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

The Pharmalot blog reported today that Eli Lilly & Co one of the more progressive big pharma companies to experiment with crowdsourcing and social media to generate new R&D opportunities today announced that it most company employees and executives will not receive base pay increases this year. The company did not announce a freeze in bonuses, however.

In a sign of solidarity with the 99 %, John Lechleiter, PhD Lilly’s outspoken and sometimes controversial CEO, requested that he not receive an increase to his $1.5 million annual salary and incentives. Interesting, as Ed Silverman cogently points out in the Pharmalot post, Lechleiter’s bonus target is 140% of his base salary which put his total compensation for the upcoming year at around $16.4 million!

Last week, the company disclosed that it missed analyst’s stock price estimates and its leading product Zyprexa (antipsychotic) yielded lower than expected sales revenues because of generic competition. Zyprexa sales dropped 44 percent in the fourth-quarter to $749.6 million.

Don’t be surprised if layoffs are next. It may be time for Lilly employees to dust off those CVs and resumes.

Until next time...

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

After announcing its quarterly earnings and a 24 percent increase in 2011 profits, AstraZeneca (AZ) today made public its decision to eliminate another 7,300 jobs. Earlier this week there was speculation that job cuts were likely but the exact numbers were not disclosed. 

The reasons given for the layoffs despite increased annual profits? Government spending cuts for healthcare and stiff generic competition for several of its blockbuster drugs including Seroquel XR (depression), Atacand (hypertension) Crestor (cholesterol-lowering) and Symbicort (asthma); all of which have lost or will be losing patent protection in the near future. According to a company press release generic competition cut revenues by $2.0 billion in 2011 whereas government price interventions cost the company another $1.0 billion. The announced job cuts are expected to save AZ $1.6 billion by 2014—great news for shareholders but not so much for the employees who are losing their jobs!

Most of the cuts will take place in R&D. To that end, the company will close its facility in Montreal and layoff staff at its Soedertaelje site in Sweden. Interestingly, the company plans on focusing more on neuroscience and intends to hire 40 to 50 scientists in its new Innovative Medicine unit which is partly based in Boston, MA and Cambridge in England.

While layoffs at AZ were expected, the size of the current layoff does not bode well for other pharmaceutical employees. It is becoming increasingly clear that big pharma companies are getting out of R&D and focusing their efforts on M&A and licensing deals to fill their thinning pipelines. Also, while shedding R&D and sales jobs in developed markets, big pharma companies are investing heavily in building facilities and hiring thousands of R&D and sales personnel in emerging markets. From my perspective, it appears that big pharma has consciously decided to abandon developed Western markets where sales growth is in the single digits in favor of emerging ones where double digit growth is expected for the next decade.

Until next time...

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

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

A fascinating article entitled “Why Science Majors Change Their Minds (It’s Just So Darn Hard)” that appeared in the NY Times this past Sunday asserts that the decline in American science, technology engineering and math (STEM) majors can be mainly attributed to the difficulty of the subject matter as compared with non-science majors. While I agree that STEM courses may be a bit more challenging their non-science counterparts and the way that they are taught can be improved, the decline in STEM majors can be directly attributed to the length of training and earning potential for STEM jobs as compared with non-STEM ones. Put simply, persons who pursue non-STEM careers generally require less training and have a much higher earning potential than those who choose STEM career paths. And, the reason why foreign students from emerging are flocking to STEM careers is that these jobs are highly regarded in their home countries and those who pursue these career paths are well compensated for their efforts.

Rather than try and enunciate my feelings on this topic, I think a Letter to the Editor from Stuart Firestein, PhD, Chairman of the department of biological sciences at Columbia University that appeared in today’s NY Times nicely capture my sentiments:

To the Editor:

Why do science majors change their mind? They wise up.

Your article makes it sound as if American science students are stupid or lazy, unlike their workaholic Chinese and Indian counterparts. This is glib and insulting.

It is in their second year that students typically join laboratories and see firsthand that their dreams of a scientific career include low-paying and highly competitive professorial jobs, that getting grants for scientific research is increasingly difficult and unpredictable, that they are facing many years of postgraduate work at ridiculously low salaries and that they would have a hard time supporting a family.

Compare this future with that of the economics major (lots of math) who goes to business school and can look forward to million-dollar yearly bonuses.

American students change their majors because they recognize that this country has stopped providing a reasonable future for scientists, with slashed budgets for the National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration and National Institutes of Health.

For Chinese and Indian students, science remains a way out of poverty. For American students, it’s becoming the path into it.

In addition to Dr. Firestein’s comments, it is important to note that outsourcing and consolidation in the life sciences industry that has occurred over the past decade has all but eliminated the option of industry jobs for those who were unable to secure academic positions. Put simply, there are no longer enough jobs in the US to support the numbers of sciences students that we annually train.

