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

Word on the street suggests that Roche has severed its relationship with the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) the trade group that represents and lobbies on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. The recent purchase of Genentech must have convinced the venerable 100 year old pharmaceutical company that proteins not small molecule drugs are the key to its future.

According to published reports, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) has already sent an emissary to Roche's headquarters in Basel to talk to Severin Schwan, its CEO, about the benefits of BIO membership. Will Roche really eschew its membership in RhRMA and join BIO? And,will the loss of Roche's financial contributions substantial reduce PhRMA's influence and lobbying power in Congress? I guess only time will tell!

 Until next time...

 Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

 

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

While life sciences companies are still reluctant to take the “social media plunge,” many other companies (with active social media programs) frequently hire employees known as social media managers who oversee and run their social networks.  This is because successful social media websites require daily attention and are extremely time consuming and labor intensive. In general, employees who are hired for these jobs have strong backgrounds in social media and technology but frequently possess little expertise in the industry that they are working in. Because social media is so new, many hiring managers believe that the social media and technology skills of these managers are more important than an understanding of the industry that they work in. However, while this practice may be acceptable in other industries, it won’t be the case for the social media managers who oversee pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostics social media websites. These managers will likely be required to have a firm understanding of current rules and regulations guiding drug development and marketing and advertising of approved life sciences products. This will be necessary if the drug makers who hire these managers want to steer clear of regulatory scrutiny by the US Food and Drug Administration and other regulatory agencies.

Based on my experiences as an industrial scientist and more recently as a social media manager, a person with a PhD degree with at least one course in regulatory affairs, good oral and written communication skills and an interest in social media ought to be an ideal candidate for these positions. To that end, those of you who may be interested in this newly, emerging career path option ought to begin training as soon as possible—these jobs will be in high demand at life sciences companies, medical communications agencies and conference organizers in the next year or so!

Until next time....

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

 

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

For those of you interested in the Canadian biotechnology scene I want to mention a good resource that I came across recently. The Canadian BioTechnologist 2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) has its sights set on helping to advance the development of the Canadian Biotechnology sector and the people who study biotechnology and life sciences at the college and university level and bench scientists and technicians who work in the field across the country.   

Readers are invited to contribute content: posters, tools, research and presentations, articles white papers, multimedia, music downloads and entertainment, conference announcements, videos.

The site is sponsored by the Canadian operation of Bio-Rad so it has a good selection of non-commercial content from the company including papers, tools, workshops and for fun some of their recent music videos. The blog manager, Howard Oliver of What If What Next  a Toronto based  Web 2.0-PR firm has done a great job of collecting content that covers Canadian biotechnology news and useful tools and career information for bench scientists and technicians and students.

Do drop by The Canadian BioTechnologist2.0 Blog (http://cbt20.org) to learn about the Canadian scene and get your voice heard.

 Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Jo

  

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

As many of you may know, I attend national science meetings where I offer resume critiquing services and give career development seminars on topics ranging from resume writing to alternate career opportunities for life scientists. Frequently, I critique the resumes of foreign PhD students and postdocs who want remain in the US but cannot for a variety of reasons related to visa status. I usually tell them that there are more job opportunities for them in their home countries; usually India and China, than there are in the US which no longer has a great demand for R&D scientists. 

Until recently, I hadn’t heard of any Asian recruiting firms or organizations that would help to find jobs for US-trained life scientists. Much to my surprise, I heard from Shyam Suryanarayanan, an entrepreneur who started a recruiting organization called ABLE C-Drive that helps place US-trained Indian nationals into life science jobs at Indian pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.   I asked Shyam to send me a description of the services offered by ABLE C-Drive. Here is what he wrote:

"ABLE C-DRIVE (www.cdrivejobs.com) is a specialist Life Science Career Platform for the Indian Life Science Industry.  It is an initiative launched by C-DRIVE ( a specialist Life Science Career Solutions Company), in collaboration with ABLE - (Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises), the Industry Association and the face of the Indian Biotech sector. The company is a pioneering initiative in the Indian Life Science Careers space to help Life Science Professionals be accessible/visible to a whole host of hiring organizations in a discreet manner, with a view to getting hired.  The 'Returning Indian' Community is a preferred group, given their strong training and experience in World Class research labs.

The list of companies hiring from this platform includes a mix of large global home grown leaders, as well as exciting small and medium-sized outfits across pharma, biotech, agricultural sciences (nutraceuticals), bioinformatics, clinical research, contract research and manufacturing." 

Our platform is a boon to hiring companies, because it is a single destination for pre-screened, quality life science professionals which significantly lower the cost, time and effort required for hiring. For additional information, please visit www.cdrivejobs.com or send your resume to lifejobs@cdrivecareers.com”

Those of you who are seeking life sciences jobs in India ought to check ABLE-C Drive out!

Until next time...

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

 

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

Yesterday, I gave a lecture entitled “Alternate Careers: Taking the Road Less Traveled” to over 100 members of the University of Pennsylvania’s Biomedical Graduate Student Association. As always, there were many good questions and comments during and after the presentation. Some of the career anecdotes offered by several of the students reminded me of a conversation that I had several weeks ago with one of my Fundamentals of Bioscience students—I teach a Product Development and Regulatory Affairs course in the program—who refreshed my memory about a typical graduate student approach to career development and job searching. “We don’t think about jobs or our careers until we begin writing our PhD theses” she said. “Until then, our advisers don’t talk about careers or jobs and only bring it up because our funding will run out” she added. Admittedly, I had forgotten this because so many years have passed since my graduate student days. That said, it forced me to consider how much the life sciences job market has changed since I was graduate student and how vitally important it is for today’s graduate students to think about and possibly explore different career options throughout the course of their graduate training.

Historically, there were very few career options for life scientists—it was either a tenure track faculty appointment or, as a poor second choice, a job at a pharmaceutical or biotechnology. Unfortunately, academics jobs are hard to come by and since 2007 over 60,000 pharmaceutical R&D scientists have lost their jobs and more cuts are expected. Also, many of these jobs are likely come back after the economy improves because many of the R&D activities performed by these scientists are being outsourced to India, China and elsewhere. This suggests that a majority of life sciences graduate students who receive their PhDs within the next few years won’t be able to secure traditional life sciences jobs. While a majority of US life sciences graduate training programs recognize and understand the implications of the changing job market, many are reluctant to discuss alternate career options with graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Even fewer, encourage or support students or postdoctoral fellows who want to engage in “extracurricular activities” to explore alternate career options. In fact, several U Penn students told me that they have to obtain written permission from their adviser before they can take courses or participate in extra-departmental activities. As one student quipped “What I do on my own time should be my business not my boss's.”

I always conclude my alternate career talk by saying “Nobody ever guaranteed you a job after completion of your PhD or postdoctoral training.” And, “if you wanted a job after completing your education, you ought to have gone to medical school, dental school, law school or any other profession that requires licensure to practice your craft.” While this may sound harsh, I believe that the decision to get a PhD is a personal one and based on discussion with many of my colleagues, most didn’t enter graduate school expecting a job to be waiting them when they completed their training. Nevertheless, I contend that graduate departments that continue to train and prepare students for traditional academic careers —knowing that over 90% won’t find jobs (other than postdocs) after their training is finished —are being disingenuous and even deceitful. Why haven’t academician realized that there is a plethora of job opportunities for life scientists outside of academia?

Like it or not, the life sciences job market has undergone radical changes in the past decade. Unfortunately, academics continue to adhere to dogmatic and anachronistic ideas and practices that don’t prepare their students and postdoctoral fellows for jobs in “the real world.” I contend that informing and enlightening graduate students about alternate career paths and, allowing them to explore some of these opportunities will not impede or hinder laboratory research. Instead, I believe it would help to improve and expedite its progress. As one U Penn graduate student shared with me over a couple of beers “If they would just tell us the truth and give us some idea about our options, it would certainly improve morale, reduce our anxiety and allow us to focus on our research because we would know what is out there!” As the old adage goes”ignorance is bliss.” But, in my experience, knowledge is power!

Until next time....

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

 

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

Carl Icahn, former corporate raider, hedge fund owner and activist investor, is still trying to exert his influence at Biogen/IDEC a biotechnology company in which he owns 5.6 percent of its outstanding shares of stock.  As you may recall, last year, Mr. Icahn tried to wrest control of the Biogen/IDEC board to force the company to put itself up for sale. That attempt failed but yesterday Mr. Icahn was managed to get two of his allies appointed to the Biogen/IDEC board of directors at the company's annual shareholder meeting.

Mr Icahn has long contended that Biogen/IDEC's management team is inhibiting growth and squandering shareholder value. Wall Street analysts predict that Carl will push hard to split the company into two separate entities: one focused on neurobiology (Biogen/IDEC is a market leader for drugs designed to treat Multiple Sclerosis) and the other on cancer.  Another scenario suggests that he will leave the company intact and find a buyer for it--similar to the plan that he attempted to implement last year.

The Biogen/IDEC news follows quickly on the heels of a management coup that he orchestrated at Amylin Pharmaceuticals earlier in the week. On Tuesday, Mr Icahn, along with the hedge fund Eastbourne Capital management, were successful in ousting Amylin's Chairman Joseph C. Cook, Jr. and director James N. Wilson. Mr. Icahn exerted his influence at Amylin because he felt that sales of its key diabetes drug Byetta were too low.  Others believe that he is preparing the company for sale to Eli Lilly which co-markets Byetta with Amylin.

Mr Icahn is certainly no stranger when it comes to maximizing shareholder value at biotechnology companies where he holds substantial stock positions.  Last year, he orchestrated the sale of ImClone to Eli Lilly after getting into a protracted bidding war with Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) over the cancer drug Erbitux.  At that time, BMS had an exclusive marketing agreement with Imclone for US sales of Erbitux.

Whether or not you like Carl, he is very good at what he does. And, in the end, he has a gift for maximixing shareholder value of companies that he and others have invested in!

Until next time...

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

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

After months of complaints by university officials and scientific organizations, the US State Department announced on Tuesday that it is taking action to speed up the delay-plagued visa process for foreign graduate students and post-doctoral researchers.

For the past few years, foreign science and engineering graduate students and postdoctoral seeking to obtain or renew visas have routinely experienced long delays sometimes taking as long as several months. The problem became so acute that students and researchers who left the US often found themselves stranded abroad, not knowing when their visas might be approved.  Not surprisingly, the delays have caused enormous problems for American universities, which heavily rely on foreign nationals to fill slots in graduate and post-doctoral science and engineering programs. Over the last year or so, visa difficulties having discouraged many scientific organizations from holding meetings in the United States. Some life sciences researchers said the apparent reluctance of the United States to accept them encouraged them to seek work in other countries.

The State Department has hired additional personal to deal with the visa backlog but will not say how long it will take to correct the problem. A state department official indicated that they hope to handle routine visa requests within a two week time frame.

While never officially acknowledged, the Bush Administration intentionally slowed the visa process for foreign researchers to “guard against proliferation of science and technical information.” In other words, the visa backlog was likely intentionally created to prevent foreign drug companies and national scientific agencies from infringing on American intellectual property and patent rights—an ongoing practice that clearly frightened many of the jingoistic officials running the Bush State Department.

However, what the Bush administration failed to understand was that a majority of foreign students who train in the US want to remain here after completion of their studies. The visa backlog and its protectionist intent forced many foreign nationals to forgo their US training and return to their home countries to seek employment. This was beginning to threaten scientific and technical innovation in US laboratories because for the past decade or longer American students have shied away from science and engineering to pursue careers in business and computer science. Ironically, the Bush Administration’s protectionist leanings may have contributed—more than they care to admit—

 to the massive job cuts that have taken place at American life sciences companies in the past few years because of availability of a US-trained work forces in countries like India and China. This provides American life sciences companies with reasonable assurances that preclinical and clinical research outsourced to these countries will be conducted according to US standards. Further, it also provides foreign companies with unbridled access to a growing cadre of US-trained scientists that will enable them to compete on a head-to-head basis with American life sciences companies.

Fortunately, the Obama Administration, unlike the previous one, delivers on its promises and appears to be willing to work hard to restore science and technology to its rightful place in American society.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (it may now be possible for many foreign students!)

 

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

By now, I think that most BioJobBlog readers understand that the job market for life scientists is lousy and that it isn’t likely to improve anytime soon. I know that many of you have spent close to 10 years training for a shot at an R&D job but the reality is that everybody needs to work to put food on the table—whether or not you find a job in your chosen profession. To that end, now may be a good time for those of you who are finding it difficult to land a job to consider one more year of training to get a certificate in a field that keeps you in science but not in R&D.

I came across interesting post today at the Resume Bear blog that discussed 10 certificate programs that can help people transition to new careers to find jobs. Interestingly, four of the programs are good fits for life scientists who are willing modify their careers to be gainfully employed. They are:

Clinical Trials Design and Management

“Pharmaceutical drug and medical device development is one of the premier industries of the 21st century, and the success of this vital industry depends upon the complex process of studying new products to verify their effectiveness and safety.”

Regulatory Affairs

“Professionals are needed to guide drug development and medical device companies through FDA imposed regulation issues pertinent to the pharmaceutical and biological industry.”

Project Management

“As project cycles get shorter – and budgets get leaner – project managers are vital to the success of organizations today.”

Copyediting

“Bridging the gap between writers and publishers – especially technical and nonfiction copyediting – is one of today’s most marketable skills for both full-time and freelance work.”

Another one that was not on the list biotechnology certificate programs in which students learn about product development, regulatory affairs and best business practices in the life sciences industry.

Not surprisingly, many certificate programs are offered at local community colleges and frequently online. For regulatory affairs training you might try the Drug Information Association and Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society. The Project Management Institute offers training in project management and the Editorial Freelancers Association offers its members courses in copyediting. Mercer County College in West Windsor NJ in association with a local clinical research organization developed a “hands-on” certificate program in clinical trials design and management. 

In my opinion, certificate programs are worth checking out. They are designed for working professionals (courses are typically given in the evenings and weekends); usually only take 12 months to complete (what is one more year in the scheme of things) and improves the likelihood of finding a job because you now have a marketable skill set! It certainly beats collecting unemployment or sleeping in your old bed at your parent’s home—or not?

Hat tip to Resume Bear

Until next time...

