer may be able to deduce your age. While this may not be a bad thing for entry level employees, it may hinder more experienced job seekers from securing new positions.

Membership in professional societies, organizations or clubs should be listed in a section that is separate from your educational background. Any invited lectures or presentations may also be listed under a separate heading. Also, it is important to list any extracurricular activities or specialized skill sets that you think may be relevant to the positions that for which you are applying. For example, letting prospective employers know that you were an Olympic swimmer or president of the debate team may be what differentiates you from other equally-qualified job candidates.

All of your publications should be listed on the last page of your CV in a section entitled Publications.  If you are just starting your career, it is permissible to list along with your peer reviewed publications all of your abstracts, poster presentations, etc. However, if you are mid-career professional, I strongly recommend that you list only peer-reviewed publications, review articles, books and book chapters and eschew the abstracts. Any manuscripts that are “in press” should be listed. That said,  I don’t think that it is appropriate to include “submitted” manuscripts –this signals to prospective employers that you may not think that your publication list is long enough to warrant consideration.

Never send your references to prospective employers unless they specifically ask for them. Simply indicate somewhere on your resume/CV that references are available upon request. For most academic jobs, it is customary to ask for references at the beginning of the application process. For industrial jobs, references are not requested unless an employer is interested in moving forward with specific job candidates.

Finally, it is vital that you understand that your resume is a required first step in the job search process. A carefully crafted resume/CV that indicates to prospective employers that you are the right woman/man for the job will likely get you to the interview stage. After that…it is all up to you.   Look for the next installment of the series on interviewing skills and tips.

Click here to see the wrong way to write a resume and here for an example of one that resulted in a job offer.

Until next time….

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

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

While the economy is showing signs of a possible recovery, the unemployment numbers continue to rise. For this reason, it is a good idea to keep your resume as up-to-date as possible. Yes, I know it is a hassle to update and stay on top of you resume especially if you already have a job. However, in these uncertain financial times, you never know when you might be back on the job market. To that end, I highly recommend a piece on refreshing a resume written by Kim Issacs of Monster.com

In her post, Kim provide some insights and advice on how to keep your resume up-to-date--or fresh as we say in the recruiting business--with minimum pain or effort.

Check it out!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

I met Jonathan Richman,the author of the Dose of Digital blog, last week at the BDI Conference (#BDI) on Social Communication and Healthcare in NYC. BTW, for those of you who were unable to attend, you missed an informative and compelling meeting on the status of social media in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. Anyway back to Jonathan. He gave a great talk on pharma and social media which prompted me to visit his blog. While perusing Dose of Digital, I came upon a wiki that Jonathan maintains called --what else-- the Pharma and Healthcare Social Media Wiki.” 

It’s a comprehensive, cataloged list of social media initiatives underway at pharma, biotech and healthcare industries. Noticeably absent from the wiki, are social networking sites like BioCrowd that were specifically created for life scientists and other bioprofessionals. Hey, wait a minute, aren’t scientists the lifeblood of the life sciences industry? Would there be a life sciences industry without scientists? Hmmmm....I will have to talk to Jonathan about this!

I highly recommend you check out the wiki if you are a life sciences social media enthusiast!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Social Media Hunting!!!!!  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

The “Social Media and Healthcare” conference that will be held on July 23, 2009 in NYC at the Graduate Center of The City University of NY (365 Fifth Avenue at 34th Street) is shaping up to be a great one. At present, over 350 people have registered for the meeting. There are a few slots left if you are interested in attending.

Several BioJobBlog readers have asked whether or not the sessions will be recorder and available online. Steve Etzler, one of the conference organizers told me that Blogtalkradio.com will broadcast and archive the audio from all of the case studies that will be presented during the morning sessions. Unfortunately, the round table discussions won’t be available.

As I may have mentioned, Cliff Mintz, Co-Founder of BioCrowd will be leading a roundtable discussion entitled “Building Social Networking Sites for Bioprofessionals.”

See you on Thursday!!!

Until next time....

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

BioJobBlog and BioCrowd along with the Business Development Institute, the Journal of Communication in Healthcare and others are co-sponsoring a meeting entitled “Social Media and Healthcare” that will be held on July 23, 2009 in NYC at the Graduate Center of The City University of NY (365 Fifth Avenue at 34th Street). Topics that will be covered include:  

1. Managing regulatory and legal issues when planning and implementing social media strategies
2. Is there a role for social media in President Obama’s healthcare reform plans?
3. Why real-time social media tools like Twitter are gaining momentum and when it makes sense to use them
4. How social media has affected crisis communications in the healthcare industry
   
5. Selling social communications projects and proving ROI to senior management
   
6. Creating and participating in communities to achieve communication, educational and branding objectives
7. Planning and executing a social communications plan with little or no budget
8. Building relationships and partnerships with new healthcare media leaders beyond advertising
9. Best practices for using social communications to connect internally with employees and stakeholders
   
10. Tools, technologies, and best practices for monitoring and measuring social communications

The meeting’s agenda features case study presentations and a series of roundtable discussions on social media topics. I will be leading a roundtable discussion called “How to Build a Social Networking Site for Bioscientists.” Approximately 300 senior marketing, communications and media professionals from Fortune 1000, middle market and emerging growth companies are expected to attend from leading pharmaceuticals, medical technology/device companies, managed care providers, hospitals, healthcare media companies, government and nonprofit organizations.  

