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

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies like to distinguish themselves from companies that manufacture consumer products because their products have the potential to save the lives of patients suffering from a plethora of illnesses. While a life-saving cancer treatment may inherently be more valuable than a pair of snow tires, the goal of the companies that manufacture them is to sell enough products to remain profitable. To that end, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies have an edge over consumer products companies because drug makers can use altruism and philanthropy to market their drugs. In fact, many drug manufacturers play up their commitments to altruism and philanthropy to justify high drug prices because of the enormous costs associated with drug discovery and development. This tactic begs the question: “Just how philanthropic are drug makers?”

To answer this question The Access to Medicine Foundation created the Access to Medicine Index .which provides a benchmark on the access to medicine policies and practices of the largest global pharmaceutical companies.The index is designed to offer stakeholder and prospective investor ways to compare pharma’s social responsibility records by measuring 106 indicators that examine activities across seven criteria such as philanthropy, patents, pricing and management (see more here)

The 2010 index (only the second of its kind) ranked 26 pharmaceutical companies on their efforts to provide access to medicines, vaccines and diagnostic tests to people living in 88 countries. The companies included 20 originator (branded) companies – those who primarily market patented drugs they have developed – andsix companies whose primary business is the production and sale of generic medicines. The results are shown below:

Branded Pharmaceutical Companies

1. GlaxoSmithKline
2. Merck
3. Novartis
4. Gilead Sciences
5. Sanofi-Aventis
6. Roche
7. AstraZeneca
8. Novo Nordisk
9. Johnson & Johnson
10. Abbott Labs
11. Pfizer
12. Boehringer Ingelheim
13. Eli Lilly
14. Bayer
15. Bristol-Myers Squibb
16. Eisai
17. Merck KGA
18. Takeda Pharmaceuticals
19. Astellas Pharma
20. Daiichi Sankyo

Generic Manufacturers

1. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited
2. Cipla Limited
3. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
4. Mylan, Inc
5. Sun Pharmaceuticals
6. Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

While the lists may seem impressive, Index founder Wim Leereveld cautions: “…the industry as a whole still has a long way to go.”

Ed Silverman, who runs the Pharmalot Blog, offered his insights about the list and the foundation’s findings: “The report, of course, will be used to defuse critics, such as non-governmental organizations and activist groups, who say not enough is done to make meds accessible in poor countries. The arguments often center on compulsory licensing and free-trade agreements, as well as intellectual property disputes, pricing and donations. Pharma, you may recall, has been on the defensive ever since they fought South Africa over HIV meds, and is now ramping up operations in so-called emerging markets, many of which are low-margin operations where incomes are lower. “

I don’t fault drug makers for aggressively marketing their products to generate revenues to insure profits and growth. After all, business is business. However, I think that it is disingenuous to use altruism and philanthropy as a means to market and sell high priced drugs. Ironically, this practice tends to limit the access of poor and disenfranchised patients who might benefit the most from these medicines.

Hat tip to Ed at Pharmalot

Until next time...

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

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

Those of us a certain age have all heard of the so-called new math—which by all accounts wasn’t much different than old math—that was suppose to revolutionize the way math was taught at the primary and secondary education levels. While new math may not have not have much different or better than old math from an academic perspective, pharmaceutical companies will have to reckon with the new math associated with the pricing of brand name prescription drugs if they want to remain competitive in the future.

According to statistics offered in a recent New York Times article on Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s largest generic drug manufacturer, generics now account for 75 per cent of the prescriptions filled in the United States. This figure is up 47 percent from a decade ago. Further, a recent study from IMS, the research firm that tracks prescription drug use, generic drugs saved the American healthcare system $734 billion between 1999 and 2008. These numbers, coupled with a paltry 25 per cent market share, suggest that brand name pharmaceutical companies must rethink the low volume, large margin pricing strategy that has guided big pharma for the past 50 years. 

As one Teva executive candidly put it, “If you are used to the fat margins of big pharma, it is hard to compete in the rough and tumble of price-cutting generics.” 

The push for wider adoption and use of generic pharmaceuticals and biologics (as compared with brand name drugs) suggests that there will likely be more belt-tightening at big pharma companies in the not-so-distant future.

Until next time..