 

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

Over the past three years, more than 90,000 pharmaceutical employees have been layed off. While many of these former employees were drug reps, a majority who lost their jobs were R&D scientists. If drug makers have already jettisioned tens of thousands of R&D jobs, how is the next generation of medicines going to be discovered and developed? Like it or not, pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D is beginning to be outsourced—much like information technology (IT) was in the late 1990s. And, like the IT industry much of R&D is being outsourced to countries like India and China. This should not be surprising because for the past 20 years or so, most of the people receiving PhDs in the life sciences were foreign nationals—many of whom were unable to stay in the US because of post-9/11 immigration policies and visa quotas. Without many options, many had no choice but to return to their home countries to seek employment and in some at contract research organizations (CROs) that specialize in pharmaceutical and biotechnology R&D.

According to a recent article written by J B Gupta Senior Vice President Collaborative Research GVK Biosciences Pvt. Ltd. India, for the last five years or so, Indian CROs like GVK Biosciences, Aurigene, Syngene, Advinus, Jubilant, Suven Life Sciences, Sai Lab, Accunova, iGate etc. have been positioning themselves as purveyors of R&D services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. These efforts have apparently paid off! Companies like Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Forrest Laboratories, Eli Lilly & Co, Johnson & Johnson, Merck Serono, Wyeth, Bristol Myers Squibb and others have entered into strategic R&D partnerships with many of India’s leading CROs. 

A recent study by the Kauffman Foundation suggests that India better positioned and ahead of China in R&D outsourcing. Further, the pace at which discovery collaborations are being established in India suggests that the western pharmaceutical industry is looking to Indian CROs not only to cut costs but to innovate as well.

Unfortunately, while this doesn’t bode well for American scientists, the US has nobody to blame but itself. Wrong-headed immigration policies coupled with inadequate training for life scientists who want to pursue industrial careers are largely responsible for the current R&D outsourcing activities. Like IT, I suspect that outsourcing will work for some companies but not others. Nevertheless, I think that outsourcing is here to stay and like it or not American life scientists will have no choice but to adapt to the “new normal.”

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India or China)

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on Wednesday that it was creating a new program aimed at “finding treatments for some of the 6,800 rare diseases that collectively affect about 25 million Americans.” 

According to NIH officials, the NIH would work with researchers and patient advocacy groups to identify new molecular entities (NMEs) that represent potential treatments for rare disorders. Once identified, NMEs will be turned over to private companies for further development. Information about molecules that failed to make the cut for further development will be published in scientific and medical journals. The NIH stressed that the goal of the program is to work with the drug industry not compete with it to develop new treatments.

Because many rare diseases only affect a few hundred or a few thousand people, there are little financial incentives or profit motives for companies to develop treatments for them. To stimulate drug development for rare diseases, the US Congress passed The Orphan Drug Act (1983) that offers companies that develop drugs for diseases affecting fewer than 200,000 people tax incentives, financial support for clinical development and seven years of US market exclusivity, i.e. the company can sell the product without competition for seven years. Since its passage, the Orphan Drug Act has been a boon to many biotechnology companies, most notably Genzyme, a profitable biotechnology company whose business model is built almost exclusively on orphan drug development.

NIH’s entry into the orphan drug development arena ought to help speed discovery and development of potential new treatments for orphan indications. It will undoubtedly help to reduce some of the cost, time and risks typically associated will corporate drug discovery. Industry experts suggest that drug discovery can sometimes cost well over $10.0 million and take between two to four years to complete. However, the program is starting with only $24 million this year and is expected to receive the same level of funding each year until 2013. While this may limit the overall effectiveness of the program, it will likely bring government and the drug industry closer to forge new relationships with the common goal of discovering much needed new treatment for orphan indications.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Research!!!!!!!!

 

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

Medtronics, the world's largest medical-device company, announced today that it will lay off 1,500-1,800 employees after posting a fiscal fourth-quarter profit that plunged 69 percent on slipping sales,restructuring and other charges. About 400 employees already have accepted buyout offers and will leave the company by the end of the month.

Until now, the medical devices and diagnostic industries, unlike pharma and biotech had had remained unscathed by the current economic downturn. Medtronic’s financial woes are mainly a result of questions about its implantable devices which have come under fire recently because of safety concerns. Nevertheless, don’t be surprised if you see other medical devices and diagnostic companies begin to layoff workers as the financial crisis deepens and medical and healthcare costs continue to rise.

Hat tip to Iguana Bio.

Until next time...

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

 

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

There has been no shortage of conversation lately about current problems facing the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. These industries are faced with the effects of the global recession because of a dangerous combination of falling revenues and spiraling costs. Life sciences company executives are looking for ways to cut production costs and cope with the current decline in drug sales.

“Social networking sites are great to catch-up with old friends, share photographs, music and links but in this climate does the executive community have time for this?” asked Spencer Green CEO of MeettheBoss.com “Credit isn’t the only casualty of the crunch: time is another scarce resource for executives, they need immediate value when online to inform stakeholders and update the public on need developments.

MeettheBoss.com, first launched for the financial services sector in 2008, has just unveiled a new and improved version – redesigned with increased functionality and features, and specifically launched to keep life sciences professionals abreast of late breaking news and trends in the industry. Free Video Roundtables, executive broadcasts and “smartwords” are some of the new functions for the executives to communicate with stakeholders and the public at large. More importantly, it provides instant access to a network of your peers. Also included in the new launch is an upgraded version of MeettheBossTV,an online television channel dedicated to business leaders. The first week of MeettheBoss pharma will feature John Earley, global head of lean and supply at AstraZeneca and Steve Dreamer, VP and head of engineering at Novartis.

While similar to BioCrowd, a social and business networking site for ALL bioprofessionals, MeettheBoss.com is almost exclusively focused on the "goings on" in the pharmaceutical industry.

Please drop me a line and let me know whether or not you like MeettheBoss

Until next time...

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

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

Roche announced Tuesday that it will replace Arthur Levinson, PhD, Genentech’s current CEO and American biotechnology pioneer, with Pacal Soriot, DVM, MBA who currently leads Roche’s worldwide commercial operations.  Dr. Levinson will become Chairman of Genentech’s newly configured board of directors but no longer have control over day-to-day operations at the company.  Mr. Soriot will become CEO of Genentech and head all of Roche’s pharmaceutical activities in the US. Some of the other changes that will occur at the company include: Susan Desmond-Hellmann, Genentech’s president of product development, will move into an advisory role after the middle of this year. Genentech CFO David Ebersman is leaving the company and Ian Clark, who heads commercial operations for Genentech, will be chief marketing officer of Roche’s pharma division.

Dr. Levinson and Mr. Soriot will lead the efforts to combine all of Roche’s North American operations which ultimately will be run from Genentech’s South San Francisco location. Many of the activities at Roche’s previous North American headquarters in Nutley, NJ will move west, which means downsizing, more layoffs and possible closure of the Nutley site. 

Dr. Levinson, one of Genentech’s early employees, joined the company as a senior scientist in 1980 and has been its chief executive since 1995. During his tenure, Genentech became the largest, most profitable and perhaps the most innovative biotechnology company in the US. Unlike Dr. Levinson, who is a molecular biologist and has over 30 years of experience in developing successful protein-based drugs, Dr. Soriot, a former Sanofi-Aventis financial and commercial operations executive has little or no experience with biotechnology products.

With this in mind, I suspect that many things will change at Genentech as Roche attempts to transform the once heralded biotechnology company into a subsidiary of its pharmaceutical division. Don’t be surprised if you see a mass exodus from company. Farewell DNA, all good things must end!

Until next time...


Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try Genentech, there will be openings soon)
 

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

Are you a life sciences or healthcare professional with a passion for computers, IT or software development? If so, you might want to consider a career in health informatics—one of the hottest, new fields in the life sciences and healthcare industries. Health informatics specialists typically have expertise in medical records and claims, clinical care and programming. In other words, they have a foot in two worlds— medicine and technology — and can easily bridge the often daunting gap between them. It is important to point out that there is a difference between healthcare IT and informatics personnel. The health IT people run the servers and install software, but the informatics people are the ones who analyze and interpret clinical/ medical information and work with clinical and other healthcare staff to advise and help them.

According to an article in this Sunday’s NY Times, health informatics specialists usually start as computer programmers or as doctors, nurses, pharmacists or health record administrators. After earning a graduate health informatics degree, they find jobs as mid level or senior employees at hospitals, doctor’s offices, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies or other organizations concerned with health data. Mid level jobs, like those for clinical analysts or informatics analysts, are usually about $70,000 a year, but salaries can be much higher for more senior level positions.  Senior level jobs, which sometimes require a Ph.D., include chief clinical information officer or other management/leadership roles at medical devices, life sciences or insurance companies. Consulting firms are also hiring health informatics experts to serve many of their health care clients who frequently don’t have the resources to hire permanent informatics staff.

At present there are no educational, licensing or credential requirements to become a health informaticist. However, a growing need for health informaticists has resulted in the creation of a number of degree programs at two and four year colleges and universities. For example, within the past four years, Columbia University, St. Louis University, the University of Minnesota and Oregon Health and Science University have all added master’s programs or certificates in health informatics. Other schools offer short courses or part-time certificate programs to healthcare employees or programmers. Still others are adding undergraduate majors or associates degrees programs to their curricula.

While many schools are beginning to offer health informatics programs, not all informatics programs are “created equal.” Generally speaking, “medical” or “biomedical” informatics programs focus on data that doctors need for treating patients. Bioinformatics” programs concentrate on biological or genetic data, while “health informatics” programs often emphasize clinical data and health records. Even among programs with the same name, the emphasis and expertise may vary at different institutions that offer the training.

By all accounts, health informatics —despite some early confusion—is one of the fastest growing careers in the bioscience and healthcare fields. Unlike other fields in the shrinking life sciences industry, there are plenty of jobs out there for health informaticists. Ironically, the failing US economy is what is driving the growth of the health informatics industry. The US government’s economic stimulus package has allocated $19 billion to hastening the adoption of electronic health records, so demand for health informatics specialists is skyrocketing. “My rough estimate is that we need about 70,000 health informaticists,” said Don E. Detmer, president and chief executive of the American Medical Informatics Association, a nonprofit industry group.

However, as a word of caution, it usually takes more than technical skills and an understanding of health care to succeed as a health informaticist. Diplomacy and conflict resolution skills are crucial when dealing with two potentially contentious groups: healthcare workers and programmers. Nevertheless, healthcare informatics is an ideal field for bioscientists and healthcare workers who also like to work with technology, computers or develop software. Based on my recent experiences as a bioscience career counselor, I know that there are thousands of you out there that fit this description. Now be the time to take a closer look at the exciting, new field of health informatics to determine whether or not it may be a career option for you!

Until next time...

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

 

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

Using Facebook and Twitter to find jobs is becoming routine in many industries including healthcare. However, the life sciences industry is lagging behind most others when it comes to social media and recruitment. Nevertheless, many companies and academic institutions are beginning to realize that Facebook (FB), Twitter and other science social networks are good source of qualified candidates for  those difficult-to fill job openings. 

Lindsey Pollak, a GenY career guru who, writes on the use of social media for job searching, alerted me to a post (via Twitter @biojobblog) that describes how to effectively use FB to find a job.  While FB may be useful to scientist looking for work, there are many other bioscience social networks like BioCrowd (@biocrowd) that regularly post jobs and career opportunities for life scientists.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting 

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

Since 2007, approximately 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs have been eliminated. The recent consolidation in the industry, e.g., Merck-Schering, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech suggests that many more life sciences jobs will be lost over the next year or so. Typically, to avoid law suits and possible discrimination claims, most companies will layoff a mixture of experienced and entry level employees that cover the racial, religious and age spectra. For those of you who may not know, Americans who are 40 and older constitute a “protected class of employees.” In other words, companies that layoff employees cannot disproportionately give pink slips to employees 40 years of age or older. This law was enacted because older employees typically have higher salaries and have accrued more benefits and vacation time than their more junior counterparts and eliminating them can drastically cut costs. While most companies are careful to layoff a mixture of junior and senior employees during large layoffs, a quick perusal of the demographics of employees who lose their jobs reveals that many of them are older, more experienced workers. Sacrificing a few entry level employees (to prevent any red flags) is worth it to the accountants who charged with cutting costs and orchestrating large corporate layoffs.

Unlike consumer goods, pharmaceutical and biotechnology drug development is arcane, complex and may take up to 15 years to complete. There are many “go” or “no go” decisions that must be made during the drug development process. Typically, these decisions are rendered by experienced employees who have been “down the road” many times before and are able to recognize the oft-time nuanced attributes of successful drug candidates. Without the benefit of these employee and their experiences, drug companies may struggle to make the “right decisions” for new products being developed. Also, the loss of experienced employees can disrupt the flow of essential “corporate knowledge” to entry level and more junior employees. This is important because— while most entry level and junior employees are academically and technically qualified—it usually takes them years (under the tutelage of mentors and senior employees) to understand a company’s best practices. Put simply, the unrelenting loss of experienced pharmaceutical workers can alter the standing or dominance of pharmaceutical companies in certain therapeutic areas. While massive layoffs of experienced pharmaceutical employees bolster drug stock prices in the short term, the long term effects of these layoffs on the overall health of the pharmaceutical industry remains uncertain.

Jeff Kindler, Pfizer’s CEO, mentioned yesterday during a CNBC interview, that eight Wyeth senior executives will keep their jobs after the Pfizer-Wyeth deal closes later this year. Not surprisingly, he failed to mention how many “rank and file” employees of the combined company would keep their jobs after the merger. Don’t be shocked when Pfizer-Wyeth announces massive layoffs after the deal closes—Pfizer’s stock price has fallen 21% since it announced the Wyeth acquisition late last fall.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

 

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

The US economy has lost about 7.1 million jobs since December 2007 and nationwide unemployment is hovering around 8.5 percent. Despite the lost of  about 80,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years and unprecedented consolidation taking place in the life sciences sector—Merck-Schering Plough, Pfizer-Wyeth and Roche-Genentech—the job prospects for scientists at biotech companies, medical devices and diagnostics, and government appear to be stronger than anticipated. While drug discovery and sales jobs may be scare, there are rapidly emerging opportunities in the fields of medical communications, regulatory affairs, biomanufacturing, clinical trials management , bioengineering, medical devices/diagnostics and website development and management.

President Obama’s promise to restore science to its rightful place, his reversal of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and an unwavering commitment to alternate energy technologies suggest that the future may be very bright for bioscientists. For example, there are massive hiring initiatives at federal agencies like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Unites States Department of Agriculture (UDSA) — as the Obama administration attempts to overall these agencies— and funding levels at the National Institutes of Health are on the rise (aided in part by a $200 million Challenge Grant stimulus program).