Although I have never taken an economic course, simple supply side economic theory suggests that training fewer scientists—thereby reducing competition for a dwindling number of jobs—may partially help to solve the STEM job problem. Further, changing the way in which we train STEM students, to provide them with the requisite skill sets for non-academic career would also help. Finally, eliminating tenure, which would force increased turnover among research faculty members and regularly infuse new ideas into extant STEM curricula would help to increase the overall number of available STEM jobs and also improve America’s global competitiveness in the sciences.

Until next time...

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

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

Layoffs at big pharma tend to slow during the summer as most people are on vacation and nobody wants to fire folks when the kids are out of school. However, the failing economy has prompted several companies to abandon tradition and fire people during the summer anyway.

According to the Pharmalot Blog, previously announced layoffs at Merck have been accelerated and approximately 8,000 more employees will lose their jobs in early August. While the layoffs were not unexpected, those affected likely thought that they had more time before being shown the door.

In other news, Elan announced that it was laying off 104 employees at its King of Prussia, PA facility. The layoffs resulted from the sale of Élan’s manufacturing facility to Alkermes for $960 million. The acquisition gives Alkermes a chemical formulation and manufacturing business and a stake in two recently approved drugs; Ampyra for multiple sclerosis and Invega Sustenna a treatment for schizophrenia. The layoffs will occur next month and the facility will be closed in September.

Finally, a recent KPMG LLP survey of top executives of US drug makers indicates that M&A activity will continue to increase over the next several years as pharma companies attempt to offset rising generic competition and waning drug revenues. At present, roughly 70 percent of all medications sold in the US are generics. 

Eighty-three percent of the executives believe that their companies will be buyers or sellers in deals over the next two years. Further, just over half believe that it will take more than two years for the US economy to fully recover.

While M&A activity isn’t a bad thing for some companies, it is typically followed by reorganizations and massive job layoffs which are obviously not good for rank and file employees. Consequently, if I worked for a major pharma or biotechnology company, I would definitely make sure that my CV was up-to-date!

Until next time...

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

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

The Pharmalot Blog today reported that a Wall Street Journal article indicated that Pfizer is planning to cut $1.0 billion from its operating budget by 2012. As many of you may recall (especially those who lost their jobs) the world’s largest pharmaceutical company cut 1,100 earlier this year at its research facilities in Groton CT. The new cuts are aimed at reducing Pfizer’s R&D expenses by up to $2.9 billion annually.

The $1.0 billion in cuts is primarily aimed at reducing administrative and management duplications at Pfizer’s headquarters in NYC and worldwide. Other expenses to be trimmed include those related to promotions, travel, entertainment, consultants, print materials and supplies and electronic equipment. While there is no doubt that these cuts will help to control costs, I suspect that substantially more money could be saved if pharma executive salaries and bonuses were also trimmed.

While it is unclear what the additional $1.0 billion in cuts will have on scientists, I suspect it won’t be good. In case you have not noticed by now, Pfizer like many of its competitors are getting out of the R&D business. This means that R&D jobs will continue to dwindle and scientists will continue to struggle to find jobs in a highly competitive job market.

Since Pfizer purchased rival Wyeth Pharmaceuticals in 2009, the company has shed over 20,000 jobs. The reason for the job cuts and massive cost cutting measures at Pfizer is the loss of patent protection in 2012 for its top selling cholesterol medication Lipitor ($10.7 billion in sales) and its ED drug Viagra ($1.9 billion in sales). Last year Pfizer lost patent protection the antidepressant Effexor (peak sales of $3.8 billion) and the Alzheimer’s drug Aricept ($417 million in sales). Also, when mergers take place there is much overlap and duplication of effort that takes several years to sort out.

Don’t be surprised if new Pfizer job cuts are announced late next fall! Now, would be a good time for Pfizer scientists to remove the dust from their CVs; if it is not already too late!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

Last week’s special issue of Nature Magazine “The Future of PhDs” contains no fewer than six independently written articles assessing the value, importance worth etc of a PhD degree in the life sciences. All of the articles are extremely well written and insightful. The opinions of the authors range from maintaining the status quo to questioning whether a PhD degree is important for life scientists to completely revamping the requirements to obtain the degree. While I think that Nature’s decision to devote an entire special issue to problems facing PhD students and postdoctoral fellows is courageous and laudable, I can not help but ask “What took you so long?” That said, there is no questions that the proverbial “cat is out of the bag”—there was an article in last Friday’s USA Today —which means that the American public (maybe) is now aware of the “problem.” Rather than immediately react to the plethora of posts, LinkedIn discussions and comments from bloggers and recruiters, I decided to take some time to organize my thoughts and offer some of my own insights and ideas about the issue.