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

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

The appearance of the Swine Flu aka H1N1 last spring not only created a worldwide panic, it demonstrated to Albert Osterhaus, head of virology at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands how uninformed the lay public was about viral outbreaks, epidemiology and public health. This prompted Dr. Osterhaus and his colleagues to create a free, online video game called the “The Great Flu” which challenges players to control a new viral pandemic.

As the virus has spread worldwide, countries have tried different methods to slow it down and pharmaceutical companies are now racing to produce a swine flu vaccine (sound familiar?). To fight the emerging outbreak, players use public health measures including setting up surveillance systems, stockpiling antivirals and vaccines, and closing schools and airports. Players also have a limited budget and are warned that "your actions to control the virus cost money, so keep an eye on it." In other words, while the goal is to control the pandemic, there may not be sufficient funds and resources to accomplish those goals!

A running tally of the numbers of people infected and those who have died are displayed above the budget. Newspaper stories about the deadly virus and the global response to it — like riots breaking out worldwide — pop up to help players monitor the outbreak and plan their next moves. Messages from governments mirror the difficulties faced by international agencies like WHO that are responsible for containing worldwide epidemics. For example, when players set up costly surveillance systems, sometimes participating governments will send a message "we will comply with your directions...but we must inform you that the political support for this action is low in this region. Therefore, the effectiveness of the system to control the outbreak may differ from your expectations."

The goal of the game is make the lay public aware of the difficulties that public health officials encounter during pandemics and the tight rope they sometimes must walk to insure that the virus is contained and doesn’t continue to spread. To test your skill level at controlling pandemics, you can choose different viruses (which range from easy to difficult to manage) at the beginning of the game.

I think “The Great Flu” is a great way to educate the public about infectious diseases and epidemiology and have fun at the same time. If you are interested in more sinister online swine flu games check this out.  Who said learning science has to be tedious and dull?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Virus Hunting!!!!!

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

Do you ever wonder whether or not you are getting paid enough at work or what the person sitting next to you makes? I bet most employees think about this from time to time—especially around bonus time. This isn’t surprising because salaries are one of the best kept secrets at most companies and organizations. Keeping salaries under wraps is good for morale mostly because it minimizes resentment among employees However, because nobody really knows how their salaries match up with their co-workers, determining what constitutes an acceptable salary can become problematic for jobseekers and long time employees. Not to worry—Monster.com has created several salary tools that can help when negotiating a salary for a new job or determining whether or not it is time to ask for that long overdue raise!

Check them out and let me know what you think!

Until next time...

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

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

In his book, “Free: The Future of a Radical Price” Chris Anderson, editor of Wired Magazine, asserts that the cost of DNA sequencing falls 50% each year. To that end, in February, a company called Complete Genomics based in Mountain View, California, announced it will read entire human genomes at $5000 a shot, starting in June this year. This will cost less than one-tenth of what companies charge today for genome sequencing. 

If you believe Anderson, in five years sequencing a human genome will be under $100. Based on these calculations, the window of opportunity for companies that sequence genomic DNA to make a profit is closing rapidly. So, if you were considering getting into the DNA sequencing biz, the right time may be now—before it is no longer a profitable biz model.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Sequencing!!!!!!!!!!!
 

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

Forbes Magazine released its annual list of America’s most livable cities. The list is created based on quality of life measures in cities with populations of 500,000 or greater. The cities on the list indicate where unemployment is low, income growth is high and living the good life is affordable. 

Number one on the list was Portland, ME because it is safe and apparently has several outstanding microbreweries. Bethesda, MD (what about traffic), and Des Moines IA (what?) round out the top three, followed by Bridgeport/Stamford, CT ($$$) and Tulsa, OK (no way)! The remaining five on the top list included Oklahoma City OK (where the waving wheat....), Cambridge, MA (Harvard and MIT, what’s not to like), Baltimore, MD (Camden Yards rocks), Worchester, MA (why?) and Pittsburgh, PA (nice family town). My favorite place to live, Madison, Wisconsin was relegated to 13^th place on this year’s list (sigh).

Until next time...

Good Job Hunting and Good Living!!!!!!!!!!

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

The Pharmalot blog reported today that Bristol-Myers Squibb will be laying off 5% of its workforce (~ 34 employees) by year’s end at its manufacturing facility near Syracuse, NY. And, Sanofi-Aventis announced that it will be giving pink slips to about 10% of its sales force —about 650 reps—before the end of the year.

