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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Support the Public Option!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stay tuned for updates.

Until next time...

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

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

The recent spate of corporate layoffs has forced many people to reconsider what their next career move ought to be. While looking for another corporate job (similar to your old one) is the most obvious thing to do, the likelihood of quickly finding a new job in these economic times is remote. That said, now may be a good time to consider leaving confines of the corporate world and striking out on your own! Based on my own personal experiences, this can be a very frightening and overwhelming undertaking fraught with anxiety and uncertainty. But, not to worry! Sharon Jaffe, a self described “passionate digital marketing and media strategist and former corporate executive” has written a great blog post that offer some helpful tips and suggestions  for people who may be thinking about leaving the comforts of the corporate world and striking out on their own.

Sharon’s Tips and Suggestions About Starting Out on Your Own

1. Feel the fear and do it anyway. This is a great book by Susan Jeffers, and it's my main point, since 96% of people don't start a new busineness because of the fear of failure.  Don't expect to be fearless, but don't be paralysed by your fears. Help and seek help, especially where you need it – be it logistics, network, introductions etc.

2. "Do unto others..."- The Ethic of Reciprocity. Don't underestimate your own value and your ability to help others. Realise that others want to see you succeed and need your help too, so jump in the "informal economy" of networking, connecting, giving and asking for help. I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for key people who gave me their time and guidance. In turn, I always make time for others since you never know when the favour will be returned. ;-)

3. Network isn't everything, it's the only thing! It's what you know AND who you know. The people who've worked with you and know what and how you do it are the key people to hire you, help you and recommend you on. Almost all my business has come from my own network where I have spent many years building a reputation and building my personal brand.

4. Be resilient! Be prepared to bark up a lot of wrong trees. When there's nothing up the trees, pick yourself up and move on to the next one. Set-backs and disappointment are par for the course. Protect your self-esteem and be positive. Matt Crabtree, from Positive Momentum, was instrumental in helping me with most of these tips as well as recognising the power of the right attitude and positivity.

5. Be your own guiding light. Trust your internal instincts when making decisions and be true to yourself. If you're asked to do something which doesn't feel right or by someone who doesn't feel right, it generally isn't right. Don't accept work which you don't feel good about i.e. is not the type of work you want to be doing (you'll be hating every minute of it). At the same time, be open-minded. I was asked to do training and figured, "why not?". It has since turned out to be my main source of business second to consulting.

6. Quality is key! Maintain your own professional quality standards. Invest in your brand and pay attention to everything from the way you dress to showing up on time. Now more than ever it's important to realise that you are your own business card.

7. Have a clear vision. Always hold clear the vision of where you see yourself in 1 or x year's time. Let that motivate you! Make sure you create some goals and milestones, be it a revenue target, or your first press interview. Remember to also reward yourself and congratulate yourself on your achievements along the way with rewards.

8. Think big but start small. Don't be arrogant or overconfident in what you charge. Be willing to do stuff for free to build experience, reputation and a solid track record. Trust me, the rest will follow.

9. Watch your costs. Don't splurge unnecessarily but don't skimp on the important things like a good laptop and a business card. It's not necessary to have a glamorous website to get started – one year on I still don't advertise what I do on the web and yet I've been fully booked.

10. Manage your work-life balance. It's easy to start working evenings and weekends and it's hard to give yourself a break. I think this is a key driver of entrepreneurs and a danger in the general unwillingness or inability to take time off. I think I'm still learning this one, which is why I put it last.

I hope these tips are helpful! Good luck!

You can follow Sharon on Twitter @sharonjaffe

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

Each year the World Bank compiles a report that assesses the world’s friendliest business climates for small companies. The top three companies on this year’s list, Singapore, New Zealand and the US have been there four years in a row. The real shocker this year was that several previously lagging nations moved up on the list, mostly because of business-friendly reforms. This year’s most improved nation is Azerbaijan, which moved up 64 spots to a overall ranking of 33^rd because it reduced the time required to start a new business from 122 to 16 days, reforming its civil code and creating an online tax filing system.

Singapore has habitually been number one on the list because of its low import and export costs, strong government-imposed legal protections for investors and lopsided, employer-friendly labor regulations. The US placed high on the list because its labor laws are among the least rigid in the world and because business can be started quickly with a minimum amount of “red tape”.

For those of you who may be interested the top ten list looks like this:

1. Singapore
2. New Zealand
3. United States
4. Hong Kong
5. Denmark
6. The United Kingdom
7. Ireland
8. Canada
9. Australia
10. Norway

To see the rest of the list and find out more about starting a small business in your own click here

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (why not start one?)

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

All of us, (especially scientists) like to think that we have high moral and ethical standards. While in theory this may be true, there will come a time in your career when you’re faced with an ethical dilemma. Do you possess the mettle to make the right— or perhaps more apt— the most ethical decision? To gain some insight into your personal code of ethics (or lack thereof), I strongly recommend that you take a Monster Career quiz that purportedly measures how ethical you truly are.

Despite some assertions to the contrary, I’m still an ethical guy (although not as ethical as I thought)!

Until next time….

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until next time….

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

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