For the past seven years, I, along with a few fellow career development experts, have been outspoken about the diminishing career and job prospects for PhD-trained life scientists. Like the authors of the recent Nature papers, we had determined in the early 2000s that career opportunities and job prospects for life sciences PhDs and postdoctoral fellows were rapidly declining in both academia and industry. And, more important, that there was an emerging “glut” of life sciences PhDs (mainly basic researchers) on the job market. Not surprisingly, many of the hundreds of graduate students and postdoctoral scientists—who we counseled during career development sessions at various national scientific meetings—were finding it increasingly difficult or nearly impossible to find jobs in their chosen fields of endeavors. While we were able to advise them on how to write a better resume/CV or provide them with alternate career options, we all knew that their prospects for gainful employment were severely limited. I cannot tell you how difficult and emotionally-wrenching it is to tell extremely talented graduate students and postdoctoral scientists that their prospects for gainful employment are bleak.

Yet, despite a rapidly deteriorating job market and our best efforts to alert those “in charge,” graduate training programs recklessly continue to annually “mint” as many new PhDs as possible. While the reasons for this are obvious—graduate students and postdoctoral scientists are sources of “cheap and reliable labor”— the conscious decision to continue to produce as many PhDs as possible flies in the face of basic supply and demand economics. While I can go on and on with finger pointing and assessing blame, it is not productive or helpful; nor will it help to solve the bleak employment prospects facing many PhD-trained life scientists. However, there are a few strategies that, if appropriately implemented, can help to improve the job prospects for graduate students and postdoctoral scientists.

First, graduate and postdoctoral programs could create career development programs and experiences for their students and postdocs. These programs could include seminars on alternate career options, job counseling, resume writing and interviewing clinics, internship opportunities and even annual career fairs at attended by local or national prospective employers. While many PIs will complain that this will take graduate students and postdocs out of the laboratory and impede their progress, I submit that career development activities will reduce stress and anxiety and allow persons to develop a career plan or roadmap. This, in turn, will allow them to establish goals better budget/manage their time and be more productive in the lab. Moreover, it will likely shorten the time to earn a PhD degree which will provide PIs with more employee turnover and allow them to take larger numbers of new students into their labs.

Second, training programs ought to develop and formalize alternate career tracks for their graduate students and postdocs. For example, if a student is interested in medical writing rather than a traditional academic research career he/she ought to be encouraged to take some medical writing courses or be allowed to do a medical writing internship as part of their training. If a student is interested in business, then it may make sense for the student to be able to take business courses or enroll in an online biotechnology training programs. In fact, several institutions now offer a joint PhD/MBA degree option. The bottom line here is that providing students and postdocs with alternate exit strategies will incentivize them to be more productive so that they can “get on with their careers.”

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, graduate training programs need to limit the number of PhDs that they train and produce. This means, admitting fewer graduate students each year until the demand for PhDs begins to rise again. While this is the easiest and most cost effective solution to the problem, I suspect that it is the one that will meet with most resistance and objections. After all, fewer graduate students means fewer postdoctoral scientists which translates into fewer bodies to do the research necessary to win grants and publish peer-reviewed papers. However, it is important to note that the increasingly competitive and challenging job market for life scientists has already taken a toll on US preparedness in science and engineering. To that end, fewer American undergraduate students are majoring in the life sciences than ever before. In fact, the most popular undergraduate major in the US today is business. Further, over the past 20 years or so, fewer American students have entered graduate school in the life sciences. A quick perusal of the rosters of graduate students and postdoctoral scientists at almost any major US research institution will reveal that a majority are foreign born nationals! New research reveals that many US-trained foreign nationals are going back to their home countries to work and in many instances, compete with American life sciences companies.

There is no longer any question that “something” must be done to improve the career and employment prospects for American life scientists. Regardless of the solution, it will likely be painful. However, this is no longer a problem that can easily be “swept under the rug” or consciously ignored by the “powers at be.” Failure to adequately and seriously address the issue may not only have serious consequences for the current American life sciences training paradigm (don’t be surprised when academic tenure is eliminated) but also may affect the future competitiveness and economic well-being of the US.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

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

While R&D scientists and sales representatives continue to struggle to find jobs in the US at pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, the competition is fierce to hire and retain pharma employees in emerging markets like China and India. Earlier this week, I posted a piece on big pharma’s continuing expansion of its R&D activities in Asia and the growing need for US-trained PhDs in this region. However, it appears that hiring and retaining pharma sales reps is a bigger problem in China and India for big pharma companies like GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Sanofi-Aventis (SA) and Pfizer.

According to a recent article in Bloomberg News about 20 percent of GSK’s sales forces in both countries quits each year in favor of better offers from its rivals including Pfizer and SA. One GSK executive quipped “There’s a huge war for talent. It’s hard to do anything about. If you have a good person, they could find someone else willing to pay twice as much.” This is in marked contrast with the US where almost 100,000 pharma sales reps may have lost jobs over the past five years.