While the road to economic recovery may be a long one, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows who are currently engaged in life sciences research should “stay the course and not jump ship just yet.” The life sciences industry is more recession proof than others and it will be one of the first to experience an economic turn around. And, when it does it is best to prepared to find a job!

Until next time…

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

 

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

Previously, the US Congress proposed legislation to create a regulatory approval process to allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve generic versions of blockbuster biotechnology drugs known as follow-on biologics (FOBs). While a regulatory pathway exists for approval of generic versions of small molecule drugs (as outlined in the Hatch-Waxman Act) there is no legally-approved regulatory pathway to bring FOBs to market in the US. In contrast with the US, the European Union crafted legislation five years ago that allows biosimilars —the name given to FOBs in Europe—to be approved and sold in EU member states. Since 2004, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), the EU regulatory body, has approved the sale of six biosimilar drugs with many more in the queue awaiting regulatory review.

The debate over FOB legislation started in the US about 10 years ago when patent expiry of many  multi-billion blockbuster biotechnology drugs was fast approaching. From the beginning, many so-called innovator companies (the companies that produced the original branded biotechnology drugs) and the trade associations that represent them on Capital Hill, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), aggressively lobbied against any form of FOB legislation. However, late last year, several senators introduced legislation that would permit FDA to approve generic versions of many blockbuster biopharmaceutical products following patent expiry. The proposed legislation stipulated that FOB manufacturers would have to wait 12 years —after patent expiry of previously approved biotechnology drugs—before generic versions of those drugs could be sold in the US. That legislation, which unabashedly favored innovator drug manufacturers, passed the Senate health committee but died without being voted on. The new measure, introduced Thursday, cuts by more than half — to 5 years, from 12 — the time allowed before cheaper versions of biotechnology drugs could compete with the originals. A similar bill was introduced two weeks ago in the House by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

While the proposed reduction in the so-called “FOB waiting period” is commendable, I don’t think that any waiting period is necessary before FOBs can be sold in the US. It is difficult to understand why innovator companies require an additional patent protection—beyond the 20 years already afforded to them under US patent law—to continue to sell their blockbuster products! To that end, Jeff Joseph, a spokesman for the BIO said that the FOB waiting period reduction, “.... Would jeopardize patient safety and undermine our ability to develop future cures and therapies.” I believe that the FOB waiting period being championed by innovators companies is nothing more a thinly veiled attempt by them to continue to maintain monopolistic control over lucrative multibillion dollar biopharmaceutical drug franchises. Biotech executives have vowed to vigorously fight the new legislation, saying it could result in unsafe medicines, fewer cures and fewer jobs in biotechnology centers like Boston, California and elsewhere. Interestingly, similar arguments were put forward by the pharmaceutical industry before the Hatch-Waxman act was passed by Congress in 1984..

Despite the claims that FOBs will stifle innovation and may jeopardize the safety of Americans, the current high costs and lack of access to affordable healthcare will almost certainly leave Congress no choice but to pass legislation that permits the marketing and sale of FOBs in the US. While FOB legislation is a likely fait accompli, US drug manufacturers remain steadfastly opposed to any FOB legislation. I believe that innovator company opposition to FOB legislation is really a “red herring” that serves to detract attention away from the real issue that the drug industry is deathly afraid of federal regulation of drug prices. Interestingly, the US is one of the only countries in the world where drug prices are not regulated or controlled by the government. This permits drug manufacturers to set prices based exclusively on “what price the US market will bear.” In other words, they can charge as much as they want for their drugs, as long as third party payors, insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid agree to continue to cover the costs of the drugs that they manufacture (it should come as no surprise to anyone that the American pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets are the largest and most financially lucrative in the world).

I have no doubt that innovator companies will continue to fight hard and as long as possible prevent adoption of legislation regulating the approval of FOBs. After all, there are huge sums of money and corporate profits at stake. Like it or not, FOBs will ultimately be sold in the US—the current costs of drug and healthcare are simply too high to sustain. Despite a fierce decade-long struggle, most American drug makers will privately concede that sale of FOBs in the US is inevitable. Nevertheless, innovator companies will likely not publicly endorse FOB legislation until the US government provides them with assurances that it will not seek to regulate American drug prices for the foreseeable future.

Until next time...

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

 

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

It’s official!  Roche has secured more than 96 percent of shares in Genentech Inc, completing its $46.8 billion buyout of the U.S. biotech group. It now holds some 93 percent of outstanding Genentech shares, a further 3 percent are guaranteed to be delivered within the next three business days and it will integrate the U.S. biotech group as soon as possible.

Soon after Roche completed the transaction on Thursday, the company announced that Genentech's common stock would no longer be traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

Genentech, founded in 1976, was one of the first and most successful biotechnology companies in the US. After lagging behind rival Amgen for most of the 1990s, Genentech eclipsed Amgen in the early 2000s on the strength of its oncology franchise (Herceptin and Avastin) and its deep drug development pipeline.

Its acquisition by Roche truly signals the end of an era in history of the American biotechnology industry.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Cloning! 

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

As you all know by now, Merck announced on Monday that it will purchase Schering Plough for $41.1billion in a deal constructed as a reverse merger. The reverse merger strategy was concocted to prevent the new company from losing the international sale rights to Remicade, Johnson and Johnson’s lucrative, blockbuster rheumatoid arthritis drug. According to the original deal inked by Johnson and Johnson and Schering Plough, Schering would have to surrender its rights to Remicade— which generated $2.1 billion in sales outside of the US last year —and golimumab (which is pending approval in Europe) if current ownership of Schering changes. Golimumab (CNTO 148) is Johnson and Johnson’s Centocor division next-generation human anti-TNF-alpha monoclonal antibody be developed as monthly subcutaneous treatment for adults with active forms of rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.  Since the merger was announced on Monday, Johnson and Johnson hasn’t issued any public statements about the deal—prompting some analysts to speculate that Johnson and Johnson may well make a counteroffer to acquire Schering Plough. Others believe that Johnson and Johnson will challenge the new company’s international rights to Remicade and golimumab despite the great lengths that Merck and Schering Plough management went to structure the acquisition as a reverse merger. Stay tuned for updates.

In other merger news, US-based Gilead announced that it will acquire CV Therapeutics for about $1.4 billion. The deal tops the hostile takeover offer from Astellas Pharma of Japan. Gilead, an HIV drug manufacturer is purchasing CV Therapeutics—which sells the cardiovascular drugs Ranexa (chronic angina) and Lexican (reduces stress during cardiovascular surgical procedures)—to expand its therapeutic repertoire beyond virology. The stock prices of shares of Gilead and CV Therapeutics jumped after the announcement signaling Wall Street’s approval of the deal.   Nevertheless, it may be premature for Gilead and CV Therapeutics to begin celebrating—Astellas may very well tender a counteroffer!

Until next time...

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

 

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

Merck announced today that it was buying Schering Plough, the Kenilworth-New Jersey based drug maker, for $41.1 billion. The deal comes only six weeks after Pfizer said that it would purchase NJ-based Wyeth Pharmaceuticals. Superficially, the deal may make sense for the two struggling drug makers—they co-market the cholesterol-lowering drug Vytorin and also have collaborations in the respiratory diseases area. Also, Schering Plough has the European rights to the anti-arthritis drug Remicade and its 2007 purchase of the Dutch biopharmaceutical company Organon Biosciences NV provides access to several potential biotechnology drugs. Nevertheless, the impending merger will ultimately result in job losses and higher unemployment in the state of New Jersey.

Merck currently employs 55,200 workers and Schering-Plough—which grew significantly with its purchase of Organon—also has about 55,000 employees. While no immediate job cuts are planned, a company spokesperson acknowledged that the size of the combined workforce will be reduced by approximately 15%-20% over the next year or so. This means that as many as 20,000 pharmaceutical employees may lose their jobs—a time when unemployment in NJ is approaching 10 percent! My sources tell me that Merck employees are already on edge because of surprise layoffs that occurred in early September, 2008. I suspect that employee anxiety will be extremely high at both companies for the foreseeable future—never a good thing from a productivity point of view.

According to press releases, Schering-Plough's shareholders will get $10.50 in cash and 0.5767 Merck shares for each Schering-Plough share they own. That's a 34 percent premium to Schering-Plough's closing stock price on Friday. Merck's top executive, Chairman and CEO Richard Clark, will lead the combined company, which will attempt to remain a dominant player in treatment areas including cholesterol, respiratory, infectious disease and women's drugs, as well as vaccines. Schering-Plough's CEO, Fred Hassan, will participate in planning integration of the two companies until the close of the deal, which is expected in the fourth quarter. The transaction is to be structured as a reverse merger. Schering-Plough will be the surviving corporation but will take the name Merck. The new company will remain at Merck's headquarters in Whitehouse Station, N.J. and a company spokesperson indicated that a "substantial majority" of employees of Schering-Plough will remain with the newly-formed company. The combined revenue of both companies in 2008 was $47 billion.

Mr. Hassan, a talented, “turn-around” pharmaceutical executive, took over Schering-Plough six years ago as chairman and CEO—a time when the company was struggling with a $500 million fine (the largest ever at the time) imposed by the US Food and Drug Administration because of chronic manufacturing problems. While Schering-Plough is now in much better financial shape than when Mr. Hassan first arrived at the company, its stock price is currently almost identical to the price when he took over (it lost 50% of its value in the past 18 months). Let’s see whether or not Richard Clark, Merck’s current Chairman and CEO, has the mettle to run the combined company. While Schering-Plough has long been rumored to be a takeover target, I don’t think that the Merck-Schering Plough deal is a particularly good or strategic one. Both companies have been struggling of late because of near empty drug pipelines and the ongoing brouhaha over Zetia, Vytorin and Merck’s Vioxx. Further, both companies face price reductions and slumping sales in the next year or so because several blockbuster drugs will lose patent protection and face stiff competition from generic drug manufacturers.

Like the Pfizer-Wyeth deal, the Merck-Schering Plough merger may little more than a red herring. I still fail to see how merging two oversized, struggling pharmaceutical companies can possibly result in the creation of a single successful one. The only upside of the deal is that it allows the newly-formed company to restructure operations, eliminate tens of thousands of jobs and cut costs to bolster its stock share price. That said, I don’t think that an artificially-inflated stock share price necessarily translates into the innovation that historically has been required to create new drugs to treat unmet medical needs!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (avoid NJ at all costs)!!!!!!!

 

 

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

Facebook contends that it has over 175 million members, making it the largest social network in the world! Interestingly, according to an article in today’s New York Times, most US members are “still relatively young.” “Facebook offers advertisers a target of 54.4 million members of all ages. But if an advertiser wants to narrow its target audience to those 25 or older, the number drops to 28.8 million. Narrow it to those 30 or older, and Facebook has 20.3 million to offer.” However, this is not surprisingly because people 30 and over weren’t allowed to join Facebook until 2006. In fact, many over-30 individuals have yet to sign up! In support of this, I am increasingly getting friend requests from my contemporaries—most of whom are in their 40s and 50s.

Each week, a million new members are added in the United States and five million globally—the 30-and-older group is its fastest-growing demographic (and the one with the most money to spend).  Further, Facebook members are becoming increasingly social and gregarious. In December the average number of “friends” per member was 100. Since then, it has grown to 120 per member according to a Facebook spokesperson. If Facebook continues to grow at its current rate, it will likely experience unprecedented and astonishing growth in the next few years. And, when it comes to monetizing social networks, bigger is always better!

Until next time...

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

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

For the past decade or so, I have worked as a career counselor at national scientific meetings where I present seminars about resume writing, interviewing techniques and other career related issues. About two years ago, I started to hear about the fierce competition for H-1 and J-1 visas that foreign students must obtain to remain in the US to continue their studies and research. Many of the foreign students that I talked with sounded more like immigration lawyers than graduate students or postdocs—I was amazed at how well informed they were about visa availability and the changes and loopholes in US immigration law that can be exploited to obtain visas.

Since that time, it has become increasingly apparent that the visa problems experienced by most foreign students are beginning to wreak havoc on US science and engineering. Curiously, nobody at the US State Department seems to know why these visa problems exist. According to an article in today’s NY Times, a State Department official claims that visa delays can be attributed to “unfortunate staffing shortages.” Many of the students (and some immigration lawyers) that I talked with believe that it is annual visa limits and quotas not staffing issues that make it so difficult to obtain them.

It is no secret that American middle and high school students are no longer interested in pursuing careers in science and engineering. Because of this, American universities have come to rely on foreign students to fill open slots in graduate and postdoctoral sciences and engineering programs. With this in mind, it should come as no surprise that, over the past decade or more, foreign talent has been largely responsible for much of the technical and scientific innovation in the US.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, American universities can no longer assume that the US is the first choice or destination for many foreign undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students—teaching and research at many foreign universities have vastly improved in recent years and can now compete with the best research institutions in the US.  In the past, it was largely assumed that when given a choice foreign student would choice a US university over all others. Together these findings beg the question: “If foreign students and postdocs are largely responsible for maintaining America’s competitive edge in science and technology, why would the US government make it so difficult to recruit the world’s best and brightest?”

There is no doubt that the US government, in a post-September 11^th world ought to carefully scrutinize foreign students before they are issued visas to study or work in the US. But, why has it become increasingly difficult for foreign students to renew their visas to continue to study or work in the US? Interestingly, visa availability and renewal problems are not only restricted to foreign nationals from likely places like China, India, the Middle East or Russia.  Many students and postdocs from Australia, Europe and elsewhere are also experiencing major delays and difficulty obtaining student or work visas.

While the visa issues facing foreign students may not seem like a big one to most Americans (most of who are not involved in science and engineering), its effects on American science and engineering are beginning to become apparent. For example, conference organizers are reluctant to hold international meetings in the US because they fear that many students and scientists will not be able to attend because of limited visa availability. Further, many talented foreign nationals, who want to remain and work in the US, are frequently forced to return to their home countries (to find employment) because they are unable to renew or extend their US visas. There is no question that America has grown increasingly dependent upon foreign students to conduct research in science and engineering.  I contend, that without these students, America’s competitiveness in science and engineering will continue to wane as it has over the past 20 years.  I believe that America has two choices to prevent this from happening. First, we can somehow convince larger numbers of American high school students to pursue careers in science and engineering. Second, the US government can improve and simply the visa process so that talented foreign students can continue to study and do research in the US. Nevertheless, something must be done soon—the future competitiveness of American science and engineering depends on it!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Visa Hunting!!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• 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

I have been accumulating anecdotal information about companies,organizations and institutions that use social media tools like Facebook, Twitter YouTube etc.  I decided to attempt to conduct an informal survey  to determine whether or not the life sciences sector is adopting and embracing social media to meet its objectives (whatever they may be). 