BioCrowd members can register for the meeting at a discounted rate of $155. Check it out—it will be money well spent!

Hat tip to Steve Etzler at the BDI and Mario R. Nacinovich Jr., Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Communication in Healthcare for organizing this topical and important meeting.

I hope to see you at the meeting next Thursday!!!!

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

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

Scirus

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

Novoseek

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

Mednar

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

Valdo 

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

Life Sciences Search Engine

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

ScienceHack

BioPages

Australian web portal and life sciences search engine.

Science Bucket

Specialized search engine that filters biology sites.

GoPubMed

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

Until next time...

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

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

Back in the day—when the economy was sound and jobs were plentiful—an adequately written resume with a sprinkling of keywords and strategically-placed human resources clichés were sufficient to get your foot in the door at most companies. However, in today’s troubled economy where unemployment is rampant, there are certain buzz words and phrases that no longer resonate with hiring managers. According to Liz Ryan, an experienced  corporate career advisor who writes for Yahoo Hot Jobs, the following phrases must never appear in a resume if you are a job seeker in today’s market. 

• Results-oriented professional
• Cross-functional teams
• More than [x] years of progressively responsible experience
• Superior (or excellent) communication skills
• Strong work ethic
• Met or exceeded expectations
• Proven track record of success
• Works well with all levels of staff
• Team player
• Bottom-line orientation

She contends (and rightfully so) if old and tired phrases (like the ones mentioned above) appear in you resume you run the risk of being marked as “uncreative and vocabulary challenged.” Further Ms. Ryan suggests that you “can make your resume more compelling and human-sounding by rooting out and replacing the boring corporate-speak phrases that litter it, and replacing them with human language— things that people like you or I would actually say.” 

This language change is being driven by the informal nature of social media and a growing emphasis on truthfulness and transparency in the business. Nevertheless, well written resumes—with or without buzz words or key phrases—have always been and remain the first step in the sometimes long and tedius process of landing a new job!

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Mark Sendak, a social media enthusiast and author of the Eye on FDA blog, wrote a great post today about an article he saw in the Washington Post entitled “Drug Firms Jockey for Space Online.”

Mark wrote: “Flock?  Flock?  FLOCK?  The only way you could use the term "flock" in connection with pharmaceutical firms and social media is to say that companies are a scared flock of geese.” He goes on to castigate FDA’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) for a lack of a coherent regulatory framework and guidance for the use of social media in the life sciences industry.

Mark aptly describes DDMAC’s guidance surrounding social media and the pharmaceutical industry this way. “No one knows, and DDMAC apparently makes this stuff up as they go along. That is the kind of Whack-a-Mole game DDMAC plays.  We won't tell you what is off limits, until you do it and then WHACK! Is this anyway to run a pharmaceutical industry?

I am in total agreement with Mark on this issue. Despite the rapid adoption of social media by other industries, FDA has consistently been reluctant to issue any regulatory guidance what so ever on the topic despite assertions to the contrary. Unfortunately, when it comes to social media and the pharmaceutical industry, FDA’s usual approach to regulatory guidance—reactive rather than proactive—is still alive and well. As you may recall FDA previously sent warning letters to no fewer than 14 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies admonishing them on their placement of product ads on search engine results pages. The fact that 14 different companies received warning letters on this issue reflects the confusion and lack of guidance offered by FDA on social media and the use of Web 2.0 technologies to promote or support the sale pharmaceutical products.

The growing popularity and inevitability of social media suggests that DDMAC officials along with industry representatives must begin to consider crafting a preliminary regulatory framework for its use in the life sciences industry. Like it or not, social media is here to stay!

Hat tip to EyeonFDA!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

After yesterday's post about career planning for life scientists, one of my soon to be former students in the Fundamentals of Bioscience Program aptly pointed out that my readers might have benefitted more if I had, in fact, offered information about alternate career possibilities for bioscientists.  I don't want the student to get too overconfident but I had the same thought immediately after I uploaded the post.  

Rather than modify the previous post, I decided to upload the presentation that I gave to the U Penn Graduate Student Biomedical Association yesterday.  However, as many of my former (or soon to be former) students will tell you, my PowerPoint presentations, while informative, are not as complete as you might think.  To get the real skinny on alternate careers, you will have to attend one of my seminars on the topic where I provide attendees with additional pearls of wisdom and some funny stories about my own journey along an oft times circuitous career path!