Emerging Asia Pacific markets accounted for roughly 17 percent of GSK’s sales in 2010 as compared with 18 percent for Pfizer and 30 percent for SA. Sales revenues for most major pharmaceutical companies declined in both the US and Europe last year. There is no question that big pharma is turning to emerging markets as a means to maintain and increase sales of drugs after patents expire and generic competition cuts into revenue. Sales in emerging markets are predicted to reach about $400 billion by 2020 which is equivalent to the current size of the US and the five biggest European markets combined!

By its own admission, GSK was “fairly late” in their investments in China and may explain why the company may be experiencing trouble with competing for talent in that market. Employment opportunities in emerging markets will likely resemble those in the late 1990s in the US and Europe, when there was a dearth of talents life sciences professionals and companies were willing to pay large salaries (regardless of whether or not job candidates were qualified) to employees to maintain operations. This trend is driving up labor costs in China and interestingly, China is beginning to outsource work to Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore where labor and raw materials costs are less expensive.

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (Go East Young Man and Woman)

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

Let’s face it; most scientists are lousy communicators. While this is not an inherited defect, the poor communication skills exhibited by most scientists are a direct result of a lack of emphasis placed on oral and written communication skills during their training. In fact, being a “good communicator” may actually hinder a scientist’s success as a world class researcher. After all, prematurely divulging information or breakthroughs may result in being “scooped by the competition” both in terms of winning grant monies and publishing first. Consequently, from a Darwinian standpoint, good communications skills are a trait that may actually be selected against because they more than likely will reduce the overall competitiveness and “fitness” of most research scientists.

Deborah Blum a Pulitzer-Prize winning science writer and journalist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of the blog Speakeasy Science nicely summed up the consequences of poor communication skills among scientists in a blog post entitled “The Trouble with Scientists:”

“Real” scientists share their work only with each other and do not attempt to become “popularizers” because that would lead to “dumbing down” the research.

She further asserts that this attitude has seriously compromised the lay public’s understanding of science.

"Scientists won’t talk to journalists; they don’t want to waste their time “dumbing it down”; they don’t see it as “making us smarter.” So, many of the good stories in science don’t get covered at all. Or the stories get covered only for an already science-literate audience – explored in publications like Discover or Science News – rather than for that far larger group, the science disenfranchised."

And, while many politicians and scientists loudly complain about the lack of science awareness and literacy in America Blum astutely asserts:

“Science writers, journalists, broadcasters and bloggers became the voice of science during a time during which too many scientists simply refused to engage. Scientists have ceded that position of power amazingly readily; ask yourselves how many research associations offer awards to journalists for communicating about science but none to their own members for doing the same. Ask yourself how the culture of science responds even today to researchers who become popular authors or bloggers, public figures. Whether young scientists are rewarding for spending time on public communication? And ask yourself how hypocritical this is, to complain that the general public doesn’t understand science while refusing to participate in changing that problem?”

Not withstanding the negative impact that poor communication skills have on the public’s understanding of science, good oral and written communication skills are now critically important for those scientists seeking jobs outside of academia. Poor communication skills are no longer tolerated outside of the ivory tower! A quick perusal of ads for non-academic science jobs reveals that “outstanding oral and written communication skills” are second only to technical skills for prospective new hires. Finally, the meteoric rise of social media suggests that communication—whether virtual or real —is critically important to most human beings (Facebook and Twitter as selective pressures?—go figure!). For those scientists who disagree with me, think about what I just said the next time that you are perusing your Facebook page, LinkedIn profile or getting ready to send your next tweet!

Unfortunately, I was trained by a generation of scientists who—as Blum put it—“hate-to-share!” Somehow, I managed to overcome it. Nevertheless, despite changing attitudes about the importance of good communication skills, the hate-to-share attitude is still pervasive in most graduate and postdoctoral training programs today. Sadly, this attitude is no longer sustainable in a world of diminishing grant monies, lousy job markets and increasing global competition. Unless this attitude changes, fewer and fewer scientists will be successful in their chosen field of endeavor!

Hat tip to Deborah Blum @ for the insights and words!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Communicating

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

I know that I have been blogging a lot lately about science and it importance in American innovation and global competitiveness. And, not surprisingly, some of you may be sick of hearing me drone on about it! But, if you want to get another perspective on the critical role that science plays in the lives of everyday Americans, you absolutely must read Tyler Cowen’s article in this Sunday’s NY Times Business Section entitled “Innovation Is Doing Little for Incomes.”

Cowen, a Professor of economics at George Mason University and a regular contributor to the NY Times, astutely points out the impact scientific innovations have had on economic growth and perhaps, more importantly on the median incomes of Americans over the past 65 years. He points out that from 1947 to 1973—a period of just 26 years—inflation-adjusted median income for Americans more than doubled. But, in the 31 years from 1973 to 2004, median income grew only 22 percent. And, over the last 7 years it actually declined! 