To that end, I constructed a Google Docs spread sheet to collect information for the survey.  Please take a look at the survey and fill in the requested information. I will publish the results of the survey if enough people response to this request.

I look forward to hearing from as many of you as possible. Don't be shy, everything is anonymous!

Until next time...

 

Good Luck and Good Tweeting!!!!!

 

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

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

Twitter, the microblogging platform, is the current rage in social media. According to @Shwen, who writes the Med 2.0 Blog, it grew by 752% in 2008. Shwen is a social media enthusiast who is trying to convince the life sciences industry that Twitter and other social networks can be leveraged to improve drug development and deliver healthcare.

According to a recent post on Med. 2.0, there are currently three pharmaceutical companies that are actively using Twitter: Novartis (@novartis), Boehringer Ingelheim (@Boehringer) and Astra Zeneca (AstraZenecaUS). Also, it appears that Johnson and Johnson (@JNJcomm) launched an account last week. Tweets from @novartis and @Boehringer occur fairly regularly whereas AstraZenecaUS tweets are rare. Unlike YouTube, where pharmaceutical sponsors who create channels can regulate and control content, it is much more difficult to manage Twitter because tweets are in real time, uncensored (for the most part) and can be globally disseminated within seconds.

Despite these issues, Med 2.0’s Shwen muses “I can only imagine that more pharma companies are going to be jumping on board the Twitter-train sooner rather than later. How they use it to engage, on the other hand, is going to vary greatly from company to company. At the very least, I see companies setting up accounts as “listening posts”, but others may choose to engage, like @boehringer does in an informal manner. Whatever the case, Twitter is fast becoming the new dominant space for listening and/or engaging the life sciences community.”

Like Shwen, I believe that it a matter of time before pharma and biotech realize that they must embrace social media (in all of its various forms) to remain competitive in today’s increasingly interconnected marketplace.

For those of you who may be interested, you can follow BioJobBlog (@Biojobblog) and Biocrowd (@Biocrowd) on Twitter too!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Twittering

 

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

The Eye on FDA blog reported today that AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis have joined the ranks of Abbott, GSK, J&J and SanofiPasteur on YouTube. Pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of the power of YouTube and other social media sites because regulatory guidance hasn’t been issued on its use to promote products or brand awareness. In other words, this is uncharted territory and companies can essentially 'test the waters' to see how far regulatory agencies will let them go.  I suspect that early life sciences company adopters of social media will garner substantial ROI before regulatory guidance is issued.

A lack of regulatory oversight, the ability to manage and control content and the low costs associated with creating Internet videos make YouTube and other social media sites attractive to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The life sciences sector is just beginning to recognize the power of social media and the role that it may play in promoting products and brand awareness to consumers.  Expect many more life sciences companies to experiment with social media in the near future--its a veritable goldmine!

Until next time…

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

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

Ever wonder how a drug makes it from the bench to the marketplace and what types of jobs are required to support the process? I created a PowerPoint presentation that describes the activities and the jobs required at each stage of the development process. I also listed the degree requirements that are necessary to secure various jobs from drug discovery through commercialization.

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

Earlier this month, Vincent Racaniello and I launched a new social network called BioCrowd. Vincent and I created BioCrowd because we believe that social media has a critical role to play in the evolution of the life sciences and existing 'science social networks' were difficult to navigate or too broad to adequately meet the needs of the bioscience community.

Our objectives are  to promote scientific and business interactions between BioCrowd members and offer advice to members who may be seeking to advance their careers or find jobs. To that end, we decided to create a monthly podcast that will keep network members apprised of all of the comings and goings at BioCrowd.

Please send us your feedback on our very first podcast.  Also, feel free to suggest topics that you would like discussed on future podcasts! 

Until next time...

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Until next time….

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!! 

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

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

BioCrowd, a new social networking site for bioprofessionals was officially launched today.  We are still making last minute fixes and cosmetic changes so please bear with us over the next few weeks.

BioCrowd's main goal is to provide a venue for career development and business interactions for students, scientists and other bioprofessionals.  We plan on adding new applications and functionality as the network evolves.  That said, please let us know what you think, what you like and don't like and how we can improve BioCrowd to meet your needs.

Thanks and I hope that you become a member of the BioCrowd!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

 

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

Glassdoor.com a site that allows people to rate CEO and company performance selected Arthur Levinson, one of the original founders and current CEO of Genentech as the “nicest CEO” of the year. Dr. Levinson received a 93 percent approval rating and he is the only biotech CEO on the list. A strategic planner at Genentech wrote “He leads the Silicon Valley biotech company with a “decision-making structure that intrinsically forces authority downward to the lowest possible level providing many opportunities to exercise and test one’s judgment.”  I have worked with Genentech on education and training initiatives in the past and as far as I am concerned it is “second to none” in the biotech industry. 

It is evident from Genentech’s continued success, that Dr. Levinson is truly one of the unsung heroes (and pioneers) of the biotechnology industry. I am glad that he is finally getting the recognition that he deserves.

Until next time…

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

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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 know this is kind of odd, but I have recently begun to wonder which life sciences companies have layed off the most employees this past year. Well, for those of you out there who were also wondering we don't have to wonder any longer because Ed Silverman over at the Pharmalot blog has conveniently compiled a list of the top offenders for us. For those of you who may be wondering which company was number one on the list, it’s name begins with a “P” and ends with an “r.”

Until next time…

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

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

It seems that every day a new American industry asks the US government for a bailout because of impending financial exigency. That said, I was somewhat surprised to learn today that the biotechnology industry is planning to ask Congress for a bailout. The plan calls for Congress to temporarily changes tax laws to allow unprofitable biotech companies to get cash now, in exchange for tax credits that they would pledge not to take if they eventually become profitable. The companies that receive the cash would pledge that the money would be used ONLY for research and development activities. The reasoning behind the proposed government bailout is that the infused capital would allow struggling biotech companies to keep their current employees, stay in business and help to stimulate the US economy. It is not clear whether or not all biotechnology companies—publicly traded or privately held—would be eligible for the bailout package.

Currently, there are 327 publicly traded and roughly 1,000 privately held biotechnology companies in the US. A majority of these companies are not profitable and operate almost exclusively on institutional and private venture capital funds. According to the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), 125 of 327 public companies currently have less than 6 months of cash on hand—nearly double the total last year. It is not surprising that the biotechnology industry like most other US industries is struggling and feeling the impact of recent financial meltdown—there simply isn’t enough liquidity in the system to keep all companies afloat. While I am not opposed in principle to government bailouts, there are several reasons why the proposed rescue plan for the biotechnology industry doesn’t sense to me.

First, unlike the automobile industry which employs millions of workers, the biotechnology industry only employs about 200,000 workers, many of whom have advanced degrees and possess specialized technical skills. And, studies show that during recessionary periods workers with specialized skills are more likely to find employment after losing a job than their unskilled counterparts. This suggest that it may be better for the American economy in the long run if the government bails out the auto industry before it even considers a bailout for biotech. Nevertheless, BIO is actively lobbying for a government bailout because it believes that a bailout will not only stimulate the American economy but also help to “preserve American innovation and competitiveness.” Of interest, the pharmaceutical industry which shed over 123,000 jobs in the last year or so is not asking for government assistance. As one Washington lobbyist aptly quipped after hearing about the proposed biotech bailout: saving “research-based companies that employ 30 people won’t necessarily stimulate the economy.”

Second, the biotechnology business is inherently a very risky one. The failure rate among biotech companies is roughly 90%. And, as many of you know, biotechnology companies are always started with venture capital from investors who are willing to invest in risky projects because of possible financially-lucrative returns. Because of this, biotechnology executives are generally beholden to their investors rather than their shareholders, stakeholders or employees. Unfortunately, important business decisions are frequently made at venture-backed biotech companies for financial reasons rather than scientific or medical ones. Further, many financially-challenged, biotechnology companies that would benefit from the bail out started up almost a decade ago when venture capital was abundant and IPOs were daily events. In retrospect, many of these companies shouldn’t have been started in the first place because their technology platforms were either inadequately vetted or their business models were fundamentally flawed. I believe that these financially troubled companies ought to be allowed to fail just like the technology companies that had to close down in the early 2000s after the Internet bubble finally burst.

Third, why should unprofitable companies without products or revenues be bailed out and rewarded for failure? As I posited in a previous post, a company really isn’t a business until it has a product, generates revenues and turns a profit (or at least break even). If a company cannot create a viable business after 5-10 years of capital investments then it wasn’t a good value proposition at the outset. Perhaps a better use of the proposed bailout money would be for the US government to create public funding vehicles for companies that have developed promising new drugs that already have proof of concept in humans and are ready for clinical testing.

Finally, over the past decade, the biotechnology industry has spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying against the reimportation of drugs from foreign companies and the development of so-called follow-on biologics (potentially cheaper versions of blockbuster biotechnology drugs that have lost patent protection). This decade-long lobbying effort was undertaken to preserve America’s biotechnology monopoly and to insure that biotech drug prices remain high. Maybe BIO and its member companies should have considered using some of those monies to help struggling biotechnology companies rather than using it to influence politicians for tax breaks and pork barrel legislative initiatives.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, why should taxpayer dollars be used to bailout an industry that has actively opposed and steadfastly refused to provide ALL Americans with access to reasonably priced, potentially life-saving biotech drugs? Because the biotechnology industry isn’t fundamentally different than any other American industry, I believe that the Darwinian principle of “survival of the fittest ought” to be applied to it. Unless, of course, you work on Wall Street or in Detroit—but don’t get me started!

Until next time…

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

 

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

I first thought about starting a social network for life sciences professionals about a year ago after joined I Facebook and LinkedIn and then learned about SciLink, one of the first social networks for scientists. Apparently, others had the same idea and today, there are currently, by my reckoning, no fewer than 20 social networks for scientists—each promoting a unique approach to networking for scientists.

David Bradley, a UK-based science writer who can be followed on Twitter as sciencebase, did me a favor by posting a piece oh his blog in early November that reviews many of these networks. Surprisingly, most of them were designed almost exclusively for academic scientists! I was thrilled to learn this because we created BioCrowd , our new social network, for ALL life science professionals not just academicians and industry scientists. David has graciously agreed to allow me to repost his article entitled "Social Media for Scientists" below.

Social Media For Scientists

Towards the end of October, I received a flurry of emails asking me to check out new social networking sites for scientists, I’ve already reviewed the nanoscience community, of course. I suspect that, the academic year having moved into full swing, there were a few scientists hoping to tap into the power of social media tools and the whole web-two-point-ohhhh thing.

This from Brian Krueger:

“I came across your blog during my weekly Google search for “science social network.” I thought you might be interested in my website, LabSpaces.net. It’s a social network for the sciences that I’ve had on-line for the last two years and I recently got my University to send out a press release about it. I think you should stop by and check it out. Let me know what you think, I’m always looking for suggestions on how to improve the site.”

LabSpaces has all of the features of a social-networking site with the addition of a daily science newsfeed, lab profiles, a science forum, blogs, and a science protocol database. Apparently, the site provides space for researchers to create their own user profile, add their publication history, upload technical research protocols, blog about science, and share research articles with the community. The site will soon host a free video conferencing service to facilitate long distance collaborations and journal clubs.

New Zealander Peter Matthews who works in Japan emailed:

“I am a full-time researcher from NZ, working in Japan, at a museum with many international research visitors. This multilingual environment made me very aware of: (1) the difficulties that non-English based researchers face when using English, and (2) the difficulties that English mono-linguals face when trying to access or publish research in other important research languages, such as Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, French, and so on. Hence my website: The Research Cooperative - http://cooperative.ning.com. Please have a look, join if you want, and please tell any friends and colleagues about this site if you think they might find it useful.”

Pascal Boels, Managing Director of SurgyTec.com emailed with a medical tale:

“Our website is for and by medical professionals. It’s a video-sharing site for surgeons and medical professionals to show off their newly minted skills. It makes it easy for medical professionals to upload videos or slideshows and share those with the community. You can search for videos by specialty, organ/region, tissue, etiology, operation type, or technique. Many surgeons perform original and high-quality techniques in their operating room and equally many surgeons would like to learn from these new and inspiring techniques. Up till now it was very difficult, time consuming and expensive to take a look in each others operating room and share practical knowledge, tips and tricks. Surgytec.com provides the solution for this problem. We are currently serving over 4000 surgeons from more than 124 countries, sharing over 400 procedures

Priyan Weerappuli had long been interested in scientific research but felt that applied research was guarded by private institutions while basic research was held within the confines of colleges and universities by overpriced journals and an oversimplification that occurred whenever research results were translated for more general audiences. His forum/platform will attempt to open this research to a general audience - http://www.theopensourcescienceproject.com

Some correspondents are claiming they’re approaching web 3.0 nirvana:

“ResearchGATE is proud to announce a major update: We greatly improved our search functionality and called it ReFind. The name symbolizes the importance of an efficient and result-driven search functionality within research in general and within our network in particular. ReFind is one of the first search engines based on semantic, “intelligent” correlations. It enables you to find groups, papers, fellow researchers and everything else within and outside of ResearchGATE without having to read through dozens of irrelevant results. Just type a few sentences into ReFind or simply copy and paste your abstract. Our semantic algorithm will then search the leading databases for similar work, providing you with truly relevant results.” [Sounds like my Zemanta/ResearchBlogging.org idea, DB]

One observer pointed out, however, that ResearchGate’s semantic search is maybe not the greatest thing to happen to search in a decade (especially, when we have the likes of True Knowledge Ubiquity, and Zemanta. Indeed, some users have said it is not much of an improvement on conventional search.

Then there was:

“ScienceStage.com - Science in the 21st century - A wide forum for science - on an interdisciplinary, international and individual level. ScienceStage.com, the only universal online portal for science, advanced teaching and academic research, bridges a major gap in scientific research and learning. ScienceStage.com is a virtual conference room, lecture hall, laboratory, library and meeting venue all in one.”

