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 know it may appear a little odd that I am writing a post about leaving your current job given the state of the US economy and the dismal job market. However, believe it or not, there are folks out there whose skills are in demand who may have grown weary of their current job situations. With this in mind, those of you who may be considering a job change ought to ask a few questions before taking leap. 

Are there opportunities for growth at your current company?

If the answer to this question is yes, then it may be prudent to explore these options before deciding to look for new opportunities at other companies. While you may think you have the skills and qualifications to land a new job at another company, word on the street is that it takes anywhere from 6 months to a year for qualified and in-demand employees to secure new positions.

Is the work that you that perform on a daily basis excruciatingly boring?

If the answer to this is yes, then it may be time to consider your options. However, if you are qualified to do the job that you do at your current company then it is likely that doing the same job at a competitor will also be as boring as your current job. To that end, maybe it is time to consider additional training or education to learn new skills a new trade or occupation. There is a saying in the recruiting business about persons who change jobs “Better pay but the same old crap”

How available are jobs for someone with your skills?

The job market is extremely tight right now and pundits believe that it will not improve for several years. Therefore, it is vital to seriously evaluate the number of job openings out there for someone with your skill sets. For example, there are still shortages of nursing and healthcare personnel. If you are a nurse or physician’s assistant, then it may not be a bad idea to look around and see if you can get a better deal at a new company or hospital. If on the other hand, you are a pharmaceutical employee, I would not recommend any job change at the moment. The market is extremely volatile and leaving your current job for a better opportunity at a competitor company may actually put you at risk for layoff. This is because the last hired are usually the first employees that are eliminated during reorganizations and layoffs.

Does your current job impact the quality of your life?

If you are miserable at your current job, it is likely affecting or hindering your performance at work. And despite your best efforts to hide those feelings, it is likely that others are picking them up. Further, if your job is stressful and interfering with your emotional well being it is also likely that you will not be able to perform at your best (especially if you are not sleeping well or the anxiety is interfering with personal relationships).  This is an extremely difficult situation especially if you or your family is counting on your paycheck to make ends meet. However, if your mental or emotional health is in jeopardy, it is time to start looking around for other opportunities. Obviously, do not quit your job until you land a new one. Alternatively, if you are in a good financial place, it may not be a bad idea to go to HR to ask for a “package” or simply give notice (if a package is not an option). Again, do not do this until you have devised a plan to look for a new job. Also, it is imperative that you take a hard look at your finances to insure that you budget is consistent with your job search strategy.

Is your current job what you want to do for the rest of your life?

It is not uncommon for people to work for years in the same profession and then decide that it is no longer for them. Also, many people have lifelong passions that they want to pursue but were either too afraid or not in a financial position to attempt them. If you know that your current job is not consistent with your long term career goals, then it is time to consider your options. Again, this requires a substantial amount of research, thinking and weighing the pros and cons of a career change. One of the best ways to confirm or rule out the possibility of a career change is to chat with people who are already pursuing the careers that you are considering. It is amazing how much you can learn from these people to better inform your decision about a career change. Once you have talked with these folks, researched the degree requirements and skill sets necessary to land jobs in your new career and chatted with your partner, family etc about the impact of the career move on your life then go for it! There is nothing more rewarding then waking up every day and looking forward to going to work because you love what you do!

Until next time...

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

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

The tough job market and economy have caused lots of folks to consider changing careers to find gainful employment. While sometimes a career change is warranted, it may not be as easy as you think. With this in mind, there was a great article entitled "The Big Switch, One Step at a Time" by Phyllis Korkki that provides some tips and insights to think about before taking the big plunge.

Of course, not all career changes are created equal and there are a variety of things to consider depending upon whether you are starting out or a midcareer person. I think that the best bit of advice that was offered for all persons considering a career change was a recommendation to read industry trades and follow industry blogs; mainly because they are not translated for the general public. That said, if you find yourself reading these publications and you don’t know what certain acronyms mean or you are having difficulty understanding the points that the authors are trying to make, it is a good indication that transitioning into that career may take a little more training and understanding than you think!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Career Hunting!!!!!!!