To make matters worse, Merck released its annual revenue projections for 2009 today which suggest that its earnings and revenue will not meet Wall Street expectations. Merck recently “cleaned house” and eliminated thousands of scientific and mid-management jobs. The list of pharmaceutical companies that have downsized in 2008 includes Merck, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Schering Plough, Boehringer Ingelheim, Wyeth and Sanofi-Aventis. I probably missed a few but who is counting?

Until next time….

Good Luck and Hold On to Your Job (if you can)

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

According to a recent report from the consulting firm Ernst and Young, cost cutting and downsizing are no longer the primary objectives for most pharmaceutical companies. Instead, they are mulling over the new challenges that universal health care may bring and how to better reach consumers in emerging markets. 

In a recent interview, Carolyn Buck Luce, one of the paper’s co-authors said “in our previous report, cost containment was one of the most important initiatives. In this report we found more of a balanced approach where optimizing cost was [just] one the many objectives. Only 40 percent of the executives said optimizing costs was their most important initiative, compared to a similar study in 2007 where 92 percent of those surveyed ranked cost reduction as their main initiative. In the latest survey, 66 percent of executives said the most important strategic initiative was reinvigorating the R&D pipeline, while 40 percent said expanding into new markets and restructuring their marketing and sales programs to become more customer-centric were their main areas of focus. “

One of the most telling quotes in the piece is: “There was an awful lot of focus on costs a year ago, when companies realized there was a lot of fat in their companies and a lot of opportunity to cut costs.” Does that mean that pharma really didn’t have to lay off tens of thousands of employees over the past year? It kind of makes you wonder doesn’t it? And, if you believe that pharma is truly finished with downsizing--would you be interested in a great deal on some land in Florida?

Until next time…

Good Luck and Try to Hang On to Your Job!!!!!!!!

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

As you all know by now, American pharmaceutical companies have been intermittently laying off thousands of employees for the past two years or so. Many of the employees who have lost their jobs are R& D scientists, marketing personnel and sales representatives. This seemingly makes sense—because fewer drugs are being discovered and brought to market, fewer people are required to market and sell them. That said, isn’t discovering new drugs the currency and lifeblood of the pharmaceutical industry? How do these companies plan to stay in business if they continue to layoff employees who are seemingly responsible for developing new sources of revenue for them? Taking their cues from the IT and software industries, many US drug makers are beginning to either transfer R&D operations to foreign, company-owned research facilities or outsourcing some or all R&D activities to foreign contract research organizations (CROs).

For those of you who may not know, US pharmaceutical companies have been routinely outsourcing various aspects of R&D and drug manufacturing for many years. For example, a majority of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and excipients found in many drug sold in the US are routinely manufactured in places like China, India and elsewhere. Until recently, many pharmaceutical companies were reluctant to outsource many critical R&D activities, e.g., screening, medicinal chemistry, pre-clinical testing, etc. for fear of inferior quality. However, the increasing costs of conducting US-based R&D coupled with a worldwide glut of American-trained, foreign scientists (who were unable or not permitted to find jobs in the US) has made the practice of outsourcing R&D operations less risky and more economically feasible. After all, many of the scientists who work in company-owned foreign research facilities or foreign-owned CROs were trained by American scientists who work at some of America’s pre-eminent academic and government research institutions.

From a business perspective, it makes complete sense that pharmaceutical companies might opt to transfer or outsource R&D operations to foreign countries—the quality is good and it is much cheaper! That said, don’t expect the price of pharmaceutical drugs to plummet anytime soon as more drug makers outsource or expand their R&D operations in foreign countries. Put simply, pharmaceutical companies are outsourcing R&D to cut costs, drive up stock share prices and insure financial growth by preserving the staggering product profit margins that they currently enjoy. Take Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) for example. Late last Wednesday, its CFO told a group of financial analysts and investors that the company plans on trimming $2.5 billion by 2012 from its operating budget through US job cuts and revamping operations. Shortly after the announcement, I read with amazement that BMS is expanding its R&D operations in Bangalore, India and that they are looking to hire no fewer than five new Department heads—America’s loss is India’s gain!

While outsourcing or expanding R&D operations in foreign countries at the expense of American workers may help the bottom line of many US drug makers, it will do precious little to reverse the decade-long, decline of America’s global competitiveness in science and technology.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting (try India)!!!!!!

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