But, perhaps the best is saved for last. An Oxford graduate student, who has completed his PhD, Richard Price, has launched Academia.edu, which he says does two things:

“It displays academics around the world in a ‘tree’ format, according to which institution/department they are affiliated with. And, it enables researchers to keep track of the latest developments in theirfield - the latest people, papers, and talks.”

Price wants to see every academic in the world on his tree and already has Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Paul Krugman, and Noam Chomsky as members. But, that’s the hype what about its potential? It resembles BioMedExperts because both use a “social” publishing tree, but is that enough to engage scientists?

It will be interesting to see whether any of these sites gain the traction their creators hope for and how things will pan out as the credit crunch bites harder. “There are a bunch of them out there,” Krueger told me, “It’s kind of scary how many came out after Nature and I went on-line in 2006. There’s definitely a lot of competition out there, it seems like a new one appears every month. I wonder how the economy and loss of tech funding is going to affect the larger start-ups.”

Then, there are those perhaps more well-known social media sites and networks for scientists, that are listed in no particular order:

Nature Network - uber network from the publishing giant

BioMedExperts - Scientific social networking

BioWizard - Blogged up Pubmed search

Mendeley - Digital paper repository and sharing

Labmeeting - Ditto

YourLabData - socialised LIMS

SciLink - Sci-Linkedin

Myexperiment.com - mostly workflows.

Laboratree.org similar to Researchgate. Not particularly social beyond groups and sharing documents with collaborators, but email is better, and arguably more secure.

scitizen.com - collaborative science news publishing

SocialMD - Med-Linkedin

Ozmosis - Ditto

DNA Network - network of DNA/genetics bloggers

ResearchCrossroads - Socialised grant databases

MyNetResearch - Socialised LIMS at a price

SciVee - YouTube for scientists (see also Watch with Sciencebase page

Scientist Solutions - science chat

There are so many, I can barely keep up, but if you have any you think I should add to the list, let me know via the comments box below. Or, more importantly, if you have used any of these systems please leave your thoughts.

Meanwhile, my apologies if you were expecting a lesson in how to use the likes of Twotter, FiendFreed, Ding, Pyuke, or Facebok’s feeble science apps, to help you get on in science socially, but I thought it was about time I did some linking out to the web 3.0 brigade in the world of science, so here they are.

Addendum: Since David published this piece in early November, BioJobBlog learned about several other social networks for scientists including labroots, beaker, scientistsolutions and wizfolio.

Until next time…

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!!!!!

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• 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 want to let my readers know that a beta-version of BioCrowd is ready for review. For those of you who may not know about BioCrowd, it is a social network for life sciences students and professionals that was created by Vincent Racaniello a Professor at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and me. 

The reason we started BioCrowd was that Vincent and I both perceived a need for undergraduate and graduate students and postdoctoral fellows to more effectively network with established scientists and life sciences professionals to further advance their careers or find jobs. The social interactivity of Facebook and the business connectivity of LinkedIn are what led to the creation of BioCrowd.

We are looking for a few brave women and men who want to help to beta-test BioCrowd before we launch.  If you are interested, please visit us at www.biocrowd.com and drop us a line.   For those of you who don't want to participate at the moment, but want to learn about our progress, you can follow us on Twitter and FriendFeed ,

Until next time...

 

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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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!

 

 It Really Does Work!

1. Kyle Flaherty used Twitter to find a job that moved him and his family to Austin, TX from Boston. He tweeted to approximately 650 contacts that he had left his job. He included a link to a blog post outlining his interest in connecting. He explains, “Within hours I had several emails, IMs, phone calls and tweets about the topic and it actually ended up that I took a new job.” Follow this link for an interview with Kyle’s new boss, Pam O’Neil, who explains how she and Kyle used Twitter to fill the position.
2. Heidi Miller, the “Podcasting Princess,” found a freelance project using Twitter by tweeting updates about her job hunt. Many of her colleagues questioned the wisdom of being so open about her search; they worried she look desperate or foolish. However, the ends justified the means.

As more and more get involved (dare I say addicted?) to Twitter, opportunities to leverage this tool for job search networking will grow exponentially. Don’t be the one left behind! Get on board and start connecting for success!

 

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

The Pharmalot blog reported today that this coming Friday, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) will conduct a workshop on the issue of follow-on biologics. The roundtable will apparently be organized into five panels to discuss: 1) the price and market share effect of entry by both biosimilar and biogeneric drugs, 2) the likely competitive effects of reference product regulatory exclusivity, 3) biotechnology patent issues, 4) the likely competitive effects of follow-on biologic regulatory incentives, and 5) the patent resolution process.

The first thing that comes to mind is “beating a dead horse” (euphemistically of course). Call me crazy but these very issues have been bandied about and discussed ad nauseum and  for the past decade or so. I am not sure what new revelations will come to light at this Friday’s FTC roundtable meeting. 

Here’s a thought. Maybe industry representatives, FDA regulators and the insurance companies ought to ask the European Union how they were able to craft their version of a regulatory pathway for approval of these products way back in 2004. Nah…let’s let the lobbyist duke it out and see which side wins!

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

According to the WSJ Health Blog “Wyeth is overhauling its early-stage research by slashing in half the number of therapeutic areas and diseases for which it will pursue new medicines. The idea is to concentrate on more innovative products and get them to market faster.” Whenever large companies restructure or announce reorganization plans, job cuts are soon to follow. So, if you are a Wyeth employee I recommend updating that resume as soon as possible!

People close to the R&D restructuring (part of a larger plan, dubbed Project Impact) said the overall number of scientific jobs won’t change under the plan but some scientists will be cut because their skills aren’t transferable to other areas. Wyeth will eliminate discovery work in women’ health, reduce its therapeutic areas from 14 to 6 and continue to focus vaccines and biologics, where it has had great success with its pediatric pneumococcal vaccine, Prevnar, and the anti-inflammatory biologic Enbrel.

Wyeth joins several pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, which have already decided to narrow the focus of their development efforts and focus more on biotechnology products. Don’t be surprise if other pharmaceutical companies announce similar restructuring plans. I predict that within 10 years or so, pharma companies will no conduct basic discovery research and abandon their internal pipelines. Instead, they will become drug “clearing houses” that specialize in developing products that were either purchased or in-licensed from smaller biotechnology and specialty pharmaceutical companies.

Until next time…

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

 

 

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

Pharmaceutical Technology Europe published a list last month called the Pharma Exec 50 for 2008. To qualify for the list, companies had to have more than $510 billion in sales.  Unlike other lists of this ilk, it is easy to read, visually appealing and mentions each company’s top selling drugs and their annual R &D spending.  It is definitely worth a read by people who need or like to stay abreast of the life sciences industry. And for a change, the list was compiled by a European rather than an American publication. Not that there is anything wrong with that!

Until next.....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

 

 

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

 

Pfizer announced earlier today that it was going to cut R&D jobs and abandon its research efforts in the areas of cardiovascular diseases, cholesterol management, osteoporosis, anemia and liver and muscle diseases. The company plans to refocus it drug development in five therapeutic areas including Alzheimer’s; diabetes; immune disorders and inflammation; cancer; pain; and mental illness, including schizophrenia. Also, the company will continue its work on anti-thrombotic agents to prevent blood clots.

The job cuts and refocusing are part of a previously announced plan to cut about $2 billion dollars from Pfizer’s operating budget. Over the past 15 years, Pfizer has gone on an unprecedented buying spree in an attempt to acquire blockbuster drugs and bolster its flagging internal drug development pipeline. Unfortunately, the gamble has not paid off and Pfizer must now attempt to reinvent itself to restore shareholder value and instill investor confidence. 

Unlike many of its competitors, Pfizer failed to invest in and capitalize on early opportunities in the biotechnology industry. The company has been trying to play catch up ever since. To that end, over the past year or so, Pfizer invested in or purchased several small biopharmaceutical companies to demonstrate its commitment to biotechnology.  It may be “too little too late!” Unfortunately, because of a lack of vision and foresight by company executives, many Pfizer employees will have to pay the ultimate price of losing their jobs as the US falls deeper into recession.

Hat tip to Pharmalot and the WSJ Health Blog.

Until next time…

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

 

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

I was reading Karen Ventii’s Science to Life blog today and she “turned me on” to a couple of new web-based tools that I think might be useful to people who work in the biosciences. I added Karen’s recommendations to a list that I was building and decided that it had reached enough of a critical mass to share it with you.

The first of these new tools is called graduatejunction.com, a research community primarily aimed at graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. According to its founders—a team of UK graduate students at Durham and Oxford universities—the intent of graduatejunction.com is build a community of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows so that members can stay abreast of research activities within in the community and to connect with other community members who share common research interests. Not a bad idea, considering that many graduate students and postdocs frequently operate in intentional mentor-induced research vacuums.

The second is called labmeeting.com. It is a novel, web-based tool that helps researchers organize (and search) personal PDF collections, share laboratory protocols, Powerpoint presentations and other scientific data with their lab mates. The software was created by graduate students at Stanford University and it aims to organize laboratory research so that it can be conducted more efficiently and at a faster pace (time is money after all). I think that this concept has legs and might be a big winner downstream (although security will be of paramount importance).

Another new tool that warrants praise is biomedexperts.com that was created by Collexis, Inc. In my opinion, biomedexperts.com is the “mother of all” publication search tools and literature management systems. Billed as the first literature-based social network, it allows users to quickly perform personalized literature searches (based on authorship and research interests) and then identify potential collaborators or competitors who have published in the same research areas. Unfortunately, while biomedexperts.com is a “monster” web-based, literature search application, the communication and interactivity between community members is extremely limited and almost non-existent.

Finally, for those of you who are tired of using PubMed’s arcane Boolean search algorithm to find relevant publications, you might consider trying a new free search engine (semanticmedline.com) that allows users to search MEDLINE using phrases or “conventional sentences." Cognition Technologies, creator of the site, says its “semantic natural language processing technology "incorporates word and phrase knowledge to comprehend the meaning and nuances of the English language." Although early reviews suggest that semanticmedline.com might not powerful enough for doing comprehensive science literature searches, it may be useful in situations when you are working on a time-sensitive project or you need to quickly find an article for this afternoon’s journal club meeting (that you failed  to enter into your blackberry or iPhone).

Check them out—they are all pretty cool (for scientists anyway-not that there is anything wrong with that)!

Until next time

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

 

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

Last week, I had the great fortune to meet (on the Recruiting Animal Show) a career development expert who despite her young age, has seminal insights into today’s job market and how to break into it. Alexandra Levit, a self-avowed GenXer on the GenY cusp, is the author of several books, including They Don't Teach Corporate in College, How'd You Score That Gig? and Success for Hire.

In addition to her book writing activities, Alex’s career advice posts are featured monthly in the Huffington Post and have been showcased in more than 800 media outlets including ABC News, the Associated Press, USA Today, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, National Public Radio, Fortune, Yahoo!, and MSN. She is recognized as one of her generations (X or Y?) preeminent career experts who regularly speak at universities and corporations on workplace issues facing young employees.

Alex and I got to talking after Animal' show and I learned that like me, she dabbles in the pharmaceutical career development arena. That said, she graciously agreed to allow me to post a piece that she wrote entitled “Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!” (see below) that offers guidance for entry level scientist who are considering careers in the pharmaceutical or biotechnology industries. Read and learn!

"Want to Become a Pharmaceutical Scientist? Here’s How!"

Talk about a career with intriguing possibilities. People entering the pharmaceutical research field today may be the ones discovering the cure for cancer or Parkinson’s disease tomorrow. Although the United States’ pharmaceutical companies sometimes get a bad rap, they routinely make astounding advances that save lives, and from what I hear, aren’t bad places to work either. If you’re a data-head who wants to use your scientific background for the greater good, you might consider becoming a pharmaceutical scientist. Here’s some detail about what breaking into the field entails.

According to the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, the pharmaceutical sciences combine a broad range of scientific disciplines that are critical to the discovery and development of new drugs, therapies, and medical devices. Some of the more common specializations include drug discovery and design, whichdeals with the design and synthesis of new drug molecules and includes medicinal chemistry, combinatorial chemistry, and biotechnology; drug delivery, which is concerned with the design of dosage forms – such as tablets, injections or patches – that deliver the drug to the site of action within a patient; drug action, which examines how the drug works in a living system; clinical pharmacology, which is concerned with the use of drugs in the treatment of diseases and leverages human clinical trials to determine efficacy, adverse effects, and drug-to-drug interaction; and drug analysis, which involves separating, identifying, and quantifying the components of a sample.

Twenty-eight year old Matt, a senior research associate at Novartis, spends his days engaged in both drug action and drug analysis for the company’s wide range of prescription medications for ailments such as heart disease, high blood pressure, and diabetes. He’s responsible for testing animal organ and plasma samples to determine if a drug is working the way it’s supposed to. “It’s my job to quantify the drug’s efficacy in the body, to gather early support as it moves through the process of getting approved by the Food and Drug Administration,” he says. 

While the majority of pharmaceutical scientists are employed by private-sector pharmaceutical companies, others work as researchers and professors at universities, as regulatory scientists for government agencies like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or as researchers at national laboratories such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH). An undergraduate degree in chemistry, biology, pharmacy, or engineering is a prerequisite for the entry-level position of research assistant. The research assistant, who receives a broad-based introduction to the pharmaceutical world, records, stores and summarizes information and data, prepares technical reports, and develops laboratory skills and familiarity with equipment. “You should expect that your first job will be low level and the work very routine,” says Matt. “You won’t have much of a chance to be creative or innovative, and you have to be tolerant of that at the beginning of your career.” Adds Beth, 31, an R&D project director at a top pharmaceutical company in the Northeast: “Make the most of each opportunity, no matter how small. Success with smaller projects will directly lead to greater responsibility and rapid professional growth. Focus both on delivering results and on how you deliver the results: for example, through strong teamwork or a rigorous research approach.”

Recent college grads looking for research assistant jobs may want to start by educating themselves about the pharmaceutical industry in general. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Web site (www.phrma.org) and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Web site (www.aapspharmaceutica.com) are great places to check out relevant publications, networking events, and internship and employment listings. Specific job opportunities can also be found on industry job portals including www.biospace.com, www.hirerx.com, and www.medzilla.com, and you might also take advantage of openings advertised through your college’s career center. “My first paying job was an internship at a medical device company,” says Beth. “I made the original contact at an MIT career fair and then interviewed on campus with the company’s recruiting team. I shared my passion for medical device engineering and my solid academic background and was hired after my sophomore year.”