In the article, Cowen asserts that the lack of income growth in recent years can be attributed to the ongoing dearth of truly game-changing technological innovations. Sure, there are computer, the Internet and wireless technologies but as Cowen points out these innovations have not markedly changed the lives of Americans as much as “electricity, the automobile, flush toilets, antibiotics and small household appliances.” While the latter advances impacted ALL Americans, the former have mostly had an effect on the well-educated, curious and often more economically well off. And, while these technologies have yielded measurable monetary gains, they often have been concentrated among a small number of company founders. Put simply, recent innovations have not been “game changers” for the economic well being of most Americans!

So what are we to do about this troubling trend? Cowen rightly suggests that:

“Science should be encouraged with subsidies for basic research, as well as private charity, educational reform, a business culture geared toward commercializing inventions, and greater public appreciation for the scientific endeavor. A lighter legal and regulatory hand could ease the path of future innovations.”

Further, he contends that:

“Sooner or later, new technological revolutions will occur, perhaps in the biosciences, through genome sequencing, or in energy production, through viable solar power, for example. But these transformations won’t come overnight, and we’ll have to make do in the meantime. Instead of facing up to this scarcity, politicians promote tax cuts and income redistribution policies to benefit favored constituencies. Yet these are one-off adjustments and, over time, they cannot undo the slower rate of growth in average living standards.” In other words, it is time for the US to seriously address its waning proficiency in science technology, engineering and math. "

To that end, he states that:

“Until science has a greater impact again on average daily living standards, the political problem will be in learning to live within our means. Because neither major party seems to support a plausible path to fiscal balance, or to acknowledge how little control politicians actually have over future income growth, we unscientifically keep living in an age of denial.”

Call me crazy, but what Cowen says makes complete sense to me!

Until next time...

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

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

While I was pleased that President Obama and the Democrats were finally able to deliver much needed reform to an ailing American healthcare system, the compromises that were made to pass the bill are troubling. First, language allowing reimportation of lower cost drugs from Canada and other developed nations was eliminated from the bill. Second, the provisions allowing the contentious 12 year data exclusivity provision for generic versions of biologic and biotechnology drugs remained in the final bill. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, any language alluding to or implying that the US government, may, in the future, be able to negotiate or regulate drug prices was obliterated. In short, the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries received all of the assurances and guarantees that were in the deal brokered by Billy Tauzin, the former head of the lobbying group PhRMA, between the White House and PhRMA over a year ago. Surprisingly, Tauzin was fired by PhRMA several weeks ago because its leadership mistakenly thought that Tauzin conceded “too much” to the Obama Administration when he brokered the original health reform package with the White House. (At the time that Tauzin was fired, health care reform legislation appeared to be on life support and all but dead).

In the final analysis, big pharma and biotech will give back $85 billion over ten years —largely by agreeing to give back some of the profits it was allowed to collected from the egregiously flawed Medicare Part D legislation passed during the odious Bush Administration. While $85 billion may seem like a lot (to the average American citizen) to give back, it is important to note, that the size of the global pharmaceutical and biotechnology markets is over $600 billion per year. Although growth in these markets is beginning to slow in developed nations like the US and Japan (to high single digits), it is beginning to explode in heavily populated developing nations like China, India and Brazil where it is roughly $12-18%. Put simply, despite assertions to the contrary, business in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical markets is booming and likely to continue for the foreseeable future. In other words, the newly passed healthcare reform legislation is a “sweetheart deal” for the US life sciences industry.

Ironically, while the healthcare reform bill insures that almost all Americans will be entitled to healthcare coverage and that insurance companies cannot deny healthcare benefits to persons with pre-existing medical conditions, the legislation may actually limit the access of Americans to potentially life-saving biotechnology drugs. This is because the 12 year data exclusivity period for generic versions of branded, biotechnology drugs (otherwise know as follow-on biologics or biosimilars) remained in the final version of the healthcare reform bill.

As I previously mentioned, this provision disallows approval of follow-on biologics for a period of 12 years from the data that the original biologic received US regulatory approval. For example, if a branded biologic or biotechnology product garners US regulatory approval in 2010, the earliest date that a generic version of this product would be able to appear on the US market would be 2022. Moreover, in some instances, the 12 year data exclusivity provision may extend the so-called patent life of a product. Using the example above, if the patents protecting the product happen to expire in 2019, the innovator company is guaranteed an additional three years of marketing exclusivity before generic versions of the product can appear on the US market. Finally, the 12 year data exclusivity provision effectively prevents foreign biosimilar manufacturers from competing in the US biotechnology market until about 2018; a strategy designed to allow the US to maintain its dominance of the global biotechnology market. Interestingly, despite the approval of six or more biosimilars in Europe, these products have failed to catch on and are not able to compete with their branded, innovator counterparts.

