Are US Immigration Laws Really Hurting Life Science Innovation?
.jpg)
A report in Bloomberg News today suggested that Eli Lilly & Co. Chief Executive Officer John Lechleiter, PhD told a technology conference today that unfavorable US permanent resident (green card) laws are to blame for declining US innovation in the life sciences. With this in mind, Lechleiter plans on calling for US immigration officials to issue more green cards and adopt a shorter and simpler process for highly skilled foreign nationals to gain permanent residence in the US. According to Dr. Lechleiter, one of only a handful of big pharma CEO who is also a PhD-trained scientist, current green card regulations are so-called job killers and force many talented foreign nationals to return to their native countries to work with firms that directly compete with American life sciences companies. Unlike most of his peers, Lechleiter has been very outspoken about the lack of US life sciences innovation.
While Lechleiter comments may have been appropriate five or more years ago, they are no longer germane to America’s waning innovation in the life sciences. There is little doubt that many bright and talented foreign nationals were denied permanent residency during the Bush era (2000 to 2008) because of stringent immigration policies and limits on the numbers of green cards allotted for persons from certain parts of the world; mainly China, India and the Middle East. This, in turn, forced many life scientists—many of whom desperately wanted permanent residency in the US—to return to their home countries to look for work and gainful employment.
As Lechleiter rightly asserts, these scientists found work with companies that began to directly compete with US life sciences. This phenomenon, coupled with the rapid assent of the middle class in many of these nations, made it possible to begin to conduct Western style research at a much lower costs in these countries. To that end, by 2007, most big pharma companies—many of whom had dwindling pipelines and monstrous overhead costs—realized that it would be more cost effective to outsource or move R&D to countries with emerging pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets and a well trained R&D workforce. And, for the past four years downsizing and outsourcing of R&D are exactly what have been taking place at many American big pharma and biotechnology companies.
In my opinion, the larger question that must be addressed, as far as US innovation in the life sciences is concerned is: why are so few Americans willing to pursue scientific careers? To wit, the main reason why so many foreign life scientists were educated and trained in the US over the past 20 years was because there weren’t enough American students to fill the incoming roster at most American graduate training programs. Put simply, America’s growing lack of innovation in the life sciences over the past decade can be directly attributed to far fewer Americans pursuing scientific careers and an increased reliance on foreign nationals—who were unable to stay in the US—to innovate! While changing US immigration laws may allow some foreign nationals to more easily remain in the US, there simply aren’t enough life sciences jobs left in the US to make it worth their while! In fact, the likelihood of them finding life sciences jobs in their home countries is now greater than it is in the US. In my opinion, the only way to restore American innovation in the life sciences is to convince American students that pursuing scientific careers is worthwhile and that the requisite training for industry jobs is available to them.
Interestingly, after leading with changes to US immigration laws, Lechleiter also suggested that America’s innovation problem could be solved by lowering US corporate tax rates and American companies should not be forced to pay taxes on oversea earnings. Also, he asserted that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) should stop putting off decisions or erring on the side of avoiding risk when considering new drug applications.
This begs the questions, how do lower taxes, no overseas taxes and expedited drug approvals help to spur American innovation when most life sciences R&D is conducted outside of the US?
Until next time...
Good Luck and Good Innovating!!!!!!!!
Bloomberg news today 
The US Food and Drug Administration 
The 
Late last week,
Merck has finally gone where no pharmaceutical company has ever gone before; it 
Despite public assertions made by Novartis a mere 
The ever watchful Mark Senak of the highly informative 
For the past few years, CEOs have been taking a lot of heat; and in many cases rightfully so. However, from time to time some of these “captains of industry” say things that may be useful to ambitious young executives, employees and would-be entrepreneurs. 
In this week’s New York Times “Corner Office”, Aaron Levie, the 25 year old CEO of Box.net a Silicon Valley online file storage company had provided these valuable insights and tips about interviewing and hiring new employees. 
John Lechleiter, PhD, chairman and CEO of Eli Lilly & Co. today told members of the Detroit Economic Club that the US is losing its competitive edge and that “evidence is mounting for an 
AstraZeneca today announced that its Chief Executive David Brennan will receive no increase to his base salary this year, as the drug maker continues a freeze for top executives imposed last year due to weak economic conditions..jpg)
pharmaceutical industry and seemingly getting tougher..jpg)
The Pharmalot blog authored by the intrepid Ed Silverman (1).jpg)
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..jpg)
The ink hasn’t had time to try on the deal sheet and Pfizer already has announced what the impact of its acquisition of Wyeth will have on the combined company. Here’s what to expect: Pfizer will shed at least 19,000 jobs from it newly combined work force of 128,000 employees; it will slash its stock dividend by 50%; and it will take a $2.3 billion charge to settle a federal investigation over off label promotion of its former pain drug Bextra. 
.jpg)
Glassdoor.com a site that allows people to rate CEO and company performance selected .jpg)
Do you ever wonder what the person who you share an office with is making? Or, have you ever wondered what other people think about the CEO of your company? Or, should I consider working at that company? The answers to these questions and more can now be found at a 4-month old website called .jpg)
Oh, what a difference a couple of years or results from a pivotal clinical trial can have on a company’s financial outlook. As you may recall in 2005, Merck was in a shambles after the Vioxx scandal broke. Its CEO was ousted, its stock was trading at less than $35 per share and employee morale was at an all time low. After two short years, Richard Clark, a life-long Merck employee, was able to turn the company around. Merck’s stock reached a high of almost $61 last December and many of its employees were dancing in the streets of Rahway because their stock options were now worth more than the paper that they were printed on. But, like many things in life, all good things must come to an end..jpg)
Over the past 30 years or so, the vast majority of chief executives in the drug business have made their way to the top via the sales and marketing departments. Few senior executives have toiled in a research laboratory or for that matter, know the difference between NMR and protein purification. However, things may be changing in the industry. A quick perusal of the CEOs of the top 20 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (see below) reveals that 11 of 20 have degrees in engineering (4), medicine (2) and science (5). The remaining 9 have degrees in business and finance (3), sales and marketing (4) or law (2). Several of the scientists (2), engineers (3) and one physician also earned MBA degrees.