Until next time.....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

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

Over the past several years, I have publicly called for fundamental changes in graduate education and training for life scientists. To that end, I was delighted to read an OP-ED piece in today’s New York Times entitled “End Universities as We Know It” written by Professor Mark C. Taylor, Chairperson of the religion department at Columbia University. 

In his post, Professor Taylor recommended several fundamental and systemic changes that ought to improve the likelihood that graduate students and postdoctoral fellows find jobs at the end of their graduate education. While some of Dr. Taylor’s ideas are novel and innovative, two in particular; 1) expanding the range of career opportunities for graduate students and postdocs and 2) abolishing tenure and mandatory retirement; are ones that I have suggested many times in the past few years. Rather than paraphrase, I decided to repost what Dr Taylor said about these two very important, seminal issues.

Expand the range of professional options for graduate students

Most graduate students will never hold the kind of job for which they are being trained. It is, therefore, necessary to help them prepare for work in fields other than higher education. The exposure to new approaches and different cultures and the consideration of real-life issues will prepare students for jobs at businesses and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the knowledge and skills they will cultivate in the new universities will enable them to adapt to a constantly changing world.

Impose mandatory retirement and abolish tenure

Initially intended to protect academic freedom, tenure has resulted in institutions with little turnover and professors impervious to change. After all, once tenure has been granted, there is no leverage to encourage a professor to continue to develop professionally or to require him or her to assume responsibilities like administration and student advising. Tenure should be replaced with seven-year contracts, which, like the programs in which faculty teach, can be terminated or renewed. This policy would enable colleges and universities to reward researchers, scholars and teachers who continue to evolve and remain productive while also making room for young people with new ideas and skills.

For many years now, I have been struggling with the moral and ethical obligations of graduate education. Recently, I came to the conclusion that it is our role as educators to selflessly impart knowledge and training to graduate students and postdoctoral fellows so that they can pursue the careers (and lives) that many have trained for a decade or more. I think Professor Taylor’s view of the role of an educator says it best: “Do not do what I do; rather, take whatever I have to offer and do with it what I could never imagine doing and then come back and tell me about it.” This is the attitude that must be by academicians if America wants to remain competitive in the life sciences.

Until next time....

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

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

The FDA has approved Johnson and Johnson’s Simponi (golimumab), a new treatment for adults with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis , psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Unlike Enbrel, Remicade and Humira, other anti-TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody products—which require multiple monthly intravenous infusions—Simponi is injected under the skin and requires only a single monthly injection. 

Simponi is intended for use in combination with the immune-suppressing drug methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. It also may be used with or without methotrexate for psoriatic arthritis and alone in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, a chronic inflammatory arthritis of the spine.

In clinical trials, patients who received Simponi for one of the three conditions showed improvements in the signs and symptoms common to their form of arthritis.

Like other anti-TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody products, Simponi labeling includes a boxed warning alerting patients and health care professionals to the risk of tuberculosis and serious fungal infections with use of the drug. The most common side effects of Simponi include upper respiratory tract infection, sore throat, and nasal congestion.

I have no doubt that Simponi will provide much-needed relief to patients suffering from immune arthritis. However, I think that the marketing folks at J& J could have come up with a better name—it reminds me of Spumoni (the Italian ice cream) and The Simpsons television program. But, then again, the name is distinctive and easy to remember!

Until next time...

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

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

The New York Times reported today that Genentech’s blockbuster cancer treatment, Avastin, failed to show a significant effect on preventing the recurrence of colon cancer, limiting its utility as an adjunct treatment to treat primary colorectal cancer. While Avastin is already a best-selling cancer treatment, success in this closely watched and highly visible clinical trial could have paved the way to a new uses of the drug, potentially increasing sales by billions of dollars a year.

Avastin had sales of $2.7 billion in the United States alone last year. But it is currently approved only for late-stage colon, breast and lung cancers. For those indications, patient’s lives have been prolonged for up to a few months. The new trial was designed to determine whether or not Avastin could be used earlier in the course of the disease, right after surgery to remove the tumor. The hope of such so-called adjuvant therapy is to prevent the cancer from coming back at all, effectively curing the patient.

While the Avastin failure will have little or no effect on Genentech’s financial outlook, it does call into question whether or not Roche paid too much last month to buy the 44 percent of Genentech it did not already own. Roche has long insisted that its desire to own all of Genentech did not hinge on the results of this trial. And yet, the trial appeared to play a major role in Roche’s months-long negotiations with Genentech.  It appeared that Roche, which had started those discussions last summer, wanted to complete the deal before results of the Avastin trial were announced — on the assumption that a successful trial would have sent Genentech’s stock soaring, possibly putting the takeover price it offered out of reach.  A failed trial, on the other hand, could have pushed down the value of Genentech’s stock. So it now looks as if Roche could have paid less had the results of the Avastin trial come out before it completed the deal.