In conclusion, I laud President Obama’s persistence and give him props for his ability to deliver (as promised) health reform to the American public. I have no doubt that the legislation will help to improve the delivery of healthcare in the US and hopefully improve the overall health of Americans. However, while the new healthcare reform legislation is a first, positive step, the American healthcare system will never entirely be “fixed’ until US drug prices are regulated—like they are in the rest of the world. Then, and only then, will the US government be able to control and contain healthcare costs in America.

Until next time…

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

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

American competitiveness in engineering, technology and science. Unfortunately, while American competitiveness and innovation in these areas continues to wane, little has been done (except talking) about it! Yesterday, Intel and 24 venture capital funds announced that they plan to invest $3.5 billion in American startups and early stage ventures over the next two years. Further, in addition, several of America’s leading technology companies including Google, Cisco Systems, Intel Microsoft and 13 others pledged to add as many as 10,500 jobs into 2010—mainly by hiring Americans graduating from colleges with degrees in computer science and engineering.

The initiative, named the Invest in America Alliance was formed in response to “steadily declining long-term investments in education, technology and human capital” that has been taking place in the US for past 20 years or more. Put simply, the American education system is not training enough qualified individuals to allow the US to compete with other emerging technology and engineering powerhouses that include China, India Finland, Korea and the Netherlands. 

According to Robert Compton, a venture capitalist, entrepreneur and education enthusiast “Fewer than 10 percent of college graduates in the US have engineering degrees, compared with more than one-third in India and China and more foreign-born graduates of US universities are returning to their home countries.” For those of you with degrees in math and science (and you base your calculations on population size), the magnitude of the problem (for Americans anyway) is glaringly obvious. Compton went on to say what many others have been thinking for a while, “Early indicators are that we are not the center of innovation anymore. It is shifting to the East.” And he may be right! Based on surveys conducted by the World Intellectual Property Organization in the last year, patent filings increased 30 percent in China while declining 11 percent in the US.

While the Invest in America Alliance appears to be a great public relations opportunity for the companies and venture firms that are participating in it, its critics doubt whether investing more money in technology startups is going to fix the ongoing problem. Education analysts contend that a better and cheaper solution may be changing US immigration laws so that foreign students who train in the US are allowed to remain in the country after they complete their training. Other naysayers contend that most of the venture money committed by the alliance would have likely gone to American startups anyway (US based venture firms already invest 70 percent of their money in American start ups) and that 10,500 new jobs isn’t enough to make a dent in the US unemployment rolls.

Like the technology industry, a decade of wrong-head immigration policies coupled with a waning American interest in science has begun to jeopardize the US dominance in the life sciences. Further these trends are largely responsible for the massive layoffs and unrelenting outsourcing of pharmaceutical R&D jobs to foreign countries.

Toothless or not, the Invest in America Alliance shows that engineering and technology industry leaders are willing to cooperate with one another and get behind an initiative that raises public awareness about America’s waning competitiveness in these fields. Perhaps,   pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical devices and diagnostic companies ought to take a page out of the Alliance’s play book to similarly insure the future innovation and competitiveness of the American life sciences industry.

Until next time...

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

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

It goes without saying that the competition for jobs in the life sciences industry is extremely fierce. This means that job candidates must use whatever means possible to differentiate themselves from the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others applying for the same job!

While I have written numerous posts on how job candidates can stand out from their peers, I discovered an insightful article that summarizes my advice in a single post. Like I said, there are no revelations here; just a convenient way to jog your memory as the job search slogs on!

Click here to read the post.

Until next time...

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

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

The loss of over 200,000 pharmaceutical jobs over the past three years has been mainly driven by the anticipated loss of revenue from blockbuster drugs that will lose patent protection by 2013. While drug makers frequently cite blockbuster patent expiry as the reason for the need to downsize, they rarely provide the business and economic metrics, numbers and statistics that have influenced their decisions. 

Patricia Van Arnum, Senior Editor of Pharmaceutical Technology wrote a fascinating article in this month’s issue of Pharmaceutical Technology Europe that skillfully outlined the economic forces that are driving branded pharmaceutical companies to downsize and reorganize. According to the article, in October 2009 the pharmaceutical intelligence firm IMS estimated that the global pharmaceutical market is expected to growth 4-6% in 2010 and reach $825 billion. Market growth at an annual rate of 4-7% is expected to continue through 2013 and the size of global pharmaceutical market is projected to exceed $975 billion. The US pharmaceutical market, the largest in the world, is expected to drive much of this growth. However, the growth of the American market is only expected to be 3.5% in 2010. In market contrast, China’s pharmaceutical market is expected to increase by a staggering 20% per year and contribute 21% to the overall growth of the global pharmaceutical market by 2013. 

While prospects for the US market are better than originally anticipated, the loss of nearly $137 billion in revenues in 2013— because of patent expiry of blockbuster products—coupled with fewer new drug approvals are the factors that will limit the growth of the global pharmaceutical market to single digits through 2013 and likely beyond. Some of the drugs slated to lose patent protection by 2013 include Lipitor (atorvastatin) by Pfizer, Plavix (clopidogrel) by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb and Seretide/Advair (salmeterol and fluticasone) by GlaxoSmithKline. Lipitor, Plavix and Seretide were the number one-, two- and foruth best-selling drugs in 2008 with global sales of $13.7 billion, $8.6 billion and $7.7 billion respectively.