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

In the play Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare famously wrote:

"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose

By any other name would smell as sweet ..."

While I am not so sure about the “sweet part,”  French pharmaceutical giant Sanofi-Aventis believes that no matter what it calls itself it will still be the same old company. To that end, Sanofi-Aventis last Friday announced that it will officially shorten its name to simply “Sanofi.” 

Sanofi is one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies based on revenues. It was formed in 2004 in a merger between two French pharmaceutical companies, Sanofi-Synthelabo and Aventis. The reason for the name change; most people (me included) simply called it Sanofi rather than Sanofi-Aventis. And, perhaps more appropriately, the company wanted its name to be “recognizable and easy to pronounce” around the world.

In addition to the name change, the company also declared a dividend of 2.50 euro for its shareholders that will be paid either in cash or stock. The dividend payout will take effect by June 16, 2011

As you may recall, Sanofi purchased Genzyme last month in a $20.1 billion deal. Perhaps the name change was announced because Sanofi-Genzyme is much easier to pronounce and has a better “ring to it” than Sanofi-Aventis-Genzyme?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

About 10 to 20 Americans are afflicted with bubonic plague each year, and 1 to 3 die from the infection according to statistics compiled by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA. The natural reservoir of Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes plague, are  prairie dogs and ferrets, and fleas that infest those colonies can transfer it to squirrels, rats and mice, who like to live close to humans and their flea-carrying pets. Most of the reported cases of plaque occur in the so-called Four Corners, where Utah, Arizon, New Mexico and Colorado meet, and most victims live in rodent-infested rural dwellings. 

A study in this month’s issue of The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene tracked climatic conditions in 195 counties in 13 Western states, from Washington to Texas, that reported even one plague case since 1950. Cases have dropped over time, and the study concluded that rising nighttime temperatures since 1990 had helped. Warmer nights melt winter snowpacks earlier, leading to drier soil in rodent burrows. When the soil gets too dry, fleas die and transmission of Y. pestis is much reduced. 

While a reduction in the incidence of bubonic plague may be a good thing, it certainly doesn’t offset the potential catastrophic effects that may result if global warming is not kept in check! 

Despite the fearsome reputation the disease earned in the Dark Ages, plague can be easily treated with antibiotics if it is caught early enough. Also, improvements in sanitation and urban livings conditions has relegated plague to be classified as an endemic and ancient disease.

Until next time...

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

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

The Pharmalot blog authored by the intrepid Ed Silverman today reported that Dan Vasella is out as CEO at Novartis and there has been an executive shake up at the company. According to the post, Vasella is reliquishing his post a CEO but retaining his chairman title For a complete run down and a glimpse at the new Novartis org chart read Ed's post

Vasella has come under fire (literally and figuratively) over the past year or so.  Industry insiders and Novartis shareholders contended that he couldn't manage the day-to-day operations of companies and succeed as Chairman. Also, Vasella was the victim of  unwarranted, vicious attacks by animal rights activists who publicly denounced him and set his home on fire!

Vasella, one of the few physicians to head a pharmaceutical company, held the top position since 1996 following the merger of Sandoz and Ciba-Geigy to form Novartis. The company has expanded in to new therapeutic areas and markets and performed well under Vasella's stewardship. However, many industry experts contend that ten years is the optimum tenure for most life sciences CEOs. What's four years in the scheme of things?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like my kids frequently say when I mutter something obvious…”Like..DUH.! According to an article in today’s New York Times, “American medical care may be the most expensive in the world, but that does not mean it is worth every penny. A study to be released Thursday highlights the stark contrast between what the United States spends on its health system and the quality of care it delivers, especially when compared with many other industrialized nations.” No surprises here—the US spends more per capital on healthcare than all other industrialized nations but a greater percentage of the US population is without adequate healthcare.