Matt also suggests that you might get in the door by connecting with a temporary employment firm specializing in pharmaceuticals. “I signed on with Kelly Scientific right out of school,” he says. “Almost immediately, I got contract work doing clinical research studies that eventually resulted in a full-time job.” Women may find that they’re especially marketable, as the pharmaceutical industry is still predominantly male and most organizations are striving to even things out.

The typical pharmaceutical research career has ample room for growth. From the position of research assistant, you can progress to a research associate, an associate scientist, a scientist, a senior scientist, and a principal scientist. After you’ve reached a certain level, you may also have the option of taking on a cross-functional role in research management, regulatory affairs, pharmacoeconomics, or communications. At the moment, most people who reach the top levels of the profession get a Ph.D. along the way, but many say that’s changing and that experience in the lab is increasingly worth more than formal education. You’ll be happy to learn that compared to other industries, compensation is quite generous. According to a recent American Association for the Advancement of Science Salary Survey, pharmaceutical research assistants make more than $65K with just a bachelor’s degree, and six-figure incomes are standard after a few years.

Like other data-heads, pharmaceutical scientists are highly analytical and have had the math and science coursework to back up their natural talent. “You have to be anal about the details, because one small error can mess up a whole batch of samples,” says Matt. A cool-headed approach to troubleshooting is critical as well. “Development setbacks occur frequently,” says Beth. “When something goes wrong, my first step is to pull the team together to diagnose the situation. I do not try to lay blame but want to ensure that we learn and do not repeat the mistake or ignore the issue as we move forward.” Additionally, pharmaceutical research environments can be political and difficult to navigate at times. “Drug research isn’t always run like a well-oiled machine and loyalty to the company doesn’t always work in your favor,” says Matt. “You have to have a good sense of what you’re worth and what you have to offer.”

If you think pharmaceutical research might be for you, now’s a great time to test drive it as a career. A special supplement on hiring trends in the pharmaceutical space published in The Scientist in 2005 reported that the number of people employed in the U.S. industry is expected to grow from 413,700 to 536,000 in the next decade, and that Research & Development spending, which exploded in 2004, is still steadily increasing. “I love my job because I have the opportunity to impact patients with my daily work, collaborating with my fellow team members to solve complex problems,” says Beth. “And I feel very fortunate to work at a company where my personal values align very closely with the corporate culture.”

Until next time…

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

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

According to a post at the Pharmalot blog, Carl Icahn, Chairman of ImClone, thinks that BMS’ offer last week of $4.5 billion to purchase ImClone is way too low. Icahn feels that the bid was motivated, in part, because ImClone is developing a drug that may compete with Erbitux, and BMS may not have rights to the new drug. Bristol (like it has for Erbitux). I suspect that he is correct but as I mentioned last week, BMS is committed to becoming a next generation biopharma company and the acquisition of ImClone make perfect strategic and financial sense to me. Personally, I think that Carl is posturing (like any good businessman) because he knows that the BMS offer will not be the final offer tendered for ImClone.

As I have stated many times in the past on this blog, Carl seems to know a lot about biotechnology despite no formal training and no hands-on experience in the biz. Maybe he ought to start his own biotechnology company and own 100 percent of its stock. That way he will not have to raid other companies to gain control of their boards to purchase more stock or simply sell the companies? Life would certainly be easier for those biotechnology CEOs and their boards who have  work long and hard to create profitable businesses.

Don’t be surprised if BMS raises its purchase offer for ImClone. BMS finalized is flush with cash after it finalized the sale late last week of its former subsidiary ConvaTec for $6.6 billion.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (not in NJ)!!

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

This month Kevin has reviewed an eclectic bunch of websites. Continuing with his “down under” theme from last month, Kevin offers the Australian National Herbarium and the Darwin Correspondience Project websites (okay so Darwin was English but he did visit Australia!). The Darwin site complements an interesting site called the Origin of Life Prize (check it out).  

Another Australian website called the Sea Snake Homepage covers everything you ever wanted to know about sea snakes (and then some) but as Kevin put it may not be for everyone. There is a technical site called Microscope-Microscope.org which has some terse but valuable information on well—microscopes.

My personal favorite is the Biomedia Associates Educational Biology site. Although it is a commercial site, it is an education website and offers some valuable resources for biology teachers and students.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Surfing!!!!!!!!

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

On the heels of yesterday’s announcement that it wants to buy Genentech, Roche, in a surprise move, announced today that it will move its Nutley, NJ-based US corporate headquarters to California. According to a report, research and development activities in oncology and metabolism at the Nutley site will be expanded. However, the company will consolidate all Nutley-based finance and information-technology operations and close manufacturing facilities on the site by 2010. It is not clear how many of Roche’s 3,240 New Jersey employees will be affected by the proposed move to South San Francisco. Suffice it to say, more than a few Roche employees are likely to lose their jobs after the company’s headquarters heads west.

Once dubbed the”nation's medicine chest”, New Jersey has steadily been losing pharmaceutical jobs since 1990 when 20% of all US pharmaceutical jobs were in NJ—at present 13.7% of  American pharmaceutical jobs reside in NJ. It has been a long, slow burn for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology workforce in the Garden State.

The Roche announcement comes as several other New Jersey drug makers, including Schering-Plough and Johnson & Johnson's Ortho Biotech unit, have been laying off workers because of the economic downturn and tough times in the industry. It also comes several days after Barr Pharmaceuticals, headquartered in Montvale, announced that it is being acquired for $7.5 billion by Israeli generics giant Teva.  

The growing scarcity of pharmaceutical and biotechnology jobs coupled with the highest property taxes in the US may cause a mass migration from the state. Not that there is anything wrong with that!!!!!!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

The social development of the web 2.0 has largely bypassed science. Hugely popular websites such as Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Digg, Delicious and the like have millions of members and generate huge amounts of traffic. But those who use these sites come from all walks of life. None are devoted solely to science.

With this in mind, it would seem that social networking sites that cater to scientists would have special value and appeal. A few have been launched —but there is certainly room for improvement.

This fall, Vincent Racaniello at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University and I will launch BioCrowd.com, a new social network designed by scientists (Vincent and me) for bioscientists (and others in the life sciences) who wish to connect with others to advance, promote or shape their careers.

Please visit the home page to sign up to be notified when we launch. BioCrowd will combine the interactivity of sites like Facebook and the networking capabilities of LinkedIn to help to advance your career in the biosciences.

Be part of  "The BioCrowd" !!!!!!!!

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

In an attempt to assuage the jitters and financial concerns of investors who own stock in pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies, the US Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that it will be change the format of the letter received by companies whose products are not ready for approval.

In the old days (at least until yesterday), when the agency determined that drugs were not suitable for sale, it would send companies a so-called non-approval letter. This letter was designed to inform drug and device makers that their products had issues that needed to be resolved before the agency will approve them. Apparently, (at least according to drug and device manufacturers), receipt of non-approval letters by companies signaled to investors that the product in question would never, under any circumstances, be approved by FDA. This urban legend was born because most companies that receive non-approvable letters decide against investing more time and money into products that FDA has deemed “unapprovable” i.e. there isn’t enough of a financial inducement or upside to continue further development.

Now, when new products are not up to snuff, companies will receive something called a “complete response letter.” According to the agency, the new letters will describe what is missing from a new drug or device application and, when, appropriate, offer advice on how to fix or address the problem(s). However, because contents of FDA letters are not released to the public, investors may now be less informed about the prospects of a new drug than in the past when the agency was able to send “approvable” or “non-approval” letters to companies.  “While this new plan may provide more detailed information to a company regarding issues that need to be addressed, investors will likely be kept in the dark on the true status of a drug’s approvability” said a pharmaceutical analyst after learning about the format changes. He went on to say “Investors will no longer know whether a drug is truly dead in the eyes of FDA.”

In my opinion, this is another example of FDA cow towing to the whims and wishes of industry. Whether you call it, a “non-approvable” or “complete response letter”, it still means the same thing—the drug or device is not ready for prime time! I don’t think that the change in semantics will do anything to assuage concerns of jittery investors. What it WILL do is force investors to rely solely on the honesty of the management teams that receives these letters—Oy!

I think that FDA ought to stick to the business of evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs and be less concerned with the political and economic needs of the drug and device industries. Finally, it would be prudent for FDA to allow appropriately trained professionals to provide psychotherapy to all of the frightened and jittery investors out there!!

Until next time…

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

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

Have you ever felt like mixing up a few batches of DNA in your  spare time? Well, for those of you who sometimes get the urge I found an easy-to-use recipe to make your own custom designed DNA sequences. Of course I was joking about doing it at home but if you happen to be at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Biotechnology Center you can give it a whirl.

Of course, the ability to build DNA sequences nucleotide-by-nucleotide has been available for over a decade or more.  That said, the relatively simple system devised by scientists at the UW Biotechnology Center allows even the neophyte molecular biologist to do it successfully.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Genetic Engineering!!!!!!

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

Last year was a banner year for the pharmaceutical lobby (the largest in Washington DC). It spent over $168 million to inform Congress about issues that its members thought were in the best interest of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. So what were the main issues that occupied a majority of the lobby’s time?

• blocking the importation of inexpensive drugs from other countries
• protecting pharmaceutical patents both within the United States and abroad
• ensuring greater market access for pharmaceutical companies in international free trade agreements

You are probably wondering which company was the top spender—it was Amgen! As you may recall, Amgen’s EPO franchise was under intense medical, regulatory and congressional scrutiny because of safety issue that resulted from over prescription. In my limited understanding of how things work in Washington, I have been told by lobbyist friends of mine that there is no better way to solve nagging problems than by paying influence peddlers to make them go away.  That said, Amgen’s lobbying costs paled in comparison with the $23 million spent by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America a pharmaceutical industry trade group.  You Go PhRMA!!!!

A quick perusal of the top lobbying list reveals that all major US pharmaceutical companies invested heavily to influence members of Congress to allow them to preserve their stranglehold on the American healthcare system. Not surprisingly, all of the major foreign pharmaceutical manufacturers were also on list.  Much to my surprise, Teva, the Israeli generic manufacturing giant made the list this year—so it goes!

I guess altruism is out and avarice is still in! Hat tip to Pharmalot.

Until next time….

• 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

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.

Currently, Lipitor costs about $2.50 to $3 a day. Analysts predict that Ranbaxy can sell its generic Lipitor for about 75 cents to $1 a day, or as low as 10 cents a day at some discount pharmacies. The potential drastic price reduction coupled with Daiichi-Sankyo’s intention to purchase Ranbaxy (which would have provided Ranbaxy with more money underwrite and press on with IP lawsuit, it what I believe forced Pfizer’s hand to act as quickly as it did to settle the suit. The deal, if approved, allows Pfizer to dodge a near fatal financial bullet and will provide it with a potentially lucrative revenue stream from it authorized generics deal that it struck with Ranbaxy. 

Nevertheless, given the financial stakes associated with the Lipitor franchise, it may make more sense for Pfizer to purchase Ranbaxy rather than enter into the pending deal. Also, a Ranbaxy purchase would allow Pfizer to enter the biologics and biotechnology fields—something that Pfizer executives have been talking about publicly to insure the company’s future. Like most other pharmaceutical generics manufacturers, Ranbaxy has active research programs on biosimilar and other biotechnology products. If I was driving the boat at Pfizer I would offer Ranbaxy a lucrative counteroffer to block its sale to Daiichi-Sankyo. I don’t know—the deal just makes sense to me. That said, not many recruiters have been calling me about CEO jobs lately!!!!!!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Peggy McKee, the medical sales recruiter, offers some words of wisdom and advice on finding a job in today’s challenging job market. Read and learn….Hat tip to Peggy for the insights!

We’re in some tough economic times right now, and that can make it that much harder to find a job.  To help you out, Fortune magazine has 7 tips for job hunting in a tougher market.  They include:

1.  Request more face-to-face meetings.  Get your face in front of recruiters and your network instead of relying on e-mails and phone calls.  It will make more of an impression. 

2.  Step up your job-search activity.  This makes sense.  In many ways, a job search (like sales calls) is a numbers game.  Increase your odds by increasing your activity.

3.  Try to be as flexible as you can.  Consider contract work, part-time work, or starting at a lesser salary than you were hoping for.  It gets your foot in the door for other opportunities later.  Besides, less money is better than no money, right?

4.  Consider relocating.  Top jobs aren’t always where you are.  I love the idea of relocating and expanding your horizons…trying something new. 

5.  Scour the hidden job market.  Many jobs aren’t advertised.  Be proactive.  Use your network.  Or contact employers directly.  They might appreciate your initiative.

6.  Spend very little of your time on Internet job boards and help-wanted ads.  Look, but don’t focus.  Everyone’s looking here. 

7.  Take advantage of social networking sites.  Personally, I love LinkedIn.  But also, use MySpace or Facebook as part of your networking tactics.  Just be careful to keep it professional. 

Here are some more great tips to heat up your job search.  One last great idea (from the Sales Hub):   

You never know when or where you may meet a prospective employer. Memory sticks, flash-drives, or email versions of your resume on your Blackberry, Treo or iPhone are must-haves in today’s volatile employment market.

Until next time,

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

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

I was contacted by the Recruiting Animal to see whether I would be interested in joining him on his show, to talk about recruiting in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. Although I am a recovering recruiter and have not placed a single candidate in the past 5 years, I decided what the heck—what do I have to lose?

For those of you who are interested you can hear my pearls of wisdom by clicking the icon below.

 

 

Until next time…

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

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

This is the first installment of Kevin Ahern’s Best of the Web at BioJobBlog. This month’s selection contains several technical sites that many practicing bioscientists will find useful. These include: Real Time PCR Primer Sets and RTPrimerDB. The selection that I found most interesting was Blogging the Biotechnology Revolution—although Kevin didn’t like the navigation features of this blog.

If you know of any websites, blogs, etc that you think are useful or interesting, please let me know.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Web Hunting!!!!!!!

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

I have been following the pharmaceutical business for the past 20 years or so and without fail; Bristol-Myers Squibb has been rumored to be a takeover target. Well, here we go again!

 that floated the possibility that BMS is a prime takeover target again. Like many other financial pundits, Zachs believes that a takeover by Sanofi-Aventis makes the most sense. As many of you may know, BMS and Sanofi-Aventis co-own the multibillion dollar Plavix franchise (which will lose patent protection in 2011).