The increasing growth of the generic pharmaceutical industry is best reflected in the concomitant growth of merchant active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturing industry. In the API world, there are two types of manufacturers; the so-called captive API producers or companies that exclusively manufacture APIs for finished, branded products and merchant manufacturers which are third party providers of APIs. Over the past four years or so, the growth of the merchant API market for generic products has substantially outpaced the growth of the API for innovator products. For example, from 2004-2008 the merchant market for generics grew at an average annual rate of 9.1% from $12 billion in 2004 to $17 billion in 2008 according to a recent report by the Chemical Pharmaceutical Association (CPA). In contrast, the CPA determined that the merchant market for innovator/branded APIs only increased at an average annual rate of 4.4% from $16 billion in 2004 to $19 billion in 2008. Looking ahead, the worldwide market for merchant APIs is projected to grow at an average annual growth rate of 6.8% through 2013 to about $50 billion. During this period, growth of innovator APIs is expected to be about 1.8% whereas the growth of generic API is expected to be a robust 11.4%.

The US is currently the largest market for generic APIs and consumed roughly 22.9% of the total global demand for generic APIs in 2008. China, which is the second largest consumer of generic APIs, consumed 19.2%. While the US is expected to remain the largest consumer of both innovator and generic APIs, China is projected to become the largest consumer of generic APIs in 2013 capturing a 26% share of the total generic API market (the US will be number 2 with 20.5% market share).

According to industry analysts, China, India, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe (most notably Russia), represent attractive growth opportunities for generic APIs. India and China now account for roughly 25% of the global generic market and demand in these countries is expected to remain strong for the foreseeable future as the middle class continues to emerge. To that end, China is projected to have the highest average annual growth rate at 18.4% and India’s market will grow by 14% through 2013. Similar growth is expected for the Eastern European, Russian and Brazilian generic API markets.

While the economic size of emerging generic markets is still small compared with those of the US, Western Europe and Japan, it signals that generic drugs will likely drive the future growth of the pharmaceutical industry. The lack of innovation and rising costs of branded, prescription drugs in developed nations is the main driving force behind the rapid emergence of the generic drug industry. That said, is it any wonder why Pfizer is thinking about entering the generic pharmaceutical business and that Western drug companies are shedding scientists and sales people in the US and Europe and growing the sizes of their R&D and sales force staffs in Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America? Honestly, if I had any money left to invest, I would seriously be considering traded generic pharmaceutical manufacturers—their future success is almost guaranteed!

Until next time...

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

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

Harrison Ford’s new movie “Extraordinary Measures” (also starring Brendan Fraser) is loosely based on John Crowley’s ongoing crusade to find a cure for Pompe Disease a genetically inherited illness that afflicts two of his three children.The film chronicles the 'extraordinary measures' taken by Crowley to find a treatment for the so-called orphan disease that affects the lives of about 40,000 persons worldwide. While I haven’t seen the film, it bears a striking resemble to the 1992 film “Lorenzo’s Oil” which chronicled the struggles of two parents to find a “cure” for their son’s adrenoleukodystrophy an another orphan disease.

Crowley’s story began about 12 years ago when his oldest child was diagnosed with Pompe Disease. For those of you who may not know, Pompe Disease is a progressive, multisystemic, debilitating, and often fatal neuromuscular disorder. The disease is linked to an inherited deficiency of the lysosomal enzyme acid alpha-glucosidase (GAA), which is responsible for the breakdown of glycogen inside the cells. The result is intralysosomal accumulation of glycogen, primarily in muscle cells, that leads to a progressive loss of muscle function and ultimately death. At the time of the diagnosis, Crowley, a Princeton, NJ resident, was working as a marketer for Bristol Myers Squibb. He quickly learned that there was no effective treatment for Pompe Disease and that his daughter may not live beyond early childhood. Further, because the disease afflicted so few individuals, no pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies were working on treatments for Pompe Disease. 

To stave off the likelihood of his daughter’s death, in 2000, Crowley raided his 401k plan and mortgaged his home to start a company called Novazyme that focused exclusively on developing treatments for Pompe Disease. Having no time to waste, Crowley and the Novazyme team worked feverishly to develop an alglucosidase alfa enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe. By 2001, the Novazyme team had identified a likely treatment and Crowley sold his company to Genzyme. As a senior vice president at Genzyme, he oversaw clinical development of the product which is now called Myozyme and is the first FDA-approved treatment for Pompe Disease. Crowley left Genzyme in 2004 and is currently CEO of Amicus Therapeutics a 100 person company focused on developing new treatments for Pompe Disease and other orphan indications.