Art Levinson, Genentech’s former CEO who played hardball with Roche over the course of negotiations, needs to be recognized for his outstanding business acumen. He and other Genentech executives convinced Roche that Avastin sales could quadruple, to $10 billion, by 2015 if the drug could be used for early-stage colon, lung and breast cancers. This possibility induced Roche to raise its bid for Genentech’s outstanding shares from $86.50 to $95 per share. Although Dr. Levinson wasn’t able to fend off Roche’s takeover and is no longer Genetech's CEO, he is likely “laughing all the way to the bank” as the expression goes. And, who said that PhDs aren’t any good at business?

Roche shares were down more than 10 percent on Wednesday, closing at $29.54.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

While I was at the Experimental Biology meeting in New Orleans, LA this past week I presented a seminar entitled “Using Social Media For Career Development in the Life Sciences.” This was the first time that I presented this talk, and was expecting a large turn out given the popularity of Facebook and more recently Twitter, a microblogging platform.  Much to my surprise only 15 students showed up for the talk—many of whom hadn’t heard of Twitter and were only vaguely familiar with Facebook. Luckily, a few attendees had Facebook profiles and one or two were on Twitter so the talk wasn't a complete bust.  Nevertheless, the lack of interest in this talk was extremely puzzling to me—my other seminars, “Interviewing Tips” and “Alternate Careers for PhDs” were very well attended and I was booked solid for one-on-one resume critiquing sessions during the five days I was in New Orleans.

I started to wonder why bioscience graduate students in their mid to late 20s, many of whom will need to find jobs (postdocs otherwise) in the next few years, weren’t interested in learning how to use social media to advance their careers or conduct a job search.  I thought that the lack of interest in this topic might be explained if a majority of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows were already using Facebook, Linked In or Twitter to network or explore career opportunities. This proved not to be the case, after learning that only a small percentage of students (who sought career counseling) had considered using social media to network or look for jobs. While many had Facebook profiles, most students primarily used them to stay in touch with friends and family—not for professional or scientific purposes. 

The lack of interest in social media for career development  by many of these nascent GenY scientists was confounding. After all, I have been lead to believe that “GenY” is leading the Web 2.0 and social media charge and that aging boomers like me simply “don’t get it.” The fact that I get it and many  GenY scientists, don’t forced me to revisit what I learned about the social behavior of scientists over the past 30 years or so.

First, it is no secret that scientists aren’t the most  socially-adept individuals and when socializing it tends to be very “cliquish” and oft time exclusive.  Second, scientists are notoriously poor networkers and mostly engage in serious networking when alcoholic beverages are involved.  In other words, very little networking takes place in professional and scientific settings with the exception of  conferences and meetings. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, many of the academicians who train scientists don’t understand networking and often don’t offer any career guidance to their students and postdocs. Unfortunately, most academics have little or no understanding of the world outside of academia and, not surprisingly, there is little incentive for them to learn about it—mostly because of the anachronistic tenure system. Further, because PhDs are taught to be independent and self reliant, there is almost no emphasis placed developing social skills during their training.   In fact, many academics believe that being too social is the best way to be “scooped” by their competitors. Paradoxically, there are currently over 30 social networking sites for scientists (including BioCrowd, the career development networking site that and I started). I suspect that many of us who started these sites recognized an opportunity to use social media to bring scientists together on the Web in a less threatening way than IRL. Although several of these sites report high subscription rates, it is not clear how effective they are for networking and career development purposes.

The job market for life scientists has been extremely difficult and competitive for the past five years or so. Academic positions are still hard to come by and the recent downsizing that has taken place in the life sciences industry—about 85,000 jobs have been lost in the past three years— suggest that competition for life sciences jobs will remain fierce for the foreseeable future. Like it or not, graduate programs must begin to provide job counseling and offer career development training to their students and postdoctoral fellows—their lives may depend upon it. 

Until next time....

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

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

Late Thursday, after 8 months of difficult and often acrimonious negotiations, Genentech’s board finally caved and agreed to allow Roche to purchase the remaining 44% of the outstanding Genentech shares that it doesn’t already own. The price: $95 per share—less than the $112 per share that Genentech’s board and management team wanted —but better than the $86.50 per share that was tendered last fall.

While Roche contends that it will continue to run Genentech as an autonomously operating business unit, many Genentech employees are dubious. I suspect that many DNA (Genentech’s stock symbol) employees will embrace a “wait and see” attitude before any decisions are made about whether or not to stay at the “new company.” Roche’s greatest challenge will be integrating the two companies without ruining Genentech’s innovative culture and immediately sending its best scientists and management team out the door. Pharma and biotech corporate cultures are very different from one another and many biotech employees find it difficult to adapt to big pharma’s slow-moving and anachronistic approach to drug development. As previously reported, US business operations of both companies will be based at Genentech’s headquarters in South San Francisco, CA rather than in Nutley, NJ, where Roche’s American business is currently based. This is not good news for many of Roche’s Nutley employees. Roche has been trying unsuccessfully for years to jettison the Nutley site and it seems likely now. Don’t be surprised if you see a mass exodus at the Nutley site. All of Roche’s US products will be sold under the Genentech brand.