Rumors of a BMS takeover started in 1988 and they have always proved to be false. In my opinion, BMS has one of the stronger biologics pipeline in the pharmaceutical industry. Further, BMS is spending an enormous amount of time and resources to vigorously reinvent itself as a “next generation biopharma” company (whatever that means). The impending loss of Plavix revenues does put some pressure on the company’s ability to remain independent, but BMS has weathered many storms in the past (and lived to talk about them). That said, it is anybody’s guess whether the current rumors are real or imagined.

Until next time…

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

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

Much like Paul Revere back in the day, there have been repeated, urgent warnings about the impending recession that will strike the US economy. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has done its best to deny the notion that the moribund US economy is actually in recession. 

Today, it was reported that the US unemployment rate hit 5.5% and nearly 49,000 people lost their jobs last month. This is the biggest monthly rise in the unemployment rate since 1986. So far this year, the Unemployed people grew by 861,000 in May rising to 8.5 million. To keep things in perspective, a year ago, the number of unemployed stood at 6.9 million and the jobless rate was 4.5 percent

Last month employers sharply cut jobs in manufacturing, construction, retailing and professional and businesses services. The recent and highly publicized meltdown of the airline industry insures that as many as 10,000 others or more will lose their jobs in the coming weeks. These layoffs, coupled with $4.00 per gallon gasoline, will undoubtedly have a substantial and lasting ripple effect on the American travel and leisure industries. Can anyone still believe that the US economy isn’t in recession (I can think of at least one!).

Until very recently, many of my disgruntled corporate colleagues (who I eat lunch with from time to time) indicated that they were actively seeking new employment. At lunch the other day, a soft spoken but vocal woman who previously said that “she couldn’t take it anymore and was outta here the first chance that she got” quipped; “What’s with all the complaining. We should all consider ourselves lucky that we even have jobs!” I think that says it all….

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Holding!!!!!!

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

The web is filled with wonderful and interesting sites that are useful to many scientists.  Unfortunately, most of us don't have the time to surf around the web to find them!  Luckily, Kevin Ahern has the time (or more likely has found the time) to do what most of us can't. To that end, I created a new category on BioJobBlog called Around the Web to post the results of Kevin's hard and much appreciated work.

Each month, I will provide a link to Kevin's "Best of the Web" report that he creates for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News and provide my own commentary on the sites that he showcased that I found most useful or interesting.

Until next time....

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

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

When I was working as a recruiter, I always called my candidates a day before a scheduled face-to-face job interview. I did this to reassure them, build confidence and provide them with any insights that I may have had regarding the hiring manager or the job. But, more importantly, I called to insure that they were adequately prepared to go on the interview. I typically talked with them about dress, interview etiquette, cell phone usage, body language etc. Sometimes, when I was concerned about particular candidates, I even sent (via fax or e-mail) an interview preparation checklist. 

Although I am not a big fan of checklists, many people find them useful! To that end, I discovered this . The notion of taking an online interview preparedness quiz may seem silly to many of you, but I can tell you with certainty that I had more than one highly qualified candidate fail to get a job offer because they were poorly dressed, didn’t turn off cell phones or incapable of making eye-contact during their face-to-face. 

The quiz takes about 5 minutes to complete and there are interview tidbits embedded in every answer. You can even take it on your Blackberry, Sidekick or cell phone of choice! It may make the difference between a job offer or not.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Much has been said (and written) about the impact and power of a firm handshake in business settings. Are the urban legends and "old wives tales" really true? Peggy McKee the medical sales recruiter , weighs in on the subject in a recent post.

According to Peggy, a recent study suggests that, all other factors being equal, a firm handshake will give you the edge you need in getting the job.  The Fine Art of the Handshake gives you several pointers to remember on grip strength, eye contact, where to stand, and what to say.  But mostly, just remember to be firm, friendly, and confident. The firm handshake thing is appropriate for both men and women!  Also, remember that the firm handshake applies to both men and woman!

For more information about handshakes and other networking strategies please contact Peggy!

Until next time....

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

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

I came across this excellent article written by Carol Martin a professional career coach.  The tips that she provides are useful and have stood the test of time!  So read and learn!!!!

Not getting a follow-up call when promised is a very common occurrence. Candidates are sometimes sure that they aced the interview and are perfect for the position, in fact they are anticipating a call and an offer. But instead they get "nothing." No offer; no call. They never hear from the company. This is not only frustrating, but reflects poorly on the company. In fact it is rude. What can you do about this situation? Here are some tips on how to handle the follow up that may save you from some anxiety.

1. Try to find out about the decision-process before you leave the interview. Ask when you could expect to hear back. Take that date and then add a few days before you start to worry.

2. Always send a follow up addressing any concerns you may have picked up or any thoughts you had about the position since the interview. Think of this as one more chance to put yourself in front of them.

3. After you have waited for a reasonable period beyond the date they stated, call and inquire as to the status of the position and whether you are still in the running.

4. As a general rule, don't call on Mondays - bad day to market anything. 5. If you leave a message inquiring about the status of the job, and no one calls you back after a couple of attempts - move on and forget about it. Don't call back more than a couple of times. There is a fine line between being persistent and being a pest. 6. If you are told you are no longer under consideration, try asking for feedback (most of the time they won't give you any, but still worth a try). Ask if there is any additional information that you can supply that will convince them that you are the right person for the job.

7. Don't rely on one job interview. No matter what was said in the interview – continue your search. There have been too many bad examples of those who thought they were a shoe-in - only to get a reject letter.

8. Don't take it personally! There are about a thousand reasons that could have affected your chances.

9. Accept the fact that not all companies are right for you. Just like blind dates - they are checking you out and you are checking them out. Sometimes it's chemistry – and sometimes it wasn't right for you – for whatever reason.

10.Try not to get discouraged by the rejects. It's a numbers game and your turn will come if you hang in there.

Copyright (c) 2007 Carole Martin, The Interview Coach

Until Next Time….

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

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

As a self-anointed career development professional, I frequently read blogs and online articles dealing with jobs and career development advice. That said,  I happened upon a piece in Yahoo Education entitled “Risky Business: Finding Job Security in Tough Times”. The article featured careers that may provide greater than average job security to employees. Everything was going great until I read the no. 4 career on the list–Medical Scientist– I kid you not. This is what the author had to say about medical/life scientists:

 “With increases in funding for treating cancer, AIDS, mental illness, and other diseases, corporate pharmaceutical, biotech, and university research labs need more people to develop vaccines and treatment drugs. Depending on your medical specialty, you'll typically need a master's degree or PhD. Often M.D.-holders choose research work over medical practice. You can begin traveling this path by earning a bachelor's degree in a biological science, and focusing on chemistry, biology, statistics, and research methods. Salaries in private sector biotech firms are typically higher than those offered at the college research level. There are also jobs with government medical-research agencies. Median salary range: $44,830 to $88,130.”

I ‘m not sure where the author has been or what she has been smoking but it seems to me that she is not in sync with industry trends. Maybe I ought to write to her and ask her to send me a list of companies that are currently hiring. I guess you really can’t believe everything that you read!

Until next time….

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

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

Peggy McKee, a regular guest blogger at BioJobBlog has created a series of podcasts for her readers. The one that I posted here has to do with learning how to network—an essential skill that scientists are notoriously poor at!   Because this is the first EVER podcast on BioJobBlog, please let me know whether it worked (I am a neophyte at this) and whether you thought it was useful.  That said, listen and learn!!!!!!!!

Networking is critically important in the business world–and in the rest of the world, too, if you think about it.  There are several keys things to consider when networking.  Examples of these are:

• How to make yourself available to people and provide value to them and become the kind of person other people want in their network.  (Here’s a quick extra link for how to use networking as a marketing tool.)
• Who to keep in your network…customers, co-workers, and especially former managers.How to keep in touch, and what to say when you do.
• Ways to network beyond the traditional, like using LinkedIn.

The information in this podcast, will hopefully provide you with new insights into networking.

Click on: Peggy McKee - the medical sales recruiter… #4 - Networking - now and forever  to listen to Peggy's podcast.

Until next time....

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

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

Brand name pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have been quietly spending millions to lobby Congress for changes in US patent law. Specifically, these companies want to overhaul the intellectual property rules dealing with the doctrine of “inequitable conduct”. When a company or individual engages in inequitable conduct, it means that the company or individual has misrepresented or concealed information with the intent to deceive the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In such cases, a federal judge has the legal authority to void the patent and declare that it is unenforceable. Not surprisingly, brand-name drug companies are lobbying Congress to eliminate or curtail inequitable conduct penalties. 

According to the New York Times, in the last 15 years the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which handles appellate patent litigation) have ruled in the affirmative on 40 cases of inequitable conduct–14 of which involved pharmaceutical or healthcare companies. Similar rulings have been issued by federal district judges in an indeterminate number of cases that were not appealed (and never reached the Federal Circuit court). The article contends that some drug makers knowingly submitted false statements to the USPTO, inaccurately described experiments in patent applications or concealed information (usually prior art) that contradicted their claims. In one high profile case, the appeals court ruled that the Danish drug maker Novo Nordisk failed to disclose that it had not performed an experiment described in a patent application for human growth hormone. In another notable case, the court contends that Pharmacia (now Pfizer) used an “inaccurate and misleading” affidavit to win a patent for a new glaucoma drug.  Personally, I am aware of several instances in which companies willfully and knowingly failed to disclose prior art in patent applications that were ultimately approved.

Those of us in the biz know that patents are valuable commodities and that the financial stakes surrounding patent estates and intellectual properly are extremely high. A robust patent estate can either make or break a company. Nevertheless, in my opinion, if a company (or individual) cheats by falsifying, concealing or omitting pertinent information in a patent application, they ought to be penalized for it.  As one former USPTO commissioner, who served under George HW Bush puts it: “Patents can be very valuable. There are strong incentives to want to get them. Cheating occurs from time to time. The inequitable conduct doctrine says that if you cheated to get a patent, you should not be able to enforce it.”

Brand name drug manufacturers contend that generic drug makers routinely attack their patents by accusing them of inequitable conduct, whether they are guilty or not. Further, they claim that unwarranted and endless patent litigation impinges on their ability to discover and bring new drugs to market. Consequently, brand name drug markers argue that the inequitable conduct doctrine should be eliminated from US patent law. Not surprisingly, this would seriously hinder or curtail the ability of generic drug manufacturers to bring their products to market—something that brand name drug makers desperately want to protect their multibillion dollars drug franchises from generic encroachment.

The number of patent applications submitted to the USPTO has doubled in the past 10 years and more than tripled since 1987. According to Jon Dudas, the current undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property “We are getting more and more unpatentable ideas and worse and worse quality applications”. Historically, the annual number of patents that are allowed (approved) ranges from 62 to 72%. After reaching a high of 72% in 2000, it dropped to 43% in the first quarter of 2008. These data suggest that, the probability of getting new patents allowed is diminishing. This is making brand name drug companies anxious and extremely competitive when it comes to patent applications. And, when competition increases, it is not uncommon for companies and individual to resort to unorthodox (and sometimes overtly unethical or illegal methods) to insure success. In my opinion, the doctrine of inequitable conduct and the penalties associated with it are what keep illegal and unethical behaviors in check. With this in mind, I think it would be extremely unwise for Congress to eliminate or severely curtail the penalties for inequitable conduct.

Based on the small number of inequitable conduct cases that have reached the Federal Circuit, it appears that the current system is working the way it was designed to function. This begs the question: “Why fix something that isn’t broken? “ Oh wait, this debate isn’t really about ethics or legality–it is about making money–silly me!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try intellectual property law)!!!!!!!!

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

Over the past few days, many drug companies have been reporting their earnings for the first quarter of 2008.  Few, if any, (except for Biogen/IDEC),  met the numbers that Wall Street analysts had expected and most reported that profits were "way down." Unfortunately, this means that more layoffs at drug manufacturers can likely  be expected in the coming months and that drug prices may rise.

Of course, the poor performances of these companies had little bearing on the compensation packages that many of the CEOs of these companies received in 2007.  It never ceases to amaze me that companies can lay off thousands of workers to cut cost s and then turn around and give CEOs who performed horribly (which led to the layoffs) tens of millions or more in compensation.  Just think how many workers could have kept their jobs and been able to feed their familiies if mediocre CEOs, who didn't do their jobs were paid what they are worth!

Ain't capitalism great?

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

 

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

There’s a ton of stuff online about what kinds of interview questions to expect, and how to answer them to impress the interviewer.  But, you have to remember (and it does wonders for your confidence if you do) that you’re interviewing them, also.  You need to find out if this is a medical sales company that you’re going to be happy working for.  So, what kinds of questions should you ask?  Here’s an article on 10 Questions to Dazzle Would-Be Employers to help you.  Some of my favorites:

“How do you see me benefitting the company?”  Find out what caught their eye about you in the first place, and then you can bring up those qualities for a better sell.

“Why did you choose this company?”  If they haven’t tried to sell you on the company already, this answer gives you some insight.

“When will a decision be made?”  Suprisingly, many people don’t ask that, and end up frustrated if it takes longer than they were expecting. 

Your questions about the company and the job will set you apart from other candidates and show how interested you are in the position.  Not to mention it will give you extra insight into your decision whether or not to work for them.

If you have any  questions for Peggy aka the Medical Sales Recruiter contac her  at: the medical sales recruiter blog!

Until next time.....

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

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

Pfizer the world’s largest and least innovative pharmaceutical company  announced yesterday that its profits dropped by 18% last year. The company attributed the loss to reductions in the sale of its blockbuster anti-cholesterol drug Lipitor, which is slated to lose patent protection in the next few years.

Pfizer, which has about $25 billion in cash, has been on something of a buying spree the past couple of years. The company is desperately trying get into biotechnology (too little, too late?) and believes, as it always has, that the best way to enter a new therapeutic area is to buy its way into it! To that end, Pfizer has already purchased two “biotech” companies in 2007 (more purchases are likely on the way) and entered into financially-lucrative, long term research collaborations with several others. Although this strategy has previously worked for Pfizer in the short term, it has proved to be financially disastrous for the company in the long term. Nevertheless, Pfizer said it still expects earnings this year to grow about 11%, due largely to a cost-cutting program that has eliminated 25,000 jobs, or 23% of its work force since 2004.

Until Pfizer executives realize that a robust internal drug discovery and development program is the key to success, Pfizer will continue to be the world’s biggest pharmaceutical company with a constantly flagging stock price.