At present, there are no other treatments besides Myozyme for Pompe Disease. This is because Pompe Disease is designated as an orphan indication and Genzyme received seven years of market exclusivity for Myozyme as stipulated in the Orphan Drug Act. Myozyme received FDA approval in 2006.

While Genzyme has been the only player in the Pompe Disease market for the past four years, manufacturing and scale up problems threaten to jeopardize the Myozyme franchise. Genzyme’s highly publicized problems at its Allston, MA-manufacturing facility have been well documented and Genzyme’s management team is taking bold steps to correct them (including hiring a new senior vice president for global product quality) and entering into an agreement with Hospira Worldwide Inc to provide fill and finish manufacturing services.

But perhaps more troubling, were the problems that the company experienced when attempting to scale up Myozyme production from the 160L to 200L bioreactor scale to meet growing demand for the drug.  FDA informed Genzyme that that Myozyme® (alglucosidase alfa) produced at the 160L bioreactor scale and Myozyme produced at the 2000L scale should be classified as two different products because of differences in the carbohydrate structures of the molecules. And, the company would have to file a new biologics application (BLA) for the 2000L product to garner regulatory approval.

Currently, Genzyme has U.S. approval to sell Myozyme manufactured at the 160L scale, and the company has been seeking clearance from the FDA for Myozyme produced at the 2000L scale (now marketed as Lumizyme). Lumizyme has already been approved in more than 40 countries. However, manufacturing problems and violations at the Allston facility forced FDA to delay a decision on the approvability of Lumizyme this past March. Earlier this week, Genzyme announced that FDA will issue a new decision on Lumizyme in June.

While originally spurned by large drug companies, orphan drug development is becoming much more attractive because of the lack of new blockbuster drugs in most company’s development pipeline. According to a recent report, the number of orphan product designations in the US more than doubled in the last decade rising from 208 in the 2000-02 periods to 425 in 2006-08. More recently, Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company announced that it agreed to pay at least $60 million for rights to Protalix Biotherapeutics Inc.'s new treatment (taliglucerase alfa) for Gaucher’s Disease another orphan indication. This suggests that Pfizer has made a decision to directly compete with Genzyme, the world leader in orphan drug development.

Don’t be surprised when other large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies announce plans to compete in the orphan drug market...there is money to be made!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!

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

I previously posted several articles on interviewing tips. This presupposes that many of my readers have made the first cut and have been invited to participate in a phone or face-to-face onsite job interview. Unfortunately, this isn’t any easy thing to do in today’s current employment market. Nevertheless, there are a variety of things that job seekers can do to help their application standout from the hundreds (thousands) of other applications submitted by others competing for the same position. To that end, I found an article that first appeared on the JobsJournal.com website that offers basic tips on how to design a resume (and accompanying cover letter) to distinguish individual jobseekers from their competition.

While the information contained in the article isn’t “game changing” it does offer fresh insights into how job candidates must position themselves to be noticed in today’s fierce and highly competitive job market.

Until next time...

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

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

When Rupert Murdoch, the owner of New Corporation (Fox News), bought MySpace for $580 million in 2005 it was viewed by many as one of his savviest acquisitions ever. At that time, MySpace was arguably the most successful social networking site on the Web and its financial future was extremely bright. Shortly after the acquisition, a young, upstart college social networking site called Facebook began operations without much fanfare. Back in 2005, MySpace had 14 million monthly users and Facebook was still raising capital. Now, MySpace has 126 million users whereas Facebook’s user base has grown to over 200 million. Facebook continues to expand while MySpace’s growth appears to be stagnant. This led to the dismissal last week of one of MySpace’s co-founders and the appointment of a former Facebook executive as CEO.

Since 2005, MySpace has generated about $1.6 billion in revenues and earned 200 million last year alone. However, it is important to note that a major portion of its operating capital comes from $900 million that Google guarantees every year. That agreement comes up for renewal next year and the likelihood of Google agreeing to the original terms is questionable. This is probably why Murdoch is shaking things up at MySpace. While it is likely that Google will attempt to renegotiate the terms of the original agreement, I seriously doubt that it will severe all financial ties with MySpace. That would be a bad business decision and Google doesn’t make many of those!

While many social networking pundits attribute Facebook’s ongoing success to its connectivity rather than its content, I still contend that “content is king” and social networking sites built around user-generated content are great investment opportunities. After all, status updates, pithy wall comments and photo tagging tend to “get old” quickly after a few months.

While the possible loss of Google’s annual cash infusion will hurt MySpace, I don’t think that MySpace is on its “deathbed” yet and rumors of its demise are premature. The social networking universe is vast and niche networks—not large unfocused ones—will ultimately prosper because of targeted advertising and other business opportunities. That said, I believe there will always be a place for MySpace in the social networking world.

Until next time...

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

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

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

Until next time…

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

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