One of the things that irritate me the most is that many Americans still believe that US healthcare is second to none. True, Americans have greater access to experimental and new cutting-edge treatments than others in the world, but when it comes to preventing or prophylatically delaying the onset of chronic diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity etc, the American healthcare system is grossly deficient.  

Healthcare insiders and third party payors have known that the system has been failing for past 20 years. Unfortunately, the healthcare and drug maker company lobbies have effectively blocked and prevented any changes to correct the glaring deficiencies of the American healthcare system. Anytime, anybody utters the phrase “nationalized healthcare” a collective shudder is exhibited by most Americans. The truth is that Medicare, a government-run healthcare insurer, is responsible for covering almost 60% of all medicals claims that are filed annually in the US. This means that healthcare benefits supplied to a majority of Americans are under the auspices of a nationalized healthcare program. Why not go all the way and cover the medical costs of all Americans?????

Politicians can no longer deny that it’s time for a change—the health of America depends on it!

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

We all know (or should know) that eating dirty or yellow snow is a big “no-no”. Those of us who are parents (and live in regions where there are regular snowfalls) teach our children this lesson as quickly as possible. That said, should parents worry when their children eat new or freshly falling snow because it contains air-borne bacteria? 

Last week, a group of scientists at Louisiana State University reported in Science magazine that there may be a relationship between ice-nucleating, air-borne bacteria and global rainfall patterns. For those of you who don’t know, the formation of ice in clouds is required for snow and most rainfall. Although dust and soot particles serve as ice nucleation particles, bacterial ice nuclei are capable of catalyzing freezing more quickly at much warmer temperatures and their presence in the atmosphere may affect the processes that trigger precipitation. Results from the Science study suggested that bacteria like Pseudomonas syringae, which have long been know to serve as nucleators and induce ice formation, are widely distributed in the atmosphere and likely play critical roles in influencing the amount of rain that falls at various locations in the world–pretty cool new stuff for those of us interested in global warming and climate change in general. Therefore, it surprised me when I saw that lay newspaper reporters chose to “cherry pick” data from the paper to suggest to Americans that even freshly fallen snow contains large numbers of bacteria and that, perhaps, parents should be careful when they allow their children to eat snow!

As a card-carrying microbiologist and seasoned science educator, I want to assure all of you that eating freshly fallen snow will not cause disease in you or your children. The types of bacteria found in the atmosphere, and ultimately in snow, are not human pathogens and don’t cause disease. Thankfully, in a story entitled “Study: Driven snow isn’t all that Pure” that appeared in my local paper (The Trenton Times)– a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Environmental Health was quoted as saying ; “We eat stuff that’s covered with bacteria all the time, and for the most part, it is killed in the stomach.” Another pediatrician, who is a member of the academy’s committee on infectious diseases, reinforced the claim that snow munching was not harmful and said “Children practically bathe in bacterial when they go to the playground and they won’t get anything from snow that they would not get from dirt.”  

Although most of the stories about bacteria and snow munching that appeared in the lay media were “fluff pieces”, they did alarm some parents! As one mother said in the Trenton Times article: “When I heard bacteria, at first, I went “eeeewwww”. But as long as the kids eat snow as it’s falling, I think it is okay. I tell them not to eat it if it’s on the ground.” What was particularly troubling about her remark was her initial negative reaction to the mere mention of the word bacteria. Unfortunately, most Americans have little understanding about bacteria and the negative impressions that they have formed are based on the sensationalistic and often scientifically inaccurate pieces about “dangerous” bacteria and fungi (mold) that often appear in print media and on television.

In my opinion, America’s negative attitude and poor understanding of science is a consequence of ongoing, misguided science reporting that has plagued this country for years. Although the American lay news media is mostly responsible for this, scientists are also complicit because of their unwillingness or inability to publicly speak out on important scientific issues and problems.

I believe that scientists are obliged to do everything in their powers to ensure that lay science reporting is fair and balanced and that the correct scientific messages reach the American public. Our failure to act will surely jeopardize the future of American science–something that we Americans can ill afford. Enough said–have a plate of snow on me!

Until next time….

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

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