Roche’s purchase of Genentech, America’s oldest biotechnology company (started in 1976) and considered by many to be the crown jewel of the industry, truly signals the end of an era. Let’s hope that another “Genentech” (and others like it) emerge as the US biotechnology industry continues to evolve in the 21^st century.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

For those of you who haven’t been able to keep up with the latest pharma layoffs, I came across an article in the Philadelphia Business Journal that does an excellent job of recapping all of the major life sciences layoffs that have taken place in the past year or so. The recent massive pharma layoffs prompted William Ashton, Acting Dean of the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia PA to say “I was in the pharmaceutical industry for 28 years. I’ve never seen such a sea change as is occurring right now. This is really dramatic.” Further, Dr. Ashton predicted that drug companies will increase their use of contract sales forces (CSFs) and contract research organizations (CROs) to contain expenses and that staffing firms will be the winners.

This led to me to wonder what Dean Ashton has been doing for the past 10 years or so because the life sciences industry has already increased its reliance on CROs and CSFs. A quick perusal of the pharma and biotech employees who lost their jobs over the past few years reveals that a majority of them were in sales and R&D. I don’t know whether or not I should break the news to Dean Ashton, but the future is already upon us—another example of how out of touch academia is with industry in the 21^st century.

I think that it is time for industry executives and academicians to begin a serious dialog to determine the type of training that would be appropriate for individuals seeking jobs in the life sciences industry. A failure to do so will likely have a negative adverse effect on the continued growth and future success of the US life science industry.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

The relationship between science, education and industry has always been a tenuous one. To learn more about the complexity of this relationship check out this article that was recently published in a local New Jersey business publication.

Until next time…

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

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

Over the past few weeks, the blogosphere was rife with rumors and speculation that Pfizer would be laying off additional R&D personnel in December. However, it seems that the layoffs have been postponed and nobody at Pfizer seems to know when they will take place. Conventional wisdom suggests that job cuts will likely take place sometime after the holidays, probably in mid -January, 09.

Rod MacKenzie, Pfizer’s worldwide head of discovery research told reporters “Given the complexity of the changes within research, I have concluded that we will not be able to provide that clarity [for the layoffs] or communicate them by the end of the year." I suspect that he knows who will be getting pink slips but is reluctant to make the announcement until early next year because it would look awful if Pfizer lets people go right before the holiday season. 

Call me crazy, but I don’t think that publicizing lay offs (to be determined later) is good for employee productivity and morale. I have no doubt that rumors about the impending layoffs have been circulating at Pfizer for months. Unfortunately for Pfizer, one or more of its employees leaked the information and company executives are in damage control and spin modes. The inability of Pfizer executives to control internal information flow is just another example of why many industry analysts believe that Pfizer grew too quickly over the past decade. Nevertheless, hundreds and perhaps thousands of Pfizer employees will lose their jobs in the not so distant future.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (forget Groton, CT)

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

I am frequently asked by life sciences PhDs whether an MBA would improve their chances of finding a job in industry. And, my response is always “maybe— because it depends. I don’t think that getting a traditional MBA really gives you that much of an edge especially if you are an established PhD looking for career advancement or change.  However, if you are a graduate student or postdoc who has already decided that academia is not for you, then getting a certificate or M.S. through an established graduate program in biotechnology (Georgetown University’s M.S. in biotechnology or The New York Center for Biotechnology's  Fundamentals of Bioscience Program) may increase the likelihood of winning a job in industry. This is because hiring managers recognize that in addition to a job candidate’s technical competency, they possess an understanding of the business aspects of the industry—something that is vital for scientists to be successful in the biotech biz.

Recognizing this, Rutgers University recently created a program that they call ‘a mini-MBA for the biopharmaceutical industry’. In contrast with traditional MBA or M.S. programs, the mini-MBA is a 12 week long, degree-granting program that was designed to familiarize students with the nuances and intricacies of the business aspects of the biopharmaceutical program. The good news is that they are actively recruiting students to fill the slots available in their inaugural class. The bad news is that it costs $4,995 to enroll. That said, it may be worth the time to check it out because—in the end—the investment may be worth it!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

There was an article in today’s NY Times biz section which suggests that the recent financial crisis is starting to have an effect on the growth of the biotechnology industry, once thought to be a recession-proof sector. The article contends that the lack of available institutional cash and venture money is causing extant biotechnology companies to “tighten their belts.” And, if the trend continues, this lack of capital will stifle innovation, which in turn, will threaten and undermine the stability and future of the entire biotechnology sector. While times are certainly tough, the biotechnology industry, in my opinion, is alive and well and will continue to expand well into the 21^st century.