Until next time….

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

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

About five years ago, a friend of mine and I had an idea to form a non-profit dedicated to providing consumers with information regarding the safety of marketed pharmaceutical and biotechnology medicines.  At the time, we observed that consumers were repeatedly being misinformed about the safety and efficacy of many products, most notably follow-on biologics aka biogenerics. Unfortunately, we could not garner enough interest or financial support to get the organization off the ground. I guess that  we had a good idea, but, as usual, were a little ahead of our time. A new organization called The Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market has recently set up shop with the same concept in mind.

Members of the coalition include insurance companies (Aetna, Humana, United Health Care and Blue Cross Blue Shield), pharmacies and drug distributors (CVS, Medco, Express Scripts, Rite Aid and Wallgreens), generic manufacturers (Barr Laboratories, Hospira, Teva, Mylan Laboratories and Watson Pharmaceuticals) and a large roster of Fortune 500 companies including General Motors, Ford, Caterpillar, Chrysler, Dow and Eastman Kodak. Think of the lobbying power–how cool is that?

I guess the time has come for rational drug pricing for the US. Big pharma and biotech beware–a nationalized healthcare system may not be far behind!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

Millennium employees find themselves in an enviable position that most pharmaceutical and biotechnology employee would die for!  Shortly after Takeda announced that it would buy Cambridge MA-based Millennium Pharmaceuticals for $8.8 billion, it offered many Millennium employees retention bonuses to stay at the company for 12 to 24 months until the acquisition is completed. These bonuses will be in addition to cash that many of Millennium’s 1,000 employees will get by exercising their stock options (Takeda is paying a premium to purchase all of Millennium outstanding shares of stock).

While offering retention bonuses to employees of a company that is going to be acquired is unusual it is not unheard of.  Retaining key employees during an acquisition typically makes the transition a lot smoother.  Further, it signals to extant employees that management values their services and that their continued presence at the company is vital to its success.  Finally, it serves to reduce the stress and uncertainty felt by many employees when a company is sold.

In my opinion, offering Millennium employees retention bonuses is a very bold and smart move by Takeda.  Unlike other pharmaceutical companies who have acquired biotechnology companies for their approved drugs or investigational medicines in their pipelines, this is Takeda’s first foray into the biotechnology business. Put simply, Takeda executives lack the expertise and requisite skill sets necessary to successfully compete in the biotechnology arena.  Encouraging and retaining employees who helped to make Millennium a success is a brilliantly crafted strategy that will permit Takeda to quickly learn how to compete in the biotechnology space in a fiscally-responsible manner.

One of the biggest hurdles to overcome after an acquisition is merging the corporate cultures that existed at the two companies prior to acquisition. One possible solution to this problem is to restructure the acquired company and terminate many or all of its employees. Another solution is to determine (over time) which employees are or aren’t vital to operation of the company. Although this approach is not as draconian as the first option, it requires an inordinate amount time and money to implement. Ask any Pfizer executive about this the utility of this approach (I think that they are still trying to recover from the Warner Lambert and Pharmacia acquisitions that took place in the mid to late 1990s).  

I think the Japanese got this one right.   Maybe we Americans can learn a thing or two from them?

Until next time…

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

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

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Japan’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturer, announced that it has agreed to buy Cambridge MA-based Millennium Pharmaceuticals for $8.8 billion. Millennium, founded in 1993 by high profile MIT researchers and once heralded as one the most innovative American biotechnology companies, never lived up to analyst’s expectations. That said, the company did develop and win regulatory approval for an anti-cancer drug, Velcade, which is expected to garner additional approval for wider use in oncology later this year.

Velcade, which is used to treat relapsed multiple myeloma after other drugs fail generated more than $800 million last year. Millennium anticipates U.S. approval by June to promote Velcade as an initial therapy to treat these disorders. Millennium markets Velcade in the US and shares revenue with Johnson & Johnson which markets Velcade in 85 other countries. Analysts predict that the Takeda acquisition will help to propel Velcade to blockbuster status.

The Takeda-Millennium deal follows Eisai Co.’s (another Japanese company) agreement in December to buy the U.S.'s MGI Pharma Inc. for $3.9 billion as Japanese companies, aided by a weak dollar against the yen, seek growth abroad. Japanese companies have been hampered by government-ordered price cuts, weak pipelines and a lack of new products  As one financial analyst put it ``There's no doubt the weak dollar against the yen is making U.S. biotech very attractive right now to potential Japanese buyers,''

Takeda’s best seller is the diabetes drug Actos which is slated to lose patent protection in the near future. Acquisition of Millennium provides Takeda with an entrée into the oncology and cardiovascular markets both of which are poised for expansive growth in the next five years. Analysts also believe that the Millennium acquisition will boost Takeda’s drug discovery and development flow. Millennium is conducting human trials with experimental drugs for cancer, heart disease, gastrointestinal disorders and rheumatoid arthritis.

The ongoing acquisition of American biotechnology companies by Japanese pharmaceutical companies reminds me of  the Japanese foray into the US real estate market in the early 1990s. Only time will tell whether the Japanese will be able to hang on to their acquisitions this go around (they weren’t the last time).  Earlier this week, Switzerland's Novartis AG agreed to buy 77 percent of eye-care company Alcon Inc. in a two-step transaction totaling $39 billion. Does anybody else see a troubling trend developing here as a result of the recession that we are in or heading into?

Don’t be surprised to see some “asset reallocation” and downsizing at Millennium. The Japanese are well recognized for increasing efficiency and work output with smaller numbers of employees.

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (not in Cambridge MA)!!!!!!!!

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

I just returned from my career development sojourn at this year’s FASEB meeting in San Diego, CA. Not surprisingly, all of my sessions were well attended. In fact, attendance at many of the presentations was standing room only. Again, this was not terribly surprising because the job market for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows for the last 5 years has been dismal. However, in contrast with past years, there was a noticeable and palpable difference in the attitudes of many of the students and postdocs who attended the sessions. In previous years, many career development participants seemed resigned to the possibility of a “jobless future”. However, this year there was a small but vocal group of participants who openly expressed their anger and resentment at the possibility of not finding a job after completing their training. I think that many graduate students and postdoctoral fellows have begun to realize that they are being exploited by a fundamentally flawed academic system and that they are “not going to take it anymore.”

 

Academia has always resembled a medieval, feudal system. Principal Investigators (PIs) are the kings because they hold all the power, money and authority and rule with impunity. Postdoctoral fellows are the lords or vassals who behave somewhat autonomously but have sworn oaths of allegiance and fealty to their kings. Research associates (technicians) are the indentured servants who rely on the king and his vassals for sustenance and protection. Finally, graduate students are the slaves whose lives and well being solely depend upon unquestioned obedience to their Kings. As we all know, feudal systems broke down when kings could no longer maintain control over their slaves and indentured servants. This culminated in rebellions and revolutions, the eventual demise of monarchies and ultimately gave rise to modern republics and democracies.

Although I am not necessarily advocating revolution (okay, so maybe I am), it is time that drastic and systemic changes be made to academia as we know it.  First, there needs to be a limit or moratorium on the number of students that are annually accepted into graduate programs. There are simply not enough academic, industrial or government jobs to justify the number of PhDs and postdoctoral fellows that are trained each year. Second, tenure should be abolished at all research universities and medical schools and be replaced with 5 year renewable contracts. This will force PIs, whose primary job is to do research (not teach), to remain competitive and productive. Further, it will reduce the likelihood that ego-centric PIs will be able to accumulate enough wealth and power to establish the “fiefdoms” that are prevalent in academia today. Third, PIs must increase their reliance on technicians (rather than postdoctoral fellows) to achieve their research objectives and goals. Allowing postdocs to work 5 or more years in the same laboratory because it is cheaper to hire them than technicians is, in my opinion, ethically and morally bankrupt. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is vital that PIs actually become mentors and play active roles in advising and shaping the careers of their students and postdoctoral fellows. Given the paucity and competitiveness of academic positions, it is disingenuous for PIs to promote academic careers for every person who passes through or works in their laboratories. As a former medical school tenure track Assistant Professor, I didn’t find it too difficult to identify which students and postdocs were “cut out” for academic careers. Further, it is incumbent upon PIs to take the time to

learn about and promote job opportunities for scientists outside of academia. Attending career fairs or introducing career development seminars into extant graduate programs would be an important first step in this direction.

After I come home from career development meetings, I sometimes lie awake at night and wonder whether many PIs can fathom what it must feel like when, a PhD who spent 5 or more years in their laboratories, can’t find a job to “put food on the table” for his or her family. Having been there, I can tell you that it is very unpleasant and emotionally devastating!

In my opinion, it will be difficult for academia to continue in its current incarnation. I think that academicians must begin to address and fix the problems that they created for this generation of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Failure to do so may result in a “revolution”– which in this case– may be required to bring about the changes that WE ALL KNOW are long overdue.

Until next time….

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

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

Genzyme Corp announced yesterday that it plans to expand it research and manufacturing facilities in Waterford, Ireland. Genzyme originally set up the facility in 2001 and plans to add another 170 employees, expanding its Irish workforce to 600.

This is second time in less than a year that Waterford (internationally known for its crystal manufacturing) has received an investment from a foreign drug manufacturer. Israeli generic drug manufacturer TEVA made a $100 million dollar to expand its Waterford operations and boost its Irish workforce from 650 to 815.

The Irish government said it was offering assistance to subsidize the $200 million Genzyme expansion at the Waterford site. The amount and terms of the subsidiary were confidential and not disclosed. At present, drug companies with operations in Ireland  employ 25, 000 people.

Genzyme, with expertise in developing drugs to treat rare disorders, kidney disease and cancer, employs more than 10,000 people worldwide.

This is more good news for Ireland!

Until next time….

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

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

Job interviews can be very stressful and emotionally draining. After all, how you perform on a job interview will likely determine whether or not you get an offer for a position. In this post, I provide several interviewing tips, when followed, will likely reduce your stress level and increase your chances of getting a job offer.

• Allow yourself an ample amount of time to arrive on time at your interview; if, for some reason, you are running late (never a good thing) call ahead ASAP and let your host know that an "emergency" or "traffic problem" is responsible for your tardiness. In general, it is a good idea to arrive at an interview 10-15 min early or right on time. Arriving early allows you to relax, assess the interview space and collect your thoughts before the interview begins.
• Bring extra copies of your resume with you. In my experience, most of the people who you meet will not have read or misplaced your CV. By bringing extra copies with you, your prospective employer is likely to think that you are organized, thoughtful and reliable.
• Regardless of what is happening in your life, it is always a good idea to be personable, upbeat and “positive” on a job interview.  I recommend that you greet everyone (no matter what their standing is with the organization) with a smile and a comment that goes something like “It’s a pleasure to meet you”.  Nobody wants to talk (or possibly work with) a disgruntled or unhappy person.
• Always make eye contact when talking with anyone. We are, by nature, social creatures and a lack of eye contact (or an inability to look directly at a person during a conversation) may cause the interviewer to think that you may lack the requisite interpersonal communication skills necessary for the job.
• Don’t offer an interviewer more information than is necessary. Direct and concise answers are appropriate. Also, these types of responses show the interviewer that you can think quickly, clearly and decisively.  Don’t waste an interviewer’s time with rambling, unfocused answers or stories that are not relevant to the question that was asked. They are busy people and have other things that must be accomplished in additional to interviewing you.

•  Answer all questions as honestly and forthrightly as possible.  If you don’t know the answer to a question, don’t hmmm and haw simply say so!  However, I recommend that you soften the “I don't know response” with verbiage that resembles: “Pause ….hmmm.....That is a very good question …..Pause....I don't know the answer to that one!  Or you can say: Gee I don't know the answer but perhaps you can give me your ideas on the topic?” Also, by pausing, you may sometimes be able to come up with an answer that originally eluded your when the question was first asked.
• Never interrupt an interviewer when he/she is talking or in the middle of a thought. When appropriate, always allow the interviewer to control the flow and pace of the conversation. This signal to the interviewer that you can act professionally, are a team player and can be easily managed or supervised if you decide to join the organization.
• When eating lunch or dinner with prospective co-workers always act professionally and don't "let it all hang out."  This isn't meant as a time for you to kick back and "level" with the guys and gals. This is a chance for current employees to assess your social skills and offer them  a glimpse of how you may represent the organization if hired. Everything you say or do will ultimately be reported or  find its way to the person who will be your immediate supervisor. Remember; although you are in a social setting, you are still being scrutinized for your professionalism. So, always act responsibly and professionally when dining with prospective co-workers or managers.
•  Never drink alcoholic beverages at lunch (even if your host(s) does) and only at dinner when your host(s) orders a drink first. Also, if you cannot “hold your liquor”, I highly recommend that you don’t drink alcoholic beverages at any during your interview.
•  Ask questions about the company when appropriate. Prospective employers love when job candidates ask questions about the company or their roles in the organization. This shows prospective employers that you have done your homework and are interested in possibly joining the company. Also, it gives you an opportunity to assess a company’s culture and whether or not you will be able to fit in if you decide to join the organization.
• TURN OFF ALL CELL PHONES, BLACKBERRY DEVICES and PAGERS when the interview begins and leave them off.  Nobody likes being interrupted during a conversation by a ringing cell phone, blackberry, or pager. If you are so important that you need to be electronically-connected at all times, then you probably don’t need the job that you are interviewing for!
•  Never say anything derogatory or pejorative about anyone when interviewing. In case you haven’t noticed, the scientific community is a small one and chances are that one or more of people you meet will know some of the same people that you do!  Everyone loves to gossip so be careful about what you say and how you say it!
• Interview to win! Receiving one or more job offers likely indicates that you are qualified for a job and your interviewing skills are good. Multiple interviews without offers signal that something may be wrong with your interviewing skills or technique. If this is the case, I urge you to seek a career coach who specializes in mock interview training.

Like everything else in life, practice makes perfect. That said, the more job interviews that you go on, the more experienced you will become and the more job offers you will likely receive.  

Until next time….

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

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

Until recently, Amgen dominated the biotechnology industry and was anointed the world's largest biotechnology company.  However, Amgen recently lost its number 1 ranking to Genentech.  Over the past year or so, Amgen, which is now ranked number 2,  has been acting a lot  like Avis,  the car rental company , which in the 1970s adopted the slogan  “Avis: We Try Harder” when it was number 2 to Hertz in the car rental rankings.  Like Avis, w