It is important to note that many biotechnology companies that are struggling today are publicly-traded companies not privately held ones. Unlike publicly-traded companies, privately-held ones don’t have to answer to millions of shareholders or worry about their price per share on a daily basis.  Further, the expectations for privately held companies are much less than those for publicly traded entities. Based on recent discussions with venture capitalist friends and institutional investment bankers (those that still have jobs) there is still substantial funding out there for start-ups and companies that are trying to advance their products from development into clinical testing. Many of the financially-troubled public companies mentioned in the Times article were struggling (and on the verge of failing) before the recent financial meltdown. The recent financial crisis is simply hastening their demise. The reason why many of these companies are on the brink is that they went public in the late 1990s—a time when writing a business plan on the back of a napkin was sufficient for investment bankers to underwrite a company’s IPO. Unfortunately, many of these companies were little more than research or tool box driven companies whose founders failed to understand that products not technology would make their companies successful. Put simply, these companies should have never gone public in the first place!

Not surprisingly, almost all of the companies cited in the Times article fit the ‘product-less biotechnology company’ profile. For example, Maxygen, a company originally founded as a “molecular evolution” company (that went public in 1999) didn’t identify a lead product until a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, after spending millions of dollars on preclinical development, the company no longer has sufficient funds to move the product into human clinical testing. Late last week, Maxygen announced that it would layoff 30% of its workforce and consider selling itself.

Another example cited in the article is Iceland’s DeCode Genetics, once a high flying genomics and bioinformatics company that regularly made headlines for discovering new genes for cancer, cardiovascular and hereditary diseases. While DeCode has a great genomic and bioinformatics platform (and “did outstanding science”—largely because of the genetic purity of the Icelandic population) it was never able to use its technology to identify a lead therapeutic product. DeCode’s stock price has fallen more than 90% in the last year to 29 cents per share and will likely fail given the horrendous state of Iceland’s banking industry and economy.

The impending failure of many financially-strapped biotechnology companies in the current financial environment should come as no surprise to biologists—is very consistent with Darwin’s theory of natural selection which says “only the strongest and the fittest will survive. To survive in the biotechnology industry, companies must be single-mindedly product-driven. Companies that lack a product focus, in this or future economies will be able to survive for a short while but ultimately they are doomed to fail. That said, while there may be fewer companies as the biotechnology industry continues to evolve, the companies that do survive will undoubtedly be extremely robust and fiercely competitive.

Until next time….

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

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

Despite a recent report heralding the ascendancy of the Welsh biotechnology industry, the majority of biotech companies in Britain are in danger of fading away according to a report in London's  Financial Times. According to the Times; “Over the past year the sector has witnessed a string of high-profile drug failures, share prices have plunged and there have been almost no public listings. The sector is shrinking as private biotech companies are bought by cash-rich pharmaceutical companies, most of which are based abroad”.

“The quality of British science has never been in question. Commercial biotech’s perennial problem, say the pundits, is instead a lack of financing, management expertise and commercial savvy. “The UK has always labored under the yoke of not having enough venture capital around and not having the people prepared to take risks” said one analyst.” Nevertheless, the UK is currently  responsible for more than one-third of the European Union’s total drug pipeline.

The British biotechnology industry isn’t alone. Consolidation of the US biotechnology industry has been quietly going on for the past 5-10 years. Many successful American companies have been acquired by major pharmaceutical companies. For example, MedImmune and Millennium Pharmaceuticals were recently purchased by Astra Zeneca and Takeda Pharmaceuticals respectively. That said, I don’t think that what is happening in the UK is unique to the British biotech industry. The bottom line is this; Biotech is a capital-intensive, briskly paced, risky business that is, at most, 35 years old. More companies than not are expected to fail. Pharma, on the other hand, is a conservative and experienced cash-rich industry that is over 100 years old. Therefore, it follows that pharma companies, when possible, will buy successful biotech companies to bolster their thinning pipelines to stabilize their stock prices.

In my opinion, the seminal underpinning and essence of the biotech industry is to harness scientific originality to create innovative l technologies and products. That said, I believe that the biotechnology industry has finally become an integral part of the life sciences ecological food chain (think of biotech as a producer and pharma as a consumer).  I can’t think of many biotechnologies company executives (with the exception of Biogen) that wouldn’t consider acquisition or merger with a major pharmaceutical company as an ideal exit strategy for their stakeholders!

Until next time….

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

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

Peggy McKee wrote an interesting piece on her Medical Sales Recruiter blog about personal branding and developing an online presence to find a job. For those of you who haven’t heard about personal branding, it is de rigueur and the hottest thing on the net these days. Put simply, you, the jobseeker, are the brand and to be successful (get a job), the brand must be vigorously promoted! Personal branding can be easily achieved by creating profiles on social networks like MySpace, Facebook or Linked In or creating your own promotional website using your name as the domain name.  However, there are a few things that you ought to consider before you embark on your personal branding campaign. Peggy offers a few pointers and recommendations when it comes to both personal branding and your online persona.

Employers and recruiters research prospective candidates online to get more information about them before an interview is scheduled or an offer is extended.  This can work against you if your MySpace page is filled with “party” pics (or worse), but it can work for you if you have an effective online persona. 

Web Worker Daily rounds up several tips for developing an effective online presence:

• Check your Google profile.  What comes up when your name gets typed in?  Know what’s out there so you don’t get suprised.

• Own your domain name.  Even if you don’t want to do something with it now, you might later.

• Develop your personal brand.  Set up a LinkedIn profile.  Write a blog.  Be a guest writer on blogs specific to your industry (maybe you could write a post for me - describing your job, etc).   If you’re not sure what personal branding is or how to do it, there’s a lot available out there.  Here’s 3 articles to get you started:

The 6 P’s of Personal Branding (Persona, Positioning, Packaging, Presentation, Promotion, and Passion)

Three Keys to Building a Strong Personal Brand.  “A good brand has 3 main features:  clarity, consistency, and constancy.”

Dan Schwabel’s podcast, Top Social Media Tools for Turning Your E-Brand into a Powerhouse.  Let Dan show you how to choose what to use.

 Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (personal branding can’t hurt)!!!!!!!

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

I happened upon this article that expands upon some of the interviewing ideas and tips that I presented in previous posts. The piece was written by someone from Business Week so it must relevant and might even be worth reading! 

Until next time….

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

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

I am sitting in Newark Airport waiting for my flight to San Diego which, not surprisingly, has been delayed for about 2 hours.  As you might have guessed from the title of this post, I am on my way to the 2008 FASEB Career Development Symposium which is run every year at the annual FASEB meeting. 

As we have done in the past, my colleagues Eric Celidonio and Joe Tringali, and I  will be presenting seminars and resume writing workshops for graduate students and postdocs.  Our goal, as always is to offer these folks some advice and tips on how to find a job after they complete their training.  Unfortunately, the job market for PhDs has been depressed for the past 8 years or so.  There once was a time, circa 1994-2000, when finding a job for alife sciences or chemistry PhDs was a snap.  In those days, many jobs were left unfilled. Ironically, it  has been scientific advances and technological innovations that have made it more difficult for PhDs to find jobs over the past decade or so.

Anyway, if you are attending FASEB this year, please stop by.  Also, tell all your friends!  We like when it is busy.

Until next time....

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

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

The hard work you that invested in your resume has finally paid off–you just received a call from the ACME Biotech’s Human Resources Department inquiring about your availability for a face-to-face interview with the company. After about 30 seconds of elation and joy, fear and anxiety begin to creep into your psyche-“OMG, an interview, this is my first one, what am I going to do?” 

As you all should know by now, a job interview is typically the pivotal event in any job search. Your performance on a job interview will likely be the different between a job offer or not. That said, you must be adequately prepared for all of yourjob interviews (even the ones that you think you don’t want) if you expect to receive job offers. Unlike stand-up comedy where improvisation has its place, ad libing or “shooting from the hip” during a job interview is dangerous and can yield disastrous results. Like everything else in life–practice makes perfect! So how does one prepare for a productive and successful job interview?

Scheduling An Interview

Typically, during your initial phone call, an HR representative will offer you several dates and times for an interview. I highly recommend that you refrain from verbally accepting the first date and time that the representative offers. Instead, thank him/her for the proffered dates and times and indicate that you will get back to them shortly regarding your availability. It is wise to use this approach because, at this stage of the job search process, there is a huge imbalance in the relationship between an employer and job candidate. Put simply, at this point, the employer has the power–without an offer you cannot work at the company! By delaying your response, you are signaling to the company that you (like their employees) are a busy person with a full schedule. Further, it suggests to a hiring manager that you may have other job interviews and that you’re “not desperate” for the job. Whether your level of desperation is high or low is irrelevant. The purpose of this tactic is to attempt to tip the balance of power in your favor–something that will be important in negotiations if a job offer is extended.

After you have decided which of the proposed interview dates and times is most convenient for you, call the company back to schedule the interview. Obviously, if there are scheduling conflicts surrounding the date that you chose, you must be flexible enough to accommodate the company. If your interview requires air travel, I highly recommend that you arrive a day before your interview. Arriving the evening before is okay but if you flight is delayed or cancelled you may be out of luck! Likewise, if the interview requires that you drive more than 2 hours, I highly recommend that you arrive at the interview destination the evening before. Again, if you wait until the day of the interview to travel, heavy traffic, weather conditions, road closures or car problems may prevent you from arriving to your interview on time.

Interview Preparation

Once the interview date has been scheduled, you must begin to prepare, in earnest, for the actual face-to-face. This will require a fair amount of work on your part. That said, you must allocate a sufficient amount of time from your otherwise busy schedule to accomplish this task. Leaving it to the day before your interview is not a good idea!

First, you must thoroughly research the company to find out: 1) what they do, 2) how they do it and 3) who is in charge. A facile way to accomplish this is to visit company websites, read press releases and blog posts and chat with current or former employees. Another way, if the company is publicly traded, is to read a company’s annual stock holders report. 

Typically, during a job interview, you will meet and chat with a variety of individuals ranging from co-workers to managers to company executives. It is vitally important that you craft a list of questions that you can ask all of interviewers that you will meet. This signals to a prospective employer that you “did your homework” and that you are interested in the job that you are interviewing for. It also provides them with insight into your work habits, skill sets and the level of detail that you might bring to the company if you are offered a job. If you don’t ask any questions, it might appear that you are not seriously interested in the job or the company. Nevertheless, it is critically important to remember that a job interview is a fact finding mission for the both the company and job candidate. Both parties need to be convinced that they are a fit before a job offer is extended.

I have listed below several questions that you might ask various individuals during a face-to-face job interview:

Hiring Manager (your future boss)

• What are the most important skills for the job?
• What type of person are you looking for?
• What is the typically career path for individuals hired into this position?

Company Executives (the big kahunas)

• Why does this company have an edge over competitors?
• Where do you see the industry moving in the next five years?
• When do you anticipate that your lead product will hit the market?
• What are the company’s biggest challenges and how will the company meet them?

Coworkers (the guys in the trenches)

• What is a typically day like for you?
• What is the company culture like?
• What do you like most about your job?
• What challenges do you face at the company?

In addition to the questions that you will ask, you must prepare answers to a serious of questions that company representative will undoubtedly ask you during your interview.   I will cover those in my next post.

Interview Appearance and Wardrobes

Surprisingly, choosing what to wear for an interview is not as easy at it might seem. The bioscience industry is a very conservative one–not as traditional or “stuffy” as the banking industry but not as free-wheeling at the advertising biz. When in doubt, it is better to trend toward the conservative rather than the flamboyant. Like many other things in life, interview appearances and wardrobe choices are much simpler for men than women. Listed below are some of my recommendations on how to look and what to wear on a job interview.

For Men 

• Always wear a sports jacket or suit and tie to the interview and dinners that you may attend (never wear shorts, blue jeans or other informal attire)
• Get a haircut
• Shave (unless you have a full beard) the morning of the interview
• Don’t wear an overpowering deodorant or cologne
• Make sure that your shoes are polished and match your outfit (do not wear sandals or Birkenstocks)
• Take off your earrings, nose studs and other piercings
• Cover all tattoos and other body art

For Women

• Wear a suit (with pants or skirt)
• If you wear a skirt, make sure it is an appropriate length (miniskirts may get you looks but usually not the job)
• Don’t wear low cut blouses (again, you might get looks but not the job)
• Wear an appropriate amount of make up
• Decide on a hairstyle (don’t wait until the morning of the interview to decide!)
• Make sure that your shoe choice is appropriate (4”-6 “heels may not be a good idea)
• Wear a subtle (not overpowering) perfume
• Don’t wear nose studs or rings or other piercings (earrings are, of course, acceptable)
• Cover all tattoos and other body art

Look for my next post on interviewing to learn how to behave, act and react on the day of your interview!!!!

Until next time….

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

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

Germany’s GPC Biotech announced another round of job cuts as it tries to regroup after its failure to win US approval of its experimental prostate cancer drug satraplatin.

The company said that this latest restructuring will sharpen its focus on oncology clinical development efforts and further reduce costs to extend its cash reserves to cover three years of operating expenses. The restructuring is mainly focused on GPC’s early-stage research activities in Munich and will result in 38 job losses. The remaining work force will be 14 in Munich and 49 in Princeton, New Jersey. These latest cuts come after an announcement in November that the firm was slashing its workforce by over 100.

A GPC Biotech spokesperson also announced that the company is discontinuing internal development of the 1D09C3 monoclonal antibody, which is in Phase I clinical trials for relapsed/refractory B-cell lymphomas. However, RGB-286638, a broad-spectrum cell cycle kinase inhibitor, is expected to enter the clinic within the next six months. 

Things are looking pretty dicey at GPC Biotech.

Until next time….

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

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

I want to thank Ed Silverman over at Pharmalot for providing me with data to back up my suspicions that hiring is taking a downturn at most pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices companies.

According to the post at Pharmalot “Employers and recruiters in pharma, health care and biotech performed fewer searches in October, mostly thanks to declines in two key states - New Jersey and Massachusetts, which dropped by 5.6 and 3.2 percent, respectively, according to stats from MedZilla.com. Of the top jobs posted, the biggest changes were in research (a loss of two percent) and gains of 1.8 to 2.3 percent in business development, primary care, and marketing. Applicants, meanwhile, continued at the previous month’s rate of job searching, with only California seeing a change of more than one percent in either direction.”

Sales jobs are also taking a big hit.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but sometimes a reality check is necessary to maintain perspective.

Keep the faith!

Until next time…